As is all too usual, I'm a little confused here. It looks like about 75% of the random growth stock group selections beat the S&P, while the previous post claimed value persevered. Polen beat the average random growth selection, of course (one would hope so, at a 1.35 e.r.), or it wouldn't have presented the "data."
Now, if John Bogle is right, and indexing beats active management; and value beats growth (not quoting St. Jack here; I think other studies have said that; and I think that was the thesis of this month's "elevator talk" ) does Polen's (US) Growth's record mean they will beat international managers (who might have more experience)?
I suspect other participants will enlighten my ignorance.
You might want to read the accompanying white paper. Remember, my original point was just that Polen thinks interesting thoughts. I don't know of anyone else who has tried anything comparable. I think Polen's argument is that the scatter demonstrates three things:
concentrated, on average and over time, generates better returns than broadly diversified. I'm guessing that's because disastrous performers are rare, disastrous and more likely to be included as the number of holdings in your portfolio expands.
all cap, on average and over time, generates better returns than large cap. That is, since very large companies are rarer than mid- and small-sized ones, these random portfolios are likely to have lower market caps than the S&P 500.
Polen, on average and over time, demonstrates some skill. That is, they're a bit northwest of the center of the random cluster. Not dramatically (look at where the values on the axes start), but a bit.
And yes, the implication is that a concentrated international portfolio run under Polen's guidelines would, on average and over time, outperform its peers. I haven't spoken with the Polen folks (I reached out and they did not respond) so this all falls into the category "interesting possibilities."