{"id":3813,"date":"2021-02-23T08:29:52","date_gmt":"2021-02-23T13:29:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/navesinkinternational.com\/?p=3813"},"modified":"2023-12-20T02:53:23","modified_gmt":"2023-12-20T07:53:23","slug":"should-index-providers-have-oversight","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/navesinkinternational.com\/2021\/02\/23\/should-index-providers-have-oversight\/","title":{"rendered":"Should index providers have oversight?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"RailwayBy construction, both ETFs and passive funds are tracking indices, while active funds are benchmarked against indices. ETFs now represent trillions of dollars.<\/a> They have a wide diversity<\/a> and as many reference indices. Passive funds (“index trackers”) also rank in the trillions, albeit on more traditional indices.<\/p>\n

As result, index calculators have gained a significant influence on asset allocation. They do investment research. They have discretion in inclusions<\/a>. They suggest indices and strategies to asset managers. Their decisions\u00a0move markets<\/a>. When they fail to calculate correctly, investors lose millions<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Should they be regulated for their de facto role as investment advisors?<\/p>\n

The problems<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Index providers like S&P Global, MSCI, FTSE Russell, and Bloomberg are currently treated as mere ‘data providers’ by the regulators. Their role is much larger than that. An interesting academic paper by\u00a0 Adriana Robertson and Paul Mahoney, explains why they are de facto asset managers. Here are some of the arguments:<\/p>\n