Is passive investing always the better choice than active funds?
I've been comparing index funds and actively managed funds for my retirement portfolio, and the fee difference alone makes me lean toward passive investing. Over the past decade, the S&P 500 index fund returned around 13% annually before fees, while most active managers underperformed after costs. But I wonder—does the potential for higher returns in certain market conditions justify paying higher expense ratios, or is the consistent low-cost approach always the smarter play?