> More so when you consider that it's rare for a company to matter, so picking 10 big CEOs that don't matter should be highly biased toward correct predictions.
You've got it backwards. His pool for picks isn't the set of all CEOs, it's the set of all CEOs who are well known, have mattered recently, and are still working. That's a very different pool, with a very different bias.
Fair enough. But without a good comparison against random picks from the same pool it's impossible to judge the quality of these picks. Given that there were a few gimmes in the list (slashdot and vonage for example), and given the notable absence of plenty of high profile CEOs in 2006 who foundered shortly after I'm not at all impressed with this list.
You've got it backwards. His pool for picks isn't the set of all CEOs, it's the set of all CEOs who are well known, have mattered recently, and are still working. That's a very different pool, with a very different bias.