3 ms·
I was being cheeky when I responded to you. I agree with you on the first point. But I think you are downplaying the significance of the bet. If it was an obvi
by computerex 9y ago
I was being cheeky when I responded to you. I agree with you on the first point.
But I think you are downplaying the significance of the bet. If it was an obvious wash like you are making it seem then why was the bet even placed? What top firms are you talking about?
- dsacco 9y ago1. The bet was placed because Buffett's thesis is fundamentally true - you have much better odds of receiving a good return through passive index fund investing than you do through active management. However, this bet is often used (unempirically, though not necessarily strictly inaccurately) to justify the idea that active management cannot beat the market consistently. 2. Firms like Baupost or RenTec would have handily won that bet against Buffett. But like I said, Buffett wouldn't have made that bet, because Buffett is a smart better and already knows all of this. Buffett has never argued that the market is perfectly efficient and resistant to alpha harvesting; in fact, he has publicly taken the opposite position in letters to shareholders.