Welcome to CanadianHedgeWatch.com
Monday, March 30, 2020

The Truth Behind Buffetts Big Bet

Date: Friday, June 27, 2008
Author: Adam J. Wiederman, Motley Fool.com

Ten years. Two contenders. One winner of a $1 million prize.

On one side, legendary investor Warren Buffett; on the other, fund of hedge funds operator Protege Partners. The battle? Whose net returns will be higher over the next decade: five of the world's most successful hedge funds ... or the passive Vanguard 500 Index Fund?

If it's not obvious by now ...
Buffett believes the index fund will win. It might seem shocking that he'd put so little confidence in such bright investors, but a judgment of investing prowess isn't the reason behind Buffett's bearish bet.

Instead, as he explained in a recent Fortune article, the hedge fund managers' efforts "are self-neutralizing, and their IQ will not overcome the costs they impose on investors." [Emphasis mine.]

Buffett's not insulting the investing acumen of hedge fund managers. But he is making a pretty bold statement about the fees they're charging, and how quickly they destroy investors' wealth.

It all comes down to the price you pay
Every year, the typical hedge fund collects 2% of the amount invested, as well as 20% of any profits made. It's not difficult for any student of mathematics to understand that, over time, this seemingly small amount can become quite significant.

And although you might not invest in hedge funds, odds are you have a mutual fund or two -- maybe even more -- in your portfolio. Those funds might charge similar fees that could prevent you from cashing in on gains made with your money.

Compare these two seemingly identical index funds:

Fund Name

Vanguard 500 Index

MainStay S&P 500 Index A

Front Load



Expense Ratio



Top 5 Holdings

ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM), General Electric, AT&T, Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT), Procter & Gamble (NYSE: PG)

ExxonMobil, General Electric, AT&T, Microsoft, Procter & Gamble

3-Year Annualized Returns



Morningstar data as of 6/24/2008. Vanguard holdings as of 3/31/2008; MainStay holdings as of 4/30/2008.

As you can see, the difference in fees between these two funds with identical holdings makes a difference in returns received, even in as little as three years. Over a decade or more, we're talking about potentially missing out on thousands of dollars.

But it's even more unfortunate, as the Buffett example drives home, that paying high fees for actively managed funds can produce performance much worse than even a cheap, passive index fund.

Here are two funds for which investors paid handsomely, only to reap a net loss over the same time frame:

Fund Name

Boyer Value

Natixis Harris Associates Focused Value A

Front Load



Expense Ratio



Top 5 Holdings

JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM), Travelers, McDonald's, Time Warner (NYSE: TWX), American Financial

Intel (Nasdaq: INTC), National Semiconductor, PerkinElmer, Virgin Media, Robert Half International (NYSE: RHI)

3-Year Annualized Returns



Data from Morningstar as of 6/24/2008. Boyer holdings as of 3/31/2008; Natixis Harris holdings as of 4/30/2008.

All of the reasons above help explain why, in our Champion Funds newsletter service, we recommend mutual funds run by managers who outperform the market over the long term without charging you either an arm or a leg. Our average fund recommendation has an expense ratio of 0.92%, compared to the average domestic fund's expense ratio of 1.37%, and none of our picks have front-end loads. Collectively, they are beating the market by more than 21 percentage points!

If you'd like to browse through the cheap, money-making mutual funds we've elevated to Champ status, click here to try out the newsletter free for the next 30 days.

Adam J. Wiederman owns none of the shares mentioned above. Intel and Microsoft are Inside Value recommendations. JPMorgan is an Income Investor selection. Time Warner is a former Stock Advisor pick. The Fool's strict disclosure policy is here.