I was surprised to read in Hounded by Twitter (Financial Adviser, 2 June 2016) that your correspondent (columnist Jeff Prestridge) was complaining of being hounded for his views on active fund management, not least by me. The Twitter exchange he refers to was, in fact, polite and respectful.
Mr Prestridge also fails to address the important issue I raised in the blog post that appears to have riled him – namely the inherent conflicts of interest in investment journalism.
In your article, I am referred to as an “ardent supporter of passives”, but this isn’t about active versus passive at all. It’s about helping readers, listeners and viewers to make sensible investment decisions.
The heavily marketed, high-fee funds the media has typically touted over the years – and continues to do so – have served investors extremely poorly, as research by the likes of S&P Dow Jones, Morningstar and Cass Business School has consistently demonstrated.
The fund industry spends a fortune on advertising, PR and corporate hospitality, so to suggest, as your article does, that none of this impacts in any way on editorial coverage is simply just not credible. For all of us who want to see better outcomes for end investors, this is a debate we need to be having.
Robin Powell
The Evidence-Based Investor, Birmingham UK
.png?source=design-system&width=126)
