[0:00]
QuestionerAt this meeting four or five years ago, you commented that money managers in the aggregate have not done better than various market indices. I wonder if today you would update your thoughts on this.
WarrenWell, I would say there's money managers in the last few years since I've made that statement have not disappointed me. In aggregate, they have underperformed index funds, and it's the nature of the game. They simply cannot overperform an aggregate. There are too many of them managing too big a portion of the pool. You know, they say in this world you can't get something for nothing. But the truth is money managers in aggregate have gotten something for nothing. I mean, they've gotten a lot for nothing. And people, investors have paid, and the corollary is investors have paid something for nothing. And that doesn't mean that people are evil. It doesn't mean that they're charlatans or anything. It just, it's the nature. If you've got a $6 or $7 trillion or whatever it may be equity market and you have a very significant percentage of it managed by professionals and they charge you significant fees to invest with them and they have costs when they change around, they cannot do as well as unmanaged money in aggregate. And it's the only field in the world that I, you know, that I can think of, and Charlie will think of some others, but where the amateur, as long as he recognizes, he's the only field in the world. is amateur, we'll do better than the professional does for the people whose money he's handling.