Its actually a very poorly written article, more clickbait than actually saying anything useful. Case in point, title says "active managers" ...but if you rea

Its actually a very poorly written article, more clickbait than actually saying anything useful. Case in point, title says "active managers" ...but if you read the article its actually "actively managed funds". Which means that before we've started we're already deep into Apples & Oranges comparisons with "index funds" vs "actively managed funds". "Index funds" are simple, they track an index. (oversimplified, there are technicalities, but we'll leave it at that). "Actively managed funds" meanwhile have a defined remit, and each fund will have a different remit. They might be limited as to sectors, company size, market technicalities or anything else. It is also likely the case that there is less interest in "actively managed funds" because if you are in the market for "actively managed" then you may well be constructing your own portfolio of individual equities rather than just buying a fund. Furthermore, "index funds" can be used by money managers as part of a balanced portfolio. For example, they might pick individual equities in markets/sectors that they are familiar with, and then use index funds for broader geographical or other coverage. So in essence the Yahoo article is a waste of words and is doing everyone a disservice, including the index funds it seeks to promote.