I don’t understand what point you are trying to make.
Specific stocks being bad investments is not an argument against passive investing. The whole point of index funds is to diversify your portfolio so you track the overall market, not any specific stock or group of stocks.
If you are assuming you know which stocks/sectors are under or overvalued, then I guess active investing makes sense, but that seems like a flawed premise to start from.
You aren’t tracking the whole market. An index is a subset. Even total market indices have weightings which embed biases. And the whole game has been reverse engineered by charlatans to dump crap into rivers of blind money. If think capital offerings aren’t designed explicitly to target index inclusion criteria then you aren’t in on the joke.
> And the whole game has been reverse engineered by charlatans to dump crap into rivers of blind money. If think capital offerings aren’t designed explicitly to target index inclusion criteria then you aren’t in on the joke.
This is an interesting and plausible take, just wondering if you have actual published resources on that or is it your personal, arguably justified hunch?
Specific stocks being bad investments is not an argument against passive investing. The whole point of index funds is to diversify your portfolio so you track the overall market, not any specific stock or group of stocks.
If you are assuming you know which stocks/sectors are under or overvalued, then I guess active investing makes sense, but that seems like a flawed premise to start from.