I haven't seen the report prepared by ChatGPT, for Deloitte, for Generate, but I took the time to prepare my own. Prompt = Write a report comparing Generate's Focused Growth Fund, with a fee of 1.25%, to a total world index fund with a low expense ratio. The report should be written in a style consistent with its title, "How I learned to stop worrying about the price of discovery and love VT." Based on my report, I think the days of chanting the "net return after fees" mantra are numbered. Apparently, what looks like outperformance is more likely a head-start advantage; once the low cost index and passive funds start entering the 10-Year columns in the Morningstar report, game on.

I wrote this on LinkedIn, but it is worth repeating here: I must be stupid, because when I read a blog S&P just published........ I think it says that it is right to judge a broad collection of active global share funds against a single benchmark that absolutely none of them use, yet you should only judge the performance of passive funds against its own specific benchmark. No one could be this stupid right, so I must be stupid for reading it incorrectly. Actually - here it is, so judge for yourself and call me stupid: "For active funds, a key question is whether the fund outperformed a relevant benchmark. For passive funds, the focus is typically on tracking difference and tracking error, which measure how closely a fund follows its benchmark. A passive fund that follows benchmark performance, less fees, would generally be considered to have fulfilled its objective. Applying an analytical framework designed for active funds to passive funds would therefore not address the objective that passive funds are designed to achieve."

Great to hear the SIFA culture lives on!