I spent a decade as a founder and Chief Financial Officer before I started Blackworks Capital, working through acquisitions with our executive team and our board. What stayed with me is how differently the same business gets valued by different parties, sometimes vastly different. Every bidder would work from the same pitch book, the same financials, the same management presentation, and arrive at a different number. So would our team, debating it internally. The asset never changed, the valuations did; all because each party saw the risk and upside differently and to a large extend had higher or lower emotional investment in wanting to win the deal.
The clearest emotional impact of this showed up in the final round. I watched bidders push prices well past what the data supported, because once you are locked into winning, you find the justification. Model more upside here, a little less risk there, sprinkle some synergies on top and suddenly the business is worth more than you would have paid for it a week earlier. Nothing about the asset had changed. Your perception of it did and your emotional investment in winning did.
That is not simply a failure of skill, although it certainly can be. In the end, value is a judgment, and judgment runs through perception and emotion: the wish to be right, an attachment to the thesis, the reluctance to walk away from something you have talked yourself into. No one at the table was exempt, and I was not either. The actual information was rarely the variable though, what each of us did with it was.
The stock market is the same process, only faster and louder. An acquisition of a business plays out over months, which at least slows the emotions down. Public markets reprice every day, your gains and losses move every day, there are news headlines and pundits loudly proclaiming the end is near or the rally is just getting started, and buying or selling takes a single click. So the same impulses that move a boardroom, the urge to chase something that is running for fear of missing out and the urge to get out when it falls because losing money is painful, express themselves in hours rather than months. The barrier to act in the modern stock market has been greatly reduced, when all it takes is a click emotions influence decisions easier. Compared to buying or selling entire businesses, buying stocks in the market happens faster, easier, and for some people it's done with little diligence or thought as to why they are buying it in the first place and all those trades show up on a tape in real time.
In our framework, this is Force 5: human psychology. It is the force that turns the other four into mis-pricings, and a system can position against it without flinching where a discretionary manager struggles. That is the conviction Blackworks Capital is built on. Strict adherence to systematic principles is the only thing I have found that reliably removes emotion from the decision.
Start with herding. When everyone around you is buying, buying feels like prudence rather than risk, and social proof builds conviction well past what the fundamentals alone would support. The current AI-led rally is the live example. The technology is real and the earnings are growing, which is exactly what makes it instructive: a genuine story is the easiest kind to crowd into. At some point the marginal buyer is no longer pricing the business so much as joining the move, the same way a deal heats up in its final round. That does not mean the move is over or that the next leg is down. It means more of the price is psychology than fundamentals, and that balance keeps shifting. Trend-following strategies are built to navigate exactly this. When a move runs on participation rather than fresh analysis it tends to persist, and momentum signals stay in it while it does.
Then overreaction. New information arrives and prices rarely adjust to it calmly. They lurch, because the people trading react to the headline and to each other before they react to the math. A surprise gets extrapolated, a scare gets sold first and reasoned through later, and the move overshoots what the news actually warranted. Most of that excess is short-lived. Once the initial reaction burns off and the forced or emotional sellers are done, the price tends to retrace toward where it was trading before the impulse. Our mean reversion strategies are built for exactly that horizon. They are not wagering on what a business is worth over the next several years. They identify short-term moves that have run further than the information behind them and position for the snap back.
This is where most behavioral write-ups skip the hard part. Those first two forces pull against each other. Momentum says ride the move; mean reversion says fade the extreme. We do not try to resolve that tension. We run both. Trend-following captures the leadership advance while mean reversion fades the parts that have run too far, and the net result is two signals doing their jobs rather than one bet dressed up as conviction.
Loss aversion is the force that turns corrections into cascades. Under stress, investors do not trim. They cut, fear compounds, and one fund's forced selling becomes the next fund's margin call. March 2020 ran that sequence at full speed. Our strategies are designed to reduce exposure as a market breaks down, but the model does not simply move to cash and wait. As panic and volatility reach a climax, it is built to step back in and buy, on the logic that fear rarely lasts and that the further sentiment detaches from fundamentals, the more likely a reversion becomes. This is not contrarianism for its own sake. We do not assume the crowd is wrong; it might be, it might not, but historically it's not wise to trade against the market, and momentum is how we move with it. We take the other side only at the extremes, when fear or euphoria has clearly outrun the fundamentals. That is why we do not short every rally or buy every selloff, only the ones where psychology, not the fundamentals, has taken over the price action.
The obvious objection is that behavioral finance is well documented, so investors simply learn the biases and avoid them. They can't. These are not bugs you patch once you have named them; they are features of how the brain works. Daniel Kahneman, the psychologist whose work on loss aversion won a Nobel Prize, admitted that understanding it never stopped him from feeling it.
And even if you could see past your own wiring, there is a second wall. Knowing the crowd is wrong is not the same as being able to profit from it. Capturing a behavioral edge means trading against the crowd, which means potentially underperforming while the error is still spreading. A contrarian position is most uncomfortable at exactly the moment the herd is most profitable and the most vocal. Holding that seat takes a tolerance for looking wrong that very few people have, systems don't have that issue, a systematic strategy doesn't care about looking wrong.
That is why these edges survive. They persist because they are wired in, not because they are secret. A system removes the friction that defeats most people. It does not feel peer pressure, it does not need to be right this week, and it executes the uncomfortable trade without arguing.
The edge is not brilliance. It is making fewer mistakes, consistently, and letting them compound.
Most active managers underperform because behavior gets in the way, not because they lack insight. They panic, chase, and over-concentrate at the worst possible moments. A system that harvests overreaction and rides confirmed trends does not need a heroic call. It needs to avoid the unforced errors that quietly cost everyone else. The effect is modest in any single year and meaningful over twenty.
At Blackworks Capital, human psychology is not a footnote to the model. It is one of the five forces the model is built to read. Our multi-factor voting framework turns these behavioral dynamics into signals: trend-following for momentum, mean reversion for overreaction, and statistical signals for the patterns that are not intuitive. No single factor dominates, and capital moves only when the forces indicate favorable risk to reward.
The mispricings worth trading usually come from behavioral extremes rather than from out-forecasting everyone on fundamentals. So the framework is built to flag when the market is most herded, most anchored, and most fearful, and to act on it through rules rather than nerve.
I run significant personal capital alongside our investors, in the same strategies, facing the same drawdowns and the same rules. I did not come to systematic investing from theory. I came to it after more than a decade of high-stakes decision-making, where I saw how much even rigorous analysis depends on the judgment and temperament of the people applying it. Standardizing that judgment is exactly what a rules-based process is built to do. It holds discipline steady when conditions are most uncertain, and it treats market psychology as a source of opportunity rather than a force to withstand. The advantage is not in resisting these patterns. It is in building a process designed to capture them.
Get in touch to learn more or find out if our Systematic Investing process is a fit for your portfolio. You can also sign up to receive our monthly investor letter here.