Agregador de fuentes
Why Companies Like Toys ‘R’ Us Love to Go Bust in Richmond, Va.
5 Flaws That Kill Student Loan Collection Lawsuits
Bobby Doerr, 99, Red Sox Hall of Fame Second Baseman, Is Dead
Under New Guidelines, Millions More Americans Will Need to Lower Blood Pressure
Books of The Times: Shades of Atwood and Vonnegut in Louise Erdrich’s Dystopian Novel
The Neediest Cases Fund: For Teenager, ‘What I See in the Mirror Is Not What I Am’
Overnight in Walmart Parking Lots: Silence, Solace and Refuge
Lincoln Center to End Its Namesake Summer Festival
Op-Docs: From Journalist to Hostage
On Washington: Past Sex Misconduct Show McConnell Is Willing to Take a Tough Line
Live Briefing: Jeff Sessions Displays Unsteady Recall on Trump-Russia Matters
Is the Age of the Artistic Recluse Over?
Iran-Iraq Earthquake Kills More Than 500
Critic’s Notebook: When the Body Is a Canvas, Accented With Paint or Peanuts
Criticism of index-tracking funds is ill-directed
INDEX funds were devised in the 1970s as a way of giving investors cheap, diversified portfolios. But they have only become very popular in the past decade. Last year more money flowed into “passive” funds (those tracking a benchmark like the S&P 500) than into “active” funds that try to pick the best stocks.
In any other industry, this would be universally welcomed as a sign that innovation was coming up with cheaper products to the benefit of ordinary citizens. But the rise of index funds has provoked some fierce criticism.
Two stand out. One argues that passive investing is, in the phrase of analysts at Sanford C. Bernstein, “worse than Marxism”. A key role of the financial markets is to allocate capital to the most efficient companies. But index funds do not do this: they simply buy all the stocks that qualify for inclusion in a benchmark. Nor can index funds sell their stocks if they dislike the actions of the management. The long-term result will be bad for capitalism, opponents argue.
A...