Well I paused, did Excel, 6% and half-life 1 year and it goes to infinity. And I don't understand why the assumption that percentage and half-life are constant, intuitively it seems to me that both of these numbers should increase with the increasing share of index funds

Excellent show! Love the new format with debate between 2 experts. Thank you Ben for the addendum . I really wanted to see how this conversation continued by email!

If one of the participants is going to Gish Gallop and interrupt ad nauseam, it would be appreciated if you would step in and moderate that. Mr. Green displayed remarkable patience, especially when Mr. Cohen was clearly winging it and could’ve saved us all a lot of time by researching Green’s extensive responses to most of his carpet bombing.

Only bald guys know stocks?

Data backs up randy but the way he carried himself was a bit over confident

This guy might have some qualifications but has not understood the project - and can you make sure to distinguish between crypto and Bitcoin - otherwise nothing said here is valid.

The other guy talks too much. Mike did good being patient

I would be much more comfortable having Mike Green managing my wealth than Randy Cohen

michael constantly changes the topic from one objective to another, i dont know anything about him but i cant help but feel he is "selling" something, could just be trying to get clout as a "guru", those who can convince others they have a supposed problem in a sense get a "monopoly on the solution"

THIS GUY IS A WEALTH OF KNOWLEDGE (no pun intended): Great interview, fellows! 🤯👍

I think its very difficult to argue against something that has provided so much utility for everyday people for decades. Alot of people have gotten rich off the stock market just by buying the index. Most people would have a fit if someone tells them their retirement/investment money should be 50% less value. There's a saying "It's only overvalued if you're not participating in it." I agree with Mike that this whole system is a ticking time bomb. Unfortunately, there's not alot of alternatives available that can compete with a state-sponsored ponzi. Just don't be a sheep like those Bogleheads.

To Cohen’s point at the end, if we’re not 100% sure of the contributions of smart money (hedge funds, etc.) to price corrections, not sure we can say with full confidence that passive is making the market more fragile. Sure there’s data that says fund flows have moved dramatically away from active mutual funds to passive vehicles. But those managers were never smart money to begin with.

Based on the rest of the comments this might be an unpopular opinion but I didn't like this one. Debates are often annoying, circular, and rarely productive and this seemed to follow that pattern to me.

YES

What and incredible episode! I may be biased because i dont want indexing to be broken, but i think Randy crushed Mike on this debate. Specifically, Randy's response to Mike's argument that passive is pushing the market too high was spot on. How much lower should it be? 50%? So p/e ratio for the market should be 11 instead of 22? People would pile back in the market at that point. Also, how is passive any different than a bunch of active pension managers? Theyre just a worse option and they would deploy the same amount of capital. Maybe i misunderstood those arguments but that was my takeaway. Feel free to correct me if im wrong!

So the question is basically how long does the valuation effect of a trade persist and how much strategic calls is the accumulative active side of the market able to do. Is it even rewarded anymore with the structural changes going on in the market. Good episode. Food for thought. Please more of this. Thanks as always

I listened to this on Apple. Just dropped by to tell you that it was a great show and thanks to both the guests for a good debate!

I could do without the chat before the interview.

wtf. he's got hair now. Congratulations

I’m tired of this Green guy. He’s not clear, he wasn’t in the last episode. He’s of course going to eventually claim victory when there is a market crash…. Pointless

I would really like to see more conflicting opinions (discussed equally) in future episodes. One thing I have noticed, that I dislike, is that I tend to adopt the opinion presented in the podcast more than would be rational, simply because it is the main opinion presented. Others might be mentioned, but if it’s just in the context of arguing they are wrong, then it’s hard for them to be done justice. Basically, we should try to avoid fallacies (confirmation bias, strawmanning, etc), and see the value in other’s opinions. This episode was a strong step in the right direction, and more of this, with intervention to make sure everyone is understood, would be good for helping everyone involved get a full picture of the topic. (Everyone should be able to argue against themselves) I know some of this was mentioned in the intro, and you are aware of the confirmation bias on your audience, and I’m just saying this is a step in the right direction, and more steps would be great.

Mike's right. We're fucked 😂

I feel like Michael Green on the thumbnail is trying to tell me: „It‘s free real estate.“

1:03:37 Ben: "We're doing Excel right now?" I burst out laughing.

It's frustrating that Randy keeps interrupting despite his lack of knowledge at the subject matter

Could be interesting to better prepare each person so that they can more easily agree, disagree, and position the debate.

Really appreciated this discussion. Thank you, et al.

Man this is a good episode

I was on the edge of my seat during that excel degradation calculation part 😂

I really like the debate between two educated and intelligent people. It would be great if you could host more of these

One of the best episodes to date, awesome discussion!

Please do this with Larry Swedroe and Andrew Chen

Randy was hard to listen to. Probably why he is an acedemic and is used to being able to bullsh*t his way through. Any never understood anything and kept putting up strawmen that didnt represent Mikes positions.

I'm simpleminded. What I got from this debate from Green is that index investing is bad. So the solution is to make even worse investing choices? I personally don't care what happens to index investing in the long run or what its impact is on society/markets at large. What I do care about is whether it will help me preserve and reasonably grow my capital/nest egg in the next 2 decades.

Hi Ben. I recently bought a home in California for close to $2m. I bought it with a 10% down payment and even for that cash I used a margin loan from SP500 based index funds. So effectively 0 % down at an increased risk. My long term plan is to keep doing cash out refinancing and be closer to max leverage, and keep investing in stocks instead of paying down house. I think with this strategy of max leverage buying and holding for longterm 10+ years will beat renting.. Could you please comment on strategy if owning with max leverage vs renting compared to usual 20% down with slowly paying of mortgage strategy vs renting?

I think the dismissal of the idea that stocks are overvalued, because Mr. Green didn’t make the point very well, ignored the reality of our current stock market - having just reached an all time high. We know that the vast majority of stock issued are in the hands of very few people/institutions, and that the average retail investor has very limited impact on the overall market price. However panic selling does bring the cost of a given security down. With our current Price/Earnings ratios, passive funds could be argued to artificially inflate prices because people who would otherwise try to get out at the high now stay in because they assume that it is better to keep their seat for the next several decades. Tech stock buybacks have also been ordered by CEOs that are required to have a significant portion of the public shares of their company. This could be argued to further artificially prop up these prices, beyond would be reasonable. How can we tell which one is more responsible for our currently overvalued market?

I think Randy likes the sound of his own voice a little too much. every time his argument was countered, he would pivot and try another tack, not overly helpful in my opinion.

The argument that Harvard with its 400 billion dollar endowment (or something like that) shouldn’t be investing passively/compare itself to the S&P 500, but instead focus on the local/state level improvements it could make is very compelling. There should absolutely be mandates for institutional investment which increase their responsibility for improving our society - especially when they are tax-advantaged as a not for profit. I think if Mr. Green focused on making that kind of argument, rather than dissuading individuals from passive investment then he would’ve gotten a lot more support.

Videos like this definitely need a Blackboard and Spreadsheet from the beginning

The guy on the right wants to tax index funds because 30-40% market share is too much? Seems insane to me

Glorious episode

I feel like a little kid in a candy store.

This is exactly what i requested after the last episode i.e. get someone on here who disagrees with Mike. This is currently the only video that I know of of this kind on KZbin. Well done.

Next in the debate series, Cliff and a PE manager

Rational Reminder Debate Series - Episode One 😄

Great discussion generally, sadly Mr. Cohen sometimes built strawmans (e.g. using "overvalued" instead of "higher valuation") in his counter-arguments - it feels like he wasn't listening carefully enough to me, not necessarily intentional. It would've been amazing, if Ben/Cameron would've stepped in and mediate in situations like these. Mr. Green was very carefuly with his words, but it felt like he was misunderstood anyways too many times, in minute 24 to about minute 42 especially. Great piece of content however, thank you guys so much!

Index funds are just a Ponzi scheme that work

Idk if this is the right place to ask. When you compare mortgage vs rent, where if rent is equal to or less than 5%/12 of the houses value how much would the renter need to invest per month to keep up with the buyer's net growth? You did a comparison a few episodes ago and I think you said you assumed the renter invested what they would have paid on upkeep, but i cant see how investing 1% of the houses value per month keeps up with the principal payment + growth rate of the property.

First! Thanks for the headsup about this episode

My wife listened to the podcast for the first time (I've heard like maybe 80% of them) and especially loved the contributions of this Dan Bortolotti guy to the conversation. I said he's the Canadian Couch Potato dude whose insights have shaped our financial lives for the last ten years! So cool to have the sensible guiding voice for our financial lives recognized as such after one podcast by someone not deeply ensconced in this stuff.