This is one example of a number of ways the article is weirdly disingenuous. Thea author compares returns to equities but risks to nothing, as you point out. Separately, when he cites an estimate of 3.01% annual return from alpha and 4.62% from beta, all he has to say is that "most" of the returns are from beta and that fees are high, pretending not to understand that returning 3% per year due to alpha after fees would actually be quite impressive and valuable.