OhNoNotimAgain wrote:You are focussing on a detail which does not change the main argument that managers of active funds change, and hence the process they use changes, making comparsisons invalid with passive or rules based funds for those that have. That discrepancy increases over time as the data shows.
The fact that you ignored the bigger story that the cohort of passive funds outperformed all active is perhaps more telling and why you are keen to shift the debate.
But the data you've presented doesn't show that. It tells you nothing about the relationship between managers and processes, nor why that would
necessarily make comparisons with passive funds invalid, as Lootman has explained (and I didn't see any point in repeating).
I haven't "ignored" anything, nor tried to "shift the debate". That passive funds
overall outperform active funds
overall is well known, hardly news, and is kind of obvious as most active funds have higher charges & costs than
most passive or rules based funds. Of course there are exceptions
.
I've just pointed out the errors in your interpretation of the data
you presented as evidence. What you think is "telling" about that I'm not sure;
I don't have any particular agenda to push, and as far as skin in the game goes, I have more invested in passive/rules based funds/ETFs than I do in active collectives, so any implication of yours of me being against passives is also evidence free.