Does passive investing always beat active management over time?
I've watched my 401(k) swing wildly this year, and reading that passive index funds consistently outperform most active managers over a decade makes me question my own stock-picking habits. My friend who day-trades tech shares brags about gains, but his net returns after fees rarely beat my boring S&P 500 tracker. Yet when markets crash, I see the active crowd claim that flexibility helps them dodge the worst—so is that just survivorship bias, or does genuine skill edge out over time? I'm searching for a rule I can follow without constant anxiety, and honestly, I'm torn between trusting the data that says 'buy and hold everything' and the part of me that wants to act when things look cheap. How do you decide where your money belongs when the experts themselves keep moving the goalposts?