Your Fund Family Has Outperformed? Yeah, Right

Key Takeaways

• SPIVA provides survivorship‑adjusted, net‑of‑fees comparisons.
• Fund families often use inception dates that favor performance.
• Three‑year windows mask long‑term underperformance trends.
• Gross‑of‑fees figures can overstate investor returns.
• Statistical tests differentiate skill from luck in fund returns.

Summary

The FT Alphaville piece exposes how active fund families, exemplified by Capital Group, cherry‑pick start dates, benchmarks, and gross‑of‑fees figures to make outperformance claims look better than they are. While Capital Group touts a 91% inception‑to‑2025 beat rate, net‑of‑fees numbers drop to 84% for equity and 74% for fixed income. The SPIVA scorecard, which corrects for survivorship bias, shows that 79% of large‑cap US equity funds underperformed the S&P 500 in 2025, and the gap widens to 93% over 20 years. The article argues that selective reporting is rational business behavior, not fraud, and offers three questions investors should ask to cut through the marketing spin.

Pulse Analysis

The SPIVA scorecard, produced annually by S&P Dow Jones Indices, is the industry’s most rigorous benchmark for active fund performance because it includes every fund, even those that have closed, and reports net‑of‑fees returns. By contrast, many fund families publish selective metrics—often gross of fees and anchored to favorable inception dates—that paint an artificially rosy picture. Understanding the methodological differences between SPIVA’s comprehensive, survivorship‑adjusted approach and the fragmented data released by managers is essential for any investor seeking a realistic view of active management’s track record.

Capital Group’s recent press release illustrates the typical tactics. It highlighted a 91% beat rate for equity strategies since inception, yet the same data fell to 84% once fees were deducted. Moreover, the “since inception” frame masks the fact that many funds launched during market troughs, giving them an inherent advantage. Choosing benchmarks that are easier to beat—such as comparing a global fund to a domestic index—further inflates apparent outperformance. These practices are not deceptive per se; they are driven by incentives to attract assets, but they can lead investors to overestimate the skill embedded in a fund’s performance.

For investors, the practical takeaway is to demand full, net‑of‑fees, survivorship‑adjusted performance data and to test whether excess returns are statistically significant. Tools like the t‑statistic calculator from Index Fund Advisors can reveal whether a fund’s alpha is likely due to skill or random chance. Asking three simple questions—benchmark choice, inception date rationale, and net‑of‑fees statistical significance—helps cut through marketing hype and aligns investment decisions with the true probability of achieving outperformance.