Privately educated CEOs seen as safer bet' by investors, study finds

"Companies run by privately educated bosses tend to experience lower stock market volatility, even though there are no meaningful differences in their performance, decision-making or crisis management. The stock volatility at firms led by this group was on average 5% lower, although the study found these executives did not take fewer risks, deliver better results or handle crises more effectively. Instead, the effect was driven by investors' perception that those with elite backgrounds were more competent or stable."

"Investors may be mistaking privilege for competence when dealing with uncertainty, according to the study, highlighting a disparity between how financial markets judge bosses and how those leaders actually behave. People like to think markets are purely rational, but our findings show that perception still plays a powerful role. A chief executive's background can shape how investors feel about a company, even when it has no real impact on how that company is run."

"Researchers analysed decades of data on US firms, using private school attendance as an indicator of the socioeconomic background of the chief executive. They compared stock market volatility, company performance and corporate decisions at companies led by executives educated at private and state schools. They found the impact of the perceived lower risk for the privately educated weakens over time as more information becomes available about a leader's performance."

Companies led by privately educated chief executives show lower stock market volatility than those led by state-educated counterparts. The research finds no meaningful differences in performance, decision-making, risk-taking, or crisis management between the two groups. The volatility gap averages about 5% and is attributed to investor perception of elite-background competence or stability. Investors appear to equate privilege with capability under uncertainty, creating a disparity between market judgments and actual executive behavior. The perceived effect weakens over time as more information about leadership performance becomes available, and it fades in firms where investors can better assess outcomes.

Read at www.theguardian.com