I didn't necessarily take him to be saying that. He is absolutely right that a market that is, quite literally, 100% passive would just sit there and not do anything -- it would just grow as money comes in, but there wouldn't be any relative movement of one share against another.
However, we are in no danger of running out of active traders, so there's no need for anyone to run out and sell their indexed investments to save the free market ...
Hmm, well, that wasn't the impression I got. Given the venue and audience, that part of the article felt more like it was giving fund managers the talking points they need to lure in unsavvy investors.
However, we are in no danger of running out of active traders, so there's no need for anyone to run out and sell their indexed investments to save the free market ...