買基金?買ETF?巴菲特真正的想法?

作者:Ralph Cheng 鄭宇和

自從華倫.巴菲特(Warren Buffett)在年度致股東公開信及股東大會中表示,主動式管理基金並不值得投資人付出高額管理費用後,觸怒了不少基金經理人。敝人同樣擔任基金經理人,卻沒有他們那種憤怒的情緒。這次股東會的直播影像裡,我除了仔細聆聽巴菲特的一字一句,也留意他在言語背後想傳達的意涵。

根據巴菲特的見解,專業人士的努力,不可以低於自身應得的報酬,但他也發現,大部分的主動式基金經理人恐怕不配享有投資人付出的高額管理費。關於這點,我相當贊同。

信中他提及他與泰德.西德斯(Ted Seides)自2008年開始為期10年,賭注達50萬美元的賭約。巴菲特所挑選的被動式低費用領航(Vangard)標普基金,其過去10年的表現超越了西德斯所挑選的5檔對沖基金,使巴菲特贏得了賭注。這是一場公平的對決。西德斯與其所挑選的基金,盡皆具備求勝及超越大盤績效的動機,但實際成果卻無法盡如人意。這個事實結果也顯示,如何才能找出長期而言必定優於大盤績效的基金,並非容易之事。

股東大會中,巴菲特被問及他是否會支付查理.蒙格(Charlie Munger)標準的1%「金融顧問」費用,或甚至是避險基金式的2%管理費加上20%績效基金,因為過去他也曾質疑過所謂「金融顧問」的有效性。他再次強調,他所認識的人,僅有大約10幾位能夠透過良好的投資決策來為基金締造附加價值,並擊敗大盤績效,而蒙格就是其中一位;因此,巴菲特當然願意支付他這筆費用。

廣告

他進一步解釋:「當你去看牙醫或找水電工時,這些專業人士們所能提供的助益,通常會比你自己或隨機挑選的路人高。」顯然地,巴菲特只願意支付費用給能夠履行專業,且至少能擊敗大盤績效的經理人。

因此,我們可以清楚地瞭解到(1)想要找出長期投資表現超越大盤漲幅的主動式基金經理人,其實並不容易,及(2)無法擊敗大盤的經理人,並不值得投資人付出昂貴的管理費。

雖然多數基金經理人並不同意巴菲特的看法,然而,這樣的概念公平合理,每位專業人士均應牢記在心。身為基金經理人,若無法為客戶的投資締造附加價值,那麼實在沒有理由強求客戶支付費用。

最後,我想指出一件有趣的事,查理.蒙格在股東大會後提到:「很多所謂優秀的投資專家,一旦獲得越來越多的資金時,將會遭遇到可怕的績效危機⋯⋯」對這段評論最佳解讀理當為:當專家的基金規模越來越大時,將會開始面臨人性方面的風險,可能是貪婪、恐懼或其他形式的情緒。就我來看,人工智慧經理人可以不帶情緒地審慎管理基金,將是這種心理性問題的完美解決方案。儘管我無法確知巴菲特與蒙格是否對量化交易感興趣,但我期待著未來有一日能與這些投資大師就此主題進行對話。

更多文章請見法意專欄好文


Response to Warren Buffett’s Attack on Hedge Fund Fee Structure

After Warren Buffett stated that actively managed funds are not worth the high fees paid by investors in his annual letter and in a shareholders’ meeting, many fund managers responded with rage. Although I am a fund manager, I do not share the same feeling as many of them. I watched the shareholders’ meeting live, carefully listened to what Buffett actually said, and paid attention to the idea he was trying to convey.

In Buffett’s opinion, a person should not be paid more than what he or she deserves, and he seldom sees active fund managers who deserve the high conventional payment. I cannot agree with him more.

He talked about his ten-year bet with Ted Seides for a half million dollars, which started in 2008, in his annual letter. The passive low-cost Vanguard S&P fund Buffett picked outperformed the five hedge funds Seides selected over the past ten years, winning Buffett the bet. It was a fair bet. Seides and the funds he picked all had incentives to do well but did not. This reality shows the difficulty involved in finding a fund that can beat the benchmark in the long run.

During the shareholders’ meeting, Buffett was asked if he will pay Charlie Munger the standard “financial helpers” fee of one percent or even a hedge fund-style 2 and 20 since Buffett also questioned the effectiveness of “financial helpers” in the past. He re-emphasized that he knows only a dozen who can actually add value by making good investment decisions to beat the benchmark, and Munger is one of them; so yes, Buffet will pay him. He further explained, “And if you go to a dentist, if you hire a plumber, in all the professions there is value added by the professionals as a group compared to doing it yourself or just randomly picking a layman.” It is quite clear that Buffett is only willing to pay managers who can live up their profession and at least beat the benchmark.

To this point, it is clear that (1) it is hard to find an active fund manager who can beat the benchmark for a long period of time, and (2) if he or she cannot beat the benchmark, he or she does not deserve the expensive fees.

Many fund managers may not agree with Buffett. However, to me, the concept is fair and something that every professional should always keep in mind. If I, as a fund manager, cannot add value to my clients’ investment, I really give them no reason to pay me.

Last, I just want to point out that, interestingly, Charlie Munger said later in the meeting that “the expert who is really good, when he gets more and more money and he suffers just terrible performance problems….” The best way to interpret his comments is that when an expert’s fund size gets bigger and bigger, he or she starts to face the risk of human nature, which can manifest as greed, fear, or any other emotion. I think the perfect solution to that problem is to use an AI manager to look after a fund without emotion—only discipline. I am not sure if Buffett and Munger are interested in quant trading. I really look forward to pitching to these masters one day in the future.

★延伸閱讀★
計量金融分析師如何看待升息這件事?
法國大選中的國家陣線

物理學家走入華爾街 擦出什麼火花?
機器人該繳稅嗎?

【作者簡介】Ralph Cheng 鄭宇和

海外量化對沖基金經理人
畢業於西雅圖華盛頓大學 University of Washington – Seattle
Acquisition International 2017 東亞最具創新基金經理人
Acquisition International 2017 年度最佳對沖基金