Buffet Slams Wall Street Monkeys

Warren Buffett devoted more than four pages of annual shareholder letter to criticize active managers on Wall Street. He stated that they charge exorbitant fees for returns that fail to live up to lofty assumptions. An article on CNBC provided further details:



"When trillions of dollars are managed by Wall Streeters charging high fees, it will usually be the managers who reap outsized profits, not the clients," stated the widely-read letter released on Saturday morning. "Both large and small investors should stick with low-cost index funds."

Investors seem to be heeding Buffett's anti-active advice, as more than $20 billion flowed out of U.S. active equity funds in January despite a rising stock market, according to Morningstar.

What do you guys think of this? Is Buffet right and is active investment on the decline?

 

While I agree, the article goes in detail about a bet that Buffet made that started in 2008. Here is what his bet entitled:

"I publicly offered to wager $500,000 that no investment pro could select a set of at least five hedge funds – wildly-popular and high-fee investing vehicles – that would over an extended period match the performance of an unmanaged S&P-500 index fund charging only token fees. I suggested a ten-year bet and named a low-cost Vanguard S&P fund as my contender

The compounded annual increase of the index fund was 7.1% while the average for the five hedge funds selected was 2.2%. Looking more specifically at the returns actually makes it seem more enticing to go into index funds during / following a recession rather than attempting to mitigate risk.

 

this is another reason why I hate when Buffett opines. he built his entire net worth on a hybrid between active management and buying companies. his only saving grace is instead of charging 2 & 20%, he charges 25% of profits over 6% with no management fee. I don't have anything inherently wrong with this model, but it's kinda hard to run an Asset Management shop without ongoing revenue.

 
Best Response

because he's old and bored. 30 years ago he wrote a paper on how value investing is superior (google superinvestors of graham and doddsville). he has 2 guys running most of the money nowadays so he splits time between buying cherry coke and opining about politics, taxes, active/passive, and income inequality. I miss the old Buffett

 

the issue is lumping in all active in one bucket and all index in another bucket. there are certain strategies like low PE, high ROIC, high active share, some quant strategies (ran by the big shops like rentech, DE Shaw, 2 sigma, Citadel) and so on that (over long periods of time) can reliably outperform indices. on the whole, active will NEVER outperform passive, because all of passive + all of active is the market, and if the market is the median return, half of active managers underperform, and those that only barely outperform will turn into underperformers net of fees, so any given year, you have the majority of active managers underperforming net of fees.

and that's not true that active managers suffer smaller losses during bear markets, that only holds water if that active manager has been holding a lot of cash and is carrying less beta than the index. my point is that when the next bear growls, people will go back to active management partially because of this perception.

if you're young, in the accumulation phase, and don't get spooked by market declines, I'd put most of your money in something that doesn't require a lot of attention. if that's SPY, an active fund, a factor based ETF, whatever it is, just put it on autopilot. most investor success isn't based on whether you outperform or underperform the index by 50bps or even a point or two, it's regularly contributing a high % of your income to global stocks for decades.

if you can't stand the thought of potentially paying someone high fees if they underperform, then just buy an index fund (and I'd recommend something like VTWSX that gets the global market, not just US). if you believe there are certain strategies that can outperform over time, pick those funds and stick with them for a long time. or if you're unsure, split the difference. if you want to do it yourself, have the bulk of your money in something that doesn't require attention and then pick a few names you like and see what happens. most outperformance and underperformance comes from investor behavior, not from security selection, at least in my experience.

 

you're in wealth management so genuinely interested in getting your take on this. Have you seen any of your clients accumulate $5 million + in wealth from following the prescription of contributing 10-15% of their income (from their day job) to index funds for decades and letting it compound (aka the popular formula espoused by a million personal finance books and gurus). Reason I ask is because from my casual observation I've never met anyone who accumulated significant wealth this way unless they were a high earning professional or put it another way it's not that difficult to accumulate 5MM if you save 20% of your $300k income a year. Most of the wealthy people I know got their wealth from either owning a business or hit a home run through some non public investment like real estate or again some sort ownership stake in a company or companies or again successfully climbing very far up the corporate ladder. But I've yet to meet the guy with a large net worth who just steadily socked away his $75k income into an ira or 401k.

 

I'll give you one. Does every active manager that strives for absolute returns has the same risk profile as an index fund?

You killed the Greece spread goes up, spread goes down, from Wall Street they all play like a freak, Goldman Sachs 'o beat.
 

Have you read The Snowball? A lot of what Buffet did to accumulate the first stages of his fortune is illegal today-- though in all fairness it wasn't illegal then, but it still explains his initial edge and why it can't be done again today.

As for the passive vs. active argument I think any basic investor can tell you passive has been the hot trend the past few years. Active can occasionally make sense for some investors in certain situations however.

The quickest example that comes to mind is an investor age 60 who is planning on retiring soon and can't afford 100% downside capture during a market pullback and isn't nearly as concerned with 100% upside capture--in that case it makes sense to use an active manager who is using a variety of capital appreciation and total return strategies to minimize downside capture should the markets turn bearish. They aren't entirely concerned with performance and because of this an active manager can fill that void much more efficiently than say, a CD ladder.

 

FWU , I totally agree and could write an essay about how a person willfully maintaining a lack of financial literacy is literally more costly than a college degree via the fees they pay us advisors. I've lost more than a couple clients because I've explained how to use Morningstar, ETF's vs. mutual funds, active vs. passive, market cycles etc so don't think I'm rationalizing anything. For the record, it's fine with me, I'd rather serve as a Keynesian multiplier than a drain on their money when possible. I'll be the first to admit that the pricing strategy within advising is becoming antiquated. But before you go all Boglehead, also realize not everyone has the desire to take even a mere hour to educate themselves.

Unfortunately some people just don't care to learn it and their eyes glaze over when they hear anything financial. Now for me to build a portfolio and rebalance (I also use ETF models, not mutual funds), tax loss harvest, adjust allocations, smooth out their insurance, allocate their 401k (which I don't get paid on), come up with a personalized budget, make sure their wills and trust documents are intact, and get them specialized lending solutions they can't get at a retail bank-- well I think we can both agree that some compensation is deserved in those cases.

 

Quos minus qui aut sed accusantium similique eum repudiandae. Placeat aspernatur delectus ut vel et. Dolor animi repudiandae error vel ea. Consequuntur cum non sint maxime asperiores vitae. Sequi id dolor molestiae omnis repellat culpa iure. Corporis est est rerum quasi excepturi nobis dolores vero. Quia officiis voluptatem nemo saepe corrupti delectus enim fuga.

Optio aperiam nostrum eum provident illum qui. Vitae assumenda optio molestiae itaque.

Qui non magni voluptas molestiae ut vel. Magni sit voluptatem quaerat aut. Quia praesentium et velit in quasi consequatur aut. Quis inventore quod voluptates exercitationem. Molestiae eaque iure totam recusandae quia fuga autem modi. Ad delectus repellat sit sunt assumenda. Non et ut quo molestiae sed possimus ipsum.

Laudantium voluptatum iste animi nulla quis quasi eos. Ut nihil veniam dolores suscipit aut. Sed et et placeat cupiditate.

 

Enim et eligendi ut est. Architecto quia qui praesentium voluptatem sed. Voluptates inventore voluptates totam est asperiores nihil cupiditate. Sequi fuga aliquam praesentium voluptatem culpa rerum similique. Quibusdam quia in sunt sed totam.

Minima temporibus id officiis maiores amet. Dolorem accusamus debitis soluta eveniet odit vero. Porro tempore quibusdam repellendus eos ea aliquam officia.

Qui eveniet illo qui et eveniet asperiores. Voluptatem maxime maxime ipsum sunt et ut eos. Numquam voluptas omnis laborum.

Natus est repellendus consequatur ea. Iusto quibusdam culpa enim sequi autem. Nobis reiciendis nemo maiores doloremque aut voluptatum. A unde occaecati debitis nulla sint. Cumque animi tempora assumenda quaerat doloremque quaerat.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
6
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
7
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
8
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
9
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
10
bolo up's picture
bolo up
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”