Decision Nerds

Send us Fan MailWhen seeking improvement in teams we generally face two choices:1. Try something new and interesting, ideally something that can be compressed into an awayday session. It's easy - we will never be short of New Sexy Ideas (NSIs); things like psychological safety, radical candour, psychometric profiling. Choose your poison.2. Stop doing the unproductive shit that everyone knows is causing damage. What do most people choose? In my experience, it's option 1. Why? Most NSIs are plausible and talk to real problems. And who doesn't want to feel like they are being innovative and positive – it can make the team feel good and show management we are on the ball. Probably the most important reason to pick an NSI is that it means we don't have to directly deal with the tough baked-in problems the team might be facing. My personal take is that you'll often get more from stopping the things that erode value than from adding something new on top. In this episode of Decision Nerds, we explore Charlie Munger's exhortation to 'Invert, always invert' with Andy Evans, an industry veteran who's written an excellent note on this issue. If you haven't come across inversion before, the idea is that instead of asking how to achieve success, you ask what causes failure and try to systematically avoid those pitfalls.We focus on one of the most challenging issues in investment management – how to make a team work effectively – covering everything from terrible incentive structures to why we promote the wrong people. Discussing teams and their problems can easily turn into a whingeathon, so we also offer some simple, practical fixes to make team life more enjoyable and effective.Feel free to listen to this as a team, with your own 'Jeez, do we do that?' bingo card. Andy' note can be downloaded here.

Send us Fan Mail𝐍𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐈 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫…...heard a client say, “I’m disappointed, you made that point too easy for everyone to understand”. Unsurprisingly, anyone who works in the field of investment or consulting will have heard many complaints the other way around. You may have been the culprit, or maybe had to present with THAT colleague who is incredibly smart, but who struggles to get their point across to less sophisticated audiences.In this episode of Decision Nerds, Joe Wiggins and I unpick this problem, why it exists and why it’s sticky. We discuss:𝐓𝐡𝐞 ‘𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞’ – once we know something, we can struggle to remember what the world was like before we knew it. This can impact everything from how decks are structured to how we answer questions in a meeting.𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 – investors and consultants often have to present to audiences with different knowledge bases. The problem is when they are both in the room at the same time. We discuss hitting the lowest common denominator vs. making a decision on who is the most important constituent.𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐡𝐞𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜 – humans process cognitively and emotionally. When we understand something well, our cognitive faculties can judge the quality of an argument. But what do people pay attention to when they don’t understand? As much as anything it is our tone, which can leave people with different impressions than hoped for.Out of the many behavioural problems that impact investors and their clients, this should be one of the easier ones to solve. It’s just communication skills, right? Sometimes, yes, but we also discuss:𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐯𝐬. 𝐞𝐠𝐨 – should we assume that people are always trying to communicate optimally? People may be using jargon, because they want to appear smart, or to bamboozle. If it’s this kind of driver, simply telling people to simplify their message won’t work.𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬 - 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐯𝐬. 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥 – very few people can easily go up and down the complexity curve/explain the same point in different ways, especially on the fly. Once people have ‘their story’ they can often get locked into it. This can either be a function of time (to create and learn a new story) or sometimes control – ‘this is my product, I’ll decide how it gets communicated’.𝐄𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐨𝐫’𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐜𝐥𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬 – for people to change, they need to know what the problem is. Powerful/influential people often don’t get to hear the unvarnished truth. If we want the best chance of change, we need to communicate the issue in a way that (i) reflects reality and (ii) gives the ‘offender’ a positive way forward that they can practically engage with.You can also hear Joe’s learning moment when he (foolishly?) decided to dig into the ratings his presentation was given at an investment conference. 

Send us Fan MailHoward Marks – navigating the crisis - creed, preparation and control What kind of mindset and organisational culture does it take to survive and to thrive in market turmoil? Let’s be frank, there are a vanishingly small number of people who have navigated multiples crises successfully and have something interesting and reflective to say it about it.One person who does is Howard Marks. Founder and Co-Chairman of Oaktree he is, for our (and Warren Buffet’s) money, one of the most thoughtful and experienced investors in the market today.  In the latest episode of Decision Nerds, we got to speak to him in the middle of recent market craziness. We had a fascinating chat - not about tariffs, Trump or trade wars, but the inner game; what individuals and firms need to succeed in this environment. Joe's writing on investment decision-making is here.  You can find Paul on LinkedIn here.     

Send us Fan MailThe Disruptor in Chief’s blizzard of executive orders, tariffs and foreign policy positions and his propensity to change them is making life difficult for investors and clients.   Things look and feel uncertain, perhaps more so than in living memory. In this bite size episode, we discuss the science and practicalities of dealing with uncertainty.  The Electric shock study refernced in the discussion.  

Send us Fan MailAs the wordly philosophers of Coldplay suggest, getting what you want, but not what you need, might leave you in need of fixing. Leaps in investment platform technology give investors more information, more choice and the ability to act more quickly and easily. We want that, but is it what we need? As Joe points out, many of the positive developments in tech are double-edge swords. He thinks from a behavioural perspective, now is one of the worst times ever to be an investor.𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀:#𝟭 𝗟𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗳𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 – it takes me less than 10 seconds from launching my platform app on my phone to being able to deal. Is that a good thing? In one dimension yes, but the overarching story of behavioural finance is people doing irrational things that create bad outcomes. Slick and seamless tech combined with noise, FOMO and a constant barrage of stimulus has the potential to exacerbate these problems.#𝟮 𝗔 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗼𝗺 𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗽 – tech providers exist in a highly competitive environment and 'faster, easier, more' are key facets of the battleground. No one wants to lead a pitch with, ‘and….this is how we reduce information available to clients and make it harder for them to trade’.#𝟯 𝗥𝗲𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗮𝗺𝗲 – whilst it might be possible to get providers around a table to agree a common approach that helps investors manage their worst impulses, a market-based solution is likely more workable. This needs those who advise on these platforms to be changing the conversation and including behavioural design as part of any selection process. Imagine a world where providers compete on how they help clients beat their biases as much as how slick the tech itself is. 𝗣𝗵𝗿𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝘆? 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻“Intelligent friction,” is a concept from the payments industry which focuses on interventions based the risk level of a transaction. It aims to balance a good user experience with effective security. Buy a coffee in a new country when you land there fine, buy a laptop, expect an intervention. There are some obvious investment analogies here. And of course this is only one tool in the arsenal, getting better at education and helping clients help themselves is also pivotal.We don’t want to lose all the good things that tech brings, but to mangle Coldplay, we should perhaps be trying to help people want what they need.

Send us Fan MailJoe doesn’t like performance fees - but why? Are they innately problematic or just badly and perhaps cynically implemented in the mutual fund industry? In this bitesize episode, we get into alignment of interests, bad design and investor behaviour.𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝘁?Performance fees are most often discussed in the context of alignment and risk sharing. Joe raises an interesting question - can they also be used to nudge investors away from unhelpful behaviour?

Send us Fan MailWe all have things in our working lives that drive us insane. Anyone who regularly listens to the pod will know that there are a few subjects that consistently raise Joe’s blood pressure to unhealthy levels…In the interest of Joe's and our future guest’s wellbeing, we wanted to find a way of dealing with these issues productively. Our solution, Decision Nerds: Room 101 Room 101 is the torture chamber in George Orwell’s classic book, 1984. For those who cross its threshold, it contains, ‘the worst thing in the world’. Many Brits will remember the Room 101 TV and radio shows where celebrities suggested what they thought was the worst thing in the world and competed to have their pet hate consigned to oblivion (my personal favourite being Jimmy Carr and tax avoidance schemes).Our take on Room 101 is slightly different. Like the celebrities, Joe, I and our guests will discuss the issues that make our eyes roll. But it won’t be just a winge-a-thon, we’ll try to get to the heart of the issue and start a productive discussion. 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲We're kicking-off with ‘chartcrime’ and something that particularly riles Joe - the overlaying of time series, such as inflation, from different periods and looking for predictive patterns. Are these charts a problem, or is it how they are used and framed? In the episode, we discuss:𝗣𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 and how different investor types might confuse the two𝗧𝗲𝘅𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗽𝘀𝗵𝗼𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 - are they the same thing?𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝘄𝗸𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 that might stop people producing these chartsOur Room 101 episodes are bite-sized and designed to provoke a conversation. Hot takes, or deeply considered meditations are both welcome. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/paul-richards-34965883_%F0%9D%97%A5%F0%9D%97%BC%F0%9D%97%BC%F0%9D%97%BA-%F0%9D%9F%AD%F0%9D%9F%AC%F0%9D%9F%AD-%F0%9D%97%96%F0%9D%97%B5%F0%9D%97%AE%F0%9D%97%BF%F0%9D%98%81%F0%9D%97%B0%F0%9D%97%BF%F0%9D%97%B6%F0%9D%97%BA%F0%9D%97%B2-we-activity-7282682076963733504-tB9s?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktopAnd of course, feel free to submit the most egregious example of chartcrime you have ever seen (if you want to raise Joe’s blood pressure).

Send us Fan MailIf you’ve been around the block, you will likely have seen some eye-rolling use of evidence during meetings. Evidence can be used badly for many reasons; a misunderstanding of what conclusions can be drawn from it, or perhaps it has been cherry-picked to support a particular position.In this episode, we unpick these issues with Professor Alex Edmans of London Business School. Alex recently published a book, ‘May Contain Lies’, which discusses the methodological, psychological and incentive problems surrounding evidence use.We spend a decent amount of time on a core idea from the book, ‘The Ladder of Misinference’. If you think scientifically, there are no earth-shattering revelations here, but I really like it because it is a simple teachable framework that groups can adopt. Alex gives some great examples that everyone can understand and internalise. The Ladder deals with the challenges of method, but that’s only half the story. We also have to beat the behavioural cards that nature has dealt us, e.g. confirmation bias. And even if we beat the first two traps, incentives can nudge us away from saying what we really believe. Key insights:- How Alex tries to move beyond black-and-white thinking and engage with complexity - getting the right mix of data and stories- Why do bad ideas stick - do you still 'Power Pose'? - Changing minds – the power of good questions (there’s a great experiment on pianos and toilets that you can try at home).- Trading off the short and long-term - why he chose the most critical agent to help him publish his book. - Understanding neurological carrots and sticks - what happens when we put people in a brain scanner and give them statements they like and don’t?- The state of debate around ESG and DEI – ideology, identity and pressures to conform.

Send us Fan MailLying – it’s something that all humans do. Most of the lies we tell are small and harmless. But deceptive behaviour in the investment industry lowers trust and increases costs and complexity.We are deceptive for many reasons and one of them is that we can get away with it. This is because, despite what we might believe, most of us are pretty terrible at spotting lying – including highly experienced financial analysts.But what would happen if we all had access to AI-powered technology on our phones that could spot deception with a high degree of accuracy? Would that change how the industry behaves? This is no idle speculation – in this episode of Decision Nerds, we explore research that suggests that AI is significantly better at spotting lying than humans. And as we all know, AI has a habit of surprising us by appearing in the wild far faster than we might expect.How would this technology impact the investment industry? We discuss:𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙤𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙥𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙮 – the entirely logical reasons that we don’t always tell the truth𝘿𝙞𝙛𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙥𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙨 – what are the traps that managers fall into and why𝙅𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙢𝙪𝙘𝙝 𝙗𝙚𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙞𝙨 𝘼𝙄? – the results might surprise you𝙒𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙖 𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 𝙢𝙖𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙤𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙮 𝙤𝙧 𝙢𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙞𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧? – our take on ‘creative destruction’𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚’𝙨 𝙣𝙤 𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 𝙢𝙖𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙮𝙚𝙩  - we discuss a few better questions that we can use today.Affectiva facial recognition demo Paper on analysts' ability to spot CEO deception Paper on AI's ability to spot CEO deceptionLying on CVs

Send us Fan Mail𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗺𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗱𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗻 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗿?1. Hire a manager after a period of strong performance.2. Watch in horror as you don’t experience that outcome, maybe the opposite.3. Spend a huge amount of time and emotional labour deciding on whether your initial thesis was wrong, something has changed at the manager, or with market dynamics.4. After sucking up a huge amount of governance time, decide to sack the manager. 5. Rinse and repeat with potentially similar outcomes.Now that might not be you, but it is a story that plays out regularly.Experiencing underperformance is one of the unavoidable realities of hiring an active manager. And it’s painful for everyone; clients, managers and advisers. And badly managed pain creates some predictably bad outcomes for all parties.One important and manageable issue is time horizon mismatch. And this is what and I explore in the latest episode of Decision Nerds. We discuss𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 – managers need an appropriate amount of time to let their edge play out. It may be longer than you think.𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝘂𝘅𝘁𝗼𝗻 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗲𝘅 – a simple way of articulating time frames that would help everyone.𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻 𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗲 – we posit that most people’s ability to predict how they will deal with the pressure of underperformance won’t reflect reality when things get tough.We talk about the distinct behavioural pressures facing clients, advisers and managers and what they might consider doing to make things easier. A couple of takeaways if you don’t have time to listen.𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 - what is your real capacity for tolerating underperformance, how do you know this?𝗠𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗿𝘀 - have a clear view of the timeframe your results should be judged over. Whilst this a tough problem, if you don’t have a view, one will be forced on you.𝗔𝗱𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘀 - is your role to be a behavioural bulwark and help clients through this period, or just keep them happy? They are not always the same thing.More information on the Buxton Index is here: https://lnkd.in/eHXDfkfe