I fear the investment mosaic on passive vs active and human vs algorithm is painting "active management" with a very distorted brush. Industry veterans say the "value" of investment management is headed to zero and they are unapologetic in advising standardized MPT/ETF models for the masses. So, momentum is behind smarter phones, smarter medicine, and overly simplified investment advice?

We private wealth managers who focus on proactive and integrated goals-based solutions should not be aggregated with the "active managers" who struggle to exploit price and value discovery through manufactured One:Many distribution models, a la a single Large-Cap Growth Mutual Fund.

Rather, there are thousands of Chartered Financial Analysts who consider themselves appropriately "active" and who utilize a full toolkit of passive and active strategies to give clients more optimal outcomes that are rightly focused on client-centric investment policy statements. Active alpha-generators and value discovery are plentiful when you consider the unique needs of private investors: taxes, qualitative sensitivities, etc.

Pablo Piccasso loved to create distorted images--Let's not paint all "active managers" with the same brush! With Gratitude, Michael