New research confirms a superior performance by female tradersWomen have had a pretty bad reputation in global financial markets. As investors, the perception is that they joined the game too late, they saved too little and they invested too conservatively.But a growing number of surveys and research papers suggest this is a stereotype that is out of date. The reality is that women actually spend more time researching their options than men, are better at matching their investments to their life goals, tend to trade less and when they do, remain calmer during the storms that unnerve male investors on the financial high seas.So, recent publicity around an NAB report suggesting that women are losing large sums of money because they are too conservative in their investment choices, has raised hackles. Not least because it claims there are anatomical differences in the brains of men and women that influence investment decisions.One of the most in-depth pieces of research to support the view that women make better investors has come from UNSW Business SchoolThe road the academics travelled was a long one, encompassing a 17-year period, and focused on Finland due to the transparency of its financial marketplace.The study matched daily trade by male and female individual investors in Nokia and 27 other major Finnish stocks and found that there was a continuous female compounded rate of return of 21.44% per annum, rising to 43.16% per annum just for the main stock, Nokia.Women individual investors also outperformed domestic and international institutional investors with an even more substantial gain of €1,654.24 million.
Women are good bear indicators
Did you seriously write that crap as bait? Stopped reading after Sorry incels
>>62064621OP did a good job>>62064576You did a good job. I read ALL that. I notice women tend to be a lot of important economic research and professors. Perhaps their holistic way of think is advantaged.
No OP is an idiot that put the signal that it is cheap ass bait at the start and reduced anybody reading beyond his signal to the corpus of his bait.
>>62064576We are imaginary digital funny money collectors, wrong board!
>>62064621here is the pic u wanted to post:
>>62064576Cathie Wood. Enough said.
This is old as fuck but honestly I see it now. The less risk you take the more likely you are to actually make money. Dudes are more likely to think they're some kind of wizz kid genius and make retarded bets that go to zero over the long run, even if it occasionally works out. Women just do what everyone else is doing and make money with the broader market
>>62064576My mother is a good investor
>>62065079My mom is a good investor too :)
>>62065075Men are BOTH more skilled drivers AND more likely to get into an accident.
>>62064576Western women aren't good at anything except taking black dick and complaining for gibs. This article is complete nonsense.
I'm calling bullshit. 99.9% of women do not have the temperament for trading.
>>62065308Investing, not trading
Are women aware that I don't give a fuck what they do with their 401k.>17 year periodSo I guess from 2000-2017 women invested in blue chips or some shit while men gambled on Swiggity Niggity corp and other tech and housing shit, but since women were less likely to blow up their accounts trying to GET BIG OR DIE they're 'better investors'.Well good for them, but it's not relevant to me.
>>62065075If I had taken risks in 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 etc. on risky shots like Nvidia instead of listenign to 'broad market thesis' I would have 100xed. Instead I get to listen to idiots tell me simultaneously that women are better investrs because no risks and 'hurr durr but you didn't put all your money in nvidia calls did you genius?" because people are unable to admit that taking a calculated but crazy risk is usually the correct answer unless you want to be Wagebert for the rest of your life.
>>62065313>investinglmfao, that means in the current environment of an inverted demographic pyramid being a greater fool that holds bags that have no bid and are contractually going to have to be sold by pension funds to cover the contractual pay outs to retirees that outnumber active population 2:1.Lets make a quick calculation:When 2 Boomers need to have 3000 dollars in shares sold to cover their pay outs and 0 dollar enter the ponzi, how long does it take for the foids 401k to go to 0
>>62065075Exactly. Thats why they tell people to just DCA into ETFs. No male or female traders needed.
>>62065328tl;dr I lost all my money in memecoins while stacy gets rich
>>62064576>finland
>>62065411stacy isnt rich. Stacy was stupid enough to pay all her subsidized cash flow into a 401k she has no access too while the pension fund that manages the account has obligations to provide a monthly pay out to Boomer Joes that outnumber stacys contribution not just 2:1 but more like 25:1
>>62065320>buying nvidia>taking risknigger you would have bought some fly by night penny stock because it was shilled on wall street bets and lost all your money. Anyone with money in the s&p had exposure to nvidia and outperformed your sorry ass
>>62065468>not like me that YOLO'd that money into memecoins
>>62065552Are you projecting? My currently preferred method of cashflow is a bit more hand on, beside betting on stacy and her trust in the ponzi schemes of the 20th century going belly up. I will likely keep on doing both, robbing people is actually quite fun.
