November 22, 2016
How Elm Works
What does family planning have to do with investing?
We recently launched a new sub-section of our website, Elm Labs, as a place to experiment with interactive research and educational tools.
We launched with a simple (yet tricky) family planning puzzle – and so far, we’ve had answers from over 1000 people. Assuming that there was no self-selection bias in terms of who answered it, it’s a fair estimation that the vast majority of them were finance professionals in the 45 to 65 year old age group, with about half having graduate degrees, and about two dozen being current or former professors in finance.
Of these, 44% got the right answer, and of those who didn’t, 54% thought that the imbalance in the population would favor girls over boys (which is what I would have guessed too, as that seemed to be the objective of the family planning strategy to begin with).
I received about two dozen emails with comments (actually, mostly were objections). The most common remark was that the (unrealistic) assumption that a couple could have as many children as needed in order to have a girl was what made the expected number of girls and boys equal. Not true: if we assume, for example, that a family stops trying after 5 boys in a row, that doesn’t change the answer that the expected number of girls and boys is still equal. I pasted a table below which shows that, just in case you’re wondering.
One friend (a former stats professor) pointed me to an area of probability theory that probes questions involving stopping rules much more deeply (see Doob’s optional sampling theorem for a taste). As is often the case, simple problems can reveal layers and layers of more profound questions when un-ravelled by inquisitive minds.
Stay tuned for more on the question of stopping rules. In particular, we’ve been working on some research that explores the question of whether a stop-loss approach to investing (more fully: cut your losses early and let your profits run) in and of itself has been a profitable investing and trading approach, and if so, why.
| Girls | Boys | Prob | E(Girls) | E(Boys) |
| 1 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 |
| 1 | 1 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
| 1 | 2 | 0.125 | 0.125 | 0.25 |
| 1 | 3 | 0.0625 | 0.0625 | 0.1875 |
| 1 | 4 | 0.03125 | 0.03125 | 0.125 |
| 0 | 5 | 0.03125 | 0 | 0.15625 |
| Sum | 1 | 0.96875 | 0.96875 |
The content on this page is being provided as general market commentary and for educational purposes only. It does not constitute any form of investment advice, or recommendation to buy or sell any securities or adopt any investment strategy mentioned herein. Any investment strategies and investment results discussed herein are for illustration purposes only in the context of the commentary, and do not reflect actual or hypothetical Elm Wealth strategies or results, or an offer to provide such strategies or results.
This content is intended only to provide observations and views of the author(s) at the time of writing, both of which are subject to change at any time without prior notice. The information contained in the commentaries is derived from sources deemed by Elm Wealth to be reliable, but its accuracy and completeness cannot be guaranteed. This material does not have regard to specific investment objectives, financial situation and the particular needs of any specific reader. Any views regarding future prospects may or may not be realized. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.