Wealth Professional forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Notify me of new replies via email
Wealth Professional | 05 Jan 2016, 08:15 AM Agree 0
The year’s numbers have been rung in and early results suggest active managers continue to falter against their passive peers
  • Vic | 05 Jan 2016, 11:50 AM Agree 0
    Just for the record if you owned 485 out of the 500 stocks in the S&P 500 you would have been down last year. That is 3% of the index So why are we not looking at the top 3% of managers to see if they beat the index. Active mangers usually outperform in down markets. It's tough on the up side when the list of leaders are so narrow. They also have a duty to the investor not to blow up by buying a handful of high flyers.
  • Mike Gentile | 05 Jan 2016, 12:26 PM Agree 0
    your chances of underperformance are greater if you pick the wrong fund and the wrong manager. If on the other hand you pick the right manager and the right fund with the help of your advisor you will improve your chances greatly.
  • John Horwood | 05 Jan 2016, 12:45 PM Agree 0
    Highlights also the index risk. Do we want massive positions in these companies? Do indexers really know what they own?
    And tax is a major issue..
  • Robert Roby | 05 Jan 2016, 05:23 PM Agree 0
    one other comment. The two stocks you mentioned NetFlix and Amazon have had and still have pe ratio's that do not support their gains. Just watch and see what happens this year to these two. Also, since the TSX is financial and energy driven I am happy to have staid out of these non active investments.
Post a reply