Buffett's bet: Hedge funds can't beat the market
money.cnn.com
money.cnn.com
This is a worthwhile addition to the debate of index funds vs. the best of actively managed funds - most participants in this debate are awfully black-and-white. I have seen several critics practically say that there is no such thing as a better-than-average investor - just a normalized distribution of investor luck.
Hasn't anybody done a survey on this? It shouldn't be too hard to determine with statistics whether the world's top investors are better than or on par with the expected variance in luck. I strongly favor the position that a good investor can beat the market over time..with the caveat that it takes 10 or 20 years to determine who these investors are.
For simplicity if you look at just the last two years and four fund managers, statistically one of them will have won in both years. He will rationalise this away (his 'system') and claim to be a good manager of money.
There are enough funds that quite a few of them are certain to have won in 9 of the last 10 years, further reinforced by the fact that losing funds tend to close.
Because of this effect I would say that past performance is a horrible predictor of future performance. Certainly I am happy to put my money where my mouth is - with the exception of sensible diversification (cash and bonds) my savings are all in low fee index funds.
i kind of feel like this contest is more of a coin flip and will mostly only benefit the hedge fund people.