This is also a pretty small sample size. While I believe in index funds, I know damn well there are a minority of managed funds that will win out big. The problem is, I tripped and broke my crystal ball and I have no idea which one is the winner.
Bingo. The argument for indexing is a knowledge argument: there's no reliable means to distinguish consistently good managed funds from bad ones.
The argument is simple: the mass of mutual funds represents the overwhelming majority of the stock market. this means that the average mutual fund must, by definition, give you the same as the index, before fees. Which means that, on average, the expected return of the average mutual fund is the same as the index. If you can't pick the good 'uns, you get, on average, the expected average return, before fees. Which means you should take the lowest fees. Which means you should choose the index funds.
Past performance actually tells you nothing. Well, nothing except that index funds have tended to do slightly better on average after fees.
Do you folks think that the managed fund might stand up better to a bear market or a downturn?
No.
I have heard agents from active management companies *cough*Fidelity*cough* occasionally claim this. It is possible some funds have done better than indexes during these periods. Some have also done worse. On average, they've done average.
You can make the argument that some funds' strategy makes them better placed to handle bear markets. This tends to make them less well placed to handle bull markets. Now, if only you could find a crystal ball to tell you when the bear market will arrive, you could switch between them! It would be brilliant!!
Worse, note the fund above: it did slightly better than the index during the last couple of years, when the market was up after the bear market. During the whole of the last ten years, which includes the bear market, it only did as well as the index, before fees. Which means it must have sucked relatively during the bear market period, worse than the index.