The fuel behind Mr. Gross' fire is the effecient market hypothesis, a theory that states that all available information is instantly reflected in the price of a stock (its fair value), and is the financial equivalent of group intelligence. An elementary analogy is this- If I was to place a random number of jellybeans into a jar and had people guess, the average of all the guesses would eventually approach the correct number (assuming educated guessers) as the number of guessers increased. Basically, each guess on the high or low side would be tempered by an equally inaccurate guess on the opposite side, while guesses close to the number would start to weight the average. While the purpose of this post is not to debunk the EMH (alright, I'll do it twice- Warren Buffett, and the Tech Bubble Collapse), understanding it is crucial to understand the relation between his two points. Basically, in an efficient market, professionals have no edge since all stocks trade at their fair value, and future movement is unpredicatable. I don't want to get too sidetracked, so I'll cut the EMH off there (unless the masses clamor for another post on it) and move on to the Bunny Money.
The fundamental error that Mr. Gross makes is setting up an unreasonable test, most likely because he doesn't understand diversification (read my previous post for a more complete look at where I'm going). By comparing five celebrity picks to the market as a whole, he substantially tilts the odds in favor of the celebrity. Example- Let's say the market moves perfectly sideways for a year, which means basically one stock advances in value equal to the decrease in value of another. By taking the market as a whole (which is what the S&P 500 and mutual funds do), a portfolio is bound to include as many gainers as losers, guaranteeing a return of 0%. Want to do better? Choose less stocks! In an ideal (1 gain =1 loss) static market, choosing 100 stocks instead of 500 gives you 2.58* 10^122 times the chance at coming out ahead. Choose just ten stocks? Almost a ten percent chance of beating the averages! Just one? 50 freaking percent! Can professional knowledge beat a game that rigged? Could you win at blackjack if you had to hit everytime you had less than 20? I doubt it.
Perhaps a better question is to ask- Can Johnny Capitalist beat the average market return/money manager/Playboy bunny? The answer is yes. Here is how to beat all three-
The average long-term market return of 12%- First, understand the concept of value investing. Start with a decent accounting background, then read books by Benjamin Graham, Warren Buffett, Peter Lynch, etc and throw my post on diversification in there somewhere (redundant, but crucial!)... this is my strategy. Does it work? Since October, I've turned $5000 into $6600, for a return of 32%...
The Money Manager- Same as number one. The difference between Johnny Capitalist and Billy Money Manager is this- as the amount of money in the portfolio grows, the harder it is to maintain high returns. Example- I can place all my money on an undervalued equity without changing the asking price... can Warren Buffett do that with the $200 billion Berkshire Hathaway controls? Not so much...
The Playboy Bunny- On the buttocks... with an open hand.