Not exact matches
Turner: One of the things that people in the
industry often talk about when it comes to money
management is this barbell, where as you said you have low - cost, passive index tracking
funds and at the other end you have higher fees, higher
active share, things like private debt which you mentioned, and it's those in the middle that are charging higher fees for something that looks quite a lot like beta that are really going to struggle.
So the
active management industry is going to have to adapt, as are many of the employees who work on this side of the
fund world.
J.P. Morgan Asset
Management is also
active in Asia's nascent money market
fund industry.
The problem is that most investors pay too much for
active management, largely because the
fund industry is driven by commissioned salespeople.
But the growing popularity of index
funds and ETFs has largely been the result of the appalling record of
active management, and it has come despite the best efforts of the financial
industry, not because of it.
If so, what happens to the entire
fund industry built on the high fees associated with
active management?
Neil Woodford — BBC Hardtalk 30 minute interview This Stephen Sackur BBC interview with London Value Investor Conference speaker Neil Woodford covers a variety of topics including the reasons for Neil's stunning success as a
fund manager, the skill sets that he thinks are important for managers and entrepreneurs, his thoughts on the Eurozone; plus Neil also comments on the lack of value for money that the
fund management industry is providing to clients because many
funds are «taking fees for
active management and returning passive yields».
It doesn't matter if such arguments are logically sound or that there is a mountain of evidence supporting it — the
fund industry tenaciously markets any shred of «evidence» that shows the alleged superiority of
active management.