The recommendations that Mr. Gross gives regarding the politician's "stocks" suffer from what happens to all analysts: they are much too bullish!

Democrats: one strong buy, two holds. This is inconsistent, as the strong buy indicates that the alternatives are therefore weakened. Fringe candidates (small stocks) are not significant enough to allow a hold position in the other major candidates.

Republicans: 2 buys, 1 hold, 1 sell. The issue here is the short-term view that our resident analyst takes; Guiliani is investing for long-term success in Florida, Huckabee is coming from a high (do you expect him to increase in popularity, mr. Gross?). This is a classic momentum-reversal case.

Overall, the criticism I have with such optimistic predictions is the same as people expecting to outperform a market structurally. If more than half expect to, this is fundamentally impossible (imagine asking a crowd if they think they are funnier than their neighbors: 70% raises their hands). Especially if the game is such as it is now: the winner takes all (the nomination), the others are left with zero. Mr. Gross should therefore actually be bearish on most candidates and bullish for few for his advice to actually mean anything. Now he basically shows he just doesn't know, and that the investor should diversify. As if we couldn't have done that by ourselves.