Key Takeaways
- • Warren Buffett's January 2008 wager of $318,250 against five hedge fund-of-funds portfolios (representing over 200 underlying hedge funds) decisively favored the S&P 500, which returned 125.8% (8.5% annualized) versus 36.3% (3.1% annualized) for the hedge fund basket over the 10-year period.
- • The S&P 500's recovery proved decisive: after a 37% decline in 2008, the index posted 15% annualized returns over the subsequent nine years, while none of the five selected fund-of-funds matched its cumulative performance on an absolute return basis.
- • The bet's outcome does not necessarily reflect hedge fund failure on their stated objective of generating alpha and risk-adjusted returns; rather, it demonstrates the challenge of beating equity indices on absolute return terms during a historically favorable equity market cycle.
- • Timing significantly impacts bet outcomes: had the wager commenced in January 2009, 2010, or 2011 instead, the S&P 500 would have returned 13.1%, 13.6%, and 13.9% annualized respectively—making an Buffett victory even more pronounced across subsequent 10-year windows.
- • The 8.5% annualized S&P 500 return achieved over the bet period was slightly below the long-term historical average of 10% since 1928, suggesting the hedge funds' underperformance was not attributable to exceptionally favorable market conditions.
Summary
In January 2008, Warren Buffett initiated a public wager against hedge fund managers represented by Protégé Partners, wagering $318,250 that a simple S&P 500 index fund would outperform a carefully selected portfolio of five fund-of-funds investing across more than 200 underlying hedge funds over a 10-year period. The results demonstrated a substantial performance gap favoring the index strategy.
The S&P 500 generated total returns of 125.8%, translating to 8.5% annualized returns, compared to the hedge fund basket's 36.3% total return (3.1% annualized) through the bet's conclusion. This disparity widened despite severe market stress in 2008, when the S&P 500 declined 37% while outperforming the hedge fund portfolios that year. The index subsequently recovered sharply, generating 15% annualized returns over the nine years following 2008, while none of the five selected fund-of-funds managed to match the S&P 500's cumulative performance.
The analysis acknowledges an important conceptual distinction: hedge funds and alternative investments typically target alpha generation and risk-adjusted returns rather than absolute outperformance of equity indices. Measured on Buffett's stated terms—where ending net returns determined the outcome—the hedge fund strategy failed decisively. However, this structural mismatch highlights the challenge of comparing investment vehicles with fundamentally different objectives and risk profiles.
Timing proved crucial to the outcome. The 8.5% annualized return achieved by the S&P 500 over the 2008–2018 period slightly underperformed the long-term historical average of 10% since 1928, yet subsequent 10-year windows would have amplified the index's dominance: had the bet commenced in January 2009, 2010, or 2011, the S&P 500 would have generated 13.1%, 13.6%, and 13.9% annualized returns respectively, making Buffett's position even harder to challenge. This pattern suggests that the 2008 starting point, while appearing unfavorable initially, ultimately favored the equity index strategy across the broader recovery cycle.
The S&P 500 generated total returns of 125.8%, translating to 8.5% annualized returns, compared to the hedge fund basket's 36.3% total return (3.1% annualized) through the bet's conclusion. This disparity widened despite severe market stress in 2008, when the S&P 500 declined 37% while outperforming the hedge fund portfolios that year. The index subsequently recovered sharply, generating 15% annualized returns over the nine years following 2008, while none of the five selected fund-of-funds managed to match the S&P 500's cumulative performance.
The analysis acknowledges an important conceptual distinction: hedge funds and alternative investments typically target alpha generation and risk-adjusted returns rather than absolute outperformance of equity indices. Measured on Buffett's stated terms—where ending net returns determined the outcome—the hedge fund strategy failed decisively. However, this structural mismatch highlights the challenge of comparing investment vehicles with fundamentally different objectives and risk profiles.
Timing proved crucial to the outcome. The 8.5% annualized return achieved by the S&P 500 over the 2008–2018 period slightly underperformed the long-term historical average of 10% since 1928, yet subsequent 10-year windows would have amplified the index's dominance: had the bet commenced in January 2009, 2010, or 2011, the S&P 500 would have generated 13.1%, 13.6%, and 13.9% annualized returns respectively, making Buffett's position even harder to challenge. This pattern suggests that the 2008 starting point, while appearing unfavorable initially, ultimately favored the equity index strategy across the broader recovery cycle.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.