Smarter people own shares, study finds

Ouch

Active Member
Thoughts?

Sydney Morning Herald said:
Smarter people own shares, study finds

The smarter you are, the more stock you probably own, according to researchers who say they found a direct link between IQ and equity market participation.

Intelligence, as measured by tests given to 158,044 Finnish soldiers over 19 years, outweighed income in determining whether someone owns shares and how many companies he invests in. Among draftees scoring highest on the exams, the rate of ownership later in life was 21 percentage points above those who tested lowest, researchers found. The study, published in last month's Journal of Finance, ignored bonds and other investments.

Economists have debated for decades what they call the participation puzzle, trying to explain why more people don't take advantage of the higher returns stocks have historically paid on savings. As few as 51 per cent of American households own them, a 2009 study by the Federal Reserve found. Individual investors have pulled record cash out of US equity mutual funds in the last five years as shares suffered the worst bear market since the 1930s.

"It's what we see anecdotally: higher-IQ investors tend to be more willing to commit financial resources, to put skin in the game," said Jason Hsu, chief investment officer of Newport Beach, California-based Research Affiliates LLC. "You can generalize a whole literature on this. It seems to suggest that whatever attributes are driving people to not participate in the stock market are related to the cost of processing financial information."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/worl...le-own-shares-study-finds-20120119-1q7lz.html
 
Intelligence, as measured by tests given to 158,044 Finnish soldiers over 19 years

Wow, great representative sample of the population. By a finance magazine, so don't expect much experimental rigour.
 
Probably true - it's something people with intelligence can use said intelligence to think about, analyse, predict and otherwise occupy their minds when bored. Not sure if all the pondering enhances investment results but it keeps people amused.

I'll offer up an anecdote on gambling that I often see correlate to shares:

My parents occasionally like to go down to the pub of a weekend and have a punt on the horses, my father analyses statistics, history, weather conditions etc. before placing a bet my mum picks horses with names she likes - guess who wins more out of the 2 of them.

edit: Also intelligent people probably think they can beat the system (the old adage about knowing just enough to get yourself in trouble) - thus casting their intelligence into doubt but there you have it.
 
http://www.afajof.org/

Journal of Science is a journal not a magazine - see above. 160 000 is a pretty good sample for any research. I agree perhaps some characterisitcs may have predisposed certain types of men to join te army, but since it was over time it is not soley army recruits since they would have moved on to other pursuits in life. Nevertheless intelligence is still the measure they were using with a particular test so in the end the sample is still fairly valid. Issues such as whether future employment may have affected the purchase of shares among other things could be relevant too.
 
why dont they just say smarter ppl invest money dumb ppl think about present only, you dont need to do a study for this, it doesnt matter whether its shares, bank deposits, pm or re.
 
People with intelligence, also known as "information" ..... can use said intelligence, and the "smarter" you are the more stock you own ... also known as "insider trading" ...

as for the other 99% .... roll up roll up and take a spin of the wheel of fortune ...
 
They should also have studied the physical characteristics of the men, their sexual habits and hobbies, and then link this up with their stock market returns. This is after all, the "scientific method" is it not?

Reminds me of all the scientific research that came out of tobacco companies. The scientists could keep their jobs only on the condition that they kept publishing reports which testified to the safety of smoking tobacco. Those scientists must have been good, because they worked at those tobacco factories for decades, and they had many scientific qualifications and letters after their names.

Don't you love science? It doesn't have biased opinions and only focuses on the facts.
 
Sydney Morning Herald said:
The study, published in last month's Journal of Finance, ignored bonds and other investments.

Okay, so while the link between intelligence and share ownership is interesting, it doesn't really tell us if people who are intelligent are more likely to own shares or if people who are intelligent are more likely to invest generally.

I would hazard a guess that if data on other investments was available, it would show that intelligent people are also more likely to own bonds, real estate, precious metals, artwork and have a reasonable amount of cash in the bank as well.
 
Black_Sun said:
They should also have studied the physical characteristics of the men, their sexual habits and hobbies, and then link this up with their stock market returns. This is after all, the "scientific method" is it not?

Reminds me of all the scientific research that came out of tobacco companies. The scientists could keep their jobs only on the condition that they kept publishing reports which testified to the safety of smoking tobacco. Those scientists must have been good, because they worked at those tobacco factories for decades, and they had many scientific qualifications and letters after their names.

Don't you love science? It doesn't have biased opinions and only focuses on the facts.

Too many variables in any one study is not going to be helpful. Possibly these things have been studied and reported in other papers or perhaps they have not been shown to be relevant.

I don't think there was any suggestion that these researchers were bought by ''the stock market''.
 
Ouch said:
For those interested in reading the original research paper quoted, here is the link: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1441512. The paper was written by Mark Grinblatt (UCLA), Matti Keloharju (Aalto University) and Juhani T. Linnainmaa (University of Chicago).


http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/x1927.xml

Mark Grinblatt UCLA page with background, CV, papers etc...

http://finance.aalto.fi/en/people/keloharju/

Matti Keloharju ...as above info

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/juhani.linnainmaa/

Juhani Linnainmaa...as above...inof

Links to each authors Univiersity profile and other research so you can check it out if you are interested.
 
silversardine said:
http://www.afajof.org/

Journal of Science is a journal not a magazine - see above. 160 000 is a pretty good sample for any research. I agree perhaps some characterisitcs may have predisposed certain types of men to join te army, but since it was over time it is not soley army recruits since they would have moved on to other pursuits in life. Nevertheless intelligence is still the measure they were using with a particular test so in the end the sample is still fairly valid. Issues such as whether future employment may have affected the purchase of shares among other things could be relevant too.

160 000 soldiers are not representative of the wider community. The best you can say about this study is more intelligent Finnish soldiers are more likely to invest in stocks. It doesn't say any more than that and in no way represents the wider community. Making wider claims than that based on such a sample set is bad science.

EDIT: there is also the fact that they are going by IQ which is notoriously inefficient at predicting success overall. Far more factors are involved, motivation, hard work, etc...

Overall, kind of pointless study imo with no conclusions of any worth.
 
Higher IQ = most likely higher income = greater ability to afford investments.

It's not rocket surgery.

Also in breaking news, those in housing commission are less likely to own investment properties.
 
Anthony said:
those in housing commission are less likely to own investment properties.

Are there any scientific studies backing up this claim?

Did you hear about the guy who was given a scientific grant to study the mating habits of camels? His findings? Quite comprehensive really, summed up as, "The camels are banging away steadily and there's no shortage of them." Wow! We gave a guy money to tell us this :/ Or the other one about the guy who was given a grant to study some type of beetle... basically, he just stayed up that tree counting the beetles until the grant money ran out. Great way to earn a living, some people would say.
 
hawkeye said:
160 000 soldiers are not representative of the wider community.

Perhaps not, but apart from being an incredibly huge sample, it includes one particular gender (so gender income disparity is eliminated) all of roughly the same age (19-20), all of roughly the same starting income (army pay), all from roughly the same geographic area (Finland), all investing in roughly the same market (the Finish stockmarket), all tested for their level of intelligence by the same organisation (the Finish Army) and all financial data tabulated by the same organisation (the Finish tax office).

That's actually a pretty decent sample group for for what they were testing.
 
Anthony said:
Higher IQ = most likely higher income = greater ability to afford investments.

It's not rocket surgery.

Also in breaking news, those in housing commission are less likely to own investment properties.
Anthony you should be an analyst & write studies with that logic. Go take steve keens job. :lol:
 
Back
Top