<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>sambe</author><text>These sections seem to address the point to me:&lt;p&gt;* &amp;quot;The tail is not wagging the dog&amp;quot; - index funds are a relatively small percentage of total share ownership.&lt;p&gt;* &amp;quot;Benchmark huggers have always been around&amp;quot; - owning ~the index was not started with index funds.&lt;p&gt;* &amp;quot;Active funds literally own the market&amp;quot; - the sum of portfolios of non-index funds ends up having the same profile.&lt;p&gt;* &amp;quot;Price discovery is a cop-out&amp;quot; - relatively small part of the trading volume.&lt;p&gt;* &amp;quot;Liquidity is not a huge problem for index funds&amp;quot; -no market impact to sell (v dubious if you ask me), unlevered.&lt;p&gt;* &amp;quot;Humans matter more than fund structures&amp;quot; - the absence of index funds did not prevent bubbles&amp;#x2F;crashes.&lt;p&gt;You can disagree with those points (I do with some of them) but that&amp;#x27;s a large part of the article.</text><parent_chain><item><author>talolard</author><text>I think this article really misses the point that Burry was making, which is that if the indexs see a sell off they won&amp;#x27;t find the liquidity in the market to cash out their positions and will drive the market down.&lt;p&gt;This article seems to focus on all of the upsides of indexing, which are all true. However, those upsides don&amp;#x27;t negate the risk that is being pointed to.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>A critique of the claim that passive investing is a bubble</title><url>https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2019/09/debunking-the-silly-passive-is-a-bubble-myth/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>perspective1</author><text>Exactly. The article, starting with the title, is pompous and overconfident. Burry made the unanswered point that in a sell-off large index funds will have to dump their smaller holdings at large discounts. We have never had a market crash with passive holdings this large (and consolidated in a small handful of funds)-- we&amp;#x27;re in unprecedented times. Burry&amp;#x27;s point is entirely plausible. And although that it wouldn&amp;#x27;t immediately cause a problem for investors who don&amp;#x27;t sell (price is not value), the newly discount-price firms may struggle immensely in terms of raising new capital and financing.</text><parent_chain><item><author>talolard</author><text>I think this article really misses the point that Burry was making, which is that if the indexs see a sell off they won&amp;#x27;t find the liquidity in the market to cash out their positions and will drive the market down.&lt;p&gt;This article seems to focus on all of the upsides of indexing, which are all true. However, those upsides don&amp;#x27;t negate the risk that is being pointed to.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>A critique of the claim that passive investing is a bubble</title><url>https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2019/09/debunking-the-silly-passive-is-a-bubble-myth/</url></story>