Don’t Make a Bar Bet with Warren Buffett

Don’t Make a Bar Bet with Warren Buffett

February 28, 2017 Guest Posts
Print Friendly
(Last Updated On: April 12, 2017)

This past weekend Warren Buffet made some headlines that has the financial world spinning:

  • Berkshire Hathaway released its annual report…which is always a great read.
  • The (in)famous bet of Buffett’s that the S&P would outperform a basket of hedge funds is almost over (the hedge funds just need to finalize their performance figures for 2016 and the bet will be over).

Mr. Buffett’s bet against hedge funds really intrigued me so I decided to dig a bit further.

Hedge funds, as a whole, have recently received their (more than?) fair share of condemnation from the financial press and analysts as too expensive and too opaque. Pension funds and endowments finally realized they’ve potentially been swindled, and have cut — and even eliminated — their allocation to hedge funds. Clearly, Buffett won the bet.

But Buffet’s victory is easy to see in hindsight. Perhaps the inevitability of the S&P 500 victory over hedge funds wasn’t as clear cut at the time? For example, highly sophisticated investors, such as Cliff Asness, walk through some great portfolio construction points on why hedge funds, as a whole, aren’t as great or as bad as most people make them out to be.

To assess just how smart/lucky Buffett was in making his bet with the hedge funds, in this post, I try and determine what Buffett’s odds really were when he made his famous bet.

buffett money
Do you really want to bet against Warren Buffett?

Capital Market Expectations and Buffet’s Hedge Fund Bet

In order to judge Buffett’s odds of winning the bet against hedge funds, we first need to develop a set of capital market expectations.  I will develop mine based on history for the S&P 500 and then slightly modify Cliff Asness’s equation for hedge fund returns for my expectation for Hedge Fund returns.

My capital market assumptions are below:

BB Cap Mkt Exp
The results are hypothetical results and are NOT an indicator of future results and do NOT represent returns that any investor actually attained. Indexes are unmanaged, do not reflect management or trading fees, and one cannot invest directly in an index.

Historically, the S&P 500 has had a Sharpe ratio of only about 0.33 since 1926 (its actually a little closer to 0.35 but I wanted to make the math easier and end up with round numbers, so I used 0.33).  I assume that the standard deviation for the S&P 500 is 15% per year going forward which makes the excess return (return in excess of cash) 5% per year (Sharpe ratio x volatility = excess return).

Using the equation in Cliff’s article, we assume that Hedge Funds have a beta of 0.4 to the S&P 500 (Cliff shows a beta of 0.37 but I rounded for simplicity and to get whole numbers) and Cliff shows an alpha of 3.65% per year.  I will assume 2% per year as his alpha is backward looking and we need a forward looking expectation.  I assume 2% per year as Hedge Funds are likely to generate some after fee alpha, but not as much as they have historically.  I assume somewhere around half the alpha (1.8% per year) but round up to get to a nice whole number of 2% (did I mention that this is a very scientific and exact analysis?).  This leads to an expectation of a 0.4 Sharpe ratio for Hedge Funds and (I am assuming) a 10% annualized standard deviation.

The end result of these assumptions are that Hedge Funds have a lower expected return than the S&P 500 (4% vs. 5%) even when we assume 2% per year after fee alpha.  In addition, we also assume Hedge Funds are less volatile than stocks (10% vs. 15% standard deviation).  This leads to Hedge Funds having an improved Sharpe ratio versus the S&P 500 (0.4 vs. 0.33).  Hopefully, these set of assumptions can be viewed as moderate and reasonable by both the Hedge Fund supporters and also the passive index fund supporters.

Analysis Method

Now that we have our assumptions, we can analyze the bet by performing a Monte Carlo analysis.  I used Excel to generate a 1,000 random numbers between 0 and 1.  Each number between 0 and 1 was then used as the probability in a normal distribution to create a randomized return (using Excel’s =norminv function) for both the S&P 500 and for Hedge Funds where the mean and standard deviation were equal to the capital market assumptions, above.  Doing the Monte Carlo analysis in this way, it is assumed that that the correlation of the S&P 500 and Hedge Funds are a perfect 1.0 (However, given the very high (~95% correlation) in reality, the assumption of perfect correlation may not be far off).

Analysis Results

What I found is that using the analysis method above, the S&P averaged an excess return of 5.25% over the 1,000 simulations and that Hedge Funds averaged a 4.16% return over the 1,000 simulations.  These results are pretty close to our capital market expectations so randomness inside the 1,000 simulations didn’t move actual results from expected results by much.  What is interesting is that over the 1,000 simulations the S&P beat Hedge Funds in 58.6% of the simulations!  Even though our assumptions regarding Hedge Funds leads us to expect a higher Sharpe ratio (and arguably a better addition to an existing portfolio…see Cliff’s article here for why), the slightly higher expected excess returns from stocks and the lower volatility of Hedge Funds make the S&P 500 a better bet in this type of horse race between investments (perhaps the bet should have been that Hedge Funds would produce a CAPM regression alpha great then 0%!).

Don't bet with Buffett. The S&P 500 beats hedge funds nearly 60% of the time! Click To Tweet

Conclusion

To nobody’s surprise, Warren Buffet had the better end of the deal on this bet (the bet paid even money, while Buffett was arguably expected to win approximately 60% of the time) which is quite the value investment from Mr. Buffett’s perspective.

There are some practical takeaways from this lesson as well:

  1. Even though an investment might have a good risk/return trade-off (in this example a Sharpe ratio of 0.40 vs 0.33) and be a great addition to a portfolio (in this example after fee alpha of 2%), it might lose an investment horse race against a passive index more than 50% of the time.  This makes it important to properly select a benchmark for these types of investments to ensure that investors don’t dump them out of frustration when they have poor relative performance.
  2. My understanding is that the escrow collateral (a zero-coupon bond) outperformed both the S&P 500 and the Hedge Fund basket selected.  This demonstrates just how important diversification is in portfolios and why a simple 1/N type of allocation might be best. In Buffett’s words, “Beware of geeks bearing formulas.”

Note: This site provides no information on our value investing ETFs or our momentum investing ETFs. Please refer to this site.


Join thousands of other readers and subscribe to our blog.


Please remember that past performance is not an indicator of future results. Please read our full disclaimer. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Alpha Architect, its affiliates or its employees. This material has been provided to you solely for information and educational purposes and does not constitute an offer or solicitation of an offer or any advice or recommendation to purchase any securities or other financial instruments and may not be construed as such. The factual information set forth herein has been obtained or derived from sources believed by the author and Alpha Architect to be reliable but it is not necessarily all-inclusive and is not guaranteed as to its accuracy and is not to be regarded as a representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the information’s accuracy or completeness, nor should the attached information serve as the basis of any investment decision. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission from Alpha Architect.


Definitions of common statistics used in our analysis are available here (towards the bottom)




About the Author

Andrew Miller CFA, CFP

Andrew Miller, CFA, CFP: Andrew is Chief Investment Officer at Miller Financial Management, LLC where he is primarily responsible for investment and financial planning research, asset allocation, and integrating client’s financial plans with their investment portfolio. Andrew is a Chartered Financial Analysis and is a Certified Financial Planner® practitioner. Andrew graduated from the Indiana University Kelley School of Business in 2004 with a Bachelors degree in Business Administration with a concentration in Finance. Andrew’s research interest is in using academic investment research to create investment portfolios that improve the withdrawal rates and financial outcomes for clients.


  • Nathan

    Something tells me that Buffett knew that his probability of winning was much better than 60%.

    What’s the upside to winning this bet? He made his point. A small victory.

    What would have been the downside had he lost this bet? A hit to his reputation. A large loss.

    Buffett understands probability and actuarial value at least as good as we do. He studied horse racing odds as a kid, got involved in P&C insurance which is all about probabilities, and is a good bridge player.

    So, why would he take a 40% risk of losing big? I wouldn’t.

  • Flying Robot

    Actually, I read recently that Buffet said early on that his chances of winning were roughly 60%. That’s kinda spooky brilliant, which really doesn’t surprise me at all.

  • dph

    How often would the SnP be able to beat the hedge funds if they were allowed to lever up to 120% at a low cost of capital? The lower volatility will always be at a hindrance unless the hedge fund is allowed some leverage so the risk is similar to SnP I’d assume.

  • Nathan

    Do you remember where you read this?

    EDIT: Thanks, I found it. It’s in the 2008 Fortune article by Carol Loomis:

    “…Buffett himself assesses his chances of winning at only 60%, which he grants is less of an edge than he usually likes to have.”

    http://archive.fortune.com/2008/06/04/news/newsmakers/buffett_bet.fortune/index.htm

  • slick555

    great point Nathan