Bias In Action

Myopic Urges

The recent sharp correction in markets has clearly surprised a lot of investors. No doubt this is partly due to the standard myopia people seem to exhibit as soon as the last crash is out of sight, but it also seems to be connected to the fact that the seemingly inexorable rise in share prices and the continuing low interest rates on deposits has tempted new people into stocks. Faced, for the first time, with nasty losses they’re casting about for some kind of strategy to deal with the situation.

In truth if you need to find a strategy after markets have started falling it’s too late. For most of us the only sensible approach is to only buy things we’re comfortable holding through any kind of downturn and to then do nothing when volatility strikes. But even experienced investors face the urge to do something – anything – in the face of mounting losses. This is action bias, in action.

Read Full Post >>

When Comfort Blankets Go Bad: Risk, Perception and Investing Theater

Investing as Performance Art

The security analyst Bruce Schneier describes many of the security measures on public display as  “security theater”: a meaningless set of rituals designed to provide a comfort blanket. He argues that these measures provide no useful protection and mainly serve to make our lives more difficult, increasing the risks we have to take while simultaneously restricting our freedoms.

I’d argue that much of the performance art we see around investing serves much the same purpose – and with much the same outcome. Box ticking regulations don't actually do much for investors other than make their lives more confusing and difficult; but with a lot of thought, and a bit of investing theater, we might be able to better align real risk and perception to everyone's benefit.

Read Full Post >>

A Tall Tale of Risk Aversion

Dead or Alive, It's all the Same

Amos Tversky’s and Daniel Kahneman’s 1981 paper on The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice demonstrated that people are risk averse in situations involving potential gains and risk takers in situations involving potential losses.  The researchers showed that these traits could be manipulated by presenting the same problem in a different way – so if you offer up the choice of 200 people surviving (out of 600) or 400 people dying (out of 600) then you can invert the behavior.

Nonetheless the relationship demonstrated was a statistical one.  In both cases about a quarter of people preferred the non-standard response; which should hopefully make us wonder if these people have something different about them.  One answer now suggests itself: they’re taller than the rest of us.

Read Full Post >>