Where would we be without alphabetic order in our life? Imagine if airports listed all departures randomly on their flight boards? We might never make it to the gate.

But should you find your investments alphabetically? When you’re presented with a list of available funds, should you prefer the ones that appear toward the top of the list?

This is not a trick question. Of course, the answer is no. It shouldn’t matter one bit where a fund name falls on an alphabetic list. And yet, amazingly, a recent study found that many investors may be unintentionally allowing “alphabeticity bias” to creep into their decisions anyway.

The study, “Alphabeticity Bias in 401(k) Investing,” is slated to be published in a forthcoming issue of The Financial Review. Investment selections in 401(k) retirement plans are often presented in alphabetic order, so the study’s authors took a look at whether plan participants were allowing that order to influence their choices. They found that, indeed, “alphabeticity – the order that fund names appear when listed in alphabetical order – significantly biases participants’ investment allocation decisions.” The longer the list of selections, the more alphabeticity bias appeared.

Why would we do this? The authors proposed the reason is related to another bias they called “satisficing.” When you’re reviewing an alphabetic list of choices, once you’ve found one that suits your purpose, you tend to give less consideration to the rest of the list. “My work here is done,” your brain tells you, and it shuts down … even if there may be an even better selection further on.

You shouldn’t, and we won’t, settle for next-best investments – in your retirement plan or anywhere else. Helping you avoid doing so is one way we encourage you to Take the Long View® when you invest.

There are so many songs, books and movies about what it would be like to travel in time. What if we told you there is one way you actually can – sort of – make good use of time travel with respect to your wealth?

Remember our friend John Jennings, and his Interesting Fact of the Day (IFOD) blog? John recently covered this subject in his IFOD post, “Discounting the Future,” and how this phenomenon can impact your personal and financial habits.

For example, when his daughter Claire decided to put off doing her homework, she told him she was “going to let future Claire worry about the project.” (I kind of hope my daughter Harper isn’t reading this!) She was prioritizing the instant gratification of enjoying her current leisure time, and discounting the more distant reward of having the project already completed by the time “future Claire” was wishing she could goof off.

When it comes to our money, discounting the future can trick us into treating future dollars as less valuable than current ones. For example, if someone offers you $100 today or $200 six months from now, you may opt for the instant cash, discounting the extra $100 your future self would have enjoyed. Which choice you’ll prefer can vary, depending on how far in the future you’re being asked to wait, as well as how much money is involved.

If we haven’t yet nailed the idea, please take a minute to read John’s phenomenal post, and be sure to look for comedian Jerry Seinfeld’s explanation of the concept. Before you know it, you’ll be asking yourself questions about what your future self will think about your current self for the next few weeks – and likely making better decisions for the long view.

“Recency” is one of the most insidious behavioral biases that can impact an investor’s ability to Take the Long View® with their investments. The name alone suggests it’s the opposite of what we’re about here at Hill Investment Group.

Those ruled by recency will disregard decades of data, and instead allow only the latest, relatively random data points to skew their view. A prime example occurs whenever purveyors of traditional active investing revisit a perennially misleading script that goes something like this: “If too many investors invest in index funds (i.e., if the market is left to run on auto-pilot), there will be nobody left to set proper pricing. Investors should revert to an active investment strategy, before it’s too late.”

Again, the argument is nothing new; if index funds were the only investment available, markets would indeed stop functioning. But with every new season, the traditional active camp seems to come up with a fresh batch of stats that supposedly signal that the end of index investing is nigh.

Recently, the focus has been on index investing inflows – or, more accurately, their reduced volume. So far this year, the deluge of dollars mostly heading out of active investing and into index/passive funds has decreased to a more orderly flow compared to 2017.

Is index investing on the wane? In this related piece, we share a quibble we do have with index investing, and why we typically favor a similar, but more direct approach for capturing scientific sources of expected return. But before anyone concludes it’s time to get more active at timing and selecting specific stock picks, here are three, recency-dispelling reads we suggest:

“Index Funds Are Going to Be Just Fine,” Barry Ritholtz, ThinkAdvisor

Our favorite excerpt: “Why must we complicate what is otherwise a simple explanation? Investors have become a little more financially literate; indexing is maturing as an investment style. Those who are hoping for a major reversal of a trend that has been 40 years in the making are very likely to be disappointed.”

“Indexing Fuss Unwarranted,” Larry Swedroe, ETF.com

Our favorite excerpt: “While it’s certainly possible that, at some point, passive investing could reach such a dominant share that price discovery would be limited, clearly, we are nowhere near that level, and almost certainly won’t be there for a very long time.”

“The growth of index investing has not made the markets less efficient,” The Economist

Our favorite excerpt: “Perhaps the growth of indexing has robbed the world of outstanding stockpickers. But it seems more likely that it has put a lot of bad managers out of business … And it is not as if the buying and selling of stocks by informed investors with opinions has ceased. The turnover of stocks has actually increased over time. Active investors are more active than ever.”