> The team selected the 25 percent of the funds with the best performance over the 12 months through June 2018. Then the analysts asked how many of those funds remained in the top quarter for the four succeeding 12-month periods through June 2022.
> The answer was none.
So it's more that being a top-performing fund in one year doesn't predict you'll be a top-performing fund in the next. 2k is a pretty significant sample size (though it's functionally less since many are tracking the same benchmarks & so should be highly correlated), large enough that we should anticipate dumb luck.
Corresponding index to the fund, usually called the benchmark. US Large cap mutual funds commonly compare against sp500. A small cap index might compare against Russell 2000. MSCI has a number of all-world indexes that a global fund could compare to.
Also can't access the story, but it seems safe to assume there are no funds that beat any index, no? The headline mentions the market, so if there were at least one fund that beat at least one of the market indices, it would seem difficult to maintain the claim.
Or are you responding to the blurb before the paywall?
> No actively managed stock or bond funds outperformed the market convincingly and regularly over the last five years. Index funds have generally been better.
So index funds have generally done better than managed funds in a consistent way. It might be more interesting to know which managed funds (if any) did better than an index fund, but I'm guessing the real purpose of the article is to suggest you may as well just buy the index funds.
