[artsrc]

My ideological fairy tale is that hiring the most qualified person leads to better outcomes.

My reading of this analysis is that they compared 100% male boards, to ones with at least one female (but still many males). And found under performance in the all male boards.

And anyway do boards run companies, or do they just hire the people who do, and vet large decisions?

Maybe a diverse board is better than a homogenous one, even if the individuals are less capable?

I don't think the conclusion that women are better on average is well supported by the Credit Suisse study.

> I wish people who believe it would just invest in female led companies or start an index fund of such companies. Let the market sort it out.

I think a fund that invested in companies which made a reasonable attempt to hire the best people would out perform based on analysis I have seen.

In particular about 10% of hereditary company CEOs are significantly worse managers than the 10% worst hired CEOs. (I am sure that can be phrased better, sorry)