Denk, you have clearly had some unfortunate experiences in the past, so that's obviously a shame. That does not mean however that your position is correct in all cases.
You make a long (and somewhat garbled) assertion about duties and responsibilities for fund managers. There is a little document called the Corporations Act 2001. There is also the duties imposed on holders of Australian Financial Services Licenses. I suggest you read both.
You ask "how did the best five do?" but seem to fail to understand your own question. I could list for you all funds that outperformed their benchmarks over the last 10 years but you seem to think that's not relevant. Alternatively, you seem to want me to be able to go back in time and select funds 10 years ago. Not sure what the point of that is unless you also want a bet on who going to win out in 10 years in the active vs passive debate?
Regarding your post on Bennelong, not sure what you were trying to prove there. However your statement that the annual fee is 1.41% is technically incorrect. The fund charges a annual management fee of 0.9% + a performance fee of 15% where the investment return of the fund (before fees) is more than 2% greater than the S&P/ASX 300. Now that may over a selected period translate into actual fees of 1.41%, but it's not fixed. If they have a year of under-performance (like they did in calendar 2016), they won't get anywhere near 1.41%, particularly given the presence of the high water mark structure.
At the end of the day, I'm not looking for an argument about the merits of active vs passive investing. Both have their place in my view. All I'm suggesting is that you consider embracing a wider view of the facts.
