The text was exactly right as is, you made the error of changing the second part ot the S&P 500 index when the 10 year return shown was the HFRX index
I'd admit to being dense, but it is still not sinking in. I'll look at it later with fresh eyes.
dra, I sympathize with you - I think a CBS Moneywatch editor might have improved the verbiage up front. The actual text:
Moneywatch wrote:In 2012, the HFRX Global Hedge Fund Index returned 3.5 percent, and the index returned just 1.7 percent over the past 10 years
could be less confusing as:
Angstious editor wrote:In 2012, the HFRX Global Hedge Fund Index returned 3.5 percent while its annualized 2003-2012 return amounted to only 1.7 percent.
Moreover, these numbers deserve their own line in the table that immediately follows. That way the reader could clearly see the information and make simple, direct comparisons between the HFRX Global Hedge Fund Index and the other indexes shown. It's just basic editing, something the web is often a little short on. You're not dense!