(Continued from above)

Third, your overview of the papers of Cremers/Petajisto and Bartram/Grinblatt make it sound like active management and choosing outperforming active managers is easy (e.g. achieving outperformance only requires "rudimentary analysis of the most commonly reported accounting information").  If active management is so easy, shouldn't the many smart investors on Wall Street successfully engage in it and thus eliminate/arbitrage away those opportunities?

A request: in a Globe and Mail article, please let us know about your predictions re: active managers who will outperform using your active share methodology, and then revisit how those managers do relative to the relevant index benchmark annually for the next decade.  Hopefully your proficiency will make you the winner.

P.S. I love your arguments in favour of passive indexing (i.e. the S&P500 index is hard to beat,  active managers underperform in rising markets by holding cash).