I keep coming across this article and just being annoyed. You use an inflammatory title to prove a semantic point. You don't provide any actual argument against the phenomenon which your commenters and every other finance expert can clearly observe and mathematically describe. Unless you are discussion leverage - when there is the possibility that levered returns exceed the volatility drag (or whatever you propose it's called) - there is an obvious non-zero difference that occurs when viewing returns as compounding and not average. What an utter waste, and a complete distraction to someone looking for good literature to learn from.