"Still, those two funds did manage to perform splendidly in that study. Their stubborn persistence at the top of the heap over that five-year period suggested t

"Still, those two funds did manage to perform splendidly in that study. Their stubborn persistence at the top of the heap over that five-year period suggested that there was some hope for active fund managers. If they could do it, after all, others could, too." If the authors expected randomly picking stocks to churn out 3 mutual funds that beat the market 5 years in a row then this explanation is nonsense. Their "stubborn persistence" is just an empty narrative slapped over a blatant case of survivorship bias. This paragraph makes it seem like whoever wrote it didn't understand any of the rest of the article.