The hardwiring problem

25 Feb. 2016
Author
Roberto Plaja

When it comes to investing, we’re still all cavemen (and cavewomen)

When it comes to investing, we’re still all cavemen (and cavewomen)

When it comes to investing, we’re still all cavemen (and cavewomen)

There is no doubt that rationality is overrated and that behavioral elements in our daily lives are far more important than we all care to admit. Nowhere is this more evident than in investing, where research has shown we are at our most vulnerable. My friend Dr. Steven Bates, CEO of QLAB Invest Ltd, has done a superb job of outlining the uncomfortable reality in this brief paper, as well as suggesting a course of action. I cannot do justice to Steven’s work in 500 words or less, so take 10 minutes and read it.

In my interpretation, behavioral issues are not merely the outcome of complex interactions among individuals or of the increased rapidity with which our modern society operates. It is a matter of hardwiring: our internal physical make-up or neuronal interconnectedness has not evolved as much as our surroundings; it’s stuck at the stone age. This is another way of saying we are born bad investors, though as always there are exceptions to the rule.

Our physical shortcomings do not imply we are doomed to utter haplessness in managing money. Once we recognize the problem and we make a little effort to know ourselves, things have a chance to improve: we can look for solutions. Our compulsion to seek immediate satisfaction and consequently treat every investment as if it were a piece of paper needs to be dominated, not simply controlled: investments should be viewed in terms of the underlying cash flows. Also, our fascination with cleverly thought-out investment schemes and aptly marketed trading ideas must be scrupulously dealt with: today, with reams of historical data at hand, we can ask how an investment process works and to what extent its results are replicable in the future.

Steven speaks of “systematic investment processes” as a viable alternative for at least a portion of one’s investable wealth. These processes have the advantage of being several steps removed from the emotional vagaries of our brain in the midst of an investment decision. They can also be analyzed and dissected more scientifically than non-systematic (or sit-at-your-desk-and-decide) processes since their formulaic approach makes them fully transparent and accessible. The disadvantage (in my experience, but not necessarily in Steven’s) is that they tend to work well in most market environments but possibly not all of them. I’m not exactly sure why this is, but I suspect it has to do with the implicit trade-off we bargain for when we opt for “insensitive” mechanical solutions: while flawed, human behavioral qualities and survival instincts may be invaluable in some cases.

A parting word of caution. Just as we should never underestimate the power of our behavioral limitations, we should also not take our eyes off the pervasiveness of randomness in the real world. There are not enough words to describe how important this is. For an entertaining and informative read on the subject you should get a copy of “Fooled by Randomness”, by Nassim Taleb; a good and riskless investment, if there ever was one.
There is no doubt that rationality is overrated and that behavioral elements in our daily lives are far more important than we all care to admit. Nowhere is this more evident than in investing, where research has shown we are at our most vulnerable. My friend Dr. Steven Bates, CEO of QLAB Invest Ltd, has done a superb job of outlining the uncomfortable reality in this brief paper, as well as suggesting a course of action. I cannot do justice to Steven’s work in 500 words or less, so take 10 minutes and read it.

In my interpretation, behavioral issues are not merely the outcome of complex interactions among individuals or of the increased rapidity with which our modern society operates. It is a matter of hardwiring: our internal physical make-up or neuronal interconnectedness has not evolved as much as our surroundings; it’s stuck at the stone age. This is another way of saying we are born bad investors, though as always there are exceptions to the rule.

Our physical shortcomings do not imply we are doomed to utter haplessness in managing money. Once we recognize the problem and we make a little effort to know ourselves, things have a chance to improve: we can look for solutions. Our compulsion to seek immediate satisfaction and consequently treat every investment as if it were a piece of paper needs to be dominated, not simply controlled: investments should be viewed in terms of the underlying cash flows. Also, our fascination with cleverly thought-out investment schemes and aptly marketed trading ideas must be scrupulously dealt with: today, with reams of historical data at hand, we can ask how an investment process works and to what extent its results are replicable in the future.

Steven speaks of “systematic investment processes” as a viable alternative for at least a portion of one’s investable wealth. These processes have the advantage of being several steps removed from the emotional vagaries of our brain in the midst of an investment decision. They can also be analyzed and dissected more scientifically than non-systematic (or sit-at-your-desk-and-decide) processes since their formulaic approach makes them fully transparent and accessible. The disadvantage (in my experience, but not necessarily in Steven’s) is that they tend to work well in most market environments but possibly not all of them. I’m not exactly sure why this is, but I suspect it has to do with the implicit trade-off we bargain for when we opt for “insensitive” mechanical solutions: while flawed, human behavioral qualities and survival instincts may be invaluable in some cases.

A parting word of caution. Just as we should never underestimate the power of our behavioral limitations, we should also not take our eyes off the pervasiveness of randomness in the real world. There are not enough words to describe how important this is. For an entertaining and informative read on the subject you should get a copy of “Fooled by Randomness”, by Nassim Taleb; a good and riskless investment, if there ever was one.
There is no doubt that rationality is overrated and that behavioral elements in our daily lives are far more important than we all care to admit. Nowhere is this more evident than in investing, where research has shown we are at our most vulnerable. My friend Dr. Steven Bates, CEO of QLAB Invest Ltd, has done a superb job of outlining the uncomfortable reality in this brief paper, as well as suggesting a course of action. I cannot do justice to Steven’s work in 500 words or less, so take 10 minutes and read it.

In my interpretation, behavioral issues are not merely the outcome of complex interactions among individuals or of the increased rapidity with which our modern society operates. It is a matter of hardwiring: our internal physical make-up or neuronal interconnectedness has not evolved as much as our surroundings; it’s stuck at the stone age. This is another way of saying we are born bad investors, though as always there are exceptions to the rule.

Our physical shortcomings do not imply we are doomed to utter haplessness in managing money. Once we recognize the problem and we make a little effort to know ourselves, things have a chance to improve: we can look for solutions. Our compulsion to seek immediate satisfaction and consequently treat every investment as if it were a piece of paper needs to be dominated, not simply controlled: investments should be viewed in terms of the underlying cash flows. Also, our fascination with cleverly thought-out investment schemes and aptly marketed trading ideas must be scrupulously dealt with: today, with reams of historical data at hand, we can ask how an investment process works and to what extent its results are replicable in the future.

Steven speaks of “systematic investment processes” as a viable alternative for at least a portion of one’s investable wealth. These processes have the advantage of being several steps removed from the emotional vagaries of our brain in the midst of an investment decision. They can also be analyzed and dissected more scientifically than non-systematic (or sit-at-your-desk-and-decide) processes since their formulaic approach makes them fully transparent and accessible. The disadvantage (in my experience, but not necessarily in Steven’s) is that they tend to work well in most market environments but possibly not all of them. I’m not exactly sure why this is, but I suspect it has to do with the implicit trade-off we bargain for when we opt for “insensitive” mechanical solutions: while flawed, human behavioral qualities and survival instincts may be invaluable in some cases.

A parting word of caution. Just as we should never underestimate the power of our behavioral limitations, we should also not take our eyes off the pervasiveness of randomness in the real world. There are not enough words to describe how important this is. For an entertaining and informative read on the subject you should get a copy of “Fooled by Randomness”, by Nassim Taleb; a good and riskless investment, if there ever was one.

Photo sources: http-//www.costumepedia.com/homemade-cave-people-costume-ideas/2.

May also be of interest
See all Insights →
May also be of interest
See all Insights →
May also be of interest
See all Insights →
Autorisation
Switzerland
Investing implies your capital is at risk. The value of your account depends on market movements and you may get back less than you invest.
Past performance is not an indicator of future performance. Unless otherwise specified, all return figures shown above are for illustrative purposes only and are not actual customer or model returns. Actual returns will vary greatly and depend on personal and market conditions.
Simplewealth AG is a Swiss-based advisory service, designed to assist clients in achieving discrete financial goals. We are not intended to provide comprehensive tax advice or financial planning with respect to every aspect of a client's financial situation and do not incorporate specific investments that clients hold elsewhere.
© SIMPLEWEALTH AG 2015 — 2022.
MADE WITH ❤️ IN BEAUTIFUL
Investing in securities involves risks, and there is always the potential of losing money when you invest in securities. Before investing, consider your investment objectives and Simplewealth AG charges and expenses.
FAQ
Navigation
Language
Documents
Social Media
1
2
How your assets can grow?
All your investments are insured. Up to USD 500k
Investing in securities involves risks, and there is always the potential of losing money when you invest in securities. Before investing, consider your investment objectives and Simplewealth AG charge sand expenses.
Client securities accounts at Interactive Brokers LLC are protected by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation ("SIPC") for a maximum coverage of $500,000 (with a cash sublimit of $250,000) and under Interactive Brokers LLC's excess SIPC policy with certain underwriters at Lloyd's of London 1 for up to an additional $30 million (with a cash sublimit of $900,000) subject to an aggregate limit of $150 million. Futures and options on futures are not covered. As with all securities firms, this coverage provides protection against failure of a broker-dealer, not against loss of market value of securities. For the purpose of determining an Interactive Brokers LLC client account, accounts with like names and titles (e.g. John and Jane Smith and Jane and John Smith) are combined, but accounts with different titles are not (e.g. Individual/John Smith and IRA/John Smith). SIPC is a non-profit, membership corporation funded by broker-dealers that are members of SIPC.