IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecofin/v67y2023ics106294082300027x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Limited attention, salient anchor, and the modified MAX effect: Evidence from Taiwan’s stock market

Author

Listed:
  • Wang, Zi-Mei
  • Lien, Donald

Abstract

The literature documents that investors overweighing the right-tail probability pursue positively skewed assets, leading to lottery-like stocks overpriced. We find that the lottery anomaly primarily exists among stocks further away from their 52-week high prices. After attention-grabbing events with gambling features, inattentive retail investors become aware of certain stocks’ gambling traits and then net buy more lottery-like stocks, which further promotes the lottery anomaly. However, when such stocks are near their 52-week high price, retail investors tend to place little weight on the likelihood that the stock price will rise beyond the 52-week high, thereby reducing the skewness preference. Overall, our findings suggest that the perception of the 52-week high price as a price ceiling influences skewness preference, and that investor attention is the main determinant of whether anchoring bias affects skewness preference.

Suggested Citation

  • Wang, Zi-Mei & Lien, Donald, 2023. "Limited attention, salient anchor, and the modified MAX effect: Evidence from Taiwan’s stock market," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecofin:v:67:y:2023:i:c:s106294082300027x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.najef.2023.101904
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S106294082300027X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.najef.2023.101904?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cen, Ling & Hilary, Gilles & Wei, K. C. John, 2013. "The Role of Anchoring Bias in the Equity Market: Evidence from Analysts’ Earnings Forecasts and Stock Returns," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(1), pages 47-76, February.
    2. Chip Heath & Steven Huddart & Mark Lang, 1999. "Psychological Factors and Stock Option Exercise," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(2), pages 601-627.
    3. Bhootra, Ajay & Hur, Jungshik, 2013. "The timing of 52-week high price and momentum," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 3773-3782.
    4. Byun, Suk-Joon & Goh, Jihoon & Kim, Da-Hea, 2020. "The role of psychological barriers in lottery-related anomalies," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    5. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    6. Bali, Turan G. & Cakici, Nusret & Whitelaw, Robert F., 2011. "Maxing out: Stocks as lotteries and the cross-section of expected returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 427-446, February.
    7. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang, 2008. "Stocks as Lotteries: The Implications of Probability Weighting for Security Prices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(5), pages 2066-2100, December.
    8. Lee, Eunju & Piqueira, Natalia, 2019. "Behavioral biases of informed traders: Evidence from insider trading on the 52-week high," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 56-75.
    9. Yao, Shouyu & Wang, Chunfeng & Cui, Xin & Fang, Zhenming, 2019. "Idiosyncratic skewness, gambling preference, and cross-section of stock returns: Evidence from China," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 464-483.
    10. David Hirshleifer, 2001. "Investor Psychology and Asset Pricing," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(4), pages 1533-1597, August.
    11. repec:bla:jfinan:v:59:y:2004:i:5:p:2145-2176 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Kumar, Alok & Page, Jeremy K. & Spalt, Oliver G., 2016. "Gambling and Comovement," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(1), pages 85-111, February.
    13. Baker, Malcolm & Pan, Xin & Wurgler, Jeffrey, 2012. "The effect of reference point prices on mergers and acquisitions," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 49-71.
    14. Dimson, Elroy, 1979. "Risk measurement when shares are subject to infrequent trading," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 197-226, June.
    15. Newey, Whitney & West, Kenneth, 2014. "A simple, positive semi-definite, heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 33(1), pages 125-132.
    16. Hao, Ying & Chu, Hsiang-Hui & Ho, Keng-Yu & Ko, Kuan-Cheng, 2016. "The 52-week high and momentum in the Taiwan stock market: Anchoring or recency biases?," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 121-138.
    17. Benjamin M. Blau & R. Jared DeLisle & Ryan J. Whitby, 2020. "Does Probability Weighting Drive Lottery Preferences?," Journal of Behavioral Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 233-247, July.
    18. Hung, Weifeng & Yang, J. Jimmy, 2018. "The MAX effect: Lottery stocks with price limits and limits to arbitrage," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 77-91.
    19. X. Frank Zhang, 2006. "Information Uncertainty and Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 61(1), pages 105-137, February.
    20. Jungshik Hur & Vivek Singh, 2017. "Cross-Section of Expected Returns and Extreme Returns: The Role of Investor Attention and Risk Preferences," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 46(2), pages 409-431, June.
    21. Zhi Da & Joseph Engelberg & Pengjie Gao, 2011. "In Search of Attention," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 66(5), pages 1461-1499, October.
    22. Campbell, Sean D. & Sharpe, Steven A., 2009. "Anchoring Bias in Consensus Forecasts and Its Effect on Market Prices," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(2), pages 369-390, April.
    23. Grinblatt, Mark & Han, Bing, 2005. "Prospect theory, mental accounting, and momentum," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 311-339, November.
    24. Lee, Yi-Tsung & Liu, Yu-Jane & Roll, Richard & Subrahmanyam, Avanidhar, 2004. "Order Imbalances and Market Efficiency: Evidence from the Taiwan Stock Exchange," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(2), pages 327-341, June.
    25. repec:bla:jfinan:v:59:y:2004:i:3:p:1345-1365 is not listed on IDEAS
    26. Brad M. Barber & Terrance Odean, 2008. "All That Glitters: The Effect of Attention and News on the Buying Behavior of Individual and Institutional Investors," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 21(2), pages 785-818, April.
    27. Li, Jun & Yu, Jianfeng, 2012. "Investor attention, psychological anchors, and stock return predictability," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 401-419.
    28. Chan, Yue-Cheong & Chui, Andy C.W., 2016. "Gambling in the Hong Kong stock market," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 204-218.
    29. Alexander Ljungqvist & William J. Wilhelm, 2005. "Does Prospect Theory Explain IPO Market Behavior?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 60(4), pages 1759-1790, August.
    30. Fong, Wai Mun & Toh, Benjamin, 2014. "Investor sentiment and the MAX effect," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 190-201.
    31. Joost Driessen & Tse-Chun Lin & Otto Van Hemert, 2013. "How the 52-Week High and Low Affect Option-Implied Volatilities and Stock Return Moments," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 17(1), pages 369-401.
    32. Mei‐Chen Lin, 2018. "The effect of 52 week highs and lows on analyst stock recommendations," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 58(S1), pages 375-422, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lee, Hsiu-Chuan & Lien, Donald & Sheu, Her-Jiun & Yang, Chung-Jen, 2024. "An extension analysis of Amihud's illiquidity premium: Evidence from the Taiwan stock market," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Baars, Maren & Mohrschladt, Hannes, 2021. "An alternative behavioral explanation for the MAX effect," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 868-886.
    2. Mei‐Chen Lin, 2018. "The effect of 52 week highs and lows on analyst stock recommendations," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 58(S1), pages 375-422, November.
    3. Lin, Mei-Chen & Lin, Yu-Ling, 2021. "Idiosyncratic skewness and cross-section of stock returns: Evidence from Taiwan," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    4. Byun, Suk-Joon & Goh, Jihoon & Kim, Da-Hea, 2020. "The role of psychological barriers in lottery-related anomalies," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    5. Wang, Zhuo & Wang, Ziyue & Wu, Ke, 2023. "The role of anchoring on investors’ gambling preference: Evidence from China," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    6. Li, Fengfei & Lin, Chen & Lin, Tse-Chun, 2021. "Salient anchor and analyst recommendation downgrade," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    7. Zi-Mei Wang & Donald Lien, 2022. "Is maximum daily return a lottery? Evidence from monthly revenue announcements," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 545-600, August.
    8. Atilgan, Yigit & Bali, Turan G. & Demirtas, K. Ozgur & Gunaydin, A. Doruk, 2020. "Left-tail momentum: Underreaction to bad news, costly arbitrage and equity returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(3), pages 725-753.
    9. Lin, Mei-Chen, 2023. "Time-varying MAX preference: Evidence from revenue announcements," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    10. Li, Fengfei & Lin, Ji-Chai & Lin, Tse-Chun & Shang, Longfei, 2023. "Behavioral bias, distorted stock prices, and stock splits," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    11. Adam Zaremba & Jacob Koby Shemer, 2018. "Price-Based Investment Strategies," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-319-91530-2, September.
    12. Khasawneh, Maher & McMillan, David G. & Kambouroudis, Dimos, 2024. "Left-tail risk and UK stock return predictability: Underreaction, overreaction, and arbitrage difficulties," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 95(PA).
    13. Zhao, Xiaojuan & Wang, Ye & Liu, Weiyi, 2024. "Someone like you: Lottery-like preference and the cross-section of expected returns in the cryptocurrency market," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    14. Wang, Huijun & Yan, Jinghua & Yu, Jianfeng, 2017. "Reference-dependent preferences and the risk–return trade-off," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 395-414.
    15. Li An & Huijun Wang & Jian Wang & Jianfeng Yu, 2020. "Lottery-Related Anomalies: The Role of Reference-Dependent Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 473-501, January.
    16. Wan, Xiaoyuan, 2018. "Is the idiosyncratic volatility anomaly driven by the MAX or MIN effect? Evidence from the Chinese stock market," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 1-15.
    17. Grobys, Klaus & Junttila, Juha, 2021. "Speculation and lottery-like demand in cryptocurrency markets," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    18. Melisa Ozdamar & Levent Akdeniz & Ahmet Sensoy, 2021. "Lottery-like preferences and the MAX effect in the cryptocurrency market," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 7(1), pages 1-27, December.
    19. Wang, Cheng & Han, Jing, 2023. "Prospect theory and mutual fund flows: Evidence from China," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    20. Zhaobo Zhu & Licheng Sun & Min Chen, 2023. "Fundamental strength and the 52-week high anchoring effect," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 60(4), pages 1515-1542, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Anchoring bias; Investor attention; Modified MAX effect; Recency bias; 52-week high;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
    • G12 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Asset Pricing; Trading Volume; Bond Interest Rates
    • G14 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Information and Market Efficiency; Event Studies; Insider Trading

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecofin:v:67:y:2023:i:c:s106294082300027x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620163 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.