On U.S. News & World Report, an article was recently posted regarding the 10 strangest mutual funds/ETFs.

One of them, the Women's Leadership Fund, has not yet been launched, but has duly been included in the article because, let's face it, chicks get credit for what they WANT to do the same way that dudes get credit for what they HAVE done.

I have often stated in this forum (and likely others, and to my wife, family, and friends till they are all ready to weep) that women generally are not qualified for certain key social positions - military combat (because of physical limitations), the NFL (because of physical limitations), religious leadership (because their tendency to rely on feelings clouds their moral judgment), and business and political leadership (because their tendency to interpret reality through feelings and existing relationships is antithetical to correct decision-making in these two fields).

(I include this only as a caveat, because I know that if Tera/Incognito reads this she will be the first to cast this objection, assuming of course that she has learned to read at this point, but I have ALSO maintained that where a woman demonstrates that she IS one of the rare breed who is capable of playing with the big boys, get out of her way and let her; see my posts on Joan Jett and Maggie Thatcher, etc.)

The fund in question targets investments in companies that have "significant female representation in leadership."

Wonderful.

So now, finally, we get to see that female leadership leads to increased RESULTS in the form of HIGHER RETURNS? Now we finally get to see that where women are unleashed in business, their superior abilities, collaborative thinking, and general righteousness is going to lead to an increased bottom line?

Uhhhhh, not so much.

We are being warned, by backhanded, politically-correct implication, that investors may have to expect... errrrrrr, "accept," somewhat lower returns...

How's that whole "Anything he can do I can do better!" thingy workin' out for you femtards?

What an idiot. Actually diversification lowers returns and focusing on a specific thing increases your returns.

It's like saying that if I buy X, Y, Z and X goes up by 10%, Y by 5% and Z by 15%, I'll make more money if I diversify and buy all of them in equal measures, I'll make more than buying Z with all my money.

I should make my own ETF. One that shorts bonds, buys commodities - metals, agriculture, resources, and commodity based foreign currencies, besides some stocks in emerging markets that have really high dividend yields compared to their price. I'll outperform this ETF by double digits, easily.

Why don't you try that?

But they're making investment decisions based on social/political ideals and not based on performance.

I am sure there are some business women who are hard-nosed and market-logical. I have met many a male in business who has gone broke though incompetence. I wonder how many women were running things in Lehman Bros. General Motors seems to have had male drivers at the wheel and gone into a ditch too. The Finance Industry is a basket case.

I am pretty sure you would work like a smart one-handed papar-hanger and do well at it too.

The point is that any business decision is more dependant of what is chasing your arse than what is dangling from the low branches infront of you. Investment decisions need to account for ten to twenty variables and the gender of the Board frankly is just one. The largest bank in Oz (Oz has the only stable banks in the world at the moment) has a woman Chairman. Gail Kelly.

It's not just chicks. Just look at Obama's Nobel Peace Prize.

Tell me about it Bro, the us is in two wars and the pres gets a peace prize, not only is there something moraly and ethicly worng about that but it is an insult to the sprit of the peace prize.