To make commissions, these companies frequently promote pre-made investment products that might not be suitable for every client's particular circumstances. It also creates a conflict of interest.

Although it makes sense to assume that seasoned money managers and advisors would perform better than less experienced ones, we should really consider whether an experienced advisor can outperform a strategic manager. Most of the time, strategic management and customised planning perform better than conventional techniques.

Even with their experience, active fund managers are rarely able to consistently beat index funds. Compared to index counterparts, active fund managers generally perform worse after deducting expenses like taxes.

Active managers pay high fees, and these costs persist even in cases of underperformance. The majority of Wall Street-style managers frequently suffer double losses.

With their extensive advertising and substantial financial resources, large corporations project an illusion of power and trust that isn't always accurate. High-value investors, in particular, may find their wealth significantly impacted by these firms' exorbitant fees.

Perhaps our approach isn't suitable for you if, despite compelling evidence, you believe that active money management is superior. Strategic planning is the main focus of wealth management rather than trying to time the market or making educated guesses. However, many managers, similar to those on Wall Street and large banks, often overlook this.

In 2007, Warren Buffett famously wagered $1 million that over a ten-year period, the S&P 500 Index would beat a basket of actively managed funds. In 2017, he won the bet because the S&P 500 performed much better than actively managed funds. This was a compelling example of how passive investing techniques frequently perform better than active ones. To be clear, Buffett gave away his winnings to a good cause.