Actively managed share funds are on the way out
20 Feb 2015 Leave a comment
in entrepreneurship, financial economics, industrial organisation, survivor principle Tags: active investing, efficient markets hypothesis, passive investing, William F. Shape
After costs, the return on the average actively managed dollar will be less than the return on the average passively managed dollar for any time period.
—William F. Sharpe, 1990 Nobel Laureate
4 out of 5 actively managed fund portfolios underperformed all index fund portfolios in all scenarios tested.
via The tide is turning as investors switch from high-cost, actively managed funds to index funds for lower costs, higher returns » AEI | Carpe Diem Blog » AEIdeas and Mutual Fund Expenses | Lion’s Share.
.
Managerial Econ: Top 5 problem-solving mistakes by MBA’s
19 Feb 2015 Leave a comment
in entrepreneurship, industrial organisation, managerial economics, organisational economics, personnel economics, survivor principle Tags: entrepreneurial alertness, management, MBA

“Avoid jargon” because most people misuse it. Force yourself to spell out what you mean in simple plain English. It will help your thinking and communication.
“What about the organizational design?” Figure out what is causing the problem, and then think about how to avoid the problem. A lot of papers identified a bad decision, and then suggested reversing it. But they neglected to address the issue of why the bad decision was made, and how to make sure the same mistakes wouldn’t be made in the future.
“Don’t define the problem as the lack of your solution.” For example, if the problem is “the lack of centralized purchasing,” then you are locked into a solution of “centralized purchasing.” Instead, define the problem as “high acquisition cost” and then examine “centralized purchasing” vs. “decentralized purchasing” (or some other alternative) as two solutions to the problem.
“What is the trade-off?” Every solution has costs as well as benefits. If you list only the benefits, it makes your analysis seem like an ex post rationalization of a foregone decision, rather than a careful weighing of the benefits and costs. If you spent some time thinking through the tradeoffs, show it. If not, then you should.
“Which language is this?” I write this when I get gobbledygook written in the passive voice with big words that don’t mean anything. Instead write simple declarative sentences that clarify rather than obfuscate. Form is not a substitute for content.
via Managerial Econ: Top 5 problem-solving mistakes by MBA’s.
An ice-cold whisky dispenser, 1950s.
18 Feb 2015 Leave a comment
Media bias versus media vigilance
17 Feb 2015 Leave a comment
in economics of media and culture, industrial organisation, survivor principle Tags: media bias
Economics as Incredulity : Working conditions during the Industrial Revolution
16 Feb 2015 Leave a comment

The Law of Crappy Managers
14 Feb 2015 Leave a comment
in economics of bureaucracy, industrial organisation, managerial economics, occupational choice, organisational economics, personnel economics, survivor principle Tags: Peter Principle
Union density has taken a bit of a battering in US manufacturing and construction
05 Feb 2015 Leave a comment

Why do economic consulting firms exist?
02 Feb 2015 1 Comment
in applied price theory, economics of bureaucracy, economics of information, financial economics, law and economics, managerial economics, organisational economics, survivor principle Tags: advice giving industries, corporate law, Deirdre McCloskey, directors duties, economic consultants

Directors’ duties are the reason why the companies hire economic consultants. What consultants say isn’t important; the fact that simply the directors of a company sought advice is what matters. Same goes for the public sector: you must know what you’re doing, you took advice from outside experts.
Central to avoiding being sued if the company goes broke, or otherwise gets into a spot of bother, is the directors show that they acted responsibly.
Central to this is they can show they took advice from esteemed advisers: an accountant, a lawyer and an economist. If they did so, they must be responsible prudent directors because they took advice.

Deirdre McCloskey argued that the advising industry lives off 19th century case law on directors’ and trustees’ duties.
If you take advice – from an accountant, a lawyer or an economist – and the business or investment still fails, it can’t be your fault that you lost the widow’s and orphans’s inheritance.
You took advice. That is what that 19th-century court held with regard to what directors do and do not have to do given the fact that are not involved in the business on a day to day basis.
James Burk, a sociologist and former stockbroker… found that the advice giving industry sprang from legal decisions in the early 19th century.
The courts began to decide that the trustee of the pension fund or a child’s inheritance could be held liable for bad investing if they did not take advice. The effect would have been the same had the court decided that prudent man should consult a Ouija boards or the flight of birds…
America decided through its courts than an industry giving advice on the stock market should come into existence, whether or not it was worthless.
Therefore, it doesn’t matter what you say as a consultant economist to a company, the fact you’ve said something to them is more important to them than what you are saying. Seeking and receiving your advice excused them from being sued for breach of their directors duties for a couple of days.





Recent Comments