I think the same trope applies to the classic thinking of “passive investing is always better than active investing”
Historically, yes. But in the future? Who knows! (This is also exactly what the article we’re commenting on is speculating, that the characteristics of ETFs in the market has changed substantially over the past 10-20 years, which is indeed an argument that past performance isn’t proof of future performance.
But we have to take into account that the active traders have been repeatedly making the same claim. How many times is one allowed to make the a similar claim before losing credibility...
Recall Warren Buffett' bet vs Hedge Funds
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/030916/buffe...
Notably the period included an interval of a stock-market collapse and massive volatility - where smart decisions ought to have mattered more.
So the credibility of the above statement that this time will might be different feels severely weakened.