This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

The article fails on its base premise by orangejubilee

From the article: "Of course, we know that active managers and their armies of analysts don’t always get it right. But without their work, securities are much more likely to be mispriced. That’s because active managers are better at valuation analysis than the mom and pop investors in index funds." (emphasis mine)

If the bolded part were true, wouldn't active managers have returns greater than the market index? By any definition of "mispriced securities" such knowledge should lead to outsized gains. The fact it hasn't shows this premise to be false.

50% of analysts overpricing something and 50% underpricing something doesn't add anything to efficient capital allocation, except fees.