Any person who states actively managed funds outperform more often, relative to passive, is a flat out liar.
Yes, a small percentage of active fund managers outperform. But that outperformance is usually confined to a relatively short period, and often returns to the mean. There is often no persistence.
I have had many debates on here, including with the revered one on here. I won't say his name, for fear of having to read the verbose reply.
The options are pretty clear. You either buy into a passive fund and consistently beat most managers. Or, you take the gamble and hope that active manager is one of the very few who can actually outperform.
If people are on this forum, it will most likely be the latter.
The fact most "managers" fail to beat the benchmark isn't the most depressing thing.
The most depressing thing is these managers are worth hundreds of millions, and can't outperform a simple index fund, which could be implemented by a primary school kid.
P.S Chris Brycki is always hilarious on his livewire articles. Because they are always trying to see if he likes an active fund... never happens.
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)