The idea that women make better investors than men has been around a while. Several academic studies have suggested as much, and intuitively, it's rather easy case to make, though it does require some character abstraction that borders on stereotype.

A new study by Barclays Capital and Ledbury Research, written up in a Smart Money commentary, has concluded that women "Were more likely to make money in the market, mostly because they didn't take as many risks. They bought and held. Women trade this way because they aren't as confident or perhaps as overconfident as men."

So this raises an interesting question: Do men or women make better customers of financial advisors. It depends of course on what type of advisor we're talking about. A traditional commissions-based guy might end up frustrated with a client who was a strict buy-and-hold adherent and that didn't want to make short-term buys. But what about fee-only advisors, the ranks of which seem to be growing? You would have to think that women certainly would be more patient, more oriented toward the long-term.

But women also have, according to the study anyway, a relatively greater desire for self-control (admittedly this is a stereotype). Does that equate to more time-consuming hand-holding and reassurance, the bane of many registered investment advisory firms? One could argue that the point is moot. As women continue to make huge gains economically, smart firms will have no choice but to work with more of them as customers. The question is whether women-optimized firms will enjoy any advantage. Citigroup launched its Women & Co. unit 11 years ago. It appears to be still going strong though it's unclear how much revenue it drives and how fast it is growing.

For more:
- here's an article

Related articles:
Office of Minority and Women Inclusion  
Studies suggest women should run Wall Street