Live data from Hacker News

Buffett wins $1M decade-old bet that the S&P500 would outperform hedgefunds

aei.org

151–160 of 323 posts

Re: Buffett wins $1M decade-old bet that the S&P500 would outperform hedgefunds

#151

For anyone interested in this bet, Ted Seides (the losing party) did a good podcast on the topic: http://capitalallocatorspodcast.com/BetwithBuffett/ My layman's understanding of hedge funds is they are better at hedging losses than increasing gains. So in good years they might underperform the broader market (e.g. gain 9% instead of 12%), but in bad years they should lose much less (e.g. lose 5% instead of 15%). I t…

Yes, this was the origin of the term "hedge" fund, but in recent ~decade has come to mean "actively managed investments" because the name sounded cool to people who don't know that the word "hedge" means something intentionally conservative and boring.

Re: Buffett wins $1M decade-old bet that the S&P500 would outperform hedgefunds

#152

Okay so any leveraged real estate fund would have outperformed the S&P500, without the possibility of a sudden margin call Any leveraged bond fund should have been able to as well, a carry trade from 2012 in European government bonds should have made many hundreds of percent A futures fund should have been able to A commodity options should have made monumental gains over the 85% that the S&P500 gave in 10 years, hon…

Any investment in the S&P500 that was as leveraged as the mentioned leveraged real estate or bond funds would have outperformed both the S&P500 and those two funds. It is easy (though not usually prudent) to create a leveraged investment in the S&P500 by buying it on margin.

Re: Buffett wins $1M decade-old bet that the S&P500 would outperform hedgefunds

#153
It is not really surprising that a large group of hedge funds underperformed the S&P500. In fact, William Sharpe made the argument a long time ago: in aggregate, active investors hold the passive portfolio and earn the same return as passive investors before fees, but lower returns after fees. In aggregate, this is always and necessarily true: https://web.stanford.edu/~wfsharpe/art/active/active.htm

Re: Buffett wins $1M decade-old bet that the S&P500 would outperform hedgefunds

#154
post #135
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing works forever but there are funds like Renaissance Technologies' Medallion which may just be getting heads for a long time but rather seem to have some secret sauce that works for a long time. Usually though they're not very large and don't seek out investments.

Yes, Renaissance is an exception. I would argue that their nature of their strategies almost puts them into a pseudo market maker category (I've personally never worked with/for them, but I hear much of their strategy is statistical arbitrage, made possible by favourable transaction fee set ups and fast, colocated execution infrastructure).

Plus apparently some dodgy "creative" tax code interpretations around short-term/long-term gains.

Re: Buffett wins $1M decade-old bet that the S&P500 would outperform hedgefunds

#155
post #36

So clearly, for the individual, the optimal strategy is to simply invest in index funds and just wait. But a new question that is being raised is: "what happens if everyone only invests in index funds?"

This has been answered a thousand times. Everyone will never invest in index funds. What will happen is more and more people will invest in index funds until there are so little people actively investing in the stock market that the ones that do are able to beat it. However, them beating it will only net (after their fees) the same returns as index funds thus striking a balance where index funds match the performance…

You are missing the point. Once almost everyone invests in index funds, what will determine the price of stocks?

Re: Buffett wins $1M decade-old bet that the S&P500 would outperform hedgefunds

#156
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your understanding that they operate via illegal insider information, or access to information that is very difficult to achieve? To be clear: I have mined and sold data to hedge funds before, including well known ones, and from that work I derived two conclusions: 1. It is fundamentally possible to beat the market consistently and legally by exploiting information asymmetry, and 2. Most hedge funds, especially th…

> I have mined and sold data to hedge funds Are you able to tell more about what types of data this was? I'd be interested in hearing more. I love the story of hedge funds using satellite imagery of parking lots to predict retail store strength

> Are you able to tell more about what types of data this was?

I mined data in the real estate, QSR, automotive and airline sectors (and a few peripherally related ones). We would identify a source of data that was a demonstrably strong proxy for a specific company's revenue (that is to say, if we broke out a naive timeseries of the data it would map nearly 1:1 to earnings results each quarter). Then we would collect this data en masse, writing software over a custom crawler and infrastructure, bespoke to each case. During ingestion we'd process and normalize the data and dump it in a database. Once we had a significant amount of data we'd build a forecasting model, which could be very straightforward ("how many products have they sold this quarter", for simpler companies) to very complex ("can we reverse engineer the amount of business which is now online" or "can we determine the undisclosed amount of business being done in this specific region"). This analysis (and not the data itself) constituted the product - we never even provided the data directly to the hedge funds.

Once the crawling and analysis was mature, we'd incubate it for a few quarters while building interest; then, after showing a very strong mapping over several quarters, offer it as a data product. It was not uncommon to achieve The data was always public and legal, though challenging to identify and difficult to effectively crawl. It was typically derived from very uncommon sources, and would range in complexity from the extremely simple ("we can crawl sequentially incremented integers from this third party that appear to map to products sold by this company") to the very sophisticated and complex (e.g. "we've collected a zero sum distribution of ad partners and their spend on the network, are more partners churning off, and is this a better or worse outcome for the company?"). I've spoken about this in comments here before.

This is still very doable, and I still do this sort of work for personal research (and profit). However, the work I do is now much more quantitative - I'm currently taking a similar approach for baskets of equities with the goal of forecasting macroeconomic trends (e.g. subprime auto loans) instead of the earnings results of individual equities. To give a very specific throwaway example (because it doesn't violate an NDA and it no longer works): it used to be possible to pretty accurately forecast large tech retailers' product sales each quarter (like Apple) by reverse engineering FedEx and UPS tracking numbers.

Re: Buffett wins $1M decade-old bet that the S&P500 would outperform hedgefunds

#157
post #101

So clearly, for the individual, the optimal strategy is to simply invest in index funds and just wait. But a new question that is being raised is: "what happens if everyone only invests in index funds?"

Matt Levine of Bloomberg has a newsletter called Money Stuff that talks about this concern a lot. There are certainly many serious people who take are worried that too much index based investing will / is leading to inefficiencies.

That column is really interesting and informative, I always check it out when he posts.

Re: Buffett wins $1M decade-old bet that the S&P500 would outperform hedgefunds

#158

Reminds me a little of traffic. Yesterday I was cruising down the highway in the leftmost lane, going about 80 with a line of other cars. The other two lanes were actually more clear, but cars were going much slower. I notice this one car, weaving in and out of traffic in these two lanes, trying desperately to get ahead, constantly cutting people off. They did this for 40 miles, weaving in and out, sometimes getting…

This was tested in an experiment I can't find now. One group of drivers was asked to stick to one lane, the other group was told to switch lanes when possible to get ahead. The outcome: as expected switching lanes gained next to nothing. But importantly the reported experience was significantly worse for those that stayed in one lane. So switching lanes doesn't reduce commute time but the perceived commute time - and…

This was tested by the Mythbusters television show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZefgUVg3qx0

Re: Buffett wins $1M decade-old bet that the S&P500 would outperform hedgefunds

#159
post #154
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Renaissance is an exception. I would argue that their nature of their strategies almost puts them into a pseudo market maker category (I've personally never worked with/for them, but I hear much of their strategy is statistical arbitrage, made possible by favourable transaction fee set ups and fast, colocated execution infrastructure).

Plus apparently some dodgy "creative" tax code interpretations around short-term/long-term gains.

Is it dodgy? You buy a share in a fund, that fund buys and sells, should you pay capital gains on every sale that fund makes? I don't think that has any precedent. You pay tax when you sell your share.

Re: Buffett wins $1M decade-old bet that the S&P500 would outperform hedgefunds

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two concerns: transaction costs (tracking error relative to index return) and index return. Those who believe in generally efficient markets want to capture the market return, however volatile, with as little tracking error as possible. Since the ETF holders don't actually sell any stocks when the prices decline, their returns are temporarily depressed. If and when prices recover so too will their value. Th…

To each their own investment style (and there are many), but markets (in my view, and in the view of many others) are not efficient. (More than) half of what determines the stock price is psychology and herd mentality. It's not just numbers, and more an art than it is a science. Larger cap stocks however are generally priced more correctly than small- or mid cap stocks. Second to that is that your returns will also d…

> Investing through index funds and ETFs will correlate with a certain alpha

Thank you for showing others that you do not know what you are talking about.

Post reply on HN