[deadbeeves]

Couldn't this just be statistical noise? 2% isn't a huge difference, and if you partition stock funds into two arbitrary groups it's almost certain that one will on average perform better than the other, but not by a lot. The next question to ask should be how much better are stock managers who have an odd number of hairs on their head, compared to those who have an even number.

[richardw]

> 2% isn't a huge difference

2% per annum is a spectacular difference, compounded. Careers and fortunes are made of that.

[scott_w]

If you collect enough data over a long enough time period, it’s absolutely possible to see a 2% uplift and it be statistically significant.

[fallingknife]

If you look at the abstract it's 2% per annum, which is an absolutely massive difference in terms of ROI.

[deadbeeves]

So what's the actual relative difference? The absolute difference is completely useless in this context.

[cma]

Absolute or relative? Login wall to get past the abstract.