Jack Bogle's indexing assumed efficient markets where passive funds accept prices. Now, with passive strategies dominating capital flows, they collectively set prices. This ironically creates the market inefficiencies and price distortions that the original theory assumed didn't exist on such a large scale.

Related Insights

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the massive flow of capital into passive indexes and short-term systematic strategies has reduced the number of actors focused on long-term fundamentals. This creates price dislocations and volatility, offering alpha for patient investors.

Daniel Gladys argues that as passive investing grows, fewer participants focus on fundamentals. This widens the gap between a stock's price and its intrinsic value, creating a favorable environment for disciplined value investors who can identify these overlooked opportunities.

Contrary to popular belief, the market may be getting less efficient. The dominance of indexing, quant funds, and multi-manager pods—all with short time horizons—creates dislocations. This leaves opportunities for long-term investors to buy valuable assets that are neglected because their path to value creation is uncertain.

The dominance of low-cost index funds means active managers cannot compete in liquid, efficient markets. Survival depends on creating strategies in areas Vanguard can't easily replicate, such as illiquid micro-caps, niche geographies, or complex sectors that require specialized data and analysis.

Market-cap-weighted indexes create a perverse momentum loop. As a stock's price rises, its weight in the index increases, forcing new passive capital to buy more of it at inflated prices. This mechanism is the structural opposite of a value-oriented 'buy low, sell high' discipline.

Contrary to classic theory, markets may be growing less efficient. This is driven not only by passive indexing but also by a structural shift in active management towards short-term, quantitative strategies that prioritize immediate price movements over long-term fundamental value.

Contrary to the belief that indexing creates market inefficiencies, Michael Mauboussin argues the opposite. Indexing removes the weakest, 'closet indexing' players from the active pool, increasing the average skill level of the remaining competition and making it harder to find an edge.

AQR's founder argues that markets are fundamentally "voting mechanisms" where price is a dollar-weighted average of opinions. Arbitrage is limited because correcting a mispricing becomes progressively riskier for less reward. Therefore, if a misguided belief is backed by enough capital, it can dominate and push prices away from fundamental value.

Created to help ordinary Americans invest cheaply, index funds became so successful that the top four now own over 25% of most large U.S. companies. According to Harvard's John Coates, this runaway success has given them massive, unintended power over corporate governance without a mandate to wield it.

The dominance of passive, systematic investing has transformed public equities into a speculative "ghost town" driven by algorithms, not fundamentals. Consequently, financing for significant, long-term industrial innovation is shifting to private markets, leaving public markets rife with short-term, meme-driven behavior.