Quote from darkhorse:
Well it's also a matter of embedded structural incentives.
If you are a Wall Street money manager, then your greatest risk is "career risk" as Jeremy Grantham has pointed out, i.e. the risk of getting fired.
Money managers -- especially the long only kind -- get fired for lagging their benchmarks. If your peers outperform you, it's the pink slip.
If you and your peers all lose money at the same time, however, then everything is fine, b/c Wall St managers are judged on "relative" performance. It's somehow ok to lose 25% of your capital -- a "good performance" even -- if the S&P loses 26%.
This incentive profile strongly encourages "beta chasing" -- buying aggressively for fear of missing out, even when such buying is incredibly risky -- and further encourages holding through severe drawdowns, for fear that the market will rally after the money manager has sold, until finally the investment client pulls his capital out and thus realizes the awful loss.
In short, career risk incentives create the worst environment possible from a risk management perspective - frenzied beta chasing plus utter disregard for downside risk - because Wall Street performance measures are based on the wrong things. (Which in turn is related to the gullibility of the public, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.)