1/20    http://biz.yahoo.com/tm/060117/13793.html
        4/10 Playboy models outperform 11705/11739 equity mutual fund
        managers for picking out better stocks.
        \_ All that says is that the companies that Playboy models know are
           doing well at the moment.  Let's continue the experiment for 10 years
           and see who's ahead.  (Not that I'm a fan of fund managers, but the
           conclusions here are silly.)
        \_ Mutual fund managers are not free to choose whatever companies they
           think will do best.  Fund manager can only choose companies within
           the fund's sector.  A real estate fund can't buy MSFT, for example.
           The playboy models don't have this limitation.
        \_ I didn't know there are so many PB models that aren't blonde.
           The Playboy models don't have this limitation.
           \_ If you thought about this a little bit, you'd realize how silly
              this theory is.
              \_ Care to explain?
                 \_ From a description of Magellan's strategy:
                    "Normally invests primarily in common stocks of domestic
                    and foreign issuers. Invests in either 'growth' stocks or
                    'value' stocks or both."  I guess the bunnies can invest
                    in non-growth, over-priced stocks and Magellan might not.
                    Even not knowing any specific example, you should realize
                    that if picking whatever from wherever is a superior way to
                    invest, then there would be funds to exploit that.
                    \_ Morningstar categorizes FMAGX as large blend.  "While
                       the investment objective stated in a fund's prospectus
                       may or may not reflect how the fund actually invests,
                       the Morningstar category is assigned based on the
                       underlying securities in each portfolio."
                       \_ The category is descriptive rather prescriptive,
                       \_ The category is descriptive rather than prescriptive,
                          which is exactly what Morningstar said.
                    \_ Even not knowing any specific example, you should
                       realize that if the Playboy models really can do better
                       than the mutual fund managers out there, they would all
                       become mutual fund managers.
                       \_ Yes.  However, the original claim was not that the
                          bunnies were necessarily better pickers but that
                          they had more freedom in choosing stocks.  Therefore,
                          your point, while valid, does not apply.  Whereas
                          showing that non-specifically targeted mutual funds
                          should and do exist does apply.
        \_ I didn't know there are so many PB models that aren't blond.
        \_ I don't think the all of the fund managers of the 11739 funds have
           \_ Almost none of them are. Hair dye.
              \_ I guess dyeing blond doesn't make one stupid, unlike natural
                 blond.
        \_ I don't think all of the fund managers of the 11739 funds have
           Harvard MBAs.
        \_ Long-term everyone reverts to the mean, unless you have
           insider information.
        \_ The fund contestants are "all funds listed on Morningstar".  How
           are the model contestands picked?