by the same logic, wouldnât you also want to overexpose yourself to e.g. publicly traded real estate because most of it isnât public?
Yes, I think that is true as well!
If true, and if most passive (institutional) investors arenât sufficiently exposed to PE (or real estate), wouldnât that suggest that the market undervalues this asset class and you can beat the market by investing in it?
Honest question, I havenât thought this through very well, but something still feels counterintuitive that you could create a better passive global market portfolio...
Hm, very possible I am thinking about this wrong, but itâs pretty intuitive to me. After all, isnât the âtrueâ global market all investable assets, not just publicly traded assets? Itâs the same reason why the Nasdaq Composite is a poor stand-in for the global stock market: for a variety of reasons, it only has a certain subset of publicly traded equities, and other baskets of equities have different risk-return profiles.
Yes, I think that is true as well!
This is what I was getting at by noting that PE should also be higher beta, so the risk-adjusted returns should not be higher!
Hm, very possible I am thinking about this wrong, but itâs pretty intuitive to me. After all, isnât the âtrueâ global market all investable assets, not just publicly traded assets? Itâs the same reason why the Nasdaq Composite is a poor stand-in for the global stock market: for a variety of reasons, it only has a certain subset of publicly traded equities, and other baskets of equities have different risk-return profiles.