Just saw a stat that basically broke my brain. Makes you wonder about the whole indexing debate, right? Sure, you could spin this the other way and argue it proves active management has merit. But here's the thing - when you factor in how brutally hard it is to consistently pick winners, plus those management fees eating into returns... yeah, I'm leaning toward this being a pretty solid argument for just parking money in indexes instead.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
10 Likes
Reward
10
6
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
GateUser-40edb63b
· 20h ago
Fees are truly a killer here. Most active fund managers can't even outperform the index, yet they still charge a 2% management fee. Isn't that just a joke?
View OriginalReply0
FlashLoanLarry
· 23h ago
That thing called fees is really an invisible way of fleecing users. Looking at the returns, actually most of it has already been eaten up.
View OriginalReply0
MemecoinTrader
· 23h ago
lmao the fee structure thesis is where active managers lose me every single time... like yeah maybe you're a genius but are you *that* genius? probably not enough to beat index + drag
Reply0
SmartContractRebel
· 23h ago
Fees are truly a hidden killer—most people have never calculated how much hard-earned money they've paid to fund managers.
View OriginalReply0
CryptoNomics
· 23h ago
lol the fact that people still think they can beat market-cap-weighted indices is statistically hilarious. let me run a quick regression analysis on your thesis here... yeah, the correlation between active manager alpha and fee drag basically collapses to near zero. empirical evidence doesn't lie, even if traders' egos do.
Reply0
BlockDetective
· 23h ago
The fees are really outrageous; losing half of your profits isn't just a dream.
Just saw a stat that basically broke my brain. Makes you wonder about the whole indexing debate, right? Sure, you could spin this the other way and argue it proves active management has merit. But here's the thing - when you factor in how brutally hard it is to consistently pick winners, plus those management fees eating into returns... yeah, I'm leaning toward this being a pretty solid argument for just parking money in indexes instead.