Get your free personalized podcast brief

We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.

Backtests and research from asset management firms that sell the related product are inherently biased. Similar to drug studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, the incentive is to create a favorable outcome. Investors should heavily discount such research and seek less biased evidence from sources like academic journals.

Related Insights

AI's primary value in pre-buy research isn't just accelerating diligence on promising ideas. It's about rapidly surfacing deal-breakers—like misaligned management incentives or existential risks—allowing analysts to discard flawed theses much earlier in the process and focus their deep research time more effectively.

The traditional asset management industry's product development is structurally flawed. Firms often launch numerous funds and market only the one that performs well, a "spaghetti cannon" approach. Products are designed by what a "car salesman" thinks can be sold, prioritizing upfront commissions over sound investment opportunities.

To ensure accountability and combat hindsight bias, D1 Capital requires analysts to maintain a weekly "mock portfolio" of their best ideas, weighted as if managing real capital. This pre-registered record is used in compensation reviews, preventing analysts from only highlighting their successful calls at year-end.

Asset managers can avoid recycling old ideas by running a parallel institutional research service. The need to deliver fresh ideas to sophisticated, paying clients who challenge assumptions creates a powerful forcing function for continuous, contrarian idea generation that benefits the asset management side.

Our brains are wired to find evidence that supports our existing beliefs. To counteract this dangerous bias in investing, actively search for dissenting opinions and information that challenge your thesis. A crucial question to ask is, 'What would need to happen for me to be wrong about this investment?'

While commercial conflicts of interest are heavily scrutinized, the pressure on academics to produce positive results to secure their next large institutional grant is often overlooked. This intense pressure to publish favorably creates a significant, less-acknowledged form of research bias.

When evaluating a backtest, investors should distrust any model that shows impressive returns without also revealing why the strategy is incredibly difficult to implement. A believable backtest must demonstrate the associated pain, such as long periods of underperformance or high career risk, which explains why the potential for future returns exists.

AI models tend to be overly optimistic. To get a balanced market analysis, explicitly instruct AI research tools like Perplexity to act as a "devil's advocate." This helps uncover risks, challenge assumptions, and makes it easier for product managers to say "no" to weak ideas quickly.

As a former sell-side analyst, Gurley advises investors to largely ignore their ratings. He reveals their purpose is not objective analysis but to generate trading volume for their firm. The analysis often just regurgitates what the company wants them to write.

All data inputs for AI are inherently biased (e.g., bullish management, bearish former employees). The most effective approach is not to de-bias the inputs but to use AI to compare and contrast these biased perspectives to form an independent conclusion.

Asset Manager Research Should Be Discounted Due to Warped Incentives | RiffOn