Finance - Revision history

Robert Brockway at 09:22, 16 December 2024

2024-12-16T09:22:01Z

Robert Brockway at 09:21, 16 December 2024

2024-12-16T09:21:49Z

Robert Brockway at 09:14, 16 December 2024

2024-12-16T09:14:02Z

Robert Brockway at 09:13, 16 December 2024

2024-12-16T09:13:30Z

Robert Brockway at 09:13, 16 December 2024

2024-12-16T09:13:09Z

Robert Brockway: 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..."

2018-01-02T14:27:21Z

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..."

New page

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 problematic. 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 on 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.

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:22, 16 December 2024
Line 11:		Line 11:
	{{Draft}}		{{Draft}}
	{{Finance}}		{{Finance}}
		+
		+	== References ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:21, 16 December 2024
Line 4:		Line 4:

	Or this could be just another manifestation of [[women are wonderful]] and less risky investment strategies aren't intrinsically better.		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}}		{{Draft}}

@@ 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 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 on 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.
+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.
+Or this could be just another manifestation of [[women are wonderful]] and less risky investment strategies aren't intrinsically better.
 {{Draft}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:13, 16 December 2024
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 ~~problematic~~. 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.	+	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 on 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.		So if their claims that less risky strategies are superior on 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.

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:13, 16 December 2024
Line 4:		Line 4:

	Or this could be just another manifestation of ''women are wonderful'' and less risky investment strategies aren't intrinsically better.		Or this could be just another manifestation of ''women are wonderful'' and less risky investment strategies aren't intrinsically better.
		+
		+	{{Draft}}
		+	{{Finance}}