I've always sensed that women make better investors than men. Call me politically incorrect but when I talk to a woman about investing, she's focused on protecting her savings, not using it to make more money. Women don't think about "beating the market." They think about being safe. They don't want to make a mistake and avoiding mistakes is sometimes what makes all the difference in getting investment returns. And women are less prone to trading and more attuned to buying and holding. As Warren Buffett says, "Activity is the enemy of performance."

Maybe it's our testosterone that drives us to turn investing into a championship sporting event. I don't know. But I've felt that the male competitive spirit often is the very thing that drives us into stupid investments.

Until recently, I couldn't put my finger on how our male "Y" chromosome puts us at a genetic disadvantage to women. However, I recently discovered that Brad Barber and Terrance Odean of UC Davis validated my intuition. They published an article in the February 2001 issue of The Quarterly Journal of Economics titled "Boys Will Be Boys: Gender, Overconfidence, and Common Stock Investment."

Barber and Odean obtained trading data from a discount brokerage for over 35,000 households and analyzed investing patterns for six years to test whether overconfidence leads to more trading and lower returns. Since in areas of finance psychologists have proven that men tend to be more prone to overconfidence, the genders were separated so that their trading habits could be studied individually.

In a conversation with an attorney friend of mine, who happens to be a woman, she asked for some general financial guidance. During the course of the conversation it occurred to me that women need to save more than men. There are many reasons for this, here are a few:

The first and most obvious reason women need to save more than men is that they live longer -- often without the support of a significant other. Living longer and living alone cost more money.

Second of all, women still do not have complete earnings parity with men. Some of this has to do with job type and some with history. But nevertheless, we are not there yet. If there is a 15% disparity, then a woman is starting at a disadvantage whether saving for her retirement in the future or for buying a gallon of gas today. This can only be made up by saving more and investing more. This is a worthy goal except that with less resources the difficulty is exacerbated.

Target Corp. (NYSE: TGT) is a retailer that's been known to find and feed customer niches better than any other discount retailer. From its bright store colors to trendy and chic items in several departments, the retailer has shown Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) that it can indeed compete. And, very well.

One of the more interesting product niches that's been explored recently has been higher-end women's cosmetics. When six beauty products rack up a retail bill of more than $200, you know there's something to be celebrated. No longer are Dillard's Inc. (NYSE: DDS) and Macy's Inc. (NYSE: M) the exclusive way many women buy those extremely lucrative cosmetic products with the hefty profit margins. Nope, Target's moving into the arena aggressively from all appearances.

Target is now stocking upper-end cosmetic brands like Clarins, Kiehl's, Origins, Bare Escentuals and Bumble and Bumble. Although the retailer's move was studied this past Tuesday, it certainly was no April Fool's joke. But do these brands care that the positioning Target will provide will undermine the premium brand luxury awareness and hefty prices at department store partners?

Many of these brands say they have no relationship with Target; therefore, Target's source may be the gray market. They are free to do that, but perhaps Target is just testing the waters of luxury cosmetics before making an official plunge in most of its national stores. Not so strangely, the experiment could easily work with Target's unique position in the market.

While women still earn a fraction of a man's wage in the United States, there is one niche where women are eking out an advantage -- and please check your stereotypes at the door. It's not fashion, or child care, or as spokespeople for psychic hotlines (though I think someone should look into that...). It's the boardroom.

Unbelievably, a report by Corporate Library that looked at pay data from more than 25,000 directors at 3,200+ companies found that women were paid more, on average, then men; $120,000 for women versus a median of $104,375 for men. Of course, given their much smaller numbers -- female directors are outnumbered by males, eight-to-one -- it's not exactly reason to take out our party hats, ladies.

The report doesn't theorize as to why, exactly, women are paid more. I wonder if it's due to the demand for a "product" in limited supply -- directors tend to be officers for other corporations, judges, or other highly-ranked folks. Far fewer of these are women. Hence, the women who are available to serve as directors must be paid more to lend their female presence.

Alternatively, it could be the simple fact that larger companies are more likely to desire diversity on their boards; and it is the larger companies who pay more. I wonder where newly-appointed News Corporation board member, 27-year-old Natalie Bancroft, fits on the director pay scale?

It is no secret that Harley-Davidson (NYSE: HOG) stock has been struggling lately. After an impressive run up during the middle of last year, the stock has been slowly fading lower and lower since around the middle of November. Well, perhaps the company has found a niche that can turn things around... selling more Harley's to women.

Last year women made up roughly 12% of all Harley customers, and now the company is trying to make strides in the way they market to this important, and sometimes overlooked, demographic. At a recent dealers convention the company brought in a marketing consultant to help share ideas on how to better serve the company's female customer base.

Here are a couple of ideas that were pointed out:

• Neatly groomed hair
• Maintaining eye contact
• Firm (but not too firm) handshake
• Clean bathrooms
• Play area for children
• Putting a plant in the show room to show that the shop is "female friendly"

A couple of the above ideas seem useful and practical, but a play area for children? Is this really what Harley Davidson is coming to? I hope not. There are plenty of businesses out there that do a good amount of business with female customers but have not yet instituted a children's play area.

ShareBuilder released today its second annual Women & Investing survey, finding that while women worry a lot more than men about their finances and retirement, they interestingly take a lot less actions to address their concerns. Call me crazy, but to me it also seems to become a vicious cycle of sorts, where the lack of action causes more concern, but that in turn can create fear to take action and so on ... I think you understand what I'm getting at.

In any event, the survey found some interesting (startling?) data pointing to a '"financial disconnect" in many women. Percentage-wise, 36% of women said they worry about retirement "all the time," compared to 29% of men. However, when it came to taking actions, such as having a financial game plan, 55% of men had one compared to 40% of women.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I too have been known to behave in a similar manner. Although no one can ever accuse me of worrying about anything, I certainly tend to take the back seat in our household and let hubby deal with most matters pertaining to our finances. I'm not even sure why, but when it comes to RRSP (similar to the 401-K in Canada), mortgage and the likes, I am happy to let someone else handle it (even if he isn't that thrilled about it -- hehe). Of course, when it comes to handling the investments, now that's a different story ... well, it is just a lot more fun, isn't it?

There's a hot topic getting a lot of attention over on Autoblog so I thought I would mention it here. It would seem that The Girls of Geneva have created quite a stir over there and the readers are eating it up. It comes as no surprise that auto manufacturers, when displaying their wares, continue to use the most basic of human instincts -- our sexual drive -- to draw attention to their merchandise. Still, a few folks with clouded reasoning find the practice distasteful. I, for one, have always deemed it to be intelligent marketing practice.

The association between transportation and sexual satisfaction is as old as the wheel itself. In fact, it's older, but that's beyond the scope of my current mention. The concept encompasses two specific human drives. One is the desire to get somewhere and the other is the desire to "get some." Would it be confusing then, to anyone, that the two concepts would be agelessly coupled in joint appeal? Get somewhere and get some -- its truth has sent hungering souls crisscrossing the planet. Who in their right mind would deny it as the most powerful of marketing ploys?

Of course, the exploitation of human beings for any purpose is dubious when accomplished without their consent, but if Lacey and Bambi and Tawny should choose to make their livings pointing at cars while wearing filmy dresses, who am I to say that they're doing anything wrong?

I have been clicking along through Forbes' "Billionaire Women We Envy" list and finding very little to which I related. Sure, Oprah's on my list, but not because she's a billionaire so much. And I started thinking... what is it, really, that I envy? Because envy is far, far from admiration. It's a whole other category. Who do I envy, and why?

When I saw the headline, before I even clicked further, I thought "Maria Bartiromo." She doesn't even make Forbes' cutoff -- she's not a billionaire, for starters. But if there's anyone I envy, it's Maria, she of the smoky eyes and the men in powerful places who do stupid, stupid things for her.

What do women envy of other women? It's not their money, at least, not for me. It's their power, their fame, their ability to juggle family and career. And most of all it's their ability to manipulate others without seeming manipulative at all. It's the Money Honey, able to move markets with a bat of her dark eyelashes.

If I was to create a list of the women most worthy of a female MBA's envy, here's who would be on it:

Carly Fiorina was one of my all-time feminist heroes, so when she was summarily dismissed by the board of Hewlett-Packard Company (NYSE:HPQ), I was a bit miffed. And when the Patricia Dunn scandal began to unfold, I wanted to believe she was innocent. Or at least, well, sane.

When I discovered the mountain of evidence against Dunn, also implicating Fiorina, I felt a little bitter. But always in the back of my mind I have to wonder, how is it that two of the very few powerful women in technology were the biggest casualties of the pretexting scandal?

The Wall Street Journal [subscription required] suggests it may not be random: after all, statistics wouldn't favor two powerfully-placed women being let go in as many years. If it smells like a chauvinist, and walks like a chauvinist... you know the rest.

But it's, of course, not that easy. Alan Murray examines the two women's behavior in the days, and months, following their respective firings and finds them both wanting.

I want, oh so deeply, to be shocked. But I'm not. Here's the thing: women are powerful! Women are amazing! Women are reaching the upper echelons of corporate America! Hurray! And while I'm sure everyone at NOW threw a soda party when Indra Nooyi took over as CEO of PepsiCo, Inc. (NYSE:PEP), I'm sure they also tried to get mad about today's "news": male executives make way more than female executives. And then I imagine they remembered: this is nothing new. This is nothing surprising.

Women have been making less than men since the dawn of time. And although Oprah and Indra and Meg are so darned powerful, they can hardly sway the enormity of gender history in a few decades of exerting their collective feminine force.

Let's try one reason female CEOs, CFOs and the like make pocket change compared to their male brethren (and no, there seems to be no relation between executive pay and corporate profit, sales, stock performance, or how many pageviews your bio on the corporate homepage got this year): there just aren't as many of them. Naturally that doesn't explain why (for instance) the top-paid female executive, Safra Catz -- president and CFO Oracle Corporation (NASDAQ:ORCL) -- made a sad 36% of what the top-paid male executive made (that's Eugene Isenberg, CEO of Nabors Industries Ltd. (NYSE:NBR), for the record). Catz wasn't even the highest-paid executive at her own company, pulling in about half of what founder and CEO Larry Ellison scored.

Well. That is Larry Ellison after all. His ego has to be worth at least as much as three women executives put together.

My best girlfriend from business school, Jaime, just announced that she was quitting her job as a management consultant and taking a position at PepsiCo in the corporate strategy department. Evidently she's not the only smart, financially savvy woman PepsiCo values; today, the beverage giant announced that current CFO Indra K. Nooyi would be taking over as CEO effective October 1, when current chief Steven Reinemund steps down from the position "to spend more time with his family." He'll be retiring in May, and will continue as Chairman of PepsiCo's board until then.

Indra will join 10 other women currently in the CEO position at Fortune 500 companies (by market capitalization, she'll be the second-most important, behind Patricia Woertz at ADM). Analysts seem to be roundly thrilled, calling Nooyi a "star" (Citigroup's Bonnie Herzog) and marking this promotion as an indication there is "enough to keep Ms. Nooyi interested at Pepsi" (Bank of America's Bryan Spillane).

I see it as no coincidence that a valued friend would move to the company at the same time an obviously brilliant woman takes over the CEO role. This can only mean good things for Pepsi. Investors seem to be cheering, too, and have sent the stock up 57 cents to $63.90 so far today, within pennies of a 52-week (and, in fact, all-time) high.

Sarah Gilbert has a Wharton MBA and worked in investment banking for several years, then at a series of increasingly edgy startups before finding her calling, producing blogs for AOL. She doesn't own stock in Pepsi.