IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/ijbmjn/v13y2017i1p46.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Benchmark-Based Preferences Make Investors Loss Averse in Bull Markets and Gain Seeking in Bear Markets

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Bordley
  • Luisa Tibiletti

Abstract

Recent empirical studies have shown that investors are far more likely to be loss averse during bull markets than during bear ones. The aim of this short note is to give solid foundations to this empirical evidence. Using the benchmark-based preference method we establish a direct connection between the individual perception of the market trend and the individual risk preferences. Then we develop a novel definition of loss aversion and gain seeking which intuitively captures the human attitudes described by the quotes “losses loom larger than gains” and “gains loom larger than losses”, respectively. Our findings have also practical applications. In fact they may offer a solid explanation to the disposition effect. According to this cognitive bias in bull markets investors are driven by loss aversion and tend to sell winners too early; whereas in bear markets investors are driven by gain seeking and tend to hold losers too long.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Bordley & Luisa Tibiletti, 2017. "Benchmark-Based Preferences Make Investors Loss Averse in Bull Markets and Gain Seeking in Bear Markets," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(1), pages 1-46, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:ibn:ijbmjn:v:13:y:2017:i:1:p:46
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/download/71544/39673
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/view/71544
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hwang, Soosung & Satchell, Steve E., 2010. "How loss averse are investors in financial markets?," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 2425-2438, October.
    2. B. Abdous & R. Theodorescu, 1998. "Mean, median, mode IV," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 52(3), pages 356-359, November.
    3. Ron Kaniel & Gideon Saar & Sheridan Titman, 2008. "Individual Investor Trading and Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 63(1), pages 273-310, February.
    4. Abadir, Karim M., 2005. "The Mean-Median-Mode Inequality: Counterexamples," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(2), pages 477-482, April.
    5. Darren Duxbury, 2015. "Behavioral finance: insights from experiments I: theory and financial markets," Review of Behavioral Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 7(1), pages 78-96, June.
    6. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Imas, Alex, 2013. "Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 43-51.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Peter John Robinson & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Fujin Zhou, 2021. "An experimental study of charity hazard: The effect of risky and ambiguous government compensation on flood insurance demand," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 275-318, December.
    2. Galliera, Arianna, 2018. "Self-selecting random or cumulative pay? A bargaining experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 106-120.
    3. Yue Zhao & Difang Wan, 2018. "Institutional high frequency trading and price discovery: Evidence from an emerging commodity futures market," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(2), pages 243-270, February.
    4. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    5. Turan G. Bali & Robert F. Engle & Yi Tang, 2017. "Dynamic Conditional Beta Is Alive and Well in the Cross Section of Daily Stock Returns," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(11), pages 3760-3779, November.
    6. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    7. Dalton, Patricio S. & Nhung, Nguyen & Rüschenpöhler, Julius, 2020. "Worries of the poor: The impact of financial burden on the risk attitudes of micro-entrepreneurs," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    8. Hiroyuki Yamada & Yuki Kanayama & Kanako Yoshikawa & Kyaw Wai Aung, 2023. "Risk attitude, risky behaviour and price determination in the sex market: A case study of Yangon, Myanmar," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 665-691, December.
    9. Belzil, Christian & Sidibé, Modibo, 2016. "Internal and External Validity of Experimental Risk and Time Preferences," IZA Discussion Papers 10348, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Sophie Massin & Antoine Nebout & Bruno Ventelou, 2018. "Predicting medical practices using various risk attitude measures," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(6), pages 843-860, July.
    11. Pablo Brañas‐Garza & Matteo M. Galizzi & Jeroen Nieboer, 2018. "Experimental And Self‐Reported Measures Of Risk Taking And Digit Ratio (2d:4d): Evidence From A Large, Systematic Study," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(3), pages 1131-1157, August.
    12. Sheridan Titman & Chishen Wei. Wei & Bin Zhao, 2021. "Corporate Actions and the Manipulation of Retail Investors in China: An Analysis of Stock Splits," NBER Working Papers 29212, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Julija Michailova & Tadeusz Tyszka & Katarzyna Pfeifer, 2017. "Are People Interested in Probabilities of Natural Disasters?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 1005-1017, May.
    14. Nuzzo, Simone & Morone, Andrea, 2017. "Asset markets in the lab: A literature review," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 42-50.
    15. Thomas Buser, 2016. "The Impact of Losing in a Competition on the Willingness to Seek Further Challenges," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(12), pages 3439-3449, December.
    16. Alejandro Arrieta & Ariadna García‐Prado & Paula González & José Luis Pinto‐Prades, 2017. "Risk attitudes in medical decisions for others: An experimental approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S3), pages 97-113, December.
    17. Alex Imas & Sally Sadoff & Anya Samek, 2017. "Do People Anticipate Loss Aversion?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1271-1284, May.
    18. Füllbrunn, Sascha & Luhan, Wolfgang J., 2015. "Am I my Peer's Keeper? Social Responsibility in Financial Decision Making," Ruhr Economic Papers 551, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    19. Dichtl, Hubert & Drobetz, Wolfgang, 2011. "Portfolio insurance and prospect theory investors: Popularity and optimal design of capital protected financial products," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 1683-1697, July.
    20. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    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:ibn:ijbmjn:v:13:y:2017:i:1:p:46. 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: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    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.