[Dylan16807]

The claim is that there are no funds that can make a convincing argument that they will beat S&P.

When you say funds did "exactly that", the "exactly that" you're talking about is not the thing OP is asking for.

Taking on 90% of upside and 100% of downside is one way to make a convincing argument, and nobody does it.

Let's make the dice analogy. You can't make a convincing argument that you will roll a 5, even though people roll 5 all the time. Talking about people that rolled 5 in the past is proving entirely the wrong point.

[citizen_friend]

I think we are talking past each other and it’s not worth continuing this discussion.

The reason why no fund will take that deal is the market for investments is much more favorable to managers than that.

[Dylan16807]

> I think we are talking past each other

That's the problem. When you use the phrase "exactly that", you're making a claim that you're not talking past.

I agree that this is a talking past situation. But that makes your original post wrong, because of how you used the phrase "exactly that".

> The reason why no fund will take that deal

It's less about this specific deal and more about any deal that shows confidence.