Live data from Hacker News

Warren Buffett: Success in investing doesn't correlate with IQ

facebook.com

31–40 of 61 posts

Re: Warren Buffett: Success in investing doesn't correlate with IQ

#31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well they also probably have less time than even the average person to read, learn, and do research.

I think the real problem is that they are never explained the EMH during their lunch hour. Instead they hear about other doctor's winning investments, and it creates a stupidity cycle. I am pretty sure if I asked about investing at any tech company during lunch, someone would explain EMH to me. I could be wrong. I personally don't believe markets are always efficient, but I always think from the perspective of why I…

As any engineer knows, nothing is 100% efficient.

I think a better way of describing the market is as a competitive game. Roger Federer may not play tennis "perfectly" -- what would that even mean? -- but you know what's going to happen if you or I step out onto the court with him.

Re: Warren Buffett: Success in investing doesn't correlate with IQ

#32
I agree with what he's getting at, but I'm not sure why he phrased it this way. It's not like he did a study and this was the result (that I know of). He has no way of knowing if IQs of 125+ actually correlate with success in investing or not -- he's just guessing.

It's an educated guess, sure. And it might be entirely correct. But I'm sure Buffett has lots of useful advice that people will take at face value, so there's no need for him to dress wisdom up with unsubstantiated scientific language.

It's almost as if he's trying to channel Malcolm Gladwell's claim in "Outliers" that any IQ points above 120 don't provide any advantages.

I'll let Steven Pinker to set the record straight [1]:

> It is simply not true that a quarter­back’s rank in the draft is uncorrelated with his success in the pros, that cognitive skills don’t predict a teacher’s effectiveness, that intelligence scores are poorly related to job performance or (the major claim in “Outliers”) that above a minimum I.Q. of 120, higher intelligence does not bring greater intellectual achievements.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/review/Pinker-t.html...

Re: Warren Buffett: Success in investing doesn't correlate with IQ

#33
post #26
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's true. Buffett's investment philosophy involves active intervention in the companies he owns, not just blind stock picking.

He acts on what he perceives as mispricings in the market. That these mispricings may be caused or magnified by his own actions in the companies he is involved with isn't really the point.

You don't seem to understand what is meant by the term "efficient market".

The efficient market hypothesis does not preclude the possibility that share prices could be improved by a buyout or activist shareholder.

Re: Warren Buffett: Success in investing doesn't correlate with IQ

#34
post #32

I agree with what he's getting at, but I'm not sure why he phrased it this way. It's not like he did a study and this was the result (that I know of). He has no way of knowing if IQs of 125+ actually correlate with success in investing or not -- he's just guessing. It's an educated guess, sure. And it might be entirely correct. But I'm sure Buffett has lots of useful advice that people will take at face value, so the…

[deleted]

Re: Warren Buffett: Success in investing doesn't correlate with IQ

#35
Emotions + inactivity > intelligence with investing.

It's fairly easy to find things that are undervalued and then sit on them. The problem comes when you enter the trade and real, serious amounts of money are on the line. You know like the "thousands of hours you put into your life savings" kind of money.

I distinctly remember the first time I put on a significant trade (significant fraction of my total net worth). My heart was beating, adrenaline was pumping, and my hands were shaking.

I had the same response as people who jump out of an airplane, or experience some other type of stressful situation. I would watch that trade like a hawk for hours at a time (it was fairly concentrated), and my emotions pretty much followed the ticker. As the stock bubbled up I was elated; as it fell, I quickly became depressed. I couldn't take it, and after one day I exited my position at a loss of $250. Probably one of the most stressful periods of my life. This is even after I had paper traded for years beforehand, and had a strong conviction for both my valuation and the stock at hand.

I got myself together and told myself that the next time the stock was at valuation minus 40% I would go all in, and I wouldn't touch, look at, think about, or check on the stock, and my holdings for at least 3 months; a total news blackout.

That situation soon arose and I did just that. The second time around my response was similar, but more muted, and my resolve stronger. Once in, I kept my promise and didn't do anything for 3 months and by the end of that period I was up 30%.

I then reviewed the history of the trade and noticed that had I been watching the market day in and day out, I would've experienced periods over that time where I would've lost 20-30% in one day. After noticing that, I knew that I could steel myself against these kind of movements by simply looking at the prices once a day and basically telling myself that "This too shall pass". Over a period of one year I basically trained myself to stop caring what the market thought, and successfully experienced draw downs of 20-30% without reacting one bit. Market movements no longer effect me emotionally (at least on the same level). Losses don't hurt any more (I have full faith in my own valuation and the stock) and gains no longer made me happy. Just by experiencing the pain and elation so many times, over such a long period of time, trained me to basically become numb to any changes, and in turn my response to market movements essentially flatlined.

Since then I've been up over 700% over the last year and a half, and I know that wrestling with my emotions has been, by far and away, the greatest battle I've had to fight when investing. Not finding good companies (easy), not valuing them (excel spreadsheets), not executing the trade (although my hands still shake whenever I try a new derivatives strategy, which is good), but taking the day-to-day fluctuations of 10-20% in my total net worth day-in and day-out without giving one single shit.

And that, I can tell you, is hard to do. Very hard. Most people won't be able to take it, with the global financial crisis being the prime example. When things go to shit, they freak out (just like I did at the start), and do the most idiotic things you could possibly imagine (not their fault). They go to cash when everything is cheap. The go to stocks when everything is expensive.

All because of emotions.

Emotions rule. And I practice emotional arbitrage.

Re: Warren Buffett: Success in investing doesn't correlate with IQ

#36

I once talked to someone that worked for one of the brokerage houses, and they ran a report to measure the investment performance of the aggregate portfolio of people with M.D. in their title (doctors). It turns out that they were systematically terrible investors with low returns and high volatility for every period and any measure. I think the problem physicians face is that they spend everyday all day as the smart…

The theory of "Ego depletion" suggests that physicians use up their rational decision-making capacity during their intense day jobs, so make bad (more emotionally-driven) decisions at the end of the day.

Re: Warren Buffett: Success in investing doesn't correlate with IQ

#37
I would like to see some research to support his thesis. I agree that the temperament is important, very much so, but at the same time I am afraid this might be misconstrued by some that a lower IQ somehow does not matter if you are an investor or trader. That's not what he says, but it seems to have been received that way by some on Facebook.

You can actually come across people (on trading forums) who believe that a lower IQ is beneficial for a trader. I don't believe this.

BTW, I am a day trader by occupation and my IQ is 131. I think my high IQ helps me in trading.

Re: Warren Buffett: Success in investing doesn't correlate with IQ

#38

Emotions + inactivity > intelligence with investing. It's fairly easy to find things that are undervalued and then sit on them. The problem comes when you enter the trade and real, serious amounts of money are on the line. You know like the "thousands of hours you put into your life savings" kind of money. I distinctly remember the first time I put on a significant trade (significant fraction of my total net worth).…

You know we have been in a bull market. can you have the same aplomb in both up and down markets ?

Re: Warren Buffett: Success in investing doesn't correlate with IQ

#39

Emotions + inactivity > intelligence with investing. It's fairly easy to find things that are undervalued and then sit on them. The problem comes when you enter the trade and real, serious amounts of money are on the line. You know like the "thousands of hours you put into your life savings" kind of money. I distinctly remember the first time I put on a significant trade (significant fraction of my total net worth).…

10-20% a day? Are you trading options? My portfolio never fluctuated 5% in one day, and it only fluctuated that much due to recent run up of Tesla and solar city... But I agree the more you are in the more numb you are to the market.

Re: Warren Buffett: Success in investing doesn't correlate with IQ

#40

I once talked to someone that worked for one of the brokerage houses, and they ran a report to measure the investment performance of the aggregate portfolio of people with M.D. in their title (doctors). It turns out that they were systematically terrible investors with low returns and high volatility for every period and any measure. I think the problem physicians face is that they spend everyday all day as the smart…

Since when M.D. stands for high IQ? Yes, doctors are often convinced of their superiority but that has little to do with intelligence. Their sense of superiority might actually be the reason why they are poor investors and not their high IQ because overall I doubt their IQ is so high.
Post reply on HN