Skip to main content

Huge banking bonus due to five year-old girl "rainmaker" Tia?

There have been a number of cases in which people with no financial expertise have been pitted against financial investment experts, to see how well they fare on the stock exchange.

Here's one example from 2002 (scroll down - it's the only one I could find on basis of a quick search). Of course this, by itself, is merely anecdotal evidence that the supposed skills of stock market gurus are largely mythical.

In this example, a financial analyst, using his expertise and computer analysis, lost 46.2%, over the year while five year old Tia's portfolio, picked at random, jumped 5.8%. Even the astrologer investing on the basis of planetary movements did significantly better than the supposed financial expert.

Be interested to hear of more examples (can't find any at the moment, though I've certainly stumbled upon a few in the past) or of any evidence to the contrary. Does anyone have more information or examples?

What's really interesting about this case is that were five year old Tia actually working for a big bank, she would have been awarded several million in bonuses for her amazing abilities in 2002. Moreover, other banks would be looking to poach her, offering even more lucrative contracts and bonuses (and why shouldn't they take that risk, given a few million quid is peanuts to them if she can outperform their other traders by even 1%?)

Most importantly of all, Tia would now become what's known as a "rainmaker", attracting wealthy investors. And her increasingly large investments might now tend to outperform others. Why? Because other investors would now tend to follow her lead, thus causing her randomly generated guesses as to what stock will rise to actually come true. So Tia's predictions might tend to become more accurate. And yet she's a five year old girl with no financial skill whatsoever.

So how much of what goes on on trading floors is dumbass trader sheep following round the lucky Tias? Here's the news report:

Five-year-old girl beats experts in stock market challenge

A five-year-old girl is still beating the stock market and financial experts after randomly picking shares.

Tia Roberts took part in an experiment last year to compare different ways of predicting the stock market.

Five-year-old Tia Roberts, who's still sitting pretty a year after choosing her winning portfolio of FTSE 100 stocks (PA)

The experiment pitted Tia against financial astrologer Christeen Skinner and independent analyst Mark Goodson.

Each invested a virtual £5,000 in a fantasy portfolio during National Science Week 2001, with Christeen choosing stocks based on the movement of the planets and Mark using his expertise and computer analysis.

Tia, who picked her stocks at random by grabbing numbered notes representing each company in the FTSE 100 Index, won last year's competition as her shares performed best during National Science Week.

The test of time shows Tia is still a winner, with her portfolio the only one to gain value a year later.

Tia's portfolio is up 5.8% one year on; while Christeen's is down 6.2%; and Mark's selections have fallen by 46.2%. During the year, the FTSE 100 Index has dropped 16%.
Continues at ananova.

Post Script: also just found the following opinion, for what it's worth. I wonder what studies are being referred to? I have often heard it said, but have not really looked into it before: "The reality is that luck and not skill explains outperformance by fund managers. Many studies conclusively demonstrate this fact. Neither Ms. Ralbovsky nor anyone else can help you find the next lucky quant fund manager." Go to "The Myth of The Stock Market Guru" by Dan Solin here.


Anonymous said…
Another experiment to confirm that a dart board or a monkey is just as good as well in the random market.

Just another confirmation how the merchant/investment bankers are overpaid for contributing nothing to the economy.
McDullard said…
Hmmmm. It's a bit more complicated than that Stephen. You would do well to read 'Fooled by Randomness', by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

I have a pretty low opinion of most fund managers (which is why i don't invest in funds) but just because a fund has performed badly doesn't mean it has been poorly managed.

eg A and B have 10,000pounds to save for a pension.

A's idea is to spread his money over a wide range of investments (this is essentially what you pay funds to do for you) thus minimising the risk of losing all of it, and increasing the chance that a substantial part of it will do very well.

B's idea is to buy about 200 lottery tickets a week.

one year later A's portfolio has lost a good deal of its value and B has won the lottery.

Would you really say that B's idea had been a sensible one? or that B deserves praise? or that A deserves blame?
Rocky said…
Presumably you'd have to compare large numbers of traders vs laypeople (or monkeys or random number generators or what have you) to draw the conclusion that traders are simply chancers/gamblers etc. that aren't any better than Joe Average, one isolated comparison means very little (if anything at all) really, sort of like the fact that there are FA cup upsets every year, but over time the results of the big teams vs the small teams are considerably better in favour of the big teams
Stephen Law said…
As I say this is merely anecdotal evidence. However, I think it was designed to illustrate something that is actually well established, that those who play the stockmarket in this way do no better than someone picking at random. My final quote alludes to such studies but I haven't got any references and would like some.

Of course the relevance of this to the current enormous bonuses being paid to bankers is obvious.
Stephen Law said…
I mean they generally do no better on average than those picking at random. Some will get lucky and do better, like Tia, and some will do worse.

As I say, I think this is fairly well established.
Hugo said…
The lesson to draw from this and similar results is to not put your money in managed funds.

However, it has not disproved the efficient market hypothesis that the market takes into account all available information in prices. I.e. most things are priced rationally, and it's hard to make better guesses than the market aggregate, and if someone can outguess the market aggregate, it's hard to identify them in advance.

You have not shown that the banking sector (the whole thing?) is a scam. No one actually working in the field would talk about "stock market gurus".

It's true that someone might have a flawed business plan which makes them a massive profit and bonus 19 years out of every 20, but loses money overall. Their strategy would appear to work for a long time despite being unsound.

The solution to that is simply to ban maturity transformation ( and then never bail out banks again.

Popular posts from this blog


(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.