[drauh]

From the article: A report this past week from investment firm Sanford C. Bernstein, titled “The Silent Road to Serfdom: Why Passive Investing Is Worse than Marxism,”

"serfdom", "Marxism"... Let me guess: Libertarian Party propagandist.

[twblalock]

> Let me guess: Libertarian Party propagandist.

Or just someone who is well-read and likes to throw in literary references.

[0xCMP]

> > Let me guess: Libertarian Party propagandist.

> Or just someone who is well-read and likes to throw in literary references.

~libertarian here: don't know him, but I'd bet he is what op thinks

[bloatisgood]

Isn't active investing a zero sum game? Imagine a market with only two people and an average ROI of 7%. If then somebody has a 10% ROI through active investing then it follows that other one who also invests actively only gets a 4% ROI%.

With passive investing you invest in a stock because you think the company's value will grow in the future. They are building a new factory or entering a new market, etc... The added value will be represented by a higher stock price which you can sell to obtain your investment returns.

>The social function of active management, in a capitalist society, is that it seeks to direct capital to its most productive end, facilitating sustainable job creation and a rise in the aggregate standard of living.

What if an actively managed fund gives me a 10% return but a 4% fee and a passively managed fund gives me a 8% return but only a 1% fee? Wouldn't the passively managed fund be the most productive from the investors point of view?

[nikcheerla]

I'm libertarian-ish, and I still have no clue how passive investing has anything to do with Marxism.

[AnimalMuppet]

To me, it's more saying "Paying us money is the way to freedom!"