Are You Making These Investing Mistakes Ahead of the 2024 US Election?

Election years are a ripe opportunity for behavioural mistakes. There seems to be a lot at stake given the potentially huge change coming around the corner. Uncertainty hangs in the air, taking up all the oxygen in the room.

With all these stressors at play, it’s no wonder our minds ramp up our use of cognitive shortcuts, some of which are bound to lead us astray. As we inch closer to the 2024 election, here are a few cognitive biases and consequences I’m keeping in mind.

1. Confirmation bias, which solidifies our existing beliefs.

If someone were to ask me which bias I hate the most, I would probably say confirmation bias. This is our tendency to pay more attention to and more easily accept information that supports our existing beliefs.

The reason for my ire is that even if a person is diligently researching a topic to make a well-rounded decision, their brain may be fastidiously working to latch onto research that supports their existing beliefs. In other words, even the most well-meaning of investors may fall prey to this bias.

When preparing for an election, we may all be doing some sort of research to understand our preferences for key issues. As we do our due diligence, we must acknowledge that confirmation bias may be at play, swaying our opinion toward our preconceived notions. Existing research even notes that as we examine evidence that does not support our opinion, we are more likely to be critical of that evidence. On the other hand, we ask fewer questions regarding evidence that supports our opinions.

For example, if we see a social-media post that supports our preferred political candidate, we may be less likely to question the accuracy and sourcing of the statistics featured in the post or the credibility of the author. However, we may be much less forgiving for a post that criticizes our preferred candidate.

Confirmation bias is a conniving one, but we are not completely powerless to it. Before conducting your research, try to come up with a list of questions to judge the efficacy of evidence and ask those same questions for each piece you encounter. For example, maybe you want to ensure the research study sample was large enough and representative of the broader group in question – in this case, the United States. Also, make sure to read the same number of articles that support and oppose your existing opinion—this can help make sure you at least expose yourself to diverse opinions.

2. Availability bias, which prompts us to believe this time is different.

Past research suggests that elections do not have a meaningful medium to long-term impact on market performance. In other words, though the election itself may cause some volatility, it’s only for the short term.

If one were to read various media articles prophesizing doom and gloom for certain industries based on who is elected, this research finding may seem hard to believe. That’s because front-page/trendy media can be misleading and capitalize on behavioural biases to garner a strong reaction, like availability bias (our tendency to overweigh information that comes more readily to mind) and negativity bias (our tendency to pay more attention to things of a negative nature).

These biases prompt us to latch on to doom and gloom media and disregard the fact that these stories usually haven’t played out in the past. This results in our minds believing this election will be the one to solidify our fate—even though we probably felt that way about past elections, too, and things turned out OK.

The best way to avoid these decision-making errors is to conduct an information audit. Write down the news and information sites you believe are unbiased (or as unbiased as possible) and that report well-balanced, factual arguments. Make sure to include sites that support and oppose your political affiliation. Now, devote your attention to these sites. Don’t click on those eye-catching articles from questionable sites. Unfollow any influencers with dubious (yet somehow popular) claims. Delete any apps on your phone that may lead you to those in-demand but unhelpful posts. For example, I don’t keep the Apple News app on my phone.

3. Scarcity mindset, which prompts investors to make decisions under pressure.

An election year puts a deadline on our decisions. “If we don’t make a change before X becomes president, we are goners!”

This looming deadline and all the milestones leading up to an election may prompt investors to feel that they are under immense time pressure when making decisions. Unfortunately, this time pressure may prompt a scarcity mindset: Because we feel like we don’t have sufficient time, we are more likely to engage in reflexive responses, a more narrow and concrete style of thinking, and fail to think critically about the problem.

To avoid this decision-making trap, prepare for these supposed dire circumstances before they happen. For example, implement a trading rule that states you will not make any changes to your portfolio unless it falls by X%.

Also, don’t forget about the possibility of choosing to do nothing at all. As Danny Noonan found in his research, based on historical data, investors are better off ignoring Washington, D.C., entirely.

The Long-Term Investor Wins the Race

Presidential elections are important, and there is much at stake, but investors must remember that regardless of who wins, they are better off staying invested for the long term. As you consider your investing decisions amid the hubbub of the election year, keep these cognitive biases in mind.