{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030864197530864196, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.425742574257426, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Is the End of History Passive?

A powerful investor trend towards passive over active management seems to have become the new normal in the investment industry. The passive “end of history” thesis has a kernel of empirical truth. Passivation, however, is an imperfect match to wealth management clients’ individual demand for capital preservation (stability), let-alone performance enhancement. Active management needs a more precise specification to deserve a role in client portfolios. A possible justification could be tackling the distinction between fuzzy assets (subjective and exposed to instability) vs. eigen assets (objective and stable).