>I cannot provide a well informed comment, but I can offer this: I am not surprised at all that fund managers are slimy and dishonest.

And that explains why this article is on the front page of HN...not because the methods are accurate, but because the conclusion aligns with what people believe going in.

Fund managers very likely are slimy, but this paper is too flawed to prove anything. Read the rebuttal from Morningstar. In the paper Morningstar's data is being assumed true while the bond funds are being criticized, so when Morningstar comes out and says that their data has a pessimistic bias, and the bonds funds ratings reflect more complete information, it seems pretty damning for the paper's assumptions.