But then, if you know this... have you switched any actively managed to funds to an S&P index fund? Why would this not be the obvious thing to do?
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/what-is-the-average-mutual-f...
It does note that that includes "the average for all mutual funds, including index funds." But if the answer is "oh yeah, the index funds bring up the average a lot"... why would anyone use anything but an index fund?
Is it going to be a lot lower than that over 20, even though that already includes 2008?
I admit this is all pretty confusing to me.
What returns would you consider acceptable over 10-20 years? Or do you not even look at past returns when deciding whether to keep your money in a given fund, or invest in a given fund?
“They will envy you for your success, your wealth, for your intelligence, for your looks, for your status - but rarely for your wisdom.” ― Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Bed of Procrustes: Philosophical and Practical Aphorisms
If not on past returns, how do you decide where to invest your money? Have you ever decided to remove your money from a fund, on what basis would you make that decision?
There is _no_ returns that would cause you to re-evaluate your current investments? If you were invested in a fund that had given you say an average of 0.5% a year over the past 10 years, that would not cause you to re-evaluate your investment?
What about dividing funds for investment in three parts?
1-> Give to an active investor you respect
2-> One third to an Index Fund
3-> Last manage it yourself.
Compare performance after 5 years :-)
So a conclusion might be: if you've been getting less than 8% (after fees) over ~10 years in any managed fund... you might want to reconsider your investments, seems like. But if you've been getting 8-10% or more, you're pretty good. Does that make sense?