Last week, UBS made a pretty bold claim.
Companies run by billionaires outperform other public companies, it argued in a report from its wealth management department that broadly defended the ultra-rich. More controversially, it attributed this so-called Billionaire Effect to “smart” risk-taking.
Even given the obvious commercial interests, there’s nothing inherently wrong with expressing unpopular views that cut against the political grain.
Except when, you know, those views are actually wrong, or completely unsupported by the evidence. Which is unfortunately the case here.
This is the particular claim made in the UBS report:
Over the 15 years to the end of 2018, billionaire-controlled companies listed on the equity market returned 17.8 per cent, compared with the 9.1 per cent of the MSCI AC World Index.
This is later spiralled into a broader set of statements about billionaires, from Josef Stadler, head of ultra-high net worth at the bank’s wealth management department:
Billionaires are creating and steering businesses that consistently outperform equity markets. This business acumen has also translated into their philanthropy, as billionaires seek new ways to engineer far-reaching environmental and social change. This ‘Billionaire Effect’ is alive and well across the world – and shows little sign of slowing.
Outperformance? Not so fast. On page 30 of their report, the methodology used to arrive at this 17.8 per cent figure is broken down in more detail.
We identified publicly listed companies controlled by billionaires at the end of the years 2003, 2008, 2013 and 2018, narrowing this selection further to companies that represent a respective billionaire‘s primary source of wealth.
From this selection, the stock performance data were collected for 604 companies from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2018, using Bloomberg as data source. We calculated the average annualised returns for the companies selected in 2003, 2008 and 2013, and constructed an index that switches the universe every five years to the new set of billionaire-controlled companies in order to reduce the selection bias. The index has been adjusted to reflect the sector and regional weightings of the MSCI ACWI.
Before we get to the real statistical issue, the wording in the report is already misleading. It is not true that a set of particular companies “controlled by billionaires” have, on average, returned “17.8 per cent”. Instead, as above, UBS are selecting three distinct groups of companies, that overlap, and taking a measure of their performance over 5-year periods. There is no actual 17.8 per cent return over 15 years.
The question then naturally arises: what happens if a company is run by a billionaire in 2003, but that owner is no longer a billionaire in 2008? It is removed from the index. What are removed companies replaced with? New companies, run by newly-minted billionaires.
So the index is not, by any stretch of the imagination, capturing the performance of a particular set of billionaire-controlled companies from a given date onwards. It is capturing the performance of a shifting set of companies: those run by people who became billionaires between 2003 and 2018 (selection bias), and those run by people who were billionaires in 2003 and stayed billionaires (survivorship bias).
This is not a useful contribution to the overarching debate on billionaires. It amounts to a thinly-disguised tautology. You may as well record the rising prices of London houses, eliminating only the ones that went down.
And even if there is outperformance for companies run by current billionaires, which is possible but for which there is currently no good evidence at all based on the report, there is even less evidence for what the report claims it is caused by.
Billionaires, the authors confidently state, outperform because they are “smart risk-takers”, a kind of evidence free assertion exacerbated by the warped market data accompanying it. Let’s take a moment to enjoy the full quote, and coinage of the Billionaire Effect, from the press release:
This Billionaire Effect can be attributed to billionaires’ appetite for smart risk taking and their greater willingness to plan and invest for the long term.
Presumably, the People-Who-Became-And-Remained-Billionaires-But-Not-Those-Who-Were-Once-Billionaires-And-Did-Badly-Effect didn’t get through the marketing department. Either that, or the immutable characteristics of billionaires mysteriously evaporate when they fall out of the three comma club.
So if this report is not a serious empirical exercise, what is it? Perhaps it’s a kind of targeted flattery, encouraging the billionaires of the world to invest through a company that appreciates them. But even then, the whole exercise would be subject to one final flaw.
If those billionaires really are smarter than everyone else, and really do outperform, then they would be the least likely people to invest their money based on mere flattery. And this whole episode would be a complete waste of everyone’s time.
UBS declined to comment.
- When fast fashion jumps on the eco-wagon
- GenX will set central banks’ climate response
- The stablecoin anathema
- Masters of the universe, don’t be scared of Elizabeth Warren
- Missing: the GE short report
- The average lifespan of a fiat currency isn’t 27 years
- Lord King: Brexit is no big deal
- No inflation? Tell that to my landlord
- Today, in fintech marketing
- YouGov’s “blockchain-based” sell-your-own data platform makes no sense (*update)
- Presented without comment
- Block.one headed
- Ride-sharing apps can’t save the planet (obv)
- The WeWork bull case
- No deal Brexit is not a hedge fund conspiracy
- Europe’s digital infrastructure issue
- Let’s give a helping hand to Andrew Yang
- Anatomy of a malware scam
- ARK Invest’s Tesla model gathers dust
- A delirious defence of Uber
- WeLiquid: Adam Neumann pockets $700m
- Yesterday, in efficient markets
- The warm fuzzy feeling of indirectly owning Tencent
- The best of Morgan Stanley’s Adam Jonas
- Apple/Tesla: M&A and heartbreak
- Did Beyonce make $300m from Uber’s IPO?
- Bitcoin is the 10-year Treasury of our time
- High resolution music is a solution looking for a problem
- Amazon is furious about this negative review
- Missing: $500bn of American savings
- Blockchain for Brexit: a wonderfully terrible idea
- The Bank of Hodlers [sic] (sigh)
- Behind the curtain at China Ding Yi Feng
- An answer to Mark Cuban’s question
- Crumbs! It’s CRYPTO: the movie!
- National Beverage Corp loses its fizz, and its mind
- Amazon won’t spin-off Amazon Web Services
- Mensch! Dan McCrum is innocent, ok?
- Europe’s $1 trillion tax gap
- Why online propaganda mobs are an investment red flag
- Davos has produced an amazing new guide on precisely how not to think about risk
- When the public relations industry does PR for itself
- Who wants to be crippled by student debt?
- The bitcoin price is wrong
- The warm fuzzy feeling of Goldman debt
- “Cryptoassets” are crashing again. Is it time to start calling them cryptoliabilities instead?
- Puff the tragic cryptowagon smokes out the Mumsnet demographic
- Don’t write off the public sector
- Initiative Q: an elementary pyramid scheme with grandiose ideas [Update]
- Moral investments aren’t outperforming
- No one is killing it in crypto (not even Woz)
- Too smooth: the red flag at Patisserie Valerie which was missed
- No, the housing crisis will not be solved by building more homes
- Sorry Civil, ‘crypto-economics’ and ‘constitutions’ won’t save journalism
- ‘Short-termism’ isn’t a thing, say Fed economists
- Coinbase wants to be “too big to fail”, lol
- Regulation and innovation don’t have to be enemies
- Retailers get so lonely around the holidays
- Folli Follie: $1bn of fake sales, and what to learn from the debacle
- The new green evangelism
- Tilray, how low can it go?
- The ICO behind the tragic Everest stunt is now “airdropping” tokens from rockets
- Beware the Hindenburg Omen?
- The broken conversation about financial regulation
- The improbably profitable, loss-making Blue Prism
- The EM rout is not made in America
- Wages and growth and honestly we just give up
- Britain’s first blockchain-enabled co-working space isn’t blockchain-enabled
- There is a FIRE that never goes out
- The WeWork Garden of Eden
- IQE: lumpy ‘Apple’ sauce at the pricey Cardiff chip shop
- There’s only so much a central bank can do alone
- Eight questions every first-time buyer should ask
- MiFID II: not all doom and gloom
- Tesla: getting to Q3 profitability
- Turkey contagion fears are overblown [Update]
- The chance of an inflation shock may be higher than you think
- Sorry Tim, the humanity is not being drained out of music
- Digital crop circles
- What could go wrong here?
- Sirius Minerals: money for a hole in the ground
- The Bank of England has a strange idea of what QE achieved
- One for the ladies…
- ‘Of course, many ridiculous papers appeared’
- Is a change goin’ to come?
- The capacity’s not there yet (and probably never will be)
- Musk and Tesla are not inseparable
- Libraries, from Carnegie to Bezos
- Crypto & government: from anarchy to amity in the USA
- ‘I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I cannot sanction this Series B round’
- RBC, through the FANG barrier
- Self-help to buy
- CFA: Chartered crypto analysts — updated
- The Netflix dilemma — updated
- Fujitsu’s new blockchain offering: really cheap or really expensive?
- Nothing But the Shirt on Your Back
- Universities of Britain: cosying up to crypto is a bad look
- How to make a living in the cult of meritocracy
- Spotify: Drake-oil salesmen
- Oh, the digital humanity
- Sports are not markets, predictions ain’t investment
- Spot the difference, Steinhoff edition
- Larry Robbins, a cautionary tale
- The node to serfdom
- Carney is down with the crypto kids
- Samsonite: inventory, excess baggage, and unresolved questions
- It might be a long wait for “the equivalent alternative to ICOs”
- Don’t blame it on the sunshine
- In corporate America, brands develop you
- One in ten dollars of US housing were anonymous
- Should AT&T worry more about its debt?
- Who cares if Elon is incinerating capital?
- Let’s not try make ‘crypto chicks’ a thing
- Tokens all the way down
- Eight-dimensional chess with Elon Musk
- A lopsided trade is a good trade, Italian inflation edition
- How to buy Italian fire insurance
- Atlas bugged
- Inflating inflation
- Crypto’s most devout believers are suffering a crisis of faith
- Plus500: past performance is no guide to the future
- Noble rot in a shrinking Harbour
- In defence of ticket touts
- Please don’t tell individual investors to buy leveraged loans
- RIB Software: the unicorn rainy-day fund
- Retail is not dead
- Did Soros really give Tesla a “vote of confidence”?
- At a crypto conference in New York, it feels like 2017 all over again
- Egregious expectations – Intelsat edition
- Bitcoin cash is expanding into the void
- Stop getting The Flintstones wrong
- Bond investors do not care if Argentina is solvent in 100 years
- Ubiquiti Networks: of cash and borrowed time
- “We’re very disappointed in you, Spotify”
- ‘Sex redistribution’ and the means of reproduction
- Tesla probably needs to raise capital this year
- No entitlement crisis in America
- Free cash flow to whom?
- Hey crypto bros! Journalism ≠ advertising
- Human capital and the jobs guarantee
- This is a tech bubble, when’s the crash?
- The magic of adjustments: ebitla-dee-da
- FUD, inglorious FUD
- A complex analysis reaches same conclusion as simple one: hedge funds suck
- The jobs guarantee and human-capital “nationalisation”
- These hedge fund numbers can’t be right
- The Vomiting Camel has escaped from Bitcoin zoo
- Lies, damn lies, and charticles
- The world doesn’t need more Elon Musks
- No, Facebook should not become a nonprofit
- Sell all crypto and abandon all blockchain
- Immutable ledgers meet European data protection
- Amazon is not a bubble
- Japan’s economic miracle
- Have you ever meta crypto joke you didn’t like?
- Delaware should change its rules to let the light in
- Who needs the labels anyway?
- Baby Boomers want your family to finance a larger share of their retirement
- No, America would not benefit from authoritarian central planning
- No one needs to buy Tesla
- How to win a debate in the cult of meritocracy
- Steinhoff International and the case of Pepkor Global Sourcing
- Sorry Jack, Bitcoin will not become the global currency
- The “academic’s cryptocurrency” is an elegant waste of time
- Cigarettes are the vice America needs
- Well that’s one reason to buy yen…
- Musicians, don’t just blame the labels for your lack of dough
- Giving stock away to staff doesn’t absolve share buybacks
- A penny for Macpherson’s thoughts on the nominal anchor
- Monopoly and its discontents
- A State of Mind
- America is not the least protectionist country in the world
- This is nuts, when does Netflix crash?
- No Bloomberg, the world’s richest people did not lose $114bn…
- Someone is wrong on the internet, government employee pensions and passive investing edition
- Someone is wrong on the internet, possibly fragile
- Someone is wrong on the internet, consumer financial regulation edition
- Someone is wrong on the internet: tontine tokens [Update]
- Someone is wrong on the internet, road economics edition
- Someone is wrong on the internet, wages and the stock market edition