Deliberations on how to construct an equity portfolio are endless – claiming evidence on active versus passive, concentrated versus diversified, value versus growth etc. Healthy debate is welcomed, yet the rationale of why one is better than the other is one-sided as each proponent makes a case for their preconceived stance that suits a vested interest.

Active managers do underperform passive, on average. Why can’t a group of clever people beat a systematic index that does not have any idea of the future?