Of course the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway follows none of that advice himself, but he has consistently said that most investors including his own wife would be better off with a low - fee S&P 500 index fund rather than paying expensive active managers so it's certainly not out of characte
Of course the CEO
of Berkshire Hathaway follows none of that advice himself, but he has consistently said that most investors including his own wife would be better off with a low - fee S&P 500 index fund rather than paying expensive active managers so it's certainly not out of characte
of Berkshire Hathaway follows
none of that advice himself, but he has consistently said that most investors including his own wife would be better off with a low - fee S&P 500 index fund rather than paying expensive active managers so it's certainly not out of characte
of that advice himself, but he has consistently said that most investors including his own wife would be better off with a low - fee S&P 500 index
fund rather than paying expensive
active managers so it's certainly not out
of characte
of character.
None of the objections to index
funds are valid: yes, a majority
of active funds may occasionally beat the index but John Bogle estimates the odds
of an index outperforming an
active fund at 85 % over 5 years, 91 % over 10 years, 95 % over 20 years and 98 % over 50 years.