3 ms·

Ted Seides (who was on the other side of the bet) actually has some interesting counterpoints to make about it: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-

• Marazan 8y ago
  Not really. He got beat fair and square and there are no excuses. The whole point is hedge funds should do better otherwise what's the point of the management fees. And if the point is to do worse in a rising market and then beat a falling market I can do that by putting 80% money in the S&P Tracker and 20% in cash and I won't charge a massive fee to do so.
  • xkjkls 8y ago
    The fund of funds index that Ted Seides put in already takes into account management fees -- it's what the investor will actually return. And I do think it's necessary to put this bet into context, because the ultimate question it is trying to ask is "are managers adding any value?" Any sort of bet is going to be an artificial way to measure that, so the caveats to the bet that: this was during the longest bull market of all time; S&P 500 is USA weighted, which out-performed international counterparts; hedge funds still provided lower volatility are important. I think the fact that Ted challenged Warren to another 10 year bet (which he refused) does speak to something.