notices - See details
Notices
Enterprising Investor Default Hero Image
15 March 2013 Enterprising Investor Blog

Weekend Reading for Financial Advisers: Behavioral Finance, Twitter, and Memory

Enterprising Investor Blogs logo thumbnail

It was a big week for Vatican watchers — Habemus Papam! ("We Have a Pope!") — and mathematicians. (March 14th is Pi Day, the official celebration of the mathematical constant pi. Who Knew?) Still, there were plenty of interesting (non-Papal) reads. Here, in no particular order, is some of the best content I've come across over the past few weeks.

Behavioral Finance

  • To start off, some comic relief (quite literally): Dogbert on the power of anchoring. (Dilbert)
  • In a previous roundup, I included Dilbert's take on overconfidence or, to use the behavioral finance term, "optimism bias." But what about a lack of confidence? Carl Richards, author of Behavior Gap, says underconfidence has a high cost. While this is not something we encounter too often on Wall Street, we are all subject to bouts of second guessing. "We wouldn’t be human if we didn’t second-guess our decision when stocks go up and part of our portfolio is diversified in safe fixed-income investments," writes Richards. "But not having the confidence to stick with that plan can lead us to make the big mistake: bailing on the plan." (The New York Times)
  • What's the biggest lesson that behavioral economics has to teach investors and advisors? According to Greg B. Davies in "How Industry Experts Are Making Sense of Behavioral Economics": "The biggest lesson is that investors wanting the best risk-adjusted returns is nonsense. What investors are truly after is anxiety-adjusted returns: the best possible returns, relative to the anxiety, discomfort and stress they're going to have to endure." (OnWallStreet)


  • "Using Behavioral Finance to Improve the Adviser–Client Relationship" was published back in 2010, but I only just stumbled up on it. It's just as relevant today as was back then. (The Research Foundation of CFA Institute)

Retirement

Trust and Estate Planning

  • Martin Shenkman notes that for many wealthy clients, fear of the federal estate tax is a thing of the past now that the exemption for a couple has been raised to $10.5 million and is portable between spouses. "Understandably, they will now expect their planners to offer less complexity and lower costs than they had to endure in the past," he writes in "Wealthy Need New Trust Strategy." "So what do you offer a client no longer threatened by the federal estate tax in this new normal of estate planning? Consider the new Swiss Army knife of planning: the multipurpose irrevocable life insurance trust, or MILIT." (Financial Planning)

Investing

Social Media

And Now For Something Completely Different

  • A few weeks ago, I urged readers to spend some time with Oliver Sachs's fascinating essay on memory published in The New York Review of Books. This week, I watched a very interesting video interview with Elizabeth Loftus, a renowned expert on memory, which led me to the article "Removable Truths," published in 2010. Both raise fascinating questions about memory, including the validity of recovered memories, the reliability of eyewitness testimony and, perhaps most interesting to me, "memory engineering." (Slate)

Please note that the content of this site should not be construed as investment advice, nor do the opinions expressed necessarily reflect the views of CFA Institute.

Photo credit: ©iStockphoto.com/JLGutierrez

1 Comment

PK
Per Kurowski (not verified)
15th March 2013 | 7:53am

Although it is a transcript from a speech, the most memorable financial read of the week is by far Mr Stefan Ingves’, the Chairman of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, ”Where to next? Priorities and themes for the Basel Committee”, on March 12.

In it Ingves mentions the concept of “Risk adjusted regulatory returns”.

I guess you have not heard of that but he refers, not too explicitly, to the fact that regulators allow the banks to earn a higher risk adjusted return on their equity when they lend to what is considered “safe” than when they lend to what is considered “risky”.

Until now they have never admitted, or even understood, the possibility of that creating a distortion.

http://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/2013/03/what-is-basel-committee…