At MoneyWeek, we're firm believers in the benefits of passive investing (with a few exceptions see below). If you want to make proper returns from the markets, you've got to keep your costs down. And active fund managers charge way too much, as Merryn Somerset Webb never tires of pointing out (see here, here and here, for example).
And we're not alone.
Eight years ago Warren Buffett, the world's most famous stockpicker, made a bet. Over the course of ten years, said Buffett, the returns from a low-cost S&P 500 fund would easily beat a selection of hedge funds.
Subscribe to MoneyWeek
Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE
Sign up to Money Morning
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
The precise bet, which you can see over at longbets.org, was that:"Over a ten-year period commencing on January 1, 2008, and ending on December 31, 2017, the S&P 500 will outperform a portfolio of funds of hedge funds, when performance is measured on a basis net of fees, costs and expenses."
He was so confident that he put up $1m of his own money. On the other side of the bet sat New York firm Protégé Partners LLC, which invests in funds of hedge funds. If Buffett won, Protégé would pay $1m to the charity Girls Incorporated of Omaha; if Protégé won, Buffett would pay $1m to Friends of Absolute Return for Kids, Inc.
"Funds of funds with the ability to sort the wheat from the chaff will earn returns that amply compensate for the extra layer of fees their clients pay", Protégé claimed.
Buffett disagreed. "The efforts smart people go to beating the markets are "self-neutralising", he said. "Investors, on average and over time, will do better with a low-cost index fund than with a group of funds of funds."
At Berkshire Hathaway's annual shareholders meeting, held over the weekend, Buffett gave an update on how the bet was going (if you're a fan of active investing, you might want to look away now).
In the eight and a bit years since the bet was made, the cumulative return for the tracker fund (the Vanguard 500 Index Fund) was 65.7%. The hedge funds (the precise funds chosen have remained a secret something for which the fund managers may eventually be truly thankful) have returned just 21.9%.
There's still almost a year and a half to go. But it would take some superhuman fund management to pull it back from here.
There are some exceptions to this rule, of course. We have our some of our own favourites in the MoneyWeek Investment Trust portfolio, selected by Merryn in 2012. The total return so far is over 50%. If you'd like to find out more about that, take out a subscription to the magazine now.
-
8 of the best properties for sale with mountain viewsThe best properties for sale with mountain views – from a former monastery in Brecon Beacons, Wales, to a house on St Lucia with views over the Piton Mountains
-
Spot the Dog: £67bn in underperforming funds revealedAround 137 funds consistently underperformed their benchmark, BestInvest's Spot the Dog report finds. Which funds are in the dog house?
-
The best low cost index funds to buy nowTips Index funds are an easy, low-cost way for investors to invest in a sector or asset class. Here’s a selection of the cheapest passive tracker funds on the market right now
-
The power of passive investing – for good and badOpinion The rise of passive funds has made investing simple and cheap for millions of people. But it comes with huge consequences for markets, the economy and your wealth, says Merryn Somerset Webb.
-
Index tracker funds won't shield your wealth from inflation – here's whyAnalysis If you want your portfolio to survive in an inflationary world, a broad index-tracker fund won’t cut it. You need to be a lot more selective than that. John Stepek explains why.
-
Has passive investing created a stockmarket bubble?Sponsored Over the past two decades, investors have been switching from buying actively managed investment funds to buying passive funds that simply track a market. And that’s affected how the markets work. John Stepek explains why.
-
The triumph of the blob: how passive investing could devour marketsCover Story We’re fans of passive investing at MoneyWeek. But is the rapid growth in passive ownership having a detrimental effect on the way that markets work? It might just be, reports John Stepek
-
How the boom in passive investing could create better-run companiesOpinion ESG investing, or "ethical investing" as it used to be called, is mostly about the marketing, says John Stepek. But it's not all bad.
-
Here’s why the idea of a bubble in passive investing is flawedTutorials The idea of passive investing – buying a fund that simply tracks an index – has been growing rapidly in recent years. Some say it's in a bubble. John Stepek disagrees.
-
Passive investing would have confounded Adam Smith
Tutorials If Adam Smith were alive today, the great economist would be left utterly perplexed by the rise and popularity of passive investing, says Merryn Somerset Webb.
