Hacker News Reader

Comment by notwrong | Hacker News Reader

I have a portfolio where I long term short companies headed by diversity female CEOs. I made a lot on PCG and some in IBM. There's a convenient Gender Diversity ETF SHE https://www.etf.com/SHE that can be used for reference. Hopefully before this post gets flagged by the Komsomol members here some readers will benefit.

View on HN

How much did you lose on AMD the past few years?

AMD is not part of that index, presumably because its leadership is still largely male (the index is not based on just the CEO).

You can see the holdings at: https://www.etf.com/SHE#fit

LOL. This is hysterical and brilliant but not aggressive enough:

"The fund evaluates the 1000 largest US firms for the ratio of women on the board of directors and in executive positions (defined as Sr. VP or higher). Companies ranking in the top 10% in each sector are included in the portfolio, with the caveat that each firm must have at least one woman on its board or as CEO."

It should be top 5% or so. Also having a single woman on a board of directors is not aggressive enough. Hopefully the 10% or 5% limit throws out such companies.

I see you're doing the shorting yourself. Too bad that's note a purchasable fund.

waitttt so you're shorting companies based purely on 'diversity'? and you claim it's worked..?

Whilst I harbour significant doubt that simply shorting companies with newly appointed female CEOs would be an effective way of exploiting it, the glass cliff effect [0] is a known phenomena whereby female leaders are more likely to be appointed in times of crisis.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_cliff

You can see that over 5 years (not more data available) that gender diversity fund has significantly under-performed its reference index.

But that's not enough time to make a definitive judgment.

Long-term short? How does that work? I thought short was called short, because it is not long term

A "short" means opposite of "long", e.g. you bet _against_ a company as opposed to betting for _for_ a company. It is not a reference to any kind of timeframe.

GP's expecting them to come up short in the long run.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com