Paradox : Performance

Great observation — that's a classic paradox in finance. Here's a clearer, paraphrased version of your thought:

Paradox: Overall, the majority of funds underperform the market — yet, individually, most funds report outperformance. How can both be true?

Possible explanations:

Benchmark gaming: Many funds compare themselves to benchmarks that are easier to beat, rather than broad market indexes (like the S&P 500). So they appear to outperform.

Survivorship bias: Underperforming funds are often closed or merged, and their records vanish from the data. So the average you see is skewed toward surviving (better-performing) funds.

Selective reporting: Funds tend to highlight their best-performing periods or cherry-pick data to showcase outperformance.

Different time frames: A fund may outperform during a short-term period, even if it underperforms long term. These brief wins are often advertised.

Volatility and risk-adjusted performance: Some funds may take on more risk to achieve higher returns in bull markets, but this outperformance may not persist or hold up in risk-adjusted terms.

So while most funds collectively underperform after fees and costs, individually, many find ways to craft a story of outperformance — even if it doesn't hold up under rigorous, long-term analysis.