Subject: Re: beating the market
The chances of a random US stock having a positive real total return in a one year period since 1960 is 56.5%.
This is pretty far from the 4% in the study that got so much press, and a much more useful and meaningful number.

Consequently a diversified portfolio of randomly selected stocks which is reconstituted from time to time almost always does just fine even without the few long run superstars.
In fact your chances of beating the S&P 500 this way over the long run are remarkably high, not low.

I think you skipped over some salient details here. For example:

How much positive? Enough to beat S&P or total US stock market weighed my market cap?

What's the magic about one year? How about same stock held for three months or five years or some other random period? Still beats broad index?

When do you rebalance (or reconstitute as you more accurately termed it?) You seem to imply one year (I am guessing). Why sell part or all of winners after a year instead of letting them run?

I concede to your statistics but as stated they are wholly inadequate to good old "buy and hold a market cap weighted index".