You may not be aware of the mountain of independent academic study that consistently show mutual funds rarely beat their relevant benchmark indices over any significant period of time (i.e. 20 - 50 years) after expenses but if you have proof to the contrary I'd certainly like to see it. Older studies done before accounting for survivorship bias could demonstrate a lackluster case in favour of mutual funds but more recent studies that use complete and accurate historical data show that the vast majority of actively managed mutual funds can not justify the costs associated with them, especially when low cost index-linked products are readily available. In fact, most academics conclude that the single biggest factor pertaining to a given mutual fund's relative performance are the costs associated with owning it.