This is just another article bashing active management. There is nothing new here, only a recycled list of items that are open for debate. I obviously do disagree with the notion that passive investing is superior to active management - and vica versa. Honestly, I don't think its an either / or argument. Passive investing is merely another style - like growth or value, etc. and indexing should be treated as part of an over all asset allocation. The notion that anybody has a lock on the best way to invest for all people in all market cycles and of all risk tolerances is absurd and arrogant. For example, how's that index fund working out for you this year? And oh by the way, where should I index next year?

The bigger issue though, in my opinion, is why CFAI chooses to aggressively discredit its constituents - financial analysts. If the constant barrage of articles espousing passive management and the strict view that EMH always holds is the point of view of this organization then why don't we go ahead and shut it down, or at least change the name to something that better reflects the ideals that are being promoted. I don't think I would have taken those three exams, paid dues for fifteen or twenty years and participated on the local Society boards to the extent that I did if I knew that CFAI would become this belligerent towards its members.