Ann: St James's Place Mandate, page-234

You have mistaken an alternative viewpoint as a slight against your age or your investment knowledge. It is evident you are very well versed in the industry, through both your age and research.

I don't question the below outperformance figures since inception. You have been richly rewarded for staying the course for a very long time. Well done.

The problem is if you didn't choose those those two funds - and you by the very nature of statistical probability, chose a fund that falls into the vast pool of under-performers, you wouldn't have been rewarded for a lifetime of loyalty.

That is to say, wouldn't it make more sense for someone to choose the option with the greatest odds.

You have pointed out Magellan and Platinum as both outperforming since inception. Those figures, since inception, remain the only justification for their fee structures and now form the sole basis of their advertising. Whilst I agree all investors should have a long term view with respect to investing, should that extend to over 20 years (with respect to Platinum). Or, should we have to search for a suitable timeframe to identify a period when outperformance occurred. That in itself seems to speak of searching for a timeframe.

By your very admission, 80% fail to beat the benchmark. In effect, out of a pool of ten managers - you by skill and perhaps luck chose the right two managers. If such skill or luck didn't transpire, you would have spent the better part of 20 years paying premium fees for a below par result.

You seem to think everything is an attack on your age, which it's not. The research I refer to isn't backed by Wikipedia or as you put it "Google".

It's the very data collected, quoted and referenced by all managers - particularly of late given the continual under performance of managers. To be honest, I have not met someone (of late) who vehemently challenges what is established data.

Anyway that's my last statement. You have taken an alternative viewpoint as an attack on your age, which I can only put down to the growing angers towards baby boomers and the inter-generational wealth gap.

I have never suggested active doesn't form an important part of a portfolio. However, I won't ever conform to the index funds will suffer when the market turns - it's nonsensical and the data clearly shows this.

I am going to have avocado on toast and go back to Google.