There is an old saying in the fund industry that "past performance does not represent future performance", but when people buy funds, they often want to draw cakes for the future with past performance. In actively managed funds, this problem cannot be solved. Fund managers may change jobs and the policy background will change. However, in passive index funds, the index itself, especially the broad-based index itself, still has rules to follow, which makes the broad-based index funds, such as those tracking the CSI 300 and CSI 500, more directional.
This is not to deny the fixed investment operation of active management funds. As far as my uncle knows, some people do make money by investing in active management funds. But behind this is the investor's vision and luck, as well as the active profit-taking operation. In contrast, fixed investment index funds rely less on luck factors, and the reference to take profit is more clear.
The problem of closed-end funds is that, at least in a few years, managers have no redemption pressure, liquidity pressure and motivation to expand their scale. Fund investors who are dissatisfied with the fund management can only transfer their fund shares in the secondary market, and cannot redeem their fund shares from the fund manager, which will not affect the fund scale managed by the fund manager and the corresponding fund management fee income. Similarly, the fixity of fund shares cannot increase the income of fund managers. Under such a mechanism, fund managers lack enthusiasm, and the final result is to undermine investors' confidence and induce moral hazard.