Trust dualstow to call a spade a spade!!dualstow wrote:Sheer stupidity. What do you do with that information?Kbg wrote:Several finance boards are now posting that all portfolios are "active" as a basic underlying premise..
.get overly dogmatic...
It's like telling an Inuit that cold doesn't exist; it's just the absence of heat where molecules are not in motion.
An excuse to tinker.
And stupid.
I think I defined active vs passive already. Passive = trading in order to maintain a pre-set asset allocation. Active = buying and selling in response to an individual's prediction of future market trends. Agreed?
The results of passive vs. active investing is not a subject for debate. It's been well established by now that a low-cost, passive approach overwhelmingly beats active trading over long time frames, not to mention that passive investing incurs less of a tax burden. The PP was designed to be exceptionally low cost and tax-efficient.
Question for the market-timers on this board: are you aware of the above and if so, why do you choose to market time?