Well done for raising this Anthony - as some industry participants continue to spin misinformation to support self interest. Looking forward to seeing the appropriate reaction by the regulator

I always find this debale along with the one about Value ir Growth rather silly. As a portfolio manager your job is to build the portfolio with the highest probability of achieving the clients stated goals with the least amount of 'risk' necessary to do so. That means using the full toolkit of avaikable asset classes, strategies and instruments including active, passive, value, growth, alternative, physical, real, ethical, trend etc Purely passive index type funds give you roughly the same return as their underlying benchmark less a few to 50 basus points in fee drag. For many simple portfolios or where fees are a major consideration they are a good option for providing the cheap Beta that drives most equity markets. For those who need a higher rate of return to meet their targets active management offers that potential providing the manager can demonstrate ongoing good selection skill. Slide 35 of this recent presentation inicates that the returns of the average Balanced Kiwisaver's actual asset class weights have beaten the average policy weighted benchmark by around 43 basis points before fees when measured using a common set of asset class return proxies - in this case the SMART ETF's. See: https://lnkd.in/p/egiKwMNH

The FID Business lost its identify post Miton Jennings exit - as a Business it was always different to other participants in the market - less Corporate and more Kiwi - very sad to see this diminish from the business over the recent decade.