This article from The Motley Fool provides insight on the average performance of actively managed mutual funds from ~5 years ago:

Growth fund managers fared even worse, with just 6% of growth funds beating their benchmark -- the worst such result since at least 1991. The average margin of underperformance reached a whopping 3.5 percentage points.

If it becomes harder and harder to beat the large indexes, why would one still go with actively managed mutual funds? My understanding is that they are also more pricey, expense ratio-wise, and come with more tax hurdles. Furthermore, I'd assume that modern technology like robo-advisors is going places.

  • Advantages of mutual funds compared to what? Compared to picking your own stocks? Compared to a savings account? You have some inaccurate assumptions in your post, but answering is problematic until you clarify what you are looking for.
    – Ben Miller
    Mar 31, 2020 at 4:08
  • @BenMiller-RememberMonica Seeing that they are compared with "a benchmark", and seeing that most benchmarks are some indices, and seeing that indices are often replicated with ETFs, and seeint that ETFs are very widespreadly used, I'd think that the OP probably means "advantages over ETFs". But there are a lot of assumptions. in my thinking.
    – glglgl
    Mar 31, 2020 at 10:11
  • 2
    I’m going to assume that you are asking about any potential advantages of actively managed funds over index funds (including ETFs), since that is what the article is about. And if that is the case, it has been discussed previously. I will edit your question to provide this clarity, then suggest a duplicate question. If you were intending to ask something else, please edit your question.
    – Ben Miller
    Mar 31, 2020 at 11:21


Browse other questions tagged .