even a basic analysis of etf creation and redemption would show you that fund flows are driven by momentum
-
-
Replying to @goodalexander @macrocephalopod
furthermore the S&P 500 itself, by virtue of being cap weighted drops companies when they fall which is the definition of momentum investing
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @goodalexander
To your first point, yes absolutely, but that creates *absolute* momentum (al companies go up together) not *relative* momentum (biggest winners rise more)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @macrocephalopod
the biggest winning ETFs get larger inflows, statistically, and have for over 7 years - which - because there are different indices -- drives relative outperformance of names therein -- which is explicitly a momentum effect
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @goodalexander
Yes I completely agree, eg the names in the ARK ETFs are clearly going up because of inflows to those ETFs, I have never claimed otherwise! But importantly *they are all going up together* in fact they have become super correlated purely by virtue of being held by ARK.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @macrocephalopod @goodalexander
I mean there are tons of momentum distortionary effects, but my favorite is just the reduced liquidity and the minor price distortion of redem/creation
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @nope_its_lily @macrocephalopod
I just take issue with "retail brain fantasies" around momentum effects from passive investing. The momentum effect is innate to any form of "passive" investing that is not the Vanguard All World index bc the entire causal premise is some relative weight went up in the pastpic.twitter.com/wvf1T5hn7M
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @goodalexander @macrocephalopod
TBF he’s talking about specifically forced buying and selling of shares, which is indeed a fantasy, not just price distortion which assuredly happens
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @nope_its_lily @macrocephalopod
the distortion is evidence of forced buying. If PRNT gets $100b of inflows tomorrow it buys DDD in a manner insensitive to DDD's valuation, which is the underlying critique - price insensitive buying at distorted values
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Index methodology itself leads to forced buying / selling on rebalances. The distortion is more so for cap weightes indices than equal wgt. Though being equal wgt is a choice to short size. This is ‘passive’ only if you care about low fees and not about how the sausage is made.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Equal weight indices are an allocation to size factor (long small/short big) *plus* a reversion bet (buy losers/sell winners) plus second order effects. Nothing like passive, as you say. Cliff Asness has written about it I think.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.