Passive must be the word of the week. Yes, England manager, Thomas Tuchel is being press-hammered for overly passive defensive tactics in the closing stages of The Three Lions’ World Cup semi-final this week. However, just over a week previously, the consensus view was that England’s rearguard action in the Estadio Azteca cauldron of Mexico City was the finest World Cup knockout stage display by an English team since 1966. Of course, the small matter of an all-time football genius like Lionel Messi on the pitch in Atlanta can mess(!) with the best of plans, but surely this was a Rumsfeldian ‘known known’?
Meanwhile, the financial world is currently grappling with a ‘hidden’ force which could overwhelm the advisory consensus. Current thinking is that passive investing (market/index tracking ) is a sensible ‘lower risk’ option than adopting an ‘active’ investment strategy. Active management of a fund involves picking individual stock or bond investments rather than buying the market in aggregate by investing in market-tracking ETFs, index funds or index notes. It also helps that these index/passive instruments have lower costs which means financial advisors are overwhelmingly shifting client investment plans to defensive low-risk/cost strategies. This feels like the modern investing equivalent of ‘nobody gets fired for buying IBM’ strategy, aka CYA. Ah yes, IBM…..
Amid all the mad headlines from the Middle East and White House this week, we have become quietly immune to some truly stunning moves in stock markets. ‘Exhibit A’ might be IBM itself. In one trading session this week, after a disappointing quarterly results update, the IBM share price cratered by 25% and shredded $70 billion of shareholder value. Clearly, you can be fired these days for buying IBM. However, on a more serious note, that size of move is not a sign of ‘healthy’ functioning stock markets.
A relatively minor quarterly earnings result does NOT, in any world of fundamental financial analysis or valuation modelling methodology, justify this size of move. Of course, the corollary to this observation is that the majority of eye-popping share price moves in this bull market have been upwards. Take AI chip manufacturer and market darling, Broadcom. In one trading day in April this year it added $100 billion to its valuation as its share price drove it to a $2 trillion market captalisation. This is the key feature of a financial market driven by MOMENTUM not just fundamentals. This momentum factor is always present in stock market trends but right now its influence is monstrous and it facilitates the massive outperformance of passive investing strategies over active strategies. Basically, if you don’t “buy the market” you’re commercially dead as a professional manager of client monies. That’s the fact, but not the future. However, even an investing giant like my former boss, Terry Smith of Fundsmith, is being forced to embrace momentum….
Terry’s fund grew to a peak of almost $40 billion in assets under management (AUM) including his own money, and its performance topped the league tables for years since its 2010 inception. The marketing of Fundsmith’s strategy was exceptionally well communicated – buy good companies, don’t overpay and DO NOTHING. This third pillar was a standout feature of the fund – its fund turnover rate was incredibly low, some years even negative. While Terry did all the fundamental bits (find good companies and be firm on price/valuation) and then patiently did NOTHING, other active managers were actively buying and selling shares of different companies throughout the year. And the Fundsmith approach worked. Until it didn’t. Performance in recent years has been poor, and AUM levels have halved as impatient clients pulled monies. In the first half of this year the fund underperformed its benchmark (the passive index return) by more than 14%. Ouch. So, the fund has informed its clients that it has changed its approach to incorporate momentum by increasing its trading/turnover activity. It’s a seismic change of approach. But, the commercial reality was the fund could end up at some point in the future with zero external client AUMs. The snappy marketing mantra of DO NOTHING has gone out the window but you sense it’s an uneasy forced move. Indeed, Smith highlights the influence of passive investment strategies on daily trading activity:
“Moreover, whilst AUM in index funds is now >60%, in terms of volume of trades, active fund managers are an even smaller minority than this implies. According to Cboe Global Markets, having been 80% of trades in the 1990s, active funds share of trades is now down to just 10%. The trading activity which drives prices is now driven not by active fund management decisions but by the momentum feedback loop of funds moving from active to passive and reweighting within passive funds”
In other words, passive investing (following the market) is now the dominant ‘hidden’ force driving share prices individually and collectively. This raises some uncomfortable questions about market risks, and the dangers of too many investors all following the same style of investing. This passive following of investment flows equates to buying when everyone is buying, and selling when everyone is …….. Oh wait, we haven’t come to that bit yet. But Terry Smith has painted a rather worrying scenario….for those thinking they can change strategy when the passive index trend changes direction. Read carefully:
“You may take the view that you can switch into the index and reap the benefits of this momentum and then switch back if or when events cause this momentum to unwind. However, if $200bn market valuation stocks are moving 33% a day in a bull market, you can reasonably speculate about what’s going to happen if or when things reverse. It may make 2000–03 and 2007–08 look like a blip. In 2007–08, the S&P fell 57% in five months. Next time round, it would not surprise me if it accomplished this in five days. In 2000–03 it took even eventual winners like Amazon 10 years to recover their peak share price.”
Read that again. FIVE DAYS. So, we need to understand that the structure of the market and its investing flow/channels have dramatically changed. The original beauty of stock markets and public markets/listings was the ability to buy/sell shares in seconds. This also meant instant visibility/transparency on pricing and valuations which, in turn, allowed companies access to huge pools of investment capital attracted to this ‘liquidity’ and transparency. Everyone was happy – investors, investee companies, investment banks, fund/asset managers, governments and….. regulators. Everyone is still happy it seems, but all investors and pension plans should be cognisant of the latest realities of investing in public stock markets. Here’s a few worth considering:
- Daily headlines about massive share price moves of highly analysed (therefore fewer unknowns/surprises) companies (IBM, Hynix, Broadcom etc) or stock markets (South Korea) should alert investors to the hidden risks of potentially much faster (“5 Days”) declines in markets or sectors (AI, chips anyone?).
- Investors have been in a 17-year bull market which has created confidence…. and appetite for borrowing to invest (margin accounts). Note this week that a 6% fall in South Korea’s stock market impacted 1.2 million margin trading accounts (or 3% of the adult population) and resulted in 350,000 accounts being liquidated (100% loss). Wowzers, that’s 350,000 awkward communications or calls…
- We have seen private credit funds ‘close’ for investor withdrawals. The worry in extreme moves is that ETF/Index fund infrastructure buckles under extreme selling scenarios resulting in temporary ‘selling’ closures for certain funds (ETFs). Note some of these index fund providers/platforms control or manage more than $10 trillion. Too big to fail perhaps, but not too big to temporarily pause activity (selling) and cause panic.
Maybe, this all sounds a bit panicky. However, the Smithfund move is hugely significant. Possibly for its timing alone. Financial history tells us that these commercial realities or capitulations often arrive at a time close to market inflexion points. We shall see, but it’s also an extra risk headache for governments in Europe trying to increase household investment activity (versus non productive bank deposits). Ireland is close to announcing its own Savings & Investment Account initiative and the dogs in the street seem to know it will (in its first iteration) be focused/steered to investing in liquid, transparent and regulated public stock markets. Of course, governments want to avoid embarrassment and the risk of investment accounts LOSING money but there’s another leg to this initiative: Education/Financial literacy. Risk needs to be understood and embraced; there are no returns without risk, and time (long-term investing) is the true compounder of wealth generation.
Margin accounts, short-term performance/profits and bonkers daily price moves should not be the policy goal or destination. However, there’s another way to educate and adjust behaviours. There’s a reason why wealthy family offices and high-net-worth individuals now allocate up to 50% of their investments to private assets (to diversify away from the daily gyrations of public markets). The lack of daily or weekly emotional button-pushing is a key feature of private asset markets. Instead, valuations build (or erode) steadily over time and avoid the emotional baggage or boredom-beat associated with habitual trading. It’s the DO NOTHING strategy but without the trillions of passive dollars in every day public markets chasing momentum and pushing FOMO (*fear of missing out*) on fund managers trying to keep their performance-based (beat the index) jobs.
There’s no one style answer. However, there’s significant grounds for thinking about diversification and balancing risks, be it public v private, or passive v active, or momentum v fundamental investing. I will add it to my Leinster House request list, and possibly throw in the performance of our own private asset portfolio since inception in late 2023 (more on that next week). The ultimate irony of the thoughts above is that a well-meaning and needed financial innovation (index/passive investing) has been too successful and now, through weight of money, wields too much influence on public markets. General Patton might have his famous words applied once more …. “If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.”
Indeed, as an avid military history buff, those very words were hanging for many years on the Dublin office walls of Smith’s earlier successful financial adventure, Collins Stewart. Different days.
Different Fundsmith too — the famous DO NOTHING fund’s turnover rate is currently hitting 51%. Definitely different days…..









