[HN Gopher] Unattractive funds managers outperform funds with at... ___________________________________________________________________ Unattractive funds managers outperform funds with attractive managers by over 2% Author : donsupreme Score : 77 points Date : 2023-12-14 20:51 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (papers.ssrn.com) (TXT) w3m dump (papers.ssrn.com) | PessimalDecimal wrote: | A good maxim is to employ people who are hired and promoted for | their ability and not for extraneous reasons. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _A good maxim is to employ people who are hired and promoted | for their ability and not for extraneous reasons_ | | More specifically, identify which attributes your peers select | against for no good reason and chase those. | optimalsolver wrote: | Red pill: people would rather surround themselves with | attractive people and pay the 2% tax than be more successful | with a team of Quasimodos. | thot_experiment wrote: | I bet the second order effect of being surrounded by pretty | people generally leads to better outcomes. In the surgeon's | paradox you actually care about the raw skill of the | individual and nothing else. If whatever you're trying to do | involves any sort of interpersonal interaction, you're gonna | make the 2% up and then some. | PH95VuimJjqBqy wrote: | it's certainly true that attractiveness is part of being a | prostitute but outside of vocations where attractiveness is | built into the work itself I don't think what you said | actually applies. | ladberg wrote: | It could definitely be applicable when trying to convince | people to invest in your fund! | thot_experiment wrote: | Are you kidding me? Being attractive is like playing life | on easymode! It's a bonus to every interaction you have | in life, have you never had to interview for a job? | fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: | Why would that when you're picking someone to manage your | money? You're hiring a fund manager, not a personal trainer. | Animats wrote: | 2% is huge. | | Is there a non-paywalled copy of this? | FuriouslyAdrift wrote: | found this dangling out there | | https://d1e00ek4ebabms.cloudfront.net/production/uploaded-fi... | raphaelj wrote: | Is it 2% or 2 percentage points? | | Like, if the attractive fund manager gets a 4% ROI, is the | unattractive one getting 6% or 4.08% (0.08 is 2% of 4%). | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | Generally speaking, in finance, if you mean the former you'd | say "by 200 basis points" in order to disambiguate. | dmurray wrote: | "2% per annum", per the abstract, so the ugly manager returns | 6%. I agree the effect seems too large to be believable. | april7 wrote: | "Utilizing the state-of-art deep learning technique to quantify | facial attractiveness" we're really there | tayo42 wrote: | Forget the research, release this as an app lol | angarg12 wrote: | Relevant XKCD | | https://xkcd.com/882/ | jack_riminton wrote: | This is Nassim Taleb's "Surgeon Paradox": "If you're choosing | between two surgeons of equal merit, choose the one who DOESN'T | look the part, because they had to overcome more to get to where | they are." | optimalsolver wrote: | I automatically know that if he was facing extensive brain | surgery, Nassim would choose the tall, chisel-jawed surgeon, | not the Urkel-looking guy with a noticeable speech impediment. | hef19898 wrote: | Sometimes, every number should come with error margin bars... | talldatethrow wrote: | This was true IMO until diversity agendas, like the ones that | make it harder for an Asian student to get into med school than | an African American one. | | So now if you have to choose between an Asian doctor and an | African American one, you'd have to be pretty foolish to pick | the African American one. In the 80s, I would have totally | believed the African American doctor must be amazing to make it | through. Now we know he was possibly let into medschool with | scores that would have gotten an Asian doctor rejected. | space_fountain wrote: | Have there been follow up studies finding this? | Dig1t wrote: | https://twitter.com/eyeslasho/status/1706319646176227391 | | >The magnitude of Systemic Antiracism in medical school | admissions: A black applicant with a 3.2-3.39 GPA and a | 24-26 MCAT had almost a ten times greater chance of | admission than an Asian-American with the same scores. | | I don't know about studies on actual patient outcomes, but | there are good data WRT admissions, which I think is | relevant to OP's point about overcoming obstacles. | space_fountain wrote: | I think disputing the predictive power of things like GPA | is pretty common. I'm not sure many people dispute this | effect where I think downstream impacts are harder to | quantify | KittenInABox wrote: | I'm surprised you'd base a doctor's capacity to do medicine | off their MCAT score. It'd be like judging a staff software | engineer by their highschool GPA. If a doctor survived the | rigors of medical school and the years of near-poverty (if | not actual poverty) wages of residency, why would you care at | all about what their initial score on a test was over 5 years | ago? | gotoeleven wrote: | If you think the affirming actions end once the admittance | decision is made I have a bridge to sell you. | | Holding favored minorities to lower standards has permeated | every institution, including medical schools, at every | level because people are afraid of being called racist. | | "Racist medical school fails african americans at higher | rate than asians!" would be the headline and there would be | no defense the critical race theory mob would accept. | nextworddev wrote: | There's probably a high correlation between software | engineer seniority and GPA | SkyPuncher wrote: | Heavily doubt that one. | throwaway_l33t wrote: | Yeah, and there's at least anecdotal evidence here: | | > The admission to medical school of Patrick Chavis, one of | the black doctors admitted under the medical school's | affirmative action program instead of Bakke, was widely | praised by many notable parties, including Ted Kennedy, the | New York Times, and the Nation. As an actual medical doctor, | Chavis's many actions of incompetence and negligence were | broad and widespread. The large number of patients that he | harmed, the amount of pain and suffering that he caused, the | video recordings of his many major mistakes, the huge number | of malpractice lawsuits against him, and the eventual loss of | his medical license, were all reported by the media. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of. | .. | Aaargh20318 wrote: | I've noticed a similar effect with women in IT. I've worked | with only a few female software engineers but all of them were | above average developers. It's such a male dominated profession | that it acts as a sort of filter. | bsder wrote: | Actually, I would choose the female because she punched her way | through a mess of obstacles to get where she is. | | In addition, she is likely to _pay fucking attention_. It 's | well documented that female doctors tend to do things like | _follow checklists and prodcedure_ instead of just half-assing | it. | | Every single specialist female surgeon I have dealt with has | been way above average. The male surgeons have been a mixed | bag. Some good--some not so much. | huijzer wrote: | Because it's almost Christmas, a related joke from Warren | Buffett: | | "I heard they called off the Wall Street Christmas pageant | because they couldn't find three wise men" | | The point being that most fund managers do not outperform the | index, so 2% more or less isn't that important. | toss1 wrote: | Umm, fun joke, but 2% over- or under-performance is _HUGE_ , | especially compounded over years. | | It is the reason behind the common recommendation to buy only | low-load or no-load funds; because a 1% or 2% load vs a zero or | 0.1% load is almost impossible to overcome -- over time, the | no-/low-load funds _will_ win. | hklgny wrote: | The comment wasn't that 2% doesn't matter. It was that even | with the 2% from your ugly fund manager you should still just | buy index funds | mandelbrotwurst wrote: | The average fund manager does not underperform by more than | 2%. | dustingetz wrote: | after fees. most managers don't outperform after fees | junar wrote: | Related news coverage: | https://www.ft.com/content/6e299bef-a475-4f6b-9430-d4a8c9772... | | Some prior papers linked from the above news article: | | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22146... | | https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1659189 | | https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3341835 | | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1475-679X.12428 | Animats wrote: | This is China's mutual fund market, where reliable numbers about | business financials are hard to come by. | missedthecue wrote: | Hard to come by? What do you mean by that? The financials are | readily available. So you must be under the impression that | it's an auditing free for all? | | Do you actually have first hand experience with this because it | doesn't match mine. | karaterobot wrote: | > Good-looking managers also have greater chance of promotion and | tend to move to small firms. The potential explanations for their | underperformance include inadequate ability, insufficient effort, | overconfidence and inefficient site visits. | | This makes sense as a consequence of people's tendency to prefer | attractive people, and seems related but not identical to the | Peter principle. They'd tend to get responsibility unwarranted by | their past performance because they're just so damned good | looking! | | Hmm, if this study has legs, maybe my next resume should | highlight how ugly I am. And if I put a bag over my head during | the interview, maybe they'll think I'm so hideous that I must | truly be a genius. | | * 16 years industry experience | | * History of delivering blah blah | | * Face looks like a mule kicked it | neilv wrote: | Is there somewhere I can opt-in to be worse at investing, in | exchange for doing much better on dating apps? | guerrilla wrote: | Yeah, get a sex change. | callalex wrote: | Can you expand on this? | guerrilla wrote: | OPs name is Neil, so I assume he's a man. The number of men | per women on dating sites is very high but even if it | wasn't, women are far pickier than men. As a result, almost | all women have hundreds of likes and tens of matches for | every one a guy has. | hgomersall wrote: | I have a general philosophy that when outsourcing you should go | with the company that has the crappiest web presence and least | good branding because obviously, if they're still in business | dispute their terrible marketing, they must be good. | andy99 wrote: | This is absolutely true with trades. If you're hiring a roofer | or whatever that has a great website, they will be the worst. | The good ones have a backlog and no need to waste money on a | site or other advertising. Essentially it's sales led vs | product led. | | True also for e.g. beer. For a given price point, the one that | advertised the most (Stella for example) put the money there | instead of quality. | ladberg wrote: | Doesn't seem to be mentioned in any other comments or the paper | itself, but this is Berkson's paradox. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson's_paradox | projektfu wrote: | You're saying that unattractive, unperformant fund managers | have nothing to recommend them, and so that makes the | correlation negative because they're censored from the sample? | Otherwise it would be roughly flat, if they didn't let the | unattractive bad managers go? | | Could be. But then, it's still a reasonable heuristic, because | you might find that unattractive managers are uniformly pretty | good or better, and attractive ones are 50-50. The best manager | might be one of the really really good looking ones, but | overall there is less selection pressure on attractive managers | with respect to performance. (Halo effect?) | deadbeeves wrote: | Couldn't this just be statistical noise? 2% isn't a huge | difference, and if you partition stock funds into two arbitrary | groups it's almost certain that one will on average perform | better than the other, but not by a lot. The next question to ask | should be how much better are stock managers who have an odd | number of hairs on their head, compared to those who have an even | number. | fallingknife wrote: | If you look at the abstract it's 2% per annum, which is an | absolutely massive difference in terms of ROI. | deadbeeves wrote: | So what's the actual relative difference? The absolute | difference is completely useless in this context. | richardw wrote: | > 2% isn't a huge difference | | 2% per annum is a spectacular difference, compounded. Careers | and fortunes are made of that. | scott_w wrote: | If you collect enough data over a long enough time period, it's | absolutely possible to see a 2% uplift and it be statistically | significant. | beepboopboop wrote: | There's edge cases though, I run a fund and we're one of the top | perf... oh... oh no. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-12-14 23:00 UTC)