Second, I don't think anyone is arguing that active investing can beat potentially beat passive investing.
The problems with active management vs. passive are:
- Most active manager will continue to underperform (this year I believe it was north of 90%)
- That it is just about impossible to predict which funds will be leaders
- That the fees active managers require are too high relative to the lack of any real value
The point of the article isn't that active management can't ever beat passive - it's that the fees on investing are coming down because most active management provides little value.
So if active management is going to win, the fees may be compressed and that may change the industry.
Second, I don't think anyone is arguing that active investing can beat potentially beat passive investing.
The problems with active management vs. passive are: - Most active manager will continue to underperform (this year I believe it was north of 90%) - That it is just about impossible to predict which funds will be leaders - That the fees active managers require are too high relative to the lack of any real value
The point of the article isn't that active management can't ever beat passive - it's that the fees on investing are coming down because most active management provides little value.
So if active management is going to win, the fees may be compressed and that may change the industry.