If Bernie Madoff had invested in Berkshire Hathaway, would the ponzi actually have succeeded?
I could be wrong, but I doubt that Bernie started out with any intention of defrauding anyone, really.  I suspect it began the first time he hit a quarter when his returns were lower than everyone else's, or at least not as high as he'd promised his investors they'd be, so he fudged the numbers and lied to get past the moment, thinking he'd just make up for it the next quarter.  Only that never happened, and so the lie carried forward and maybe grew as things didn't improve as he expected. It only turned into a ponzi because he wasn't as successful at investing as he was telling his investors he was, and telling the truth would have meant the probability that he would have lost most of his clients as they went elsewhere.  Bernie couldn't admit the truth, so he had to keep up the fiction by actually paying out returns that didn't exist, which required constantly finding new money to cover what he was paying out.  The source of that money turned out to be new investors who were lured in by people already investing with Bernie who told them how great he was as a financial wizard, and they had the checks to prove it. I think this got so far out of hand, and it gradually dragged more and more people in because such things turn into black holes, swallowing up everything that gets close. Had the 2008 financial crisis not hit then Bernie might still be at it.  The rapid downturns in the markets hit many of Bernie's investors with margin calls in other investments they held, so they requested redemptions from him to cover their calls, expecting that all of the money he'd convinced to leave with him really existed.  When he realized he couldn't meet the flood of redemptions, that was when he 'fessed up and the bubble burst. Could he have succeeded by simple investing in Berkshire?  Probably.  But then how many people say that in hindsight about them or Amazon or Google, or any number of other stocks that turned out similarly? (grin)  Taking people's money and parking it all in one stock doesn't make you a genius, and that's how Bernie wanted to be viewed.  To accomplish that, he needed to find the opportunities nobody else saw and be the one to get there first.  Unfortunately his personal crystal ball was wrong, and rather than taking his lumps by admitting it to his investors, his pride and ego led him down a path of deception that I'm sure he had every intention of making right if he could.  The problem was, that moment never came. Keep in mind one thing:  The $64 billion figure everyone cites isn't money that really existed in the first place.  That number is what Bernie claimed his fund was worth, and it is not the amount he actually defrauded people out of.  His actual cash intake was probably somewhere in the $20 billion range over that time.  Everything else beyond that was nothing more than the fictionalized returns he was claiming to get for his clients.  It's what they thought they had in the bank with him, rather than what was really there.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.aei.org/publication/warren-buffett-wins-1m-bet-made-a-decade-ago-that-the-sp-500-stock-index-would-outperform-hedge-funds/) reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; MP: Specifically, Buffett offered to bet that over a ten-year period from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2017, the S&amp;P 500 index would outperform a portfolio of funds of hedge funds when performance is measured on a basis net of fee.  &gt; A fund that tracks the S&amp;P 500 fund might have an expense ratio of as little as 0.02%. MP: The chart above shows the annual returns on the S&amp;P 500 index and the average annual returns on a comprehensive index of thousands of hedge funds maintained by Barclay over the period of Buffett&amp;#039;s bet: From 2008 through August of this year.  &gt; Funds of hedge funds accentuate this cost problem because their fees are superimposed on the large fees charged by the hedge funds in which the funds of funds are invested.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/71a3oo/warren_buffett_wins_1m_bet_made_a_decade_ago_that/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~213478 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **fund**^#1 **hedge**^#2 **index**^#3 **bet**^#4 **fee**^#5" w/o the winklevoss twins, Zuckerberg wouldn't be a billionaire. Not that he wouldn't be successful, or he owes them anything, but w/o their idea of a social network, he very likely would have done something different. Worked hard, but it may or may not have worked. He is both skilled, hard working, and lucky. Yes, yes - that's my point. The common investors never did invest (or even get to invest) so they didn't lose money as the article claims. It's the idiot institutional funds that got screwed.   Common investors - most of them - knew FB was overvalued. Romney isn't really a capitalist in the sense that he didn't place his own capital at risk.  Bain Capital was founded by a guy named Bain who launched it with $30 million of his own moolah.  Romney was recruited to run the operation but did not kick in anything.  That's not capitalism; that's called being born lucky. To understand his comments about bear-market performance it's important to take them in context. (My research method was Crtl+F: bear; read around the highlights. This is not a complete survey of 60+ years of letters.)  In his earlier letters, statements about bull market performance are always made in reference to Buffet's belief that many of BH's current holdings are in undervalued securities. Ex:  To the extent possible, therefore, I am attempting to create my own work-outs by acquiring large positions in several undervalued securities. Such a policy should lead to the fulfillment of my earlier forecast – an above average performance in a bear market. It is on this basis that I hope to be judged (p 6; emphasis mine). Similar statements are made throughout the earlier letters, along with this interesting note:  In a year when the general market had a substantial advance I would be well   satisfied to match the advance of the Averages (p 6). So to your question of why BH fund performance is likely to be better in a bear market than in a bull market, I believe the implicit assertion is that undervalued securities are more resilient in a bear market (presumably because they don't have as far to fall, and are also less likely to be subject to a bubble). Buffet is also explicitly asserting that when facing a choice to either (a) position BH to weather a possible downturn or (b) position BH to enjoy a bullish stock that is outpacing the market, he would choose the former over the later. As to your assertion that he always says this, I can find no reference to bear market's in the letters past 1960. Perhaps something else comes with the bond so it is a convertible security. Buffett's Negative-Interest Issues Sell Well from 2002 would be an example from more than a decade ago: Warren E. Buffett's new negative-interest bonds sold rapidly   yesterday, even after the size of the offering was increased to $400   million from $250 million, with a possible offering of another $100   million to cover overallotments. The new Berkshire Hathaway securities, which were underwritten by   Goldman, Sachs at the suggestion of Mr. Buffett, Berkshire's chairman   and chief executive, pay 3 percent annual interest. But they are   coupled with five-year warrants to buy Berkshire stock at $89,585, a   15 percent premium to Berkshire's stock price Tuesday of $77,900. To   maintain the warrant, an investor is required to pay 3.75 percent each   year. That provides a net negative rate of 0.75 percent. "I did once read a book titled ""How I made a million dollars on the stock market"". It sounded realistic enough to be a true story. The author made it clear on the first page that (a) this was due to some exceptional circumstances, (b) that he would never again be able to pull off something like this, and (c) you would never be able to pull of something like this, except with extreme luck.  (The situation was small company A with a majority shareholder, other small company B tries to gain control by buying all the shares, the majority shareholder of A trying to prevent this by buying as many shares as possible, share price shooting up ridiculously, ""smart"" traders selling uncovered shorts to benefit when the price inevitably drops, the book author buying $5,000 worth of shares because they were going up, and then one enormous short squeeze catching out the traders. And he claimed having sold his shares for over a million - before the price dropped back to normal).  Clearly not a matter of ""playing your cards right"", but of having an enormous amount of luck." Are you looking for this Warren Buffets Stock Portfolio? Or Berkshire Hathaway Portfolio WFC is near the bottom of the BH portfolio but it seems to be a rather large investment for both. JPM is probably the hugest too big to fail alongside being one of the most highly leveraged. Did you see Jamie Dimon testifying before our great politicians earlier this year? I mean if the Federal Government is kissing his ass, what will the State of New York really accomplish? The Bear Stearns collapse was avoided by JPM jumping in and saving the pride of Wall Street. Do you see Barclay's getting sued for things Lehman Brothers did? Barclay's is living the good life in London rigging LIBOR, while JPM, an American institution is being re-regulated. Should the government sue every company that goes out of business for defrauding customers, employees, and all stakeholders? SMH Over a period of time greater than 10 years (keep in mind, 2000-2009 ten year period fails, so I am talking longer) the market, as measured by the S&P 500, was positive. Long term, averaging more than 10%/yr.  At a 1 year horizon, the success is 67 or so percent. It's mostly for this reason that those asking about investing are told that if they need money in a year or two, to buy a house for instance, they are told to stay out of the market.  As the time approaches one day or less, the success rate drops to 50/50. The next trade being higher or lower is a random event.  Say you have a $5 commission. A $10,000 trade buy/sell is $10 for the day. 250 trading days costs you $2500 if you get in and out once per day. You need to be ahead 25% for the year to break even.  You can spin the numbers any way you wish, but in the end, time (long time spans) is on your side. No the government got screwed. They only made a profit if you squint very hard and ignore lots of things.  They should have done what Buffett did, or more, offering to buy as many share as needed at 1c a share. No-one need to bust but stupid greedy people needed to learn a lesson.  Of course they did learn a lesson: America is the home of socialized losses and privatized profits. "The best answer here is ""maybe, but probably not"". A few quick reasons: Its not a bad idea to watch other investors especially those who can move markets but do your own research on an investment first. Your sole reason for investing should not be ""Warren did it""." "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/view/articles/2017-09-21/bet-with-buffett-not-against-him) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The first is a New York Post article with the headline, &amp;quot;Warren Buffett wins $1M bet made with hedgie a decade ago&amp;quot;.  &gt; Although Seides has admitted defeat, he said he thinks that &amp;quot;Doubling down on a bet with Warren Buffett for the next 10 years would hold greater-than-even odds of victory.&amp;quot; Thus, despite spending $1 million in tuition at the University of Buffett, he failed to learn the expensive lesson that Buffett has offered up to all of us.  &gt; Which leads us to Buffett&amp;#039;s motivation in making the bet.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/725pxt/bet_with_buffett_not_against_him/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~215707 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **Buffett**^#1 **bet**^#2 **money**^#3 **year**^#4 **Index**^#5" "Even though this is really a psychology question, I'll try to give you an answer. You do nothing but stay away.  What's going on is too small to matter. Bernie Madoff took investor's money and scammed them for $15B. That's B, billion, 9 zeros (Yes, I realize the UK Billion has 12, these are US Billion). Harry Markopolos was on to him, and presented his evidence to the government, but ""No one would listen."" In quotes because that's the title of the book he published on his experience. Even Barron's had an article suggesting that Madoff's returns were impossible. Eventually, it came to light. In my own experience, there was a mortgage acceleration product called ""Money Merge Account."" It claimed to help you pay off your mortgage in a fraction of the time ""with no change to your budget."" For two years or so, I was obsessed with exposing this scam, and wrote articles, nearly every week discussing every aspect of this product. Funny how even though mortgages are math that's pretty easy to explain, few sellers wanted to talk about the math. Using the same logic that you don't need to understand how a car works as long as you know how to drive. There were some people that would write to tell me I saved them the $3500 cost of that product, but mostly I argued with sellers who dismissed every word I wrote as if the math were incomprehensible to anyone but the software guys who wrote it. In the end, I had compiled a PDF with over 60 pages of my writing on the topic, and decided to call it quits. The product was recycled and now is sold as ""Worth Unlimited,"" but the software is the same.  This is all a tangent to your problem. It simply offers the fact that the big scam, Bernie, continued for a long time, and people who were otherwise intelligent, fell for his promises, and didn't want to believe otherwise. The mortgage software had many bloggers writing. Searching on the web found a lot of discussion, very easy to find.  People will believe what they wish. Tell an Atheist that God exists, or a believer that He doesn't, and your words will fall on deaf ears. Unfortunately, this is no different." "Other responses have focused on getting you software to use, but I'd like to attempt your literal question: how are such transactions managed in systems that handle them? I will answer for ""double entry"" bookkeeping software such as Quicken or GnuCash (my choice). (Disclaimer: I Am Not An Accountant and accountants will probably find error in my terminology.) Your credit card is a liability to you, and is tracked using a liability account (as opposed to an asset account, such as your bank accounts or cash in your pocket). A liability account is just like an asset except that it is subtracted from rather than added to your total assets (or, from another perspective, its balance is normally negative; the mathematics works out identically). When you make a purchase using your credit card, the transaction you record transfers money from the liability account (increasing the liability) to the expense account for your classification of the expense. When you make a payment on your credit card, the transaction you record transfers money from your checking account (for example) to the credit card account, reducing the liability. Whatever software you choose for tracking your money, I strongly recommend choosing something that is sufficiently powerful to handle representing this as I have described (transfers between accounts as the normal mode of operation, not simply lone increases/decreases of asset accounts)."