Let's start with the basics, shall we? Nothing in economics, finance or especially portfolio management of has any independent, empirical validity. The basic standards or probity and truthfulness found in other professions will never occur in any economics based work - especially portfolio management. the little peer-review evidence, tat does exist roundly debunks skill over chance in professional investment returns. Much of this reserch is suppressed, of course.

For example. “…no evidence that financial experts are making better investment decisions: they do not outperform, do not diversify their risks better, and do not exhibit lower behavioral biases.” https://richandco.wordpress.com/2015/11/05/oh-oh-no-evidence-that-finan…

In fact, the only truthful claims that can be made about behavior, of any kind, must be based in the physiology of the brain, of course. Duh...

In fact, the premises of this piece have little evidence basis, if any. The role of so-called "emotions", in any species, is unclear related to behavior. At best, and it is unproven, emotions appear to be correlated and epiphenomenal to behavior -contrary to pop(ular) culture and CFA folklore.

Finally, how could a professional aricle not include ANY citations or references to peer-reviewed data and research!? Where are an editor and fact-checker when we, readers, need them?