You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Lumifer comments on Financial Effectiveness Repository - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: Gunnar_Zarncke 18 November 2014 09:57AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (62)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Lumifer 25 November 2014 02:05:08AM 1 point [-]

and income levels

Income is not wealth.

Comment author: Alsadius 25 November 2014 03:13:47AM 0 points [-]

That's sort of the point of this whole exercise, yes. Same income, higher wealth with an advisor. It's pretty tough to control for the exact same thing you're trying to measure.

You're arguing inheritances and such, I take it? It'll have some effect, I'm sure, but I can't imagine it being as massive as these studies make it out to be(There's more than one study in this vein, and they've all shown the same thing - I just have the others in hardcopy from work, not online).

Comment author: Lumifer 25 November 2014 05:25:03AM 0 points [-]

You're arguing inheritances and such, I take it?

No. I am arguing that the paper did not examine the selection bias present (the sample wasn't random at all). I am arguing that the paper avoids talking about the direction of causation and generally about the difference between causation and correlation (for example, financial advisors are much more interested in working with richer people than with poorer people). I am arguing that the paper does not present any longitudinal results. I am arguing that this is an industry-funded paper which would never have seen the light of day if it were unable to find the desired results. I am arguing that that I see no attempt to account for the degrees of freedom in their analysis.

All in all, as I said, it's a low-quality paper that doesn't provide any evidence for the claim we're discussing.

Comment author: Alsadius 25 November 2014 05:33:29AM 0 points [-]

I don't know of any papers outside of industry that analyze this topic, and certainly none that do so as rigorously as you're asking for. If you have one, I'm all ears. But in the absence of strong evidence, I'm going to suggest that weak evidence trumps no evidence.