Loved this article, mostly because of the fact that it turns much of the normal perspective on markets on its head. Rather than looking at a best case or a simulated median case, looking at a worst case is pretty cool.

What would make this more interesting would be to look at a constantly rebalanced portfolio that is a blend of stocks and bonds. That would have performed even better.

@notastartup -- "the best investors" is a complicated statement. Usually investors are graded on an annual basis compared to the market. If you outperform the market and justify your fee (if your fee is 1%, you had better outperform by a lot more than that, or else an index fund would have been a safer way to go), you keep your job, are able to get more capital into your fund, and generally are more highly regarded as an investor. So while I think there is a ton of merit to using an approach like this (or using the rebalancing approach I mention above), this is not what makes successful professional investors successful. That can be ascribed to luck, a ton of luck, skill, nefarious dealings, or any other number of other good or not-so-good reasons.