My point is that an industry with a reputation for - let’s say, least offensively, sharp dealing - is not going to become moral through the entry of female recruits.
Rather, the type of environment in the industry is going to attract recruits of both genders who will suit that environment. And frankly, I see no reason to look forward to a 50/50 gender balance of that sort of people.
I would absolutely condemn any rules or practices which eliminate opportunity for women from entry. The finance sector seems to have such practices surviving and this utterly objectionable and should be eliminated.
However, I don’t expect the industry to change its morality as a result of a better gender balance amongst employees. I expect it will attract the type of female candidates who are of a similar nature to the male candidates. And I sure don’t respect them much.
agreed on that!!!
Aye, this is true, it’s not the gender that’s important.
I’ve often thought about the credit crunch 10 years ago, the causes, the players, the victims and the outcome.
From a gender perspective both male and female perhaps wanted the best even if they couldn’t afford it, the culture of buy now pay later was the order of the day.
The players were mostly male bankers I’m sad to say. Their driver was greed (bonuses), the more debt they could sell the better.
The victims were once again the initial cause, those that were led by a society that values ‘wealth’.
The fix - this is where it gets interesting.
Mostly governments adopted the word ‘austerity’. The governance of austerity generally falls to the female of the household, I know it’s a generality, I know it’s sexist, but imo that’s who has to control the household budget.
Interesting points, Peterma…
An intelligent and historically aware answer…
We have come to expect nothing less from you
on these forums.
Sorry for the rather unashamed flattery,
but I really must say it is refreshing to see someone
always adding value through every post, and never
losing their rag…
Respect.
Speaking of which, here is an interesting interview:
http://www.futuresradioshow.com/guest-tax/lydia-finkley/
FX trader Lydia Idem Finkley talking to CME veteran Anthony Crudele…
Also, you can find her on a number of other websites: here is one with another interview:
Many thanks to @Ananais for spotting this, hot from the press:
Study of investors shows differences between men and women — Quartz at Work
A fairly balanced view of risk behaviour in men and women trader-investors…
Please give a welcome to newbie member @SuePearl
@SuePearl Good luck on your trading journey and feel free to share some of it with the rest of us!
Old thread but with a few women traders, some may be gone and some may still be around (like @Sweet_Pip):
Interesting write up. An experiment carried out on 20 females and 20 males.
Whilst the result is interesting, there is no explanation of the background of the participants, nor selection procedure used to choose the individuals. (I am speaking of the “Piecework v Tournament” arithmetic task here )
It would be easy to deliberately “skew” results to show any result one wished by using a careful selection process with this aim in view. And could also be achieved accidentally, by a less than rigorous selection process.
Whether a sample of 40 people could be held as representative of the whole population of the world, as is postulated, is also a matter which could be subject to question.
INteresting selection of statistics there @PipMeHappy. 
The title is “DO? women make better traders than men” - yet the address line is " /women-make-better-traders-men/ " - possible revealing a bias in the intention of the blog, which is then belied by the adjustment of the title headline ?
Then there is this ; - [quote] There’s a growing body of evidence that proves that women not only excel in day trading, traditionally regarded as a man’s job, but also routinely outperform their male counterparts. [/quote]
A bald statement made before any such evidence was even presented - thereby swaying the judgement of any reader of the subsequent “evidence”, before the evidence is even presented.
ie again the revelation that the “investigator” may be biased since the statistics “prove” nothing - they are simply statistics which indicate that of 35,000 households men traded 45% more frequently, without even considering whether there may be underlying reasons such as “men were more interested” or "men were doing more research and testing their beliefs more frequently ? "
and this ;
[quote]
a practice that lowered their net returns by 2.65% per year, compared to 1.72% per year by women, nearly a whole percentage point worse. [/quote]
Hard as I look at that particular wording, I cannot make sense of it - unless it refers to costs due to commisisons and spreads ? in which case both groups were making phenomenal “returns” and we would need to know the gross returns made by each group, for that statement to have any meaning at all.
The Blog then goes on to say ;
[quote] Trading website FinTrader recently announced that the percentage of women engaged in trading and spread betting has been on the rise. The firm says that 25% of its clients are now women, up from virtually zero, two decades ago. And, judging from the company’s data, women are, on average, better traders than men.
FinTrader has posited five reasons why women make better traders than men:[/quote]
Now if we look at that other article you posted where of 20 males and 20 females, the females were seemingly significantly less likely to back their own ability by taking on the competitive route, perhaps the lack of females could mean that less than a half of the females who were available to be “traders” decided to do so and that the ones who did, were more confident of their own judgement and ability than those who did not. (perhaps then they “self selected” so that only the brightest section decided to “compete” ?
[quote]
The junior traders, both men and women, lost money in their first year of trading, which is pretty standard for first-year investment bankers. But, women traders lost significantly less money than their male counterparts.
Men vs. Women First-Year Trading Returns
women1Source: eFinancialCareers [/quote]
So the women on average lost $50,000 in their first year - but did only 2/3 of the number of trades that men did. Men lost around $68,000 in their first year, meaning that on average their loss per trade was smaller than the women.
The blog does demonstrate that women are generally more compliant than men, and more frightened to break “rules”, which is postulated as a good thing. Whereas it could also be presented as “men are more able to think critically and to make their own decisions” - Something which may well stand them in far better stead in later years of trading - for when they potentially become …
[quote]
Far from avoiding risks, older traders tend to take just as many risks as younger folks. The difference is that they take the right risks, are highly organized and are very results-oriented. The result is that the over-55 set enjoys 40% better returns than their younger counterparts.[/quote]
Great analysis, Falstaff.
However, I disagree with one basic point: that all studies or survey should be neutral.
There would be a huge loss in funded research if all proponents of a theory or bias remained unfunded on the basis of a bias: not all studies can or should be comparative in nature, and some will start with a theory and prove it through a data set.
As you know,curve-fitting is a headache for trading backtests, and indeed this argument can be true for research. Survey questions setting in qualitative research has been thoroughly discussed academically - e.g. close vs. open questions - in its impact on the respondents’ answers.
However I think that there is something to be said generally about our gender’s lesser ability to step back when we are wrong compared to women, because male ego is all about proving that one is right… As indeed you and I, in our (however civilised) arguments on this very thread, have amply demonstrated.
Not realy a true “Analysis” mate - just picking a few of the most obvious holes in what is clearly a most biased blog with an obvious agenda posing as a neutral “question” ! 
Is that the official view of “Academia” nowadays ? 
How things have changed from my “Student days” ! and how sad for those pupils who trust “Surveys” and “studies” as the best factual explorations of a topic available 
In passing, I don’t think you’ll find that I used the “S…” word at all in my post 
- that in my opinion is the worst and most judgemental word in any language and automatically introduces a bias whenever it is introduced into a conversation.
And some might say that the refusal of FUNDING on that basis, could be a good thing ! I would certainly be one of them !
Do you think so mate ? Your other “personality” - the “Mr Hyde” type who occasionally uses your login seems far more dogmatic and determined to “prove itself right” than either of us - and my suspicion is that it belongs to a “Her” !
I think we agree to disagree on positive bias in research, however we all have a ‘Mr(s) Hyde’ side to us, only some people may be better at keeping it in check and I think we agree on that.
As for c/s/w-ould, I think it is more semantics than substance, but readers of the thread can make their own mind up about it.
Have a great Sunday and thank you for posting, as ever.
I don’t think so, in trading gender doesn’t matter. It is all about interest. If anyone interested then she/he can start trading. Having more female in trading sector won’t affect the market.
Thanks & regards
Chen
Here is an article I just came across in Finance Magnates, which offers a point of view that is rather different from the basic tenor of this thread.
This article probably won’t sit well with certain participants here.
Good article.
Just because I sit on one side of the debate it does not.mean that I cannot tolerate other points of view. The main body of the article deals with facts but the introduction is a personal, subjective world view on gender issues.
Personal opinions are not facts, but we can use facts to bring weight to our opinion. Nothing wrong with that, but in this debate one personal opinion is as equally valid as another personal opinion.
My world view is that male and female brains are not different and that we owe a lot of what we do to social norms. I cannot impose this world view on those who decidedly oppose it: just like with people who do not see climate change as an issue, those who do not see discrimination against women in the workplace as an issue (men and women) will be unlikely to change their stance even if they drowned in facts proving the case. We are all entitled to an opinion, but what I enjoy is to debate with others with a different opinion and try to find a middle ground: this is what true dialogue is.
For this reason I wish to thank you, Clint, for joining the debate using a respectful approach and sharing a topical article.
