Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stocks Perform Better if Women Are on Company Boards

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 43 posts

Re: Stocks Perform Better if Women Are on Company Boards

#11

Post by lvh »

Uchikoma wrote: post #3

Not only cause and correlation but what's the cause? Do companies with women on their board perform better, or do companies that perform better take women into their boards. Do companies that have the mindset to take on less dept, have the mindset to encourage women to take board positions, or do companies with women in board positions get a mindset to take on less dept. Do companies that perform better take on less…

I don't understand how an all-male board obviously implies not having the best people available. Doesn't that mean that for any group of any size of only males, there exists at least one woman that is better at at least one of their jobs?

I don't see how that's a given.

(I should have refreshed sooner, it appears I wasn't the only one to make this point)

Re: Stocks Perform Better if Women Are on Company Boards

#13

Post by vacri »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #8
Uchikoma wrote: post #3

Not only cause and correlation but what's the cause? Do companies with women on their board perform better, or do companies that perform better take women into their boards. Do companies that have the mindset to take on less dept, have the mindset to encourage women to take board positions, or do companies with women in board positions get a mindset to take on less dept. Do companies that perform better take on less…

I don't understand your last statement. Why is it obvious that an all-men board can't consist of the best people?

A merit-based company doesn't care about genitals, whereas a boys' club company cuts out 50% of potentially meritorious workers (though I agree the idea was poorly worded)

Re: Stocks Perform Better if Women Are on Company Boards

#14

Post by Uchikoma »

chroma wrote: post #10
Uchikoma wrote: post #3

Not only cause and correlation but what's the cause? Do companies with women on their board perform better, or do companies that perform better take women into their boards. Do companies that have the mindset to take on less dept, have the mindset to encourage women to take board positions, or do companies with women in board positions get a mindset to take on less dept. Do companies that perform better take on less…

(I personally think women in director positions are a good thing because an all-men board obviously can't consist of the best people available) I don't want to turn this into a flame war about gender, but this does not seem obvious to me. It's certainly not the case in other fields. For example, the best mathematicians are predominantly male. (No female has ever won the Fields Medal or Abel Prize.) The same goes for…

While it's not clear if this is gender specific or culture.

Re: Stocks Perform Better if Women Are on Company Boards

#15

Post by slurgfest »

cremnob wrote: post #9
ChrisNorstrom wrote: post #5

" So is it because they're women or just exceptionally good at what they do? " Both. Women are biologically known to diversify their risks much more than men. Both in life and in business. Companies started by women have a much smaller chance of failing and reach profitability much sooner. Female business owners are more steady and less risky. Male business owners tend to take more risk, thus getting ahead faster but…

Where did the "women are less risky" thing come from? The Bundesbank published a paper about women bankers being riskier. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/cd4a3ac0-77f6-11e1-b437-00144...

I can't speak to the application in business. It's a well established idea in biology.

Females invest more biologically in eggs and pregnancy. Men may have many more children than women but also have greater risk of having none. Similar patterns show up in lots of areas. At human conception there are significantly more males than females, at birth they are close to 50/50 - males are more fragile. Even after that point, on average, men take more risks, die earlier and are more likely to be murdered.

So again, I don't have expertise to know what any of this has to do with who should run a company, the correlation may be extremely dodgy; but men are at a biological level riskier critters than women.

Re: Stocks Perform Better if Women Are on Company Boards

#16

Post by slurgfest »

Uchikoma wrote: post #14
chroma wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(I personally think women in director positions are a good thing because an all-men board obviously can't consist of the best people available) I don't want to turn this into a flame war about gender, but this does not seem obvious to me. It's certainly not the case in other fields. For example, the best mathematicians are predominantly male. (No female has ever won the Fields Medal or Abel Prize.) The same goes for…

While it's not clear if this is gender specific or culture.

To be the devil's advocate (I do NOT seriously defend sexism) why does the cause matter if you are looking for the best person? If women are almost always better potters in Norway, and you must make pots in Norway, then it makes sense that you would hire a lot of women.

Re: Stocks Perform Better if Women Are on Company Boards

#17

Post by JanezStupar »

Uchikoma wrote: post #3

Not only cause and correlation but what's the cause? Do companies with women on their board perform better, or do companies that perform better take women into their boards. Do companies that have the mindset to take on less dept, have the mindset to encourage women to take board positions, or do companies with women in board positions get a mindset to take on less dept. Do companies that perform better take on less…

>(I personally think women in director positions are a good thing because an all-men board obviously can't consist of the best people available)

Does that mean that education, social sciences, social care and healthcare suck because they obviously don't consist of the best people available?

Re: Stocks Perform Better if Women Are on Company Boards

#18

Post by kolinko »

slurgfest wrote: post #15
cremnob wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did the "women are less risky" thing come from? The Bundesbank published a paper about women bankers being riskier. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/cd4a3ac0-77f6-11e1-b437-00144...

I can't speak to the application in business. It's a well established idea in biology. Females invest more biologically in eggs and pregnancy. Men may have many more children than women but also have greater risk of having none. Similar patterns show up in lots of areas. At human conception there are significantly more males than females, at birth they are close to 50/50 - males are more fragile. Even after that poin…

Any scientific research to support that?

Just because you can put a nice story behind a theory doesn't make it true.

Re: Stocks Perform Better if Women Are on Company Boards

#19

Post by kolinko »

JanezStupar wrote: post #17
Uchikoma wrote: post #3

Not only cause and correlation but what's the cause? Do companies with women on their board perform better, or do companies that perform better take women into their boards. Do companies that have the mindset to take on less dept, have the mindset to encourage women to take board positions, or do companies with women in board positions get a mindset to take on less dept. Do companies that perform better take on less…

>(I personally think women in director positions are a good thing because an all-men board obviously can't consist of the best people available) Does that mean that education, social sciences, social care and healthcare suck because they obviously don't consist of the best people available?

Well, not necessarily suck, but aren't using the full potential of the population.

There are plenty of men who could be perfect social workers, or stay-at-home dads, but instead waste their potential, because "it's a woman's job" and "the man should bring money home".

Re: Stocks Perform Better if Women Are on Company Boards

#20

Post by squiggly101 »

ChrisNorstrom wrote: post #5

" So is it because they're women or just exceptionally good at what they do? " Both. Women are biologically known to diversify their risks much more than men. Both in life and in business. Companies started by women have a much smaller chance of failing and reach profitability much sooner. Female business owners are more steady and less risky. Male business owners tend to take more risk, thus getting ahead faster but…

"Too many men, like too much testosterone, is not a good thing."

Men built the entire world we live in today. Women's contribution to this has been negligible and inconsequential.

If every women from the dawn of time to the present day had been solely constrained to their proper duties of child-raising and home-keeping (which for the most part is actually the case), the world we live in today would basically be exactly the same, if not better.

If most men had been prevented from contributing to society and reaching their full potential we would still be living in caves.

Post reply on HN