What Does It Mean To Have Skin In The Game?
The Pope is functionally atheist.
If the Pope was shot tomorrow whilst strolling the streets of Rome, both an ambulance and the clergy would quickly run to his side.
What would happen?
The ambulance want to take him to the hospital to treat his badly injured body. The clergy, however, want to bring him to their most sacred Chapel for prayer, so the Pope can be healed by the grace of God.
What option does the Pope choose?
What does it mean for the Pope to have Skin In The Game? He lives his entire life in devotion to God, but when he’s made directly accountable for his life threatening decisions, he will place his destiny into the hands of others and modern medicine.
What Is Skin In The Game?
It’s a euphemism for accountability. It is the ultimate BS detector. Skin In The Game is an action taken whose burden of risk wholly rests on the shoulders of the action taker. The opposite of course, is to have marginal or no, Skin In The Game. An action taken whose burden of risk is liquidated and deferred onto others and society.
The action taker is not accountable.
Think Of The Following Two Acts.
Actions are taken everyday whose risk is liquidated and deferred elsewhere. Think of the following two scenarios.
- Tweeting something abusive at someone behind your Twitter account’s shielded anonymity.
- Failing to report a mechanical flaw you noticed on your rental car as it’s being returned.
To have Skin In The Game, you must take responsibility for your actions, for there is a piece of you exposed. And should you fail, your exposure will experience the downside.
These two actions listed above are actions taken without having Skin In The Game.
The Tweeter will receive a completely disproportional downside compared to the damage his actions caused. He is not accountable for the emotional damage he’s inflicted.
Back in the day when people bullied one another, the face to face nature of attacks exposed the bully to more significant Skin In The Game. He could be caught more easily, given detention more readily, and punished more accurately according to his harm. To bully via the anonymous Twitter profile isn’t exposed to any of the comparable downside.
The rental car driver will not be harmed at all when his failure to report a flawed car returns to the road and crashes with a new driver. His decision to not report the mechanical flaw carries risk. And rather than owning the risk, and paying the cost for repair, he deferred his risk to the next driver, who didn’t fare so well.
The inherent risk written into those decisions has been liquidated and deferred elsewhere. The action takers experience all of the upside, while managing to defer all of the downside.
There is no symmetry.
Taleb writes that Skin In The Game is all about symmetry.
“Reaping the benefits of a positive outcome, must also be associated with paying the negative outcomes“.
Why Does Having Skin In The Game Matter?
Credibility is gained through having Skin In The Game. You signal by taking risk. It is fundamental to society that people own their risk.
An individuals inaction to be accountable for his/her actions distorts the natural mechanism of promotion and demotion across society. A society without Skin In The Game would not take responsibility for ones own children. A society without Skin In The Game would not be able to enact rule of law. And a society without Skin In The Game would not know how to allocate resources.
All of these societal functions are only possible because of peoples understanding of, and expectations that, one should be accountable for their decisions.
It was not so long ago that our leaders had an equal trade off. Risk more or less equaled reward. Lords, generals and politicians of centuries past had significantly more Skin In The Game that todays equivalent.
To experience the upside of being a general in the army of Genghis Khan… Women, money, fame, food, respect, purpose, prestige, and so on. He had to incur the symmetrical risk. To be a general in the army of Genghis Khan meant risking your life every day for the privileged upside.
The general makes battle decisions. He must be visible during a fight, he must signal to his subordinates his ability to kill.
He takes on the responsibility and the risk of his decisions and for this, society rewards him with the upside. For his risk is so sharp, that few dare burden the responsibility.
The general is perilously perched atop a high risk domain for which he reaps – in his interpretation – a symmetrical upside.
Compare Genghis Khan’s General To A Modern Day Politician.
What risk do these acts of signalling expose the politicians to? Will they join the front lines and fight? Will they pay out of their pocket subsidies?
Of course not.
Modern day politicians can afford to reap enormous upside totally inconsistent with their exposed downside. That is why they get away with failed ‘promises’ again and again.
They are not equally accountable to their downside measured against their upside.
And their upside is significant.
Modern day politicians are among the wealthiest, most powerful, most famous, most well connected people on the planet.
A relatively well known politician. Say, your local mayor. Can be completely ineffectual in his/her political career, make hundreds of failed promises, lose multiple elections, create zero upside for his constituents – and still walk away from politics in his 50’s to be offered an open door to a myriad of high paying ‘consultancy’ jobs. An industry, according to Taleb, equally devoid of Skin In The Game.
The natural mechanism that promotes and demotes through Skin In The Game is no longer functioning in the political system.
You signal by taking risk. Politicians are signalling, without the risk. Credibility is gained through Skin In The Game. Signalling risk is a virtue. People who take risks command respect. Politics is as close to a system defined by bureaucracy that exists.
“Bureaucracy is a construction by which a person is conveniently separated from the consequences of his or her actions”.
Or in other words, a system absent of Skin In The Game.
It is precisely because of politicians acting without appropriate Skin In The Game, Taleb argues, is what got Donald Trump elected as President of the United States in 2016. Whether it be the truth or not, when Trump signals, people inherently respect his message more because he is clearly not a bureaucrat and appears to have Skin In The Game.
People have known for a long time how fundamental individual responsibility is for the well-functioning of society.
In Babylonian Mesopotamia, around 1750BC – almost 4,000 years ago. A steel pillar stood in the town square, engraved on it the laws of society.
On this steel pillar was marked in excess of 200 laws and maxims including the popularised:
“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” – Hammurabi’s Law, 1754BC.
In the earliest memory of our species, we idealised Skin In The Game.
“Do unto others as you would have them do to you” – Luke 6:31, The Golden Rule.
Taleb recounts a rule specific to the architect taken from Hammurabi’s Law.
If an architect builds a home which later goes onto collapse killing the inhabitants of the house, then the architect is accountable for those deaths. tooth for tooth. Should someone die in the event of the property collapsing, then the architect should be put to death. If the first born dies in the event of the property collapsing, then the architects first son should be put to death.
Skin In The Game. No one was incentivised more than the architect to build a stable home.
Real Word Applications
What are some professions that occupy copious Skin In The Game?
- F1 Driver.
The downside of these professions are equal too, if not greater than, the upside they receive. A pilot is well paid, he is compensated all the way to highest echelons of society. Society respects him and rewards him. A pilot has Skin In The Game, because, what happens to bad pilots?
They are dead.
A pilot who must ride the bus from point A through to point B is going to do a far better job of ensuring the cockpit is functional than the pilot who just calibrates the system and checks out.
That might be more efficient. Having someone other than the pilot get the plane into shape. But, the pilot making the trip has more Skin In The Game, and therefore, that pilot is going to do a better job at calibrating his own system.
Think about the production line at Boeing, or think about the 737-Max head engineer. You can bet that they might have done that 1% extra of the job required, if they were to board their creations maiden flight.
Skin In The Game identifies incentives.
That is not to say Boeing and the head engineer of the 737-Max don’t have Skin In The Game.
Boeing is trading at an all time low and there are legitimate fears for the future of the company. They have reaped a downside in the aftermath of planes falling out of the sky according to their exposed risk.
Although, Hammurabi would argue not enough.
Skin In The Game should not be absolute. It should not be the case that you are exactly accountable for all the downside, it should only be significant enough to incentivise. We do not follow Hammurabi’s Law of ancient Mesopotamia. A tooth for a tooth will no longer do. But there is no evolution without Skin In The Game, and for this reason Boeing might fall.
You wouldn’t expect a construction firm to build a second bridge after their first collapsed.
They are out of the game.
What are some professions devoid of Skin In The Game?
- Noise Journalism.
- Professional Bureaucrats – Mid-High Level Managers.
“If you don’t take risks for your opinion, you are nothing“.
In the ancient Mediterranean, Spartan mothers would tell their departing sons, referring to the warrior’s shield.
“You return with it, or on it”.
For a Spartan mother would rather her son be dead, then bare the shame of retreat.
Spartan mothers understood Skin In The Game.
Critics can determine the success of a new restaurant, new film, new music. With great power comes great responsibility, a Marvel uncle once said.
A critic might slate a restaurant for any number of reasons, but does that make them correct? Unless a critic is exposed to the downside risk of being proven wrong by a restaurants subsequent success, then that piece of critics journalism is absent of Skin In The Game. They can get away with all the upside of having a popular read, without incurring any of the downside should their opinion be proven wrong.
An economist’s model put in practice could create or uncreate thousands of jobs. Proof that an economist does not have Skin In The Game, is when the same economist is consulted again and again, despite the ineptly theoretical basis of their claims. Fundamental to these economic models is rational behaviour.
No one behaves like an economists version of ‘rational’.
To identify whether an action has Skin In The Game or not. Simply measure the persons exposure relevant to the upside.
Did the bankers selling faulty loans that caused the GFC have Skin In The Game?
Would they have behaved differently if they had?
The Bob Rubin Trade
Robert Rubin, former Secretary of the United States Treasury, collected more than $120 million from Citibank in the decade preceding the 2008 GFC. He collected this money as direct consequence of the privatised upside his financial actions earned.
Not a problem. Assuming you also are willing to bare the risk of the downside of your financial decisions. Bob Rubin did not.
When the taxpayer emptied their pockets in the billions, bailing out the dysfunctional banks, Bob Rubin did not have to return all of his $120 million and then some to compensate. Bob Rubin did not lose his job, and Bob Rubin did not go broke. If Bob Rubin had Skin In The Game, then all the subsequent would have been realised.
Bob Rubin represents thousands of financial decision makers who contributed to the GFC. It is not clear why Taleb decided to call out Rubin specifically, but you’re exposed to Taleb’s wrath consequence of subverting your Skin In The Game.
The bankers privatised the upside and socialised the downside. They liquidated and deferred their high risk actions onto the taxpayer, while they alone reaped all the financial upside.
The essence of having NO Skin In The Game.
There are many more lessons and anecdotes rife throughout this book. It is a pleasure to read and Taleb brings his contrarianism front and centre making for a lot of humorous interactions.
I will conclude this piece with some additional quotations taken from the book that further surmise what it is, to have Skin In The Game.
“Always do more than you talk, and precede talk with action. For it will always remain that action without talk supersedes talk without action”,
“People resent those at the top with no Skin In The Game”,
Act your virtue, do more than signal it, “Show rather than be”,
And finally, Taleb’s parting words to The Inceto.
“No muscles without strength,
friendship without trust,
opinion without consequence,
change without aesthetics,
age without values,
life without effort,
water without thirst,
food without nourishment,
love without sacrifice,
power without fairness,
facts without rigor,
statistics without logic,
mathematics without proof,
teaching without experience,
politeness without warmth,
values without embodiment,
degrees without erudition,
militarism without fortitude,
progress without civilisation,
friendship without investment,
virtue without risk,
probability without ergodicity,
wealth without exposure,
complication without depth,
fluency without content,
decision without asymmetry,
science without skepticism,
religion without tolerance,
and most of all: nothing without skin in the game“.