Difference between revisions of "Finance"
(Created page with "Some financial planners have tried to claim that women are superior at financial planning because they are more risk adverse and ''in the long term less risky strategies tend...") |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Some financial planners have tried to claim that women are superior at financial planning because they are more risk adverse and ''in the long term less risky strategies tend to produce better results''. This is the crux of their argument but it is |
+ | Some financial planners have tried to claim that women are superior at financial planning because they are more risk adverse and ''in the long term less risky strategies tend to produce better results''. This is the crux of their argument but it is flawed. If what they say is true then it follows that the optimal investment strategy must be the one that has the least risk. The least risky investment strategy possible is to not invest at all. |
| − | So if their claims that less risky strategies are superior |
+ | So if their claims that less risky strategies are superior in the long run it follows that the optimum strategy is not to invest at all. The only way to win is to not play the game. |
| − | Or this could be just another manifestation of |
+ | Or this could be just another manifestation of [[women are wonderful]] and less risky investment strategies aren't intrinsically better. |
| + | |||
| + | Many sources that claim that women are better investors source the same study by Fidelity Investment Group in which women outperformed men by 0.4% per year.<ref>https://www.forbes.com/sites/timmaurer/2023/04/30/why-women-are-better-investors-than-men/</ref> |
||
| + | |||
| + | It's worth noting that this conclusion was drawn in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis in which high risk investments performed worse than average. |
||
| + | |||
| + | {{Draft}} |
||
| + | {{Finance}} |
||
| + | |||
| + | == References == |
||
Latest revision as of 09:22, 16 December 2024
Some financial planners have tried to claim that women are superior at financial planning because they are more risk adverse and in the long term less risky strategies tend to produce better results. This is the crux of their argument but it is flawed. If what they say is true then it follows that the optimal investment strategy must be the one that has the least risk. The least risky investment strategy possible is to not invest at all.
So if their claims that less risky strategies are superior in the long run it follows that the optimum strategy is not to invest at all. The only way to win is to not play the game.
Or this could be just another manifestation of women are wonderful and less risky investment strategies aren't intrinsically better.
Many sources that claim that women are better investors source the same study by Fidelity Investment Group in which women outperformed men by 0.4% per year.[1]
It's worth noting that this conclusion was drawn in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis in which high risk investments performed worse than average.
This is a draft article and so will not be published on A Voice for Men or appear in random article selections. Wiki4Men is looking for trustworthy editors that can turn draft articles in to featured articles. Information on how to apply is on the Main Page.