I never thought the author of "Winning the Loser's Game" would write an article that provides any type of defense for active investment management. I believe most investors should read the article "Active Investment Management Misses The Mark." This article explains four reasons why active investment managers cannot manage a product that outperforms passive investment options, net-of-fees, on a consistent basis, over time. Going forward, it will be harder for active investment managers to add performance value (ie make me more money), because passive investment options are gaining more market share. This in turn means that in the future investor capital will be allocated to publicly traded company stock based on its weighting in a given index, versus a weighting based on he fundamental or technical factors that active managers evaluate. The implications of this point are very important to consider. Therefore, the question everyone should be asking is "what happens when all money is passively managed, in a market where money is systematically allocated to companies based on their market cap weight, their price-level weight, their revenue-weight, or on equal weight in relation to their respective index?" Such a system raises a host of issues that will have to be addressed, such as the future importance and power that will be indirectly placed on index committees that have the ability to add or remove a company from an index based on their arbitrary discretion. With that said, most investors simply want to make money. Therefore, index funds will likely continue to gain market share at a dramatic rate. Who would have ever thought that small investors could do so much, for so long, with so little. With index funds, investors can do anything, with nothing at all, in no time flat!