[player24]

I keep hearing, in this forum, about comparisons between actively managed mutual funds and the S&P 500 - and as soon as someone produces some data which show that actively managed funds have outperformed, the comparison with the S&P 500 is labeled as "apples versus oranges". Most index funds are, in fact, benchmarked to the S&P 500 - broader market indices to not make good benchmarks for passively managed funds (because the funds will usually have to be underweighted the smaller cap names in the index). I own FSTMX from Fidelity - but it is not considered a genuine index fund, for the aforementioned reason.

Never-the-less, I'll play along. ---> Returns of multi-cap value funds were 10.73%, 10.08%, 6.22%, 10,14% over the past 1, 3, 5, and 10 years respectively. These funds beat the S&P 500 index funds in each of the aforementioned periods. Is the Beta of these funds, in aggregate, materially higher than the Beta of the S&P 500? I am not aware that this is the case.

However, making comparisons to the Russell 2000 index, which by design represents small cap equities (many of which are too small to be overweighted in actively managed funds) does not alter the outcome. The Russell 2000 has returned 8.05%, 9.46%, -1.35% and 10.05% over the past 1, 3, 5 and 10 years respectively. It looks to me like the actively managed funds outperformed. (And these are only the averages, the better performing mutual funds killed the indices).

Past performance may not be indicative of future results - but to distort the historical facts (from the recent 10 years) is unwise.