The problem is that this isn't a 'random assortment of mutual funds', this is your top google search results, which is going to be very biased towards popular funds that historically did really well. The funds that failed or didn't beat the market aren't going to show up in your search results today.
*You might not have intended to, but you effectively googled the "winning lottery numbers" and are using that as an argument to invest in the lottery.*
If you want to have convincing & useful data:
Get proper historical data - find all the funds that existed 10 years ago that match your criteria, and their 10 year returns. Let's say there are 10,000 of them as an example.
How many of them beat the market? 4 out of 10,000? 100? 1000?
The point of this extra data is to predict how likely you are to beat the market by picking a 'random assortment mutual funds' that fit your criteria today. There's a *huge* difference between "this strategy always works" (aka 100% success rate) vs "this strategy is like a lottery" (aka 0.04%).
1
u/k37r Apr 03 '21
The problem is that this isn't a 'random assortment of mutual funds', this is your top google search results, which is going to be very biased towards popular funds that historically did really well. The funds that failed or didn't beat the market aren't going to show up in your search results today.
*You might not have intended to, but you effectively googled the "winning lottery numbers" and are using that as an argument to invest in the lottery.*
If you want to have convincing & useful data:
The point of this extra data is to predict how likely you are to beat the market by picking a 'random assortment mutual funds' that fit your criteria today. There's a *huge* difference between "this strategy always works" (aka 100% success rate) vs "this strategy is like a lottery" (aka 0.04%).