Wikinvest Wire

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Neuroeconomics


Paul Farrell is all fired up about something called neuroeconomics. I don't know much about neuroeconomics but it involves realizing you are irrational, training yourself to be rational by apparently looking at brain scans and a few other things and Farrell thinks it is balderdash (he did not use that exact word). While he's at it he also mentions not being fond of behavioral finance or investing psychology. This is kind of the opposite of what Taleb covers in his books as we discussed yesterday.

Maybe I was just having a bad afternoon but I had a tough time following the points Paul was making. When Jason Zweig whips out the pictures of the brain scans, I too am quite skeptical but I do believe that people are their own worst enemy and poor decisions cause more financial plans to fail than do bear markets. Poor decisions can include unrealistic expectations, buying high and selling low and spending too much money.

Perhaps you will have better luck deciphering Paul's article beyond his thinking it is bunk. This is one of those subjects where there is probably at least a little something there, how much is really there is probably open to debate and as is the case with most market science some folks will misuse it somehow.

I think there is utility here and it does not have to involve MRI tests. It is probably safe to say that every person has their blind spots when it comes to investing (and other aspects of their lives too). To the extent a person begins to understand what their specific vulnerabilities are and takes steps to try to mitigate them that would seem like a huge positive both for investment results and personal growth. It is not clear how this can be a bad thing. I imagine that if someone sells you a $1000 book in order to "help" you sort this out then maybe that would just be a scam.

As I said above I do believe that behaviors become huge impediments to success (however the end user defines his own success) and while no one will overcome all of their weaknesses I believe some can be overcome or otherwise addressed, depending on the person.

Obviously my way of addressing this is trying to minimize the times of being in the position where I, or my clients, have to face my behavioral quirks. In general people are more likely to do the wrong thing when their emotions escalate like when their portfolio drops a lot in value. Logically, preventing a large drop is the best way to avoid giving in to emotions. While no strategy will guarantee this obviously an objective defensive strategy can help avoid some of the drawdowns that occur every so often.

I guess I would describe it as not overcoming the behavioral threats but trying to reduce the number of times you are most exposed to those behavioral threats.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have a wife so I won't be needing an MRI :)

Bill B said...

Sorry, I don't know much about the credentials of Paul F, but I've read his articles over the past year and its always conspiracy type garbage. I've turned on the bozo bit for this guy. Is there any reason why I shouldn't have?

Anonymous said...

Roger,

You are being duped. Banks were allowed to lend to ridiculously excessive leverage ratios (a lesson we learned in the 30'with Glass-Steagall, but repealled by President Clinton)

Now we should be learning the excess leverage lesson again, but instead we are blaming free markets, irrational investors, capitalism, etc.

Markets are not perfect but they are better than socialism that takes away all incentives. People like you need to beat the drum about excessive debt levels that got us into this banking crisis, not human minds are feeble and good excuse for government control of everything.

Roger Nusbaum said...

BillB not sure he is a full fledged bozo. He has made a couple of important big calls correctly and his path to those calls is much much different than how I get there which makes him of some interest to me but less so that many other people.

anon 6:03 I'm pretty sure what I should be doing is a combo of growing and protecting my clients' assets not solving the world's problems. This blog is a look over my shoulder at how I do that for anyone who cares to look. If how I do grow and protect helps other people then all the better.

Stephen Drone said...

He's not a bozo, but he tends to go off on a "get off my lawn" rant once in a while.

Tim said...

Merideth Whitney was on CNBC discussing the risks in financial stocks - think what you will about her, but her broad message was something I believe - Markets react to emotion, but over the long term are valued by the laws of economics and fundementals (assuming the laws still apply with gov't intervention). I tend to agree - and speaking to Roger's point of being your own worst enemy, being able to seperate the noise (by the media or in your own head) and using logic to see "big pictures" is what will make you a better investor. Thanks for the time you put into the site Roger, somteimes I think people take for granted the effort and amount of time you spend developing and posting EVERYDAY (except maybe Christmas) ;)

Roger Nusbaum said...

ty Tim, the occasional impugning of my character notwithstanding i do enjoy having the site.

RW said...

My pappy used to say that strengthening your weaknesses is good but making good use of your strengths is even better; that includes finding work or an environment in which those strengths can make a difference.

As to emotion, work I've seen in cognitive science strongly suggests that feelings are as cognitive as any other percept. In fact they appear to be essential to forming the categories that allow us to recognize and describe the world. As such feelings are likely to be more tangled with other percepts or appear vague because of association with multiple ideas simultaneously so trying to untangle their message is probably more useful than attempting to suppress or repress them but for sure it doesn't help to have them run away from you regardless.

Apropos this and the previous topic, I find that I tend to pay more attention to two forms of market commentary: Discussions of conceptual frameworks, strategies and tactics by experts, the more detailed the better (boring is okay here), and commentary that tries to add something new to a topic, relative ‘outliers’ if you will (cheerleading from market pundits, or screeds on the perils of marching socialism for that matter, normally disqualify on all three counts: they are emotional (or appeal to emotion), non-expert and add nothing new).

And I am having sufficient difficulty reading this market that only about a quarter of my tactical portfolio is currently engaged in active positions and they are pretty close to being net market neutral. My strategic portfolio has hardly changed since I increased long exposure modestly after the November lows based strictly on market valuations (early and got whacked but looks good now, at least for the time being).

Times continue to be, um ...very interesting.

Anonymous said...

Paul F makes interesting comments from time to time. IMO, his credibility suffers due to the split personality of his articles. One champions buy and hold "lazy portfolios", don't worry everything's fine. The other fosters anxiety, sell everything, the game is rigged and/or we're headed for armageddon. I find this amusing as he has a doctorate in psychology. He would do well to learn from Roger's calm, consistent approach.

Anonymous said...

Roger,
I agree with you that to take some emotions out your trading activity is good. Based on your discussion in the past week, instead of going at the seat of the pants, this weekend I have put some excel programs to take some of the emotions from the decision-making. However the article is talking about a different animal. The article makes me think about what happened in 1987 crash. I remember those days that we had a bad situation with Milken, junk bonds ect. That year was the first time that computers were used (perhaps the forefathers of the neural networks) in a big scale by Wall Street. We had a crash. What it did was to make the market less price efficient. The computers continue to sell and using a combination of stock futures and cash market. That market was great for value investors that took the opposite side of the computer program trades. Such technology is no replacement for a person like Warren Buffett. I would not want to be an investor where computer programming was used, instead of the experience of a good portfolio manager.
Roger and friends, must thank for having been very helpful.
Jeff from Milan, Italy

Dean said...

Roger, check out 'SWAY: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior' for a great perspective on why people make irrational decisions http://www.swaybook.com/I saw many smart people selling near the bottom of the market. If it wasn't the bottom, it sure was close enough. Their rational selves were swayed.

Anonymous said...

China is buying up resources around the world in exchange for worthless US dollars while Americans talk about neuroeconomics. LOL.

God help us.

Proud Member Of