Ouch! There is a valid point to be made about emotions in Trading, but it gets lost in the sauce here:

At a University of Virginia symposium in late April, Paul Tudor Jones responded to a question about why the panel only featured “rich, white, middle-aged men.”

Tudor responded by saying that trading requires intense focus, which he believes many women lose when they have children. The panel featured (from left to right) U-Va. professor David Mick, Paul Tudor Jones of Tudor Investment Corporation, Julian Robertson of Tiger Management, John Griffin of Blue Ridge Capital and moderator Jeff Walker, chairman of the U-Va. Council of Foundations

Paul Tudor Jones comments on the lack of female traders

Category: Trading, Video

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

23 Responses to “Paul Tudor Jones: Why There Are So Few Women Traders”

  1. Herman Frank says:

    Mr. Tudor Jones is obviously a conceited (and misogynous?) rich, white, middle-aged man who hasn’t seen the inside of dealing rooms in other parts of the world. It’s most obvious from his comment that he will not accept any resumes from female applicants to work with him in the trading sphere.

    He might be rich (but piss-poor in attitude!). He is certainly white and middle-aged. Hopefully he is also a dinosaur on the verge of extinction.

    • biswajeet.pattnaik@gmail.com says:

      Dear Herman:

      “Its extremely cruel to be honest” – thats what I can remember from the Fountainhead. We can call it an attitude problem or anything else, but I guess statistics agree with Mr. Tudor. BTW, neither I am rich (for now), nor white but I don’t tend to overlook the facts. In the east e.g India, Singapore you will hardly find any female traders or investors.
      Hope you understand my point.

      Best regards,

      Biswa

  2. Oral Hazard says:

    What is “How to make your HR department and outside employment counsel do a simultaneous facepalm?”

    Dumb-ass things old, rich white guys say in public for $800, Alex.

  3. Mr.Tuxedo says:

    So please explain to me how logging all those hours on the links perfecting their putting skills is any different than child rearing? What happens when the child goes off to day care, or even better, they are reared by the father or a nanny? Maybe his old Southern traditional views show up more than he would have liked in this off the cuff question that he actually changed the original tenet of.
    There have been a few studies lately that show men have preconceived ideas about what makes a gender perform well, and clearly male notions are often wrong.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full

  4. Alex says:

    He is moving toward a good point, but coming at it from the wrong direction in my opinion.

    Traders are mostly white guys. Here is why I think we get to this point:
    1) White people have many innate class advantages in our society…still. You need a good education and connections to get a shot. Selection point one.
    2) Men do have intense focus, but it is not because they are unencumbered by children. I think this has things in reverse. Its because they have to bring SOMETHING to the procreation table, and the ability to make a good income is one thing that men can strive towards. Women take immense risk financially and physically to have a child. I think its reasonable they should expect men to contribute more resources to the situation. Are these guys going to bear the child for them? No…
    3) Trading is also a brutal Darwinian process. Many strive, but the vast majority fail. So what we see here are the survivors, with a massive amount of casualties along the way. Why would men do this unless it is one of the few ways to get the attention of a mate? Women do not feel this imperative as much, because they have alternative avenues to achieve the goals of having children. I consider it similar to having an army burn its boats. No way to go but forward, or face die on the beach, so to speak.
    4) So what we are left with are the small percentage of white men who survive the process, and who have the societal advantages to get their foot in the door in the first place.

    This is all just speculation. What I think we should do is study this subject more comprehensively, then I think we would have a better idea as to why this is the case.

  5. sditulli says:

    I think he is close to right. It evolutionary biology. Men gain a lot more in society from making money than a girl. Men can have children with more than one women at a time. So immense wealth to provide has the advantage of being able to afford to raise a lot of childre. Women can only have children with one man and its far more physically draining.

    Also marriage studies have shown that women are happier in marriage when the man makes more. Woman simply do not enjoy making more than their husband (though a few may be fine with it).

    So my point is females do not have the same incentives to make large fortunes.

    • Alex says:

      Irrational argument inventory:
      1) Using anecdote as fact. (found three…three! women more successful than Mr. Jones, so its implied that women are better!)
      2) Name-calling to imply states of morality where none is factually proven by the arguer (both positive and negative). “Enterprises that add to society” How can someone type that with a straight face?
      3) Answering a question not asked or implied by the original party, which is something like “Who is the better investor or business creator?” A more likely implied question is “who is the better trader?” and that is often a very different thing. But I know, traders are gamblers so they are evil (see point #2).

      Good job there, “constantnormal”. Nice work. Now go ahead and tear into me and really bring the discussion down another level. But careful now, we would not want to think that women or their proponents are overly emotional!

    • nr says:

      Sdtiulli, you are not correct. First, women can have children with more than one man. It just takes nine months each time. Even a married woman can have a child with a man other than her husband, and it’s been known to happen. I am in my early 50s, and only got married a few years ago. One of the reasons was I did not want to marry a guy who was unwilling to help with housework and child care, and who expected me to put aside some of my ambitions just to serve his. Never found such a fellow, and I live in NYC, a place where people often live to work. I am now a stepmother of adult children, and love it. Sure, it would have been nice to have my own children, but my own career was of paramount importance to me. I also did not, and do not, want to be a financial dependent on my own father or a future husband. So I continue to work hard, very hard, and I have more than $1 million in liquid assets, not including the home that my husband and I share, which we bought with MY money. Believe me, my husband is thrilled that I work, that I am financially savvy, and that I have saved for my retirement. It is true that the divorce rate is higher in marriages where wives earn more than husbands, but attitudes identifying the husband as the person who must be the primary breadwinner will take more than 100 years to change. My friend who married young, had two kids, and stopped working, she’s pretty frustrated. She also has none of her “own” money, and it bothers her a great deal. BTW, I worked in a family business for seven years, in the financial services industry. There are a good number of women in top positions now in that sector, and it continues to climb. Remember, there were almost no women in managerial positions on Wall Street 25 years ago.

  6. t3rse says:

    I’m sure if the apologies and clarifications haven’t already arrived they are on the way. I’m no expert and I’m not even a professional trader but I can comment as a software engineer, another profession scant with women.

    I think that really smart women gravitate toward fields of “affect.” In fields like medicine, public policy, and management, the fulfillment and success is more human centered. Software engineering, I suspect like trading, is a lot more closed and abstract. It has nothing to do with capabilities, which Tudor Jones says up front, it’s got a lot more to do with values and the choices of what one wants in life.

  7. Herman Frank says:

    Can the guys who defend the dinosaur please take their feet out of their mouth?!

    The London Whale originator was male, Nick Leeson was male, the “captains of industry” at the TBTF banks who pushed the US economy over the cliff are male (although they should be neutered for it), it was MISTER Madoff of the Ponzi scheme, and so on and so forth. (Google it if you want the list to go on and on.)

    The glass ceiling for women is brought about by misogynous types of little men who stand on the shoulders of about everyone else to get some lift. It is NOT correct to stand there and laugh and shrug your shoulders about a lout talking disrespectfully about women. That same lout will turn just as fast on YOU if it suits him. The bully HAS to be taken down by word and deed. (i.e. you tell him he’s a backward oaf and he’s despicable for his attitude. And then you just walk away.) No study necessary.

    Good manners, equality for all, mutual respect, meritocracy, hard work and praise will get you a winning team. There’s no reason in the world women shouldn’t be good enough to be part of the team.

  8. Bengal Richter says:

    According to the original Washington Post article,

    To encourage an “open and candid discussion,” McIntire Dean Carl P. Zeithaml had asked the audience not to record the event or to quote the panelists afterward. ¶“No quotes with attribution should leave the room,” Zeithaml said. “We must prohibit any discussion or description of the event in print or video, through electronic media or through Internet-based technologies including Web sites, blogs or social media, such as Twitter or Facebook.” ¶The commerce school recorded the event, and U-Va. made a password-protected link to the video available to The Post this week. Zeithaml was out of the country Thursday and could not immediately be reached for comment.

    The obvious conclusions are that there is no longer any such thing as “off the record,” and that such assurances from a school’s Dean are not to be trusted.

    • trb says:

      Actually, a more-obvious conclusion is that a dean at a public university shouldn’t be trying to prohibit any discussion about a public event at the university. No matter how much money the speaker has donated to the school.

  9. constantnormal says:

    Sara Blakely, Oprah Winfrey , Tory Burch and others are making more money than Paul Tudor Jones is, for all his game-playing as a spoiled rich kid, by creating and operating wildly profitable business enterprises that add to society, rather than milking clients with returns that struggle to beat index funds.

    Women are every bit as good at business creation and management as men, and are generally better investors — because they tend not to be as infatuated with gambling as Mr Jones obviously is.

  10. sditulli says:

    Jones makes a lot more money that those people. Not that it really matters over a certain point. He’s probably number 2 trader all time behind Soros. Atleast at the macro game

  11. Alex says:

    Irrational argument inventory:
    1) Using anecdote as fact. (found three…three! women more successful than Mr. Jones, so its implied that women are better!)
    2) Name-calling to imply states of morality where none is factually proven by the arguer (both positive and negative). “Enterprises that add to society” How can someone type that with a straight face?
    3) Answering a question not asked or implied by the original party, which is something like “Who is the better investor or business creator?” A more likely implied question is “who is the better trader?” and that is often a very different thing. But I know, traders are gamblers so they are evil (see point #2).

    Good job there, “constantnormal”. Nice work. Now go ahead and tear into me and really bring the discussion down another level. But careful now, we would not want to think that women or their proponents are overly emotional!

  12. Joe Friday says:

    Somebody reported today that hedge funds run by a woman/women have a better ROI than hedge funds run by a man/men. I’ve watched too many things since to remember who reported it or where.

    If true, OH SNAP.

  13. end game says:

    Jones said he gave that same speech at a 100 Women In Hedge Funds conference. I wonder how that went over, and why there was no uproar at that time?

    John Griffin of Blue Ridge Capital said that he agreed with Jones. I wonder why he is not getting vilified?

    This all smacks of political correctness gone wild. What precisely was so wrong about Jones answer? The question was why there are so few women traders. If everyone believes they are all equally capable, as we all on this page apparently do, then what is so wrong with the explanation “they have children, usually have been the ones to take care of them, and that time and focus spent is a major distraction and career interference”, which is essentially what Jones said?

    He didn’t say that women should take care of the children instead of men, only that they tend to. He said he imagined it was a joyful experience, and at any rate that there was an inherent trade off. Is there not?

    No one on this page or in the media has offered a better explanation. So tell us all: What is your explanation for why there are so few women traders?

    Thanks Bengal Richter for the background and interesting aside.

    • Mr.Tuxedo says:

      @ End game: Take a look at the Social Science Research Network and other sites. There are plenty of studies that have shown gender bias as a plausible explanation, at least as a partial barrier to joining the boy’s club.
      I wonder how hiring might be different if candidates gender was hidden in the interview process in all fields.

      http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/01/0212/7b.shtml

  14. kaleberg says:

    Women are more rational than men. Trading is basically an expensive hobby that pays off for a few, but costs most a lot of money. Men are more likely to have money to spare for this kind of hobby and more likely to enjoy the emotional thrill it gives them.

    He does have a point. I know almost no female day traders. The male day traders I know go through various rounds of boasting during bull markets when everyone is making money. The trading makes them believe that they are beating the market somehow. Then I hear nothing when the market is going down. The women I know tend to just invest intelligently and retire early.

  15. Let’s just open our eyes and recognize that the “professional community” of traders is a bastion of sexist male pigs, with a chilling effect on female participation. You can see it in the language on any websites frequented by traders. You can read about it in descriptions of trading floors – not long ago the male traders’ floors were serviced by buxom babes, in a climate calculated to stimulate testosterone flow, with the thought being that male aggression was vital to success.

    Personally I think there are tons of educated women who trade and invest quietly, far from those madding crowds. Remember, folks, that the wealth of this nation is predominantly controlled by those in and near retirement, and that life-expectancy is shorter for males, and that these trends are continuing. Similarly, younger women have had near-equal pay for decades now, and more-so since the Great Recession dumped disproportionately more male tradesmen (housing bust) into long-term unemployment. So there are increasingly more wealthy women than wealthy men… It would be quite interesting to quantify to what extent the wealth of this nation is, or will soon be, controlled largely by the women. They may not be the go-go traders on Wall Street, but they sure as hell are the investors.