top of page

Berkson's Paradox: What Investors Need to Know

Berkson's paradox is a statistical phenomenon that can lead to paradoxical and counterintuitive results when analyzing data from specific sources or situations. Understanding Berkson's paradox is crucial for investors, as it can help them avoid making incorrect inferences and decisions based on biased data or misleading correlations.

What is Berkson's Paradox?

Berkson's paradox, also known as Berkson's bias or Berkson's fallacy, was first described by Joseph Berkson, a statistician and researcher, in 1946. It arises when data is collected from a specific subgroup or population that is not representative of the general population. In the context of investing, Berkson's paradox can manifest itself in various ways, leading to misleading conclusions about the relationships between different factors and investment outcomes.

  • Example 1: Hospital Admissions and Disease Prevalence: Suppose a hospital conducts a study on the prevalence of two diseases, A and B, among its patients. The study finds that patients with disease A are more likely to have disease B than those without disease A. This might lead to the conclusion that disease A increases the risk of developing disease B. However, this conclusion may be flawed due to Berkson's paradox. The hospital's patient population is not representative of the general population, as people are more likely to be admitted to the hospital if they have either disease A, disease B, or both. In the general population, the correlation between diseases A and B might be entirely different or even non-existent.

  • Example 2: Company Performance and Investment Returns: Consider a scenario where an investor analyzes the performance of companies in a specific industry over the past decade. The analysis reveals that companies with a particular characteristic, such as high debt levels, tend to perform better than companies without that characteristic. However, this observation may be influenced by Berkson's paradox. The sample of companies being analyzed is not representative of the broader universe of companies, as only the most successful companies within that industry have survived over the past decade. Companies with high debt levels that performed poorly may have gone bankrupt or been acquired, and thus excluded from the analysis.

  • Example 3: VC-Funded Company Success: Consider an investor analyzing factors that contribute to the success of venture capital (VC) funded startups. They gather data on VC-funded companies' characteristics like the founding team, products, strategies, and performance metrics like revenue growth and valuation. The analysis finds that VC-funded companies with founding teams that have prior entrepreneurial experience tend to perform better across various success metrics compared to those without such experience. However, this observation could be influenced by Berkson's paradox. The sample of VC-funded companies is not representative of all companies, as VCs selectively invest in startups exhibiting characteristics they view as favorable, such as experienced founders. Companies lacking these desirable traits may have been less likely to receive VC funding to begin with, excluding them from the analysis. So the observed correlation between founder experience and success may be biased or overstated. In the broader population including non-VC-funded companies, the relationship between founder experience and company performance could be different or non-existent. To address this, the investor could expand the data set beyond just VC-funded firms, use statistical methods to correct for VC funding biases, or validate findings against other data sources to get a more representative view.

Implications for Investors

Berkson's paradox highlights the importance of considering the source and representativeness of data when making investment decisions. Relying solely on data from specific subgroups or populations can lead to biased conclusions and potentially costly investment mistakes. To mitigate the effects of Berkson's paradox, investors should:

  • Seek diverse data sources: Gather data from multiple sources and populations to ensure a more representative sample.

  • Understand selection biases: Be aware of potential selection biases in the data and account for them in the analysis.

  • Validate findings: Corroborate findings with additional data sources and research to ensure the observed correlations are not artifacts of Berkson's paradox.

  • Consult experts: Seek guidance from statisticians, data analysts, and domain experts to identify and address potential biases in the data and analysis.

Identifying Berkson's Paradox

Recognizing the potential for Berkson's paradox is the first step in addressing it. Here are some indicators that Berkson's paradox may be present:

  • Selective sampling: If the data is collected from a specific subgroup or population that is not representative of the broader population of interest, Berkson's paradox may be a concern.

  • Conditional sampling: When the sample is selected based on certain conditions or criteria, such as hospital admissions or employment at a particular company, the data may be subject to Berkson's bias.

  • Paradoxical or counterintuitive results: If the results of an analysis or study seem to contradict common sense or established knowledge, Berkson's paradox could be a potential explanation.

Strategies to Mitigate Berkson's Paradox

While identifying Berkson's paradox is essential, there are also strategies that investors and researchers can employ to mitigate its effects:

  • Representative sampling: Whenever possible, collect data from a representative sample of the population of interest, rather than relying on specific subgroups or conditional samples.

  • Adjust for selection biases: If representative sampling is not feasible, statistical techniques such as weighting or adjusting for known selection biases can help correct for the effects of Berkson's paradox.

  • Sensitivity analysis: Conduct sensitivity analyses by varying the assumptions or parameters of the analysis to assess the robustness of the findings and identify potential biases.

  • Triangulate data sources: Corroborate findings from multiple data sources and cross-validate results to ensure that the observed relationships are not artifacts of Berkson's paradox.

By recognizing and accounting for Berkson's paradox, investors can make more informed decisions and avoid being misled by spurious correlations or biased data sources.

8 views0 comments


bottom of page