4 ms·
Fallacy could confuse either side of that bet: the gambler's fallacy if he lost, the hot hand fallacy if he won. It seems like he had a reasonable justificatio
by gingerbread-man 9y ago
Fallacy could confuse either side of that bet: the gambler's fallacy if he lost, the hot hand fallacy if he won.
It seems like he had a reasonable justification for expecting a reversal of fortune in this case-- the US bull market cannot continue forever, and hedge funds traditionally outperform in bear markets and beat the S&P when global markets are stronger than the US.
- valuearb 9y agoIf he thought he needed the market to produce returns in the bottom 10-20% of it's average decade returns, it was a terrible one, he's a 4-1 or 9-1 dog. Or maybe he thought the market was overvalued and that it was closer to 50-50 that it would have a bad decade. But that's still a 50-50 bet, no big edge for him. And in both cases the reality is that he's giving up 3-4% a year in fees to the index. That's a huge edge for the index, he'd need the worst decade in history to beat that. Anyone who has every analyzed long term hedge fund returns comes away convinced they are terrible. Those fees are just far too high to overcome for 95% of the funds.