His point about the biases of the S&P 500 are valid but his conclusions are not. There's a point where even he acknowledges that hedge funds saw comparable per

His point about the biases of the S&P 500 are valid but his conclusions are not. There's a point where even he acknowledges that hedge funds saw comparable performance to a separate passive fund (MSCI All World I think?). Even if his thesis around the S&P 500's value is correct (which I agree with) it doesn't mean that passive investments as a whole will be outperformed by equivalent hedge funds. I'd be curious to see what the performance of hedge funds that were effectively "US-only" was, my suspicion is that they weren't in line with the S&P further invalidating his conclusions.