Indexing: Investment management goes passive.

The case for passive investing is pretty persuasive, as Jonathon Clements points out in this Wall Street Journal column (subscribers only):

Before costs, investors collectively earn the market's performance. After costs, they must -- as a group -- lag behind. Logically, it can't be any other way.

For instance, over the past 25 calendar years, U.S. stock funds have clocked an average 11.9% a year, according to an analysis of Lipper data by Vanguard Group, the Malvern, Pa., fund company. That is well behind the 13.5% annual gain for the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index, calculated by Chicago's Ibbotson Associates.

Damning statistics like this have been kicking around for years. By the 1960s, we had the computer power, market data and analytical tools needed to study investors' performance -- and the results weren't pretty. It became abundantly clear that even professional stock pickers weren't beating the market.

Although Vanguard introduced the first index fund in 1976, so-called passive investing has only gained significant momentum in recent years. Clements cites two reasons:

1. The emergence of fee-based financial advisers, who can recommend low-cost index funds without taking a personal financial hit.

2. The introduction of Exchange-Traded Funds. ETFs allow brokers to give clients the benefits of indexing while collecting the same commission they would get from a stock transaction.

Currently nearly 10% of all long-term mutual-fund assets are in index funds. See The Great Race, a free WSJ article. ETFs are fast proliferating and now account for almost a third of all passive-investment funds.

Nevertheless, Clements doesn't expect active investment management to go away anytime soon. I tend to agree. Any contrary opinions?