IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/rbfpps/rbf-07-2023-0191.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Non-professional versus professional investors’ trust in financial analysts’ recommendations and influences on investments

Author

Listed:
  • Magnus Jansson
  • Patrik Michaelsen
  • Doron Sonsino
  • Tommy Gärling

Abstract

Purpose - The paper aims to investigate differences in non-professional and professional stock investors’ trust in and tendency to follow financial analysts’ buy and sell recommendations. Design/methodology/approach - Online experiment conducted in Sweden in March 2022 comparing non-professional private investors (n = 80), professional investors (n = 33), and master students in finance (n = 28). Information was presented about four company stocks listed on the New York stock exchange. Two stocks were buy-recommended and two stocks sell-recommended by financial analysts. For one stock of each type, the recommendation was presented to participants. Dependent variables were predictions of the stock price after three months, ratings of confidence in the predictions and choices of holding, buying or selling the stock. Ratings were also made of the importance of presented stock-related information as well as trust in analysts’ skill and integrity. Findings - More positive return predictions were made of buy-recommended than sell-recommended stocks. Non-professionals and to some degree finance students tended to trust financial analysts more than professional investors did and they were more influenced by the presentation of the buy recommendations. All groups made too optimistic return predictions, but the professionals were less confident in their predictions, more likely to sell the stocks and lost less on their investments. Originality/value - A new finding is that non-professional stock investors are more likely than professional stock investors to trust financial analysts and follow their recommendations. It suggests that financial analysts’ recommendations influence non-professional investors to take unmotivated investment risks. Non-professionals in the stock market should hence be advised to exercise more caution in following analysts’ recommendations.

Suggested Citation

  • Magnus Jansson & Patrik Michaelsen & Doron Sonsino & Tommy Gärling, 2024. "Non-professional versus professional investors’ trust in financial analysts’ recommendations and influences on investments," Review of Behavioral Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 16(5), pages 860-882, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:rbfpps:rbf-07-2023-0191
    DOI: 10.1108/RBF-07-2023-0191
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/RBF-07-2023-0191/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/RBF-07-2023-0191/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/RBF-07-2023-0191?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Financial analyst; Investment recommendation; Non-professional versus professional investors; Return prediction; Confidence; Trust; G11; G41; D84;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
    • G41 - Financial Economics - - Behavioral Finance - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making in Financial Markets
    • D84 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Expectations; Speculations

    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:eme:rbfpps:rbf-07-2023-0191. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.