当心！最受欢迎的投资方式“有毒”

指数基金的优点众所周知。它们的投资回报率往往高于主动管理型共同基金，部分原因是费率较低。这让指数基金成为美国最受欢迎的投资方式之一。美国投资公司协会的数据显示，2015年1-11月流入指数基金的资金规模接近1450亿美元。同时，主动型共同基金流失资金1610亿美元。但对我们这些受益者来说，好处太多反而可能有害。

近期，多项研究都得出了一个类似的结论。这些研究发现，指数基金规模的增长正在逐步瓦解真正的股东精神。出现这个问题的原因在于，指数基金是所谓的被动型投资者，也就是说，这些基金及其经理人不挑选投资对象。这项工作由创立相关指数的公司完成，比如标准普尔。指数基金投资者只能随波逐流。

这样的做法一直有助于提高投资回报率。许多研究都表明，投资者买卖股票的时机往往有误，就连职业投资者也不例外。晨星最新的主动/被动投资晴雨表报告显示，主动型基金的表现全面落后于被动型基金。在截至2014年底的10年时间里，逾四分之三的美国主动型大盘股基金的表现都不如同样权重的被动型基金群体。

这对散户来说可能是件好事，但它不利于整体经济或整个市场。新的研究指出，随着被动型投资者的持股比例越来越高，他们开始改变公司的管理方式。首先，公司将提案提交股东大会审议时，占比不断增长的被动型股东也会行使权利。尽管不采用主动管理方式，但指数基金持有的股份仍有投票权。宾夕法尼亚州立大学学者彼得•伊利耶夫和米歇尔•劳里撰写的论文指出，问题在于这些基金更有可能作为一个团体进行投票，而传统的主动型基金“‘整齐划一’地进行投票的可能性较小”。因此，指数基金越多，就意味着在管理层之上的不同群体越少。

其次，沃顿商学院教授伊安•阿佩尔、托德•戈姆利和唐纳德•凯姆在名为《被动型投资者，而非被动型所有者》（Passive Investors, Not Passive Owners）的论文中指出，虽然指数基金不会盯着各位经营者，但它们较有可能投票支持将权力从管理层手中收回的提案。论文指出：“看来被动型投资者的影响力来自于他们巨大的投票群体。被动型股东的特点是不怎么支持管理层的提议，但较为支持股东就治理问题提出的建议。”

对存在问题的公司来说，这是件好事。但对于实际上拥有优秀管理层的公司来说，这会削弱管理者的权力。由于被动型基金没能力挑选投资目标，它们对待所有公司的方法似乎都一样。

最后，在同一行业中，指数基金往往不仅持有一家公司的股票，它们的持股范围还会覆盖这家公司的大多数竞争对手。密歇根大学金融学助理教授马丁•施迈茨和咨询公司Charles River Associates高级合伙人何塞•阿扎尔以及伊莎贝尔•特库共同撰文指出，由此造成的局面是持股过于集中，而且像贝莱德或Vanguard这样的大型指数基金公司可以用被动型基金持有的股票来投票。这会在相关行业引发反竞争行为。

比如说，美国飞机票价上升11%的原因是追踪标普500指数的那些龙头指数基金不光持有美国航空的股票，还持有达美航空和联合航空的股份。这样的全面持股模式造成这些公司不太可能愿意跟对手展开竞争。如果这听起来还有些玄乎，那就用施迈茨的方法，把这些航空公司比作街对角的两座加油站。如果所有者不同，它们也许就会相互压价。然而，“如果这两座加油站都归你所有，你还会让它们这样做吗？很可能不会。”

施迈茨担心，缺乏竞争会推动消费品价格上升，从而削弱经济活力。此外，其他研究还表明，指数基金的结构对股市来说也是个问题。

资产管理公司Osterweis Capital Management创始人兼首席投资官约翰•奥斯特维斯指出，其中的原因在于指数基金采用市值权重法。这种方法往往有利于那些规模最大的公司，而这些公司在最受欢迎的指数中占的比重也最大，这就会产生“强者愈强”效应。同时，随着这些公司的市场价值不断增长，它们在指数基金投资中占的比例也持续上升。奥斯特维斯以今年上半年的回报率为例。他说，在标普500指数中，最大的10只个股平均上涨了35%，而其余490只股票的平均跌幅几乎达到7%。

奥斯特维斯认为，由此产生的结果是，指数基金把自己的投资者困在了几家公司里，而其他投资者也在购买这些公司的股票，这往往会造成后者股价过高。他说：“你买的股票可能会在一段时间里表现不佳，但最终你的投资收益也许会超过别人，原因就是你可能没有跳进这些陷阱里。”问题在于，指数基金的力量是否也让经济进入了这些陷阱之中。（财富中文网）

译者：Charlie

校对：詹妮

The virtue of index funds is well known. They tend to offer higher investment returns than actively managed mutual funds, in part because of their lower fees. That’s made them one of the most popular investments in America. Nearly $145 billion flowed into these funds in the first 11 months of the year, according to Investment Company Institute. At the same time, $161 billion flowed out of actively managed mutual funds. But perhaps we have gotten too much of a good thing.

That’s the conclusion of a number of recent research studies that came out this year. Their findings: The growth in the amount of money in index funds is chipping away at the true spirit of stock ownership. The issue has to do with the fact that index funds are so-called passive investors, meaning the funds and their managers don’t pick the companies they invest in. They are selected by an the company that creates the index, like Standard & Poor’s. And the investors have to go along for the ride.

That’s been good for investment returns. Many studies have proven, that investors, even professionals, tend to buy and sell at the wrong time. According to Morningstar’s most recent Active/Passive Barometer report, actively managed funds have generally underperformed their passive counterparts. More than three-quarters of active managers in the U.S. Large Cap category lagged the equal-weighted composite of their passive peers during the ten years ending December 31, 2014.

But what may be good for investors individually, may not be good for the economy or the market as a whole. As passive owners snag a larger and larger share of the companies in the market, they change how companies are managed, so the new studies say. First of all, their growing presence during proxy season wields power, when companies put up proposals to shareholder votes. And although they aren’t actively run, index funds still vote shares. The problem is index funds are more likely to vote as a group, according to a paper from Peter Iliev and Michelle Lowry at Penn State University. Traditional actively managed funds are “less likely to vote in a ‘one size fits all’ manner,” according to the paper. So more index funds means fewer disparate groups are keeping on top of management.

Second, while they aren’t watching individual managers, index funds are more likely to vote for provisions that take power away from managements, according to a papers from Wharton School professors Ian Appel, Todd Gormley, and Donald Keim, titled “Passive Investors, Not Passive Owners.”“Passive investors appear to exert influence through their large voting blocs—passive ownership is associated with less support for management proposals and more support for shareholder-initiated governance proposals,” the paper says.

That’s good for problem companies, but it can dilute the power of companies that actually have too good leaders. And passive funds, which don’t have the ability to chose, seem to treat all companies the same way.

Lastly, index funds tend to not just own one company in an industry, but most of their rivals as well. What happens, according to a paper Martin Schmalz, assistant professor of finance at University of Michigan wrote with Jose Azar and Isabel Tecu of Charles River Associates, is that stock ownership becomes too concentrated when companies like Blackrock or Vanguard, two large managers of index funds, vote the shares of passive funds. It can create anti-competitive behavior in an industry.

For example, U.S. airline tickets prices are 11% higher because the largest index funds that track the S&P 500 own not just American Airlines, but Deltaand United Continentalas well. And common ownership makes companies less likely to want to compete with rivals. If that sounds like hocus pocus, Schmalz likens it to two gasoline companies on opposing corners. If they have different owners, they might undercut each other’s prices. However, “if you own both gas stations on both sides of the street, are you still going to do the same thing? Probably not.”

Schmalz worries that a lack of competition is driving up prices for consumers and making the economy less dynamic. But other research suggests that the structure of index funds is a trouble for the stock market as well.

The reason John Osterweis, founder and chief investment officer of Osterweis Capital Management, says is because index funds are capitalization weighted. This dynamic often favors the largest companies, which make up the largest weights in the most popular index, and it has a momentum effect. And as those companies’ market value gets bigger, a greater percentage of the money index funds invest flow to those companies. Osterweis points to the returns in the first part of this year as an example. In the S&P 500, the top 10 contributors were up an average of 35%, while the bottom 490 stocks in the index were down almost 7%, he says.

The result, Osterweis says, is that investors through index funds get trapped in a few companies, and it’s the same companies everyone else is buying, so they tend to be over priced. “You might underperform for a period of time, but ultimately you might outperform because you might not be trapped in this thing,” says Osterweis. The question is whether index funds have become such a force that they have the economy trapped as well.