[ex-nypd]

Apparently the author does not include sector funds in his analysis. I have been investing in 19 of Fidelity’s sector funds for quite some time and my records show that the average of these funds have beaten the S&P 500 handily over the past 1-3-5-10 year periods according to stats given as of 2-28-15. For 1 year S&P is up 15.4% versus sectors funds 17.6%. 3 years, S&P up 17.9% vs sectors 23.2%.5 years, S&P up 16.1%, vs. sectors up 20.8%, and lastly for 10 years, S&P up 7.9% while the sectors rose 12.1%. The funds that I hold include FDFAX, FSMEX, FSCSX, FDLSX,FSRPX, FSRFX,FSDPX,FCYIX,FSCHX,FPHAX,FSDAX,FBSOX,FSPHX,FBIOX,FBMPX,FSHOX,FASIX,FSHCX and FSELX.

[Synthesist]

The main point of the study referred to in the article is that actively managed mutual funds (where stocks are bought, held, or sold by the decision of an “expert” money manager) mostly fail to beat their associated market index benchmark. I don’t think sector funds are considered as being actively managed.

[Synthesist]

And I should add that I agree with your point that the study should have been more focused on what were the best mutual fund investments overall, instead of being limited to just mainly pointing out the failure of active managers to beat market index benchmarks.

Congratulations on your sector fund investment gains, those are some impressive numbers!