Scalper1 News
Human decision-making is greatly influenced by individualistic preferences, making it very unreliable in most situations. We tend to foolishly project our own biased opinions onto other people, which can adversely affect the quality of our judgment. A statistical approach to decision-making, which requires little, if any, subjectivity, is a lot more robust and reliable. Back in the late 1990s, a struggling author and divorced mother on welfare was trying to publish her first book — a story about an orphan boy wizard. It was rejected by 12 publishers, and her agent warned her that she would “Never make money writing children’s books.” This prediction would prove to be spectacularly wrong. As it ironically turned out, 13 was her lucky number when a small London publishing house reluctantly took a chance and agreed to print it. That book, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone (or Sorcerer’s Stone for the American version) , went on to sell over 100 million copies, making it one of the best-selling books in history. And that author, J.K. Rowling, would eventually write six more books in the Harry Potter series, which collectively sold over 450 million copies and were adapted into a blockbuster film franchise. Not only did J.K. Rowling make money writing children’s books, it in fact made her rich. Stories like this are not uncommon. A publisher turned down George Orwell’s legendary novel, Animal Farm , explaining it was “Impossible to sell animal stories in the U.S.A.” Decca Records turned down a contract with the Beatles, saying “We don’t like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out.” Walt Disney was fired by a newspaper editor because he “lacked imagination and had no good ideas.” Oprah Winfrey got fired from a job as a news reporter because “she couldn’t separate her emotions from her stories.” Arnold Schwarzenegger was told he’d never be a movie star because “his body, name, and accent were all too weird.” These success stories should really make us question the reliability of human judgment. How could a dozen experienced publishers deem the manuscript for the first Harry Potter book unworthy of publication? Why is it that a large recording company, whose job it was to seek out talented musicians, couldn’t recognize the potential of the Beatles? What took Hollywood so long to recognize the star potential of Arnold Schwarzenegger? The answer is simple — human judgment is influenced by individualistic preferences, making it an unreliable predictor of future outcomes. Let’s say a publishers reviewing the original Harry Potter manuscript happened to dislike stories about magic for some reason, this bias against magic would largely determine whether the book gets published or not. But just because one individual, or even a small group of individuals, dislike a book, that doesn’t mean the book won’t become a best-seller. We should never project our own subjective opinions onto others, because it can adversely affect our judgment and decision making. This is something I learned in high school, when my friend and I once turned in identical essays. Luckily for us, not only did our overworked teacher not notice, she gave my essay a 95 (an A) and my friend’s essay an 82 (a B). Perhaps she just liked me more which subconsciously influenced her grading decision (that’s what I told my friend anyway). Or maybe she was in an unusually good mood at the time she was grading my paper. As crazy as it sounds, the second explanation could in fact be true. It’s been shown that even judges, who are trained to be objective, rule more favorably after lunch breaks (because food puts them in a good mood). The inherent subjectivity involved in grading can be quite problematic since a student’s future depends on such imprecise measurements. In one study , for example, researchers collected 120 term papers and had each paper scored independently by eight faculty members. The resulting grades sometimes varied by two or more letter grades. On average they differed by nearly one letter grade. Given that the average opinion is typically more accurate than most of the individual estimates (i.e., “wisdom of crowds”), the best solution here would be to average the eight independent scores for each paper to derive a more objective overall grade. I once recommend that Seeking Alpha implement something similar. The current editing process is highly subjective. It’s unrealistic to think that an editor, who’s as naturally biased as the publishers that rejected Harry Potter , can distinguish so finely between articles to tag one as, say, an “Editors’ Pick” and another as standard (“Regular” or “Premium”). But by having multiple editors independently reviewing and grading the quality of each article, and then averaging their individual opinions, it would eliminate much of the subjectivity inherent in the editing process. Another subjective measurement that receives more credence than it deserves is the rating of wines. My favorite example is the rating of the 1999 vintage of the Mitchelton Blackwood Park Riesling. One wine rating publication gave it five stars out of five and named it “The Wine of the Year,” while another rated it at the bottom of all wines it reviewed, deeming it “the worst vintage of the decade.” This discrepancy is to be expected, of course, given that wine ratings are based on unreliable, subjective taste perceptions of wine tasters. In one series of experiments , judges at wine competitions were given the same wine at different times throughout the day; the results showed that judges are wildly inconsistent in their evaluation. A wine rated 90 out of 100 on one tasting would often be rated 85 or 95 on the next. This inconsistency explains why the probability that a wine which won a gold medal in one competition would win nothing in others was high; in fact, the medals seemed to be spread around at random. This should make you think twice before purchasing an expensive bottle of wine next time. So far we’ve seen that all subjective measurements are flawed and unreliable. The best way to fix this problem is to take a more objective, statistical approach to measurement. A well-known example of this is Moneyball , a true story about a low-budget baseball team that leveraged statistics, rather than the subjective beliefs of baseball insiders, to identify players whose skills were being undervalued by other teams. This statistical approach to player selection revolutionized the game, and has since been implemented in other sports as well. Credit card companies have also learned to appreciate the power of simple statistical measurements. In the past, human judgment was the primary factor used to evaluate a borrower’s credit worthiness. Not only was this a slow process, it was also very subjective and created a lot of variability in the results. But then a statistical formula known as a “credit score” came along and put a solid number on how risky you were to lend to. The investment business is another area where statistics has gained a strong foothold over the past couple of decades. Investors who employ statistical trading methods are usually called “quants.” The world’s most successful quantitative hedge fund is Renaissance Technologies, which uses elaborate algorithms to identify and profit from inefficiencies in various highly liquid instruments around the world. But investors don’t need to be as sophisticated as Renaissance in order to reap benefits from quantitative investing — even very simple statistical models can work quite well. One of the most well-known is the “Magic Formula,” a model that ranks stocks based on just two variables: return on capital (measures quality) and earnings yield (measures cheapness). Researchers have conducted a number of studies on the Magic Formula and found it to be a market beater, both domestically and abroad. But even a simpler one-variable model, which only uses the cheapness metric, has also been shown to beat the market over the long run. The reason quant-style value investing works is because, unlike a more traditional approach to stock selection, it doesn’t attempt to calculate a company’s “intrinsic value” by foolishly attempting to forecast its long-term financial performance. Instead, it systematically buys the cheapest — and often most hated — stocks based purely on historical data (a very contrarian approach). Another problem with the concept of intrinsic value is that there’s absolutely nothing “intrinsic” about it. It’s not an objective measure at all. It depends entirely on the person doing the valuation, just like the quality of wine depends on the person doing the tasting. This is largely because risk preferences vary from person to person, and even in the same person from time to time. This was discovered by neuroscientists studying professional traders. They found that fluctuating hormone levels — like testosterone and cortisol — can wildly alter a trader’s risk taking or risk aversion. And since these shifting risk preferences directly affect discount rates, which determine the present (or intrinsic) value of stocks, it means that intrinsic value isn’t static — it’s actually in constant flux. Traditional stock picking is flawed in other ways as well. Even the mere act of owning a stock, particularly one you’ve spent considerable time researching, can create emotional attachment, leading you to value it more than you would if you didn’t own it. Inheriting a stock can also create a similar emotional attachment. A friend of mine once inherited a large number of shares in General Motors (NYSE: GM ). When I advised him to sell some shares and diversify the proceeds, he said he “Can’t bring himself to part with his grandfather’s gift.” Unfortunately for him, this “gift” became worthless a year later when the company filed for bankruptcy. This irrational tendency to overvalue something just because we own it is called the “endowment effect.” In residential real estate sales, for instance, there is, on average, a 12% gap between what the owner asks and what the average buyer is willing to pay (in a bad market the gap exceeds 30%!). This is because owners truly believe their homes are worth more. Perhaps they’ve lived there for a long time and have many happy memories associated with that house. The buyer, on the other hand, is more likely to care about things like the black mold growing on the ceiling. It’s just difficult for us to see that the person on the other side of the transaction, buyer or seller, isn’t seeing the world as we see it — value is largely subjective. As explained throughout this article, most of our decisions, both big and small, are guided by our subjective emotions and perspectives. This is usually an automatic cognitive process. Psychologists call it “System 1” thinking, which is fast, instinctive, and nearly effortless. The opposite of this is “System 2” thinking, which is slow, deliberate, and effortful. Our brains tend to be lazy, always looking for the easiest way out, so System 1 guides the majority of our day-to-day decisions. And most of the time it’s actually quite effective. For instance, ever drive home without remembering the exact details of the trip? That’s your System 1 at work. But sometimes this type of fast thinking can lead to poor decisions. Consider this famous example: A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? The most common answer — and the one suggested by our System 1 — is 10¢. But the real answer is actually 5¢. It requires the slow, effortful thinking associated with System 2 to get it right. Most people simply don’t want to think that hard, so they give the first answer that comes to mind. These same mistakes occur in every domain. In sports, for instance, decisions worth millions of dollars are made on the basis of a coach’s hunch or a scout’s gut feeling. This explains why there’s a long history of so-called “promising” athletes that never realized their full potential. Moneyball showed us that traditional scouting often focused more on the so-called “eye test” (i.e., if someone “looked” like a major leaguer) than on a more objective, statistical analysis of player potential. I myself was twice offered a full athletic scholarship to play football in college. The funny thing is that I never even played the sport before. The recruiters and coaches — fooled by their quick-thinking System 1 — just assumed that I’d be a good football player because of my size and athleticism. I respectfully decline these generous offers (definitely not worth the injuries). In short, reducing subjectivity is a desirable goal for decision makers of all kinds — from entrepreneurs to investors to individuals dealing with their day-to-day personal problems. However, this isn’t to say that individualistic subjectivity is always a bad thing. There are some situations, mate selection being one of them, where it can be quite useful; beauty is, after all, in the eye of the beholder — it’s subjective and difficult to quantify. However, in most other situations, especially ones involving a financial component to them, subjectivity tends to cause more harm than good. In this particular case, the best way to minimize the probability of being wrong is to leverage the power of a more objective, statistical way of thinking. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. Scalper1 News
Scalper1 News