Tag Archives: research

Do Older Investors Make Better Investment Decisions?

Christopher Shea writes the “Week in Ideas” column in the Saturday Wall Street Journal. He reviews a variety of topics from the world of the social sciences.

One item from December 4 caught our attention. It was titled “Older Brains, Worse Trades.” It reviewed findings of research titled “Do Older Investors Make Better Investment Decisions?” that is scheduled to be published in The Review of Economics and Statistics.

Researchers George Korniotis and Alok Kumar analyzed a large population of investors from a “major U.S. brokerage house” for 1991 to 1996. They found that during that period, investors over age 72 had annual returns that were on average three to five percentage points lower than investors with similar portfolios who were under age 50.

The two researchers noticed that older investors tended to have more holdings and traded less than younger investors (both good traits), but they found that a combination of poor execution and high levels of correlation between the stocks that they owned reduced their investment returns.

After analyzing this data they suggested that older investors should always seek outside advice for their investments.

Our take

  • We don’t know if this study was conducted at a discount broker or not.  If it analyzed investment performance at a discount broker, then each investor took full responsibility for all investment decisions.
  • If this analysis was conducted at a full-service brokerage, then the broker for the investor likely often influenced the decision to buy or sell a stock, bond or mutual fund. As a result, the broker might have helped create portfolios that were different for investors based on their ages. These differences could have been intended or not, it is impossible to tell.
  • Because the older investors had lower portfolio turnover, it is possible that these investors fell in love with the investment that they held and were more likely to hold on to it even after the prospects of the company changed. They held the stocks as they were going up, and held them as they came back down. That could have occurred because the broker was unwilling to proactively suggest that the client sell these stocks or because the older investors were unwilling to listen to their brokers.

We will be interested to read the full research when it is published.

Our assumption is that it will spotlight the drawbacks of extreme buy-and-hold mentality. This is when an investor ignores the probability of whether or not a good outcome is still likely for the particular holding. Buy-and-hold preferences work well when considering diversified investments but can lead to trouble if there is no sell discipline to capture profits from individual stocks and reduce risk through diversification.

Do you have long-held positions that make up more than 10% of your overall portfolio? Do you want a second opinion about their value and fit in your investment strategy?

~ Gary Brooks, CFP®, Allyn Hughes, CFP®, and Nancy Jones, CFP®, — Brooks, Hughes & Jones, Partners in Wealth Management, Tacoma, WA

If you liked this post, please share it

Successful Tendencies of Brain-Damaged Investors

I read some interesting research findings today in market commentary from a mutual fund firm, O’Shaughnessy Asset Management.

Behavioral finance research is a growing topic on college campuses. Much of this work can help us understand decision making when risk is involved.

One fascinating study sheds light on people’s behavior in markets like this one and highlights why now is the time to buy, not sell, equities. In the study, originally reported in a Wall Street Journal article entitled “Lessons from the Brain-Damaged Investor” and led by researcher Baba Shiv of Stanford University, a group of 41 participants played an investment game where each was given $20 to start and asked to make 20 rounds of one dollar investment decisions based on a coin toss. They would choose either “invest” or “don’t invest.” If they chose “don’t invest,” they kept their dollar. If they chose “invest,” the researcher took the one dollar and flipped a coin. If it came up heads, the dollar was lost but if it came up tails, the investor was rewarded with $2.50. Clearly the most profitable strategy would be to play every round, as the expected value of each one dollar “invested” is $1.25. The twist in the study was that one group of participants had suffered brain damage which affected key emotional centers in the brain such as the orbitofrontal cortex, the amygdala, or the insula. The other participants had either no brain damage at all or brain damage that affected non-emotional centers of the brain.

Those without any emotional brain damage invested just 58 percent of the time ending with $22.80 on average. Those participants with brain damage outperformed their healthy counterparts by 14.5 percent investing 84 percent of the time and ending with an average of $25.70. The main reason participants with normal brains did so poorly was because of their behavior after a loss. Instead of recognizing the very simple positive expected value of choosing “invest”, the normal group was scared of losing twice in a row and as a result invested just 41% of the time after a loss. The damaged group maintained their overall percentage after a loss, investing 85% of the time. This study illustrates that fear, loss, and risk avoidance act as a tax on our portfolios if we do not take action to circumvent their influence.

There are many studies like this that demonstrate ability of non-emotional participants to make more rational, logical decisions. In many respects, this circumstance relates the average investor to the law of unintended consequences. In trying to reduce risk by judging patterns and expectations amid moving market conditions, many people miss opportunity and create an unintended drag on investment performance.

Please see more of our thoughts on managing risk in the previous post on June 2.

If you liked this post, please share it