The idea that indexes outperform open end funds is silly. Managed funds have rules to follow. They have to keep a good amount of cash. There are hundreds of "balanced funds" thrown into the comparison. Or, even worse the dreaded International Funds."

Here's an idea, why not just pick funds that have proven themselve to outperform even with the restrictions they have? Peter Lynch providing us with 29% per year for during his stint at Fidelity Magellan, 13 years, with no down years. Is that a fluke? Of course not. Why not pick on Hedge funds that are truly horrible in performance?