BLOG

Active fund managers keep warning about passive investing's dangerous rise. But new research covering $784 billion in institutional assets reveals active management still dominates — capturing 97% of all fees paid.

When Cathie Wood declared index funds "a form of socialism", she joined decades of active managers attacking passive investing on ideological grounds. But proxy voting data reveals something awkward: ARK voted with management 99.2% of the time versus Vanguard's 98.5%. We examine the evidence on index fund governance, ARK's performance record, and why "passive investing destroys capitalism" rhetoric intensifies when active managers underperform.

Stephen Yiu's fund returned 101% in three years. His advice to investors? Buy an index tracker instead—your odds of picking a winning active fund are "worse than a casino." Academic research reveals why even successful managers keep their own money in index funds. Here's how to escape the active management trap.

In this guest post, William Morris introduces the idea of explanation-based investing as a fresh alternative to the often-misunderstood term “passive investing.” He argues that what investors really need isn’t to be active or passive, but to understand the reasoning behind their choices. Clear explanations, grounded in evidence, can help people make better decisions and achieve stronger long-term outcomes.

The S&P 500's concentration in the Magnificent Seven has critics worried about indexing risk. But Hendrik Bessembinder's research reveals why index concentration actually strengthens the case for passive investing: just 4% of stocks drive all market returns, and active managers consistently miss these winners. Historical data shows market concentration has been normal for 150 years, from railroads to tech giants.

“Passive investing” may sound like settling for average, but the evidence shows the opposite. By avoiding hype and sticking to a disciplined process, index investors tend to outperform. Yet the label itself puts people off. Charley Ellis and behavioural research reveal how one word is shaping outcomes — and why it’s time to reframe the debate.