It's called verifiable facts. I am not sure how you can...

It's called verifiable facts. I am not sure how you can refute what is readily available and researchable. That is, if you are concerned about the collation of data and what has transpired over the last 50 years.

Additionally, please identify any research which shows 20% of managers have outperformed over the long term. Even if you said 10%, I would be interested, as it's a gross exaggeration.

And if you are implying investors should attempt to identify the top 20% of outperforming managers, and avoid the 80% of managers who fail - rather than just owning the index - that's horrible advice. The majority of those outperforming managers, fail to show persistence over the long term aka Magellan.

I tell you what - you present your facts about the 20% of these outperforming managers over the long term, and I will send you the data collected for the last 50 years which shows that although not impossible, it is extremely hard to beat the benchmark when viewed over the long term. Accordingly, making bets on the so called top 20% maybe isn't the best advice. After all, todays hero is tomorrow's loser - P.S this is the Magellan thread.

I don't presume to know anything. But I do know how to avoid common biases and statements by active managers looking to justify their existence.

If you wish to reject all the data collected and painstakingly put together over the years - that's up to you.