Joined
·
204 Posts
There seems to be a fair bit of consensus that in bull markets, passively managed index funds or exchange-traded funds (ETFs) give you all the good aspects of the stock market without the 2% cost drag of the fund manager's compensation. The Standard & Poor's Index Vs Active [SPIVA] scorecard seems to confirm this every time it comes out.
And yet, some believe active management is still worth it for less liquid markets, or small caps, or specialty funds like resources. And some even believe that broadly diversified equity funds offer more "protection" in a bear market, if only because of the manager's ability to go to cash.
I've touched on this a few times in my blog: use search function to retrieve at www.wealthyboomer.ca
Anyone seen any recent research that adds light to all this? How many here use either mutual funds or ETFs, versus picking stocks directly?
And yet, some believe active management is still worth it for less liquid markets, or small caps, or specialty funds like resources. And some even believe that broadly diversified equity funds offer more "protection" in a bear market, if only because of the manager's ability to go to cash.
I've touched on this a few times in my blog: use search function to retrieve at www.wealthyboomer.ca
Anyone seen any recent research that adds light to all this? How many here use either mutual funds or ETFs, versus picking stocks directly?