When Our Brains Short-Circuit

July 10, 2009 by  
Filed under From the Media, The Education of an Investor

“We have met the enemy… and he is us.” – Pogo.

Have we (i.e. mankind and womankind) developed in such a way that we are prone to making bad long-term decisions?  Is it a matter of evolution?  Is there any hope?

Last week, Nicholas Kristof wrote a column with the eye-catching title, When Our Brains Short-Circuit, that I read with interest.  I believe that the article provides lessons for all of us, as citizens and as investors.

A quick summary of Kristof’s thesis is that, because of the way we perceive risks, our brains are not suited to solving long-term problems.  His column addresses the issue of carbon emissions, global warming and how we are reacting to this threat.  It is not my place to assess the degree of the threat or the comparative advantages and disadvantages of suggested solutions such as a cap-and-trade system versus a tax on carbon, so I won’t even try.

What I would like to do, however, is to point out that our brains can sabotage our individual financial decisions, so the concepts are quite relevant for us as investors.

First, I’d like to recommend Nicholas Kristof’s columns, which are, for me at least, required reading, because he frequently writes about topics that are generally ignored by other columnists.  Sometimes the subjects are quite disturbing – the tragedy in Darfur, human trafficking, and the immense suffering caused by poverty in the developing world.  While it is upsetting to read about such things, he is not just about just gloom and doom.  He also writes inspiring stories about courageous and innovative people who are making significant improvements in the lives of others.  Overall, I find Kristof’s writing riveting.

Here are some quotes from his column.

Evidence is accumulating that the human brain systematically misjudges certain kinds of risks.  In effect, evolution has programmed us to be alert for snakes and enemies with clubs, but we aren’t well prepared to respond to dangers that require forethought.

“What’s important is the threats that were dominant in our evolutionary history,” notes Daniel Gilbert, a professor of psychology at Harvard University.  In contrast, he says, the kinds of dangers that are most serious today — such as climate change — sneak in under the brain’s radar.

Professor Gilbert argues that the threats that get our attention tend to have four features.  First, they are personalized and intentional.  The human brain is highly evolved for social behavior (“that’s why we see faces in clouds, not clouds in faces,” says Mr. Gilbert), and, like gazelles, we are instinctively and obsessively on the lookout for predators and enemies.

Second, we respond to threats that we deem disgusting or immoral — characteristics more associated with sex, betrayal or spoiled food than with atmospheric chemistry.

Third, threats get our attention when they are imminent, while our brain circuitry is often cavalier about the future.  That’s why we are so bad at saving for retirement.

Fourth, we’re far more sensitive to changes that are instantaneous than those that are gradual. We yawn at a slow melting of the glaciers, while if they shrank overnight we might take to the streets.

In short, we’re brilliantly programmed to act on the risks that confronted us in the Pleistocene Age.  We’re less adept with 21st-century challenges.

This short-circuitry in our brains explains many of our policy priorities.  We Americans spend nearly $700 billion a year on the military and less than $3 billion on the F.D.A., even though food-poisoning kills more Americans than foreign armies and terrorists.

Risk Perceptions

All four of Gilbert’s “features” affect people’s perceptions of many aspects of finance, but let’s focus on this one – “we’re far more sensitive to changes that are instantaneous than those that are gradual.”  How does this affect a comparison of risk perception regarding stocks versus bonds?  Remember that all investments have risk. 

Consider the word “bond.”  It sounds substantial, even reassuring; “My word is my bond.”  We believe bonds to be something sturdy and steadfast. Stocks prices, on the other hand, we know to be variable, fluctuating for no apparent reason.

Encouraged by the media, we are all riveted by substantial stock market declines, especially if they occur over a short period of time.  From all media accounts, it seems as though the sky must be falling; certainly the adjectives bandied about by TV broadcasters don’t help: meltdown, disaster, crash. 

Even something as simple as the phrase, “stocks are declining today” is misleading.  It would be more accurate to say “stocks have declined.”  To say they “are declining” implies that they will continue to go down, which may or may not be true.

Market volatility can be sharp, sudden and terrifying.  And yet we know that the long-term trend of stock market prices is up.  In fact, on a yearly basis, stock market returns are positive in seven out of ten years.  Of course, we cannot know which years will be positive and which will be negative, but we do know that investors expect to be rewarded for taking risks, and they are rewarded, over the long term.

The Real Risk

Consider, on the other hand, what I think is the real risk for investors – the long-term erosion of the purchasing power of the U.S. Dollar. You never see a large increase in prices on any given day, but over time, inflation has been slow, constant and nearly invisible.

In truth, we vastly overestimate the probability that a stock market decline will cause us to suffer catastrophic losses, but we also vastly underestimate the probability that, over the decades of retirement, erosion of purchasing power will grind down our lifestyle.

Wise investors will constantly remember that markets can and do go down suddenly and significantly, but they have never stayed down.  For the long-term investor, the effect of declines has been negligible.

By the same token, prices very rarely go up much in any one year, but they virtually never stop going up. You can observe the cumulative effect by comparing a 15-cent first-class U.S. postage stamp issued to celebrate the 1980 summer Olympics with a brand new 44-cent stamp today.

And yes, I know that currently inflation is not a concern.  But my prediction is that it will be; I just do not know when.

Conclusion

I believe that investors should have both stocks and bonds in their long-term portfolio, and for reasons discussed in earlier posts, I favor mutual funds, not individual securities.  My advice is don’t be so concerned with short-term fluctuations in stock prices.  Remember, the real long-term risk is the erosion of your purchasing power.

For a longer discussion of the real risk of the loss of purchasing power over time, read Nick Murray’s book Simple Wealth, Inevitable Wealth, which also provided the postage stamp example.