Net money invested in Stock indexes ended up in red
Not sure where you got the 296 crores figure. The data on the sheet shows activity by category of investors. In the end NET of all BUY and SELL across all categories will always be Zero. It has no bearing on whether the stock market goes up or goes down. If you compare only activity by certain category, say FII then there could be more SELL compared to BUY or vice-versa.
"Thanks for pointing out [the study](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1748851). It's a slightly different cause than what I was describing when I posted this. Specifically, they show an effect not when the names get confused, but rather when the name similarity simply brings more attention to the stock. I was surprised nobody mentioned that in response to my post.  But also interesting is that they had to control for simple confusion between stock symbols, which implies that ticker confusion has a known effect. So I dug into research on that and quickly found [this study](http://www.efmaefm.org/0EFMAMEETINGS/EFMA%20ANNUAL%20MEETINGS/2010-Aarhus/EFMA2010_0161_fullpaper.pdf) found ""a high positive correlation between returns on two matching stocks with similar ticker symbols""." This is dumb on many levels.  First are they really trying to blame the Flash Crash for investors leaving the market. It's 2014 and they claim in 17 of 25 months since the 2010 crash investors have withdrawn (not really sure what this means either, since shares don't disappear- does this just mean the market is up? It's unclear). Either way the article quoted is from 2012! And for a research team creating an empirical model, this is a very scary usage of small sample size,  mistaking correlation for causation,  etc.  And the algo,  though they don't give much info,  seems to be the very essence of data mining. Pick a million signals and filter on those that are empirically the best.  If you are an individual investor or a small fund thinking of purchasing something like this,  first consider: if it really worked, why are the founders selling it when they could just use it themselves and profit from it? It's almost guaranteed not to work out of sample "Index funds do leech a ""free ride"" on the coattails of active traders.  Consider what would happen if literally everyone bought index funds.  For a company there would be no motivation to excel. Get listed; all the index funds are forced to buy your stock; now sit on your derriere playing Freecell, or otherwise scam/loot the company.  Go bankrupt. Rinse wash repeat.  This ""who cares who John Galt is"" philosophy would kill the economy dead.   Somebody has to actually buy stocks based on research, analysis and value.  Company managers need to actively fear, respect and court those people.  They don't need to be mutual-fund managers, but they do need to be somebody.  Maybe activist investors like Warren Buffett will suffice.  Maybe retirement fund or endowment managers like CalPERS or Harvard can do this.  Better be somebody!  I'm all for index funds... Just saying only a fraction of the market's capital can be in index funds before it starts into a tragedy of the commons." But if you add a security to the index you also remove one from the index, thus both a buy and sell. If weights change some go up, some go down thus some need to be purchased and some need to be sold.   So I still don't see how ETFs are net sinks beyond their simple AUM. There are at least a couple of ways you could view this to my mind: Make an Excel spreadsheet and use the IRR function to compute the rate of return you are having based on money being added. Re-invested distributions in a mutual fund aren't really an additional investment as the Net Asset Value of the fund will drop by the amount of the distribution aside from market fluctuation. This is presuming you want a raw percentage that could be tricky to compare to other funds without doing more than a bit of work in a way. Look at what is the fund's returns compared to both the category and the index it is tracking. The tracking error is likely worth noting as some index funds could lag the index by a sizable margin and thus may not be that great. At the same time there may exist cases where an index fund isn't quite measuring up that well. The Small-Growth Indexing Anomaly would be the William Bernstein article from 2001 that has some facts and figures for this that may be useful. Owning a stock via a fund and selling it short simultaneously should have the same net financial effect as not owning the stock.  This should work both for your personal finances as well as the impact of (not) owning the shares has on the stock's price. To use an extreme example, suppose there are 4 million outstanding shares of Evil Oil Company.  Suppose a group of concerned index fund investors owns 25% of the stock and sells short the same amount.   They've borrowed someone else's 25% of the company and sold it to a third party.  It should have the same effect as selling their own shares of the company, which they can't otherwise do.  Now when 25% of the company's stock becomes available for purchase at market price, what happens to the stock?  It falls, of course.   Regarding how it affects your own finances, suppose the stock price rises and the investors have to return the shares to the lender.  They buy 1 million shares at market price, pushing the stock price up, give them back, and then sell another million shares short, subsequently pushing the stock price back down. If enough people do this to effect the share price of a stock or asset class, the managers at the companies might be forced into behaving in a way that satisfies the investors.  In your case, perhaps the company could issue a press release and fire the employee that tried to extort money from your wife's estate in order to win your investment business back.  Okay, well maybe that's a stretch. "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-30/trump-s-dollar-mess-losses-pile-up-as-political-drama-mounts) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The dollar soared in November before ending the year at the highest since at least 2005, according to the Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index, which tracks the greenback versus 10 global currencies.  &gt; While the stock market has rallied to new highs as equity investors looked past politics and focused on corporate earnings, the dollar has slumped more than 8 percent, wiping out the post-election bump and then some.  &gt; &amp;quot;Look at how the dollar moved up when it was felt that the Trump election was going to lead to happy days again,&amp;quot; Snow said.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6qoujg/stocks_are_at_all_time_highs_but_the_dollar_is/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~179908 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **dollar**^#1 **currency**^#2 **market**^#3 **Trump**^#4 **more**^#5" "It's only a ""loss"" if you believe the purpose of indexes is to represent the basket of underlying companies with the highest returns.  But that's simply not true.  An index is just a rules-based way to track/measure a thing.  That thing could be the largest US companies, all the companies in a specific sector, all of the companies in the world, a commodity or basket of commodities... Pretty much anything.  Somebody just has to write down the explanation of what an index tracks, then create ETFs to track the index.  By being a ""passive investor"" you are still making active investing decisions to some degree, in that you need to decide which indexes to passively invest in.  If people are not going to attempt to understand the companies they invest in because they're almost certainly better off indexing (which is fine), then the responsibility must fall on someone to make decisions about what are the best rules for the indexes.  For most of the history of capital markets, good corporate governance has been enforced by shareholders.  If management did something bad, shareholders could vote to replace the Board of Directors and in general they had tools to hold management accountable.  Only in recent years, founders of companies like Google, Facebook, Snap, etc., have attempted to subvert this relationship (public shareholders give a company money, and in return the company must answer to the shareholders) and essentially take money for nothing.  So far (it's still a pretty short experiment) this has worked as long as the share price is going up, but what happens when it doesn't?  What happens when these companies screw up and stop performing well, and there's nothing shareholders can do about it?  Investors who intentionally own individual shares will have little to no leverage to demand change, and passive investors would be stuck with some of their money in these companies with terrible governance - and the precedent would only make dual-class and non-voting shares more attractive for future IPOs, making the problem more prevalent.  If you think it is in your best interest to own the entire S&amp;P 500, *plus* Snap, then just do that.  For every dollar you invest into SPDR or something similar, allocate something like $0.01 into Snap.  It's that simple.  But don't make this out to be a story about how S&amp;P is anti-free markets or doing a disservice to investors.  That's ridiculous.  If most Americans are just going to blindly put their retirement savings into index funds without bothering to understand them (again, which is fine) then somebody needs to make sure the companies in said indexes are good companies.  Historically, a company with zero corporate governance and entrenched management =/= a ""good company"".  S&amp;P realized this and decided to set a good precedent for US equity markets rather than a very bad precedent.  You wanna buy shares with no voting rights?  Go for it.  But that should be your decision, not a default inclusion in major indexes." "He didn't sell in the ""normal"" way that most people think of when they hear the term ""sell."" He engaged in a (perfectly legitimate) technique known as short selling, in which he borrows shares from his broker and sells them immediately. He's betting that the price of the stock will drop so he can buy them back at a lower price to return the borrowed shares back to his broker. He gets to pocket the difference. He had about $37,000 of cash in his account. Since he borrowed ~8400 shares and sold them immediately at $2/share, he got $16,800 in cash and owed his broker 8400 shares. So, his net purchasing power at the time of the short sale was $37,000 + $16,800 - 4800 shares * $2/share. As the price of the stock changes, his purchasing power will change according to this equation. He's allowed to continue to borrow these 8400 shares as long as his purchasing power remains above 0. That is, the broker requires him to have enough cash on hand to buy back all of his borrowed shares at any given moment. If his purchasing power ever goes negative, he'll be subject to a margin call: the broker will make him either deposit cash into his account or close his positions (sell long positions or buy back short positions) until it's positive again. The stock jumped up to $13.85 the next morning before the market opened (during ""before-hours"" trading). His purchasing power at that time was $37,000 + $16,800 - 8400 shares * $13.85/share = -$62,540. Since his purchasing power was negative, he was subject to a margin call. By the time he got out, he had to pay $17.50/share to buy back the 8400 shares that he borrowed, making his purchasing power -$101,600. This $101,600 was money that he borrowed from his broker to buy back the shares to fulfill his margin call. His huge loss was from borrowing shares from his broker. Note that his maximum potential loss is unlimited, since there is no limit to how much a stock can grow. Evidently, he failed to grasp the most important concept of short selling, which is that he's borrowing stock from his broker and he's obligated to give that stock back whenever his broker wants, no matter what it costs him to fulfill that obligation." Inflows to the US equity market can come from a variety of sources; for instance: You were paid a year-end bonus and decided to invest it in US equities instead of foreign equities, bonds, savings or debt reduction. You sold foreign equities, bonds, or other non-US equities and decided to invest in US equities. You decided a better use of cash in a savings account, CD or money market fund, was to invest in US equities. If for every buyer, there's a seller, doesn't that also mean that   there were $25B in outflows in the same time period? Not necessarily. Generally, the mentions we see of inflows and outflows are net; that is, the gross investment in US equities, minus gross sales of US equities equals net inflows or outflows. The mere fact that I sold my position in, say, Caterpillar, doesn't mean that I had to re-invest in US equities. I may have bought a bond or a CD or a house. Because of fluctuations in existing stocks market value, bankruptcies and new issues, US equities never are and never will be a zero-sum game. "Sure, it doesn't, but realistically they can't/shouldn't do anything about it in their index funds, because then they're just another stock picker, trying to gauge which companies are going to do best.  Their funds not all being indexes is what I was getting at with my original question. How much leeway do they have in their definitions of other funds? IE, if they had a dividend fund that included all large cap dividend paying stocks above 3% yield, they couldn't take out Shell just because of climate risk without fundamentally changing what the fund is. But if it's just ""income fund"" then they can do whatever in that space." "Actually, this is a pretty good analogy to certain types of stocks, specifically tech and other ""fad"" stocks. Around the turn of the century, there were a lot of ""Bobs"" buying tech stocks (like they would baseball cards), for tech stocks' sakes. That's what drove the internet and tech stock bubbles of high valuations. At other times, the tech stocks are bought and sold mainly by ""Steve's"" for business reasons such as likely (not merely possible) future appreciation, and command a much lower valuation." Passive implies following an index. Your question seems to ask about a hypothetical fund that starts, say, as an S&P fund, but as the index is adjusted, the old stocks stay in the fund. Sounds simple enough, but over time, the fund's performance will diverge from the index. The slight potential gain from lack of cap gains will be offset by the fund being unable to market itself.  Keep in mind, the gains distributed each year are almost exclusively long term, taxed at a favorable rate. There is a difference between trading which is short term focussed and investing which is longterm focussed. On the long term what drives stock prices is still the overall economy and the performance of the underlying business aspects. I do not think that any trading algorithms will change this. These are more concerned with short term profits regardless of the underlying business economics. Therefore I think that longterm investing using index funds is still a viable strategy for most private investors. "Are you not allowed the y5 option?   I'm no guru, but one thing that sticks out to me in that plan is the vesting period of 5yrs as opposed to 10, so the money is ""yours"" in half the time....so if after 5yrs, you find a better gig, you can roll those benefits into another account and manage them on your own (or just leave and draw on them when you are eligible)  Then again, knowing that many municipalities are in shit shape due to their pension benefit liabilities, they may be pushing to the longer vesting period to a) encourage you to stay employed there and/or b) allow them to keep the money should you leave before that 10yr period  Like I said, though- I'm def no guru, and that is only one aspect of these plans.  I'd personally reach out to a financial planner so they can game it all out for you and equip you with the info to make the best choice"