Regarding "Myth I: Active Funds Cannot Sustain Positive Results" your own research "shows something striking: Even in US domestic large-cap equities — probably the most efficient public market in the world — active management produced excess returns a surprisingly high 39% of the time in the 25-year period from 1996 to 2020."

If I understand the graph correctly it shows the % of active funds that outperformed the US equity market each year (that is, with an investment horizon of 1 year) for 25 years. On average that % was 39%. However, we do not know how many of these active funds outperformed the market consistently for 25 years (I guess a few, if any). In other words, the graph does not show consistency or "the positive return persistence of a subset of active strategies".

This clearly highlights the importance of asset manager selection "to identify managers that were more likely to produce sustained results", but it does not say too much about whether active funds (not on average, but individually) can actually sustain positive results. Do you have any graph/research that shows outperformance consistency or positive return persistence? Thanks a lot.