Not sure why you were downvoted, it's true. A market competitor hasn't come out yet with a flat fee structure, but with the FinTech battle heating up between algorithmic advisors I believe its an inevitable product/price offering.
A billion dollars buys a lot of developer and data scientist time.
1. Studies that say "XX% of active managers don't beat an index" include every tiny poorly managed fund. The best attractive lots of capital; Bridgewater has $169 billion under management and has a long track record of large outperformance.
2. A lot of investors aren't trying to beat the market per se -- that's in your own link. If you own safe investments during a bull market, you underperform... but if it (ideally) makes you less susceptible to both boom and bust, that could be a good trade depending on what you're doing. If you're an insurance company or pension fund, you probably want stability more than squeezing every last basis point out of your investments.
Anyway, I could give you many criticisms of many aspects of finance, but I think "index > active management" is a bit simple.
1. Studies that say "XX% of active managers don't beat an index" include every tiny poorly managed fund. The best attractive lots of capital; Bridgewater has $169 billion under management and has a long track record of large outperformance.
The second study linked found
Only 0.6% — you read that right, 0.6% — showed any true skill at beating the market consistently, “statistically indistinguishable from zero,” the three researchers concluded.
So your cavets, whilst valid, I don't think go anywhere near disputing the central point.
A billion dollars buys a lot of developer and data scientist time.