Don’t Be a Sucker—You Shouldn’t Take Warren Buffett’s $1 Billion Bracket Challenge

The stadium scene.
March 14 2014 6:38 PM

Don’t Take Warren Buffett’s Bracket Challenge

You’ll get $1 billion if you fill out a perfect NCAA bracket. Don’t do it.

(Continued from Page 1)

To be fair, Quicken is paying $100,000 to each of the 20 best “imperfect” bracket pickers. But the contest wouldn’t have nearly the marketing pizzazz if it were called the $100,000 to 20 People Bracket Challenge, like it probably should be.

3) In the imaginary case that you’re about to win, Buffett will buy you out.

Buffett told the Los Angeles Times that if someone gets to the Final Four with 60 out of 60 correct, he would probably try to buy them out before they won it all. “I'm not sure Quicken would let me do that,” Buffett told’s Rick Reilly, but then proceeds as if he’s pretty sure he could. “If I offered you $100 million to call off the bet, I bet you'd take it,” he said to Reilly.


That $100 million actually sounds like too much. That L.A. Times piece notes, “Most people would have a very hard time turning down $10 million when there was a chance they could get nothing.” The point here is not that $100 million or $10 million is a bad result: It’s that the $1 billion is a mirage, a hypnotist’s spiral.

All of this makes this a great deal for Buffett. In addition to all the publicity he’s getting, the Oracle of Omaha’s company Berkshire Hathaway is also insuring the payout, with Quicken paying an undisclosed sum to cover the $1 billion if the world were to turn inside out and someone did win. Buying a policy to insure you against a very unlikely outcome wouldn’t cost very much, so whatever Quicken’s paying also reflects Buffett’s lending of his name, image, and credibility to the affair. (Buffett, via Berkshire Hathaway, did not respond to a request for comment on the contest or his role in it.)

4) You get squat, while Quicken gets a real jackpot.


Screenshot via

To register for the contest, you have to sign up for a Yahoo account—a boon in itself for Yahoo, on whose site the contest is run. Then you’re asked to enter your name, address, email, birthday, and the answers to several questions about your home mortgage situation. All of this information goes to Quicken Loans, the fourth-largest mortgage-lender in the U.S.

It’s no coincidence that this information—where do you live? Do you want to buy a home? What’s your current mortgage rate?—is exactly what you need if you want to sell someone a home loan.

“That is a very rich amount of information, very rich,” says David Lykken, a managing partner at Mortgage Banking Solutions, an Austin, Texas-based consulting firm. “Brilliant—information you can get the consumer to supply for no cost.”

It’s not uncommon for companies like Quicken to pay between $50 and $300 for a single high-quality mortgage lead, Lykken says.

Quicken says the info-gathering is not intended for lead generation. Instead, the company says it’s building a base of relationships with people who may want home loans in the future. “The people that are playing the Billion Dollar Bracket kind of fit our demographic,” says Jay Farner, Quicken’s president and marketing chief. “But for the most part, unless they’ve opted in and said ‘please call me,’ it’s not a mortgage lead for us.”

Whether you want to call it a mortgage lead or not, this is a savvy maneuver. In a mortgage industry that’s going through a big contraction because of rising interest rates, Quicken is getting potential customers to run, panting, to its doorstep. Ka-ching!

After the mortgage crisis, federal policymakers made it more difficult for companies to sell dodgy loans. And to be clear, Quicken doesn’t belong in the same category as firms like Countrywide Financial and Ameriquest, which helped torch the economy with subprime loan sales. But the question remains: What are you really getting when you give your private information to this corporation? No question that it’s a very, very good bet—you’re just on the wrong side of it.

David Sarno is the founder of Lighthaus Inc, which develops interactive storytelling for news, education, and health care. He was a technology and culture writer at the Los Angeles Times from 2006 to 2013.



Don’t Worry, Obama Isn’t Sending U.S. Troops to Fight ISIS

But the next president might. 

The Extraordinary Amicus Brief That Attempts to Explain the Wu-Tang Clan to the Supreme Court Justices

Amazon Is Officially a Gadget Company. Here Are Its Six New Devices.

The Human Need to Find Connections in Everything

It’s the source of creativity and delusions. It can harm us more than it helps us.

How Much Should You Loathe NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell?

Here are the facts.

Altered State

The Plight of the Pre-Legalization Marijuana Offender

What should happen to weed users and dealers busted before the stuff was legal?

Surprise! The Women Hired to Fix the NFL Think the NFL Is Just Great.

You Shouldn’t Spank Anyone but Your Consensual Sex Partner

Sept. 17 2014 5:10 PM The Most Awkward Scenario in Which a Man Can Hold a Door for a Woman
  News & Politics
Sept. 17 2014 7:03 PM Once Again, a Climate Policy Hearing Descends Into Absurdity
Business Insider
Sept. 17 2014 1:36 PM Nate Silver Versus Princeton Professor: Who Has the Right Models?
Sept. 17 2014 6:53 PM LGBTQ Luminaries Honored With MacArthur “Genius” Fellowships
  Double X
The XX Factor
Sept. 17 2014 6:14 PM Today in Gender Gaps: Biking
  Slate Plus
Slate Fare
Sept. 17 2014 9:37 AM Is Slate Too Liberal?  A members-only open thread.
Brow Beat
Sept. 17 2014 8:25 PM A New Song and Music Video From Angel Olsen, Indie’s Next Big Thing
Future Tense
Sept. 17 2014 7:23 PM MIT Researchers Are Using Smartphones to Interact With Other Screens
  Health & Science
Bad Astronomy
Sept. 17 2014 11:18 AM A Bridge Across the Sky
Sports Nut
Sept. 15 2014 9:05 PM Giving Up on Goodell How the NFL lost the trust of its most loyal reporters.