No, I don't think actively managed funds are a thing of the past. There's no doubt that passive investing has grown exponentially over the last decade, but it's not something that will ever replace active management. Here's why:
Passive funds can't beat the market over time. They're designed to match it, not beat it. They don't have access to information before everyone else does—they don't see corporate secrets or get access to insider knowledge on how to make money off of them. So if you pick one of these funds and just hold onto it for 20 years or so, you'll be buying shares when they're high and selling them when they're low… just like everyone else who owns one of these funds!
Also, passive investing is boring as hell! Sure, if you want to sleep through your retirement years and never worry about your investments again, then sure; passive investing might be for you. But if you want something with more excitement (and risk), then you need active management—because that's where the real money is made.
Yes, I think it's true that actively managed funds are a thing of the past. I'll explain why and then provide examples of how this applies to real-life situations.
The reason I believe this is true is because active funds are expensive, and passive ones are less expensive. The average cost of an index fund is about 0.13% per year, whereas the average cost for an actively managed fund is about 1%.
This means that if you have $10,000 invested in a passive fund and $10,000 invested in an actively managed one, your passive investment will grow by over $100 more than your active one over 10 years! So if you want to invest in something that will make you money and save money at the same time, choose an index fund instead of an active one!