Warren Buffett has had extraordinary success as an investor, but there is no agreement as to why. Some academic researchers attribute his performance to mere luck. Frazzini et al. (Financ Anal J 74(4):35–55, 2018), concluded that his alpha is due to leveraging safe, high-quality, and cheap stocks. However, there has been no analysis to date of Buffett’s performance from a behavioral perspective. We argue that Buffett’s success is partly due to qualitative and psychological factors, including tenacity, patience, avoidance of overconfidence, organizational culture, and the reputation effect. Using information from shareholder letters, writings, interviews, and speeches by Buffett and his colleague Charlie Munger, we demonstrate how such psychological factors, together with the quantitative findings of Frazzini et al., render a more complete and satisfying explanation of Buffett’s alpha.
ABSTRACT Tourism and tourism development have the potential to make a positive impact on a region’s economic development and sustainability. In this sense, the central Karoo has a great deal to offer heritage tourists. As there are numerous battlefield sites associated with the South African War (1899–1902) (previously the Anglo-Boer War) the central Karoo offers a unique development opportunity to demarcate a designated battlefield route dedicated to the war. This study investigated the potential for the development of the proposed route by involving potential stakeholders (specifically product owners and government officials) on the route. The study was qualitative, and 33 interviews were conducted. Thematic content analysis was used to analyse the data. The main findings indicate a need for the development of the route and the establishment of a South African War Battlefields Route Destination Marketing Organisation (DMO). 相似文献
AbstractTwo glaring anomalies in investment management are apparent: (1) after fees, active portfolio managers do worse than market indices, and (2) clients continue to pay for services they don’t receive. The purpose of this paper is to offer explanations of these anomalies from a behavioral perspective. We explore some of the cognitive biases that perpetuate active management and subsequent underperformance, including herding, disposition, and endowment effects, as well as conservatism and status quo biases, overconfidence, and agency problems. Investors’ continued use of active managers despite persistent disappointing returns is attributed to being victims of framing effect, hot-hand fallacy, lack of knowledge as well as intimidation or insecurity, and status quo bias. We propose some ways that portfolio managers and investors could improve their decision making. 相似文献