Active vs. Passive Investing and Anti-Intellectualism

How index funds became the participation trophy of investing: The anti-intellectual movement to convince active investors that thinking is dangerous and algorithmic surrender is sophisticated

In his latest Morningstar piece, Larry Swedroe argues that "active investing is a loser's game" because markets are "highly efficient," making individual stock selection futile. His solution: Buy index funds, embrace factor-based strategies and "avoid the temptation" to think independently about investments. Swedroe claims this represents the "winner's game" — essentially calling for algorithmic surrender disguised as academic sophistication.

But this manifesto reads like a user manual for the chronically incurious — the same people who need their news in tweet format, their relationships filtered through dating apps and their entertainment pre-selected by Netflix algorithms. His central claim represents the most spectacular failure of basic mathematical reasoning since someone decided NFTs were a good investment.

The arithmetic that academic finance forgot

Finance professors apparently need a remedial class in statistics. Swedroe argues investors should abandon active management because "the odds are so poor that it's not prudent to try." But here's the mathematical reality he's desperately hoping you won't notice: By definition, exactly 50% of all investors must outperform any given average.

This isn't controversial financial theory — it's elementary arithmetic. When academics claim "most investors can't beat the market," they're stating a mathematical tautology while pretending it's profound insight. Of course most investors can't beat the average; that's literally what makes it the average. The relevant question isn't whether everyone can be above average (impossible), but whether you can identify which side of that distribution you belong on.

The academic sleight of hand works by conflating "average investor returns" with "S&P 500 index returns," but these are completely different concepts. The S&P 500 isn't some natural law — it's an arbitrary list of 500 companies selected by a committee that can change the rules whenever the members feel like it.

The circular logic that broke finance

Swedroe recommends "systematic, transparent and replicable strategies, such as using index funds" because markets are "highly efficient." But this creates an immediate logical paradox: if everyone followed his advice and went passive, there would be no market prices to passively track.

Every stock price in his beloved indices was set by active investors making individual judgments about company valuations. When Apple trades at $190, that's not because an algorithm determined the "correct" price — it's because active investors decided that's what Apple shares are worth. The index is simply a mathematical summary of millions of individual active decisions.

With passive funds absorbing $244 billion while active funds hemorrhage $257 billion, we're witnessing the systematic removal of price discovery from capital markets. This creates "price distortions" and "increased idiosyncratic volatility" that "discourages active institutional investors from correcting mispricing.” That means passive investors are buying assets at prices distorted by their own algorithmic purchases.

The data destroys the theory

Here's what Swedroe desperately wants you to ignore: People who actually think for themselves consistently outperform the algorithmic crowd. Funds with the highest Active Share — meaning they actually deviate from benchmark holdings — beat their benchmarks by 2.55% annually after all fees, while "closet indexers" with low Active Share consistently underperform both "concentrated stock pickers" and "diversified stock pickers" demonstrate "stock-picking ability" and "even after fees and transaction costs the most active of them beat their benchmarks.” Meanwhile, the worst performers are exactly the funds following Swedroe's playbook — “closet indexers" who "call themselves actively managed, but the variance between their holdings and concomitant tracking error renders them effectively passive in all but name.”

The cultural cost of cognitive outsourcing

But the most damaging aspect of Swedroe's prescription isn't the mediocre returns — it's the intellectual atrophy it produces. When he advocates "avoiding the temptation to chase performance, time the market or make frequent portfolio changes," he's not just attacking stock-picking. He's attacking the entire concept of independent financial judgment.

This is the TLDR (too long; didn't read) generation's approach to capital allocation: why bother understanding individual companies when you can just buy everything and call it diversification? It's the same mindset that swipes right based on three photos, trades meme stocks because Reddit said so and considers Love Island a reasonable substitute for actual intellectual engagement.

Active investing isn't just about beating indices — it's about maintaining the cognitive muscles required for every major financial decision in modern life. When you analyze whether Tesla (TSLA) deserves a $600 billion valuation, you're developing pattern recognition skills that help you evaluate whether that condo in Austin, Texas, is fairly priced. You practice probability thinking that translates directly to career decisions and entrepreneurial ventures.

Swedroe's world produces highly credentialed financial illiterates: people who can recite Modern Portfolio Theory but get fleeced buying whole life insurance, who understand efficient market hypotheses but somehow believe they can time real estate purchases with perfect precision.

The anti-intellectual endgame

Here's the most damning aspect of Swedroe's philosophy: Even if you're destined to be in the lower 50% of investment performance, the cognitive benefits of active investing make the exercise worthwhile. Learning to analyze balance sheets, assess competitive advantages and think probabilistically about uncertain outcomes creates mental frameworks that improve every financial decision you'll make for the rest of your life.

When you've wrestled with DCF models and margin of safety calculations, you approach mortgage shopping with analytical rigor instead of relying on whatever the bank's algorithm approves. When you understand how leverage amplifies both gains and losses, you structure your household budget with genuine appreciation for financial risk. When you've experienced the psychology of holding losing positions, you negotiate salary increases and major purchases with better emotional discipline.

This brain training extends far beyond finance. Active investors develop pattern recognition that helps them spot cultural trends, business opportunities and career inflection points before they become obvious. They learn to synthesize information from multiple sources, weigh competing narratives and make decisions despite uncertainty — exactly the skills required for entrepreneurship, management and most forms of intellectual work.

But Swedroe's passive investing philosophy is fundamentally anti-intellectual. He's essentially arguing this: "Don't bother learning this cognitive skill because you probably won't be elite at it." Imagine applying this logic to music education: "Most people can't become concert pianists, so nobody should learn piano." Or sports: "Most players won't make the pros, so physical education is pointless."

We don't discourage people from learning instruments because only a few become virtuosos. We encourage musical education because it develops cognitive abilities, aesthetic appreciation and personal fulfillment that enriches life regardless of how well it’s performed. The same logic applies to active investing — the analytical skills, risk assessment capabilities and financial literacy you develop are valuable whether you beat the S&P 500 or not.

The mathematical reality remains unchanged: Exactly 50% of investors will outperform whatever "average" emerges from this process. But even more importantly, 100% of people who seriously engage with active investing will develop cognitive capabilities that make them better decision-makers in every aspect of life.

Academic finance has convinced an entire generation that independent financial analysis represents dangerous overconfidence requiring immediate algorithmic therapy. That's not wisdom — it's intellectual surrender disguised as sophistication. The real winner's game isn't avoiding the challenge of thinking; it's embracing the cognitive benefits that come from wrestling with complex, uncertain problems where the stakes are real and the feedback is immediate. Even "losing" active investors develop essential cognitive skills that passive investors will never acquire.

But here's where this whole debate gets suffocated by the same binary stupidity that's poisoned every other conversation in modern life. Swedroe wants you to believe investing is like choosing between Team Red and Team Blue — you're either a winner (passive) or loser (active), with no middle ground allowed. This is the kind of reductive thinking that turns complex subjects into Twitter polls.

The actual world doesn't work in academic binaries. Smart people can simultaneously appreciate that index funds serve a purpose while recognizing that delegating all financial thinking to algorithms makes you intellectually lazy. You can hold both thoughts without your brain exploding.

So for those who skipped to the end because reading is hard: 

• The math guarantees you have a nearly even odds of beating the average (assuming low, to zero, commission transactions)
• Active investing teaches cognitive skills that improve every aspect of your financial life. 
• Savvy investors combine both approaches instead of surrendering to either academic orthodoxy or meme-stock mania.

The choice isn't between being a closet indexer and a crypto degenerate — it's between refining the cognitive skills that make you competitive as a human vs. joining the algorithmic herd that's forgotten how to think.

Jeff Joseph is head of content for tastylive at IG and Luckbox magazine editorial director and publisher.

For live daily programming, market news and commentary, visit tastylive or the YouTube channels tastylive (for options traders), and tastyliveTrending for stocks, futures, forex & macro.

Trade with a better broker, open a tastytrade account today. tastylive, Inc. and tastytrade, Inc. are separate but affiliated companies.