Correct me if I'm reading this incorrectly, but this is what the article says: "The Nicholas Fund, which he has run since 1969, has topped the Standard & Poor’

Correct me if I'm reading this incorrectly, but this is what the article says: "The Nicholas Fund, which he has run since 1969, has topped the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index by an average of 2 percentage points a year for the past 40 years and has beaten it every year since 2008." Does this not mean that it has not, in fact, "been beating S&P 500 for 40 years"? Very misleading title if this is the case. And a lot of the comments I'm reading here seem to have indeed been mislead into thinking that it has beaten S&P consecutively for 40 years. That said, index funds' popularity is part performance, part cost. Were costs factored into these performance metric? If not, I wonder how much of the 2% gains would have been passed on to the individual investor, if any at all.