Yeah, definitely good points. Even with a department looking after voting, they're not nearly as "vested" in the results of their voting as something like an actively managed long value fund is.
Why? How is Vanguard, an investment management firm which employees thousands of trained professionals, not qualified to cast votes on corporate governance? And in what sense is it "power collecting"?
Yes, this is an issue that is largely debated, and there are some very interesting conflicts of interest - just curious why you specifically think it's so bad.
I think you're missing the gist of his statement and also overlooking the word "almost"?
That being said, most of your definitions are still dependent on competitively pricing securities. A market maker who can't calculate reasonable theos won't be a market maker for long.
Yeah, it really is. If you haven't already, check out the full BEA report - it's incredibly comprehensive and leads to lots of "jumping off" points for further research.
There is both a visual and aural indicator. That being said, nobody (except Bonin) knew that the PF had his stick completely back until it was too late.
Yeah, to clarify I was agreeing that those firms certainly pull and use that data, but not necessarily in the same traditional fashion that paper seems to imply.
Take this with a grain of salt as I don't work at any of the funds mentioned (but still in the industry), but why not?
Filings are subject to change due to errors, updates, etc. It's cheaper, easier, and less error prone to just scrape and overwrite data than search for any updates.
I may have been heavyhanded in saying that the firms are rescraping the entire universe of filings on a daily basis, but I guess my point here is that these numbers can very easily be skewed and are generally a pretty poor indicator of actual data access.
Tradeworx is HFT. Yes, the premise of this paper is completely absurd. Drawing a line between overnight batch jobs for internal databases and performance is a quantum leap to say the least.