[JourneyOfLife]

Good discussion about the issues.

Two seasoned investment pros argue the case for and against actively managed funds versus passive index funds. In a surprising twist, Vanguard principal Daniel Wallick presents the active management case while award-winning financial advisor Gregg Fisher defends the passive approach.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwKN1YL811k&feature=share&list=UUW9B1PJwen nxYi5Fk_94Lew]Daniel Wallick & Gregg Fisher - YouTube[/ame]

[Bogie Shooter]

Consuelo Mack WEALTHTRACK: The right track to your financial health. : WealthTrack

[Mallory Voice]

Originally Posted by JourneyOfLife

Good discussion about the issues.



Daniel Wallick & Gregg Fisher - YouTube

Oh give us all a break - this market is anything BUT passive. Anyone using a passive approach may as well stick their heads in the sand. Use Fross & Fross for actively managed estates. You snooze in this market you loose!
MV

[l2ridehd]

Actually for every year since 1968 a passive approach has provided better returns then 85% of all active funds. And so far 2013 is no exception. Through August 31 2013 my passive approach had returned 11.68%. Was much higher, but August was a down month. I use a global approach and use all markets, a small cap value tilt to US and international, and maintain an asset allocation + or - 2%. The only change I made in early 2013 was to take the bond allocation to short term and international.

Every fund is a very low cost index fund. Perhaps you did better, but only if you had much more risk exposure.

I have found that a low cost passive index approach is the most profitable way to gain market returns.