IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/revfin/v20y2016i4p1427-1447..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Experimental Examination of Portfolio Choice

Author

Listed:
  • Lucy F. Ackert
  • Bryan K. Church
  • Li Qi

Abstract

Investors do not hold optimal portfolios. We use an experimental method to isolate factors that compel individuals to hold optimal portfolios. Our design includes two risky assets with perfectly negatively correlated payoffs so that all risk can be eliminated. We find that participants’ holdings approach optimal portfolios only under very specific conditions: the variance cost of holding an imbalanced portfolio is substantial and feedback on period-by-period outcomes is suppressed (eliminating the impact of cognitive biases resulting from misperceptions of randomness).

Suggested Citation

  • Lucy F. Ackert & Bryan K. Church & Li Qi, 2016. "An Experimental Examination of Portfolio Choice," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 20(4), pages 1427-1447.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:revfin:v:20:y:2016:i:4:p:1427-1447.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/rof/rfv036
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Richard H. Thaler & Shlomo Benartzi, 2001. "Naive Diversification Strategies in Defined Contribution Saving Plans," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(1), pages 79-98, March.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    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. Gortner, Paul J. & van der Weele, Joël J., 2019. "Peer effects and risk sharing in experimental asset markets," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 129-147.
    2. Paul Gortner & Joël van der Weele, "undated". "Peer Effects and Risk Sharing in Experimental Asset Markets," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-027/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    3. Jean-François Gajewski & Marco Heimann & Luc Meunier, 2022. "Nudges in SRI: The Power of the Default Option," Post-Print hal-03156921, HAL.
    4. Huber, Jürgen & Palan, Stefan & Zeisberger, Stefan, 2019. "Does investor risk perception drive asset prices in markets? Experimental evidence," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    5. Jean-Francois Gajewski & Marco Heimann & Luc Meunier, 2022. "Nudges in SRI: The Power of the Default Option," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 177(3), pages 547-566, May.

    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. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    2. Macchiavello, Rocco & Casaburi, Lorenzo, 2015. "Firm and Market Response to Saving Constraints: Evidence from the Kenyan Dairy Industry," CEPR Discussion Papers 10952, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:1:p:77-82 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. van Rooij, Maarten C.J. & Kool, Clemens J.M. & Prast, Henriette M., 2007. "Risk-return preferences in the pension domain: Are people able to choose?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(3-4), pages 701-722, April.
    5. Eduard Marinov, 2017. "The 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 117-159.
    6. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2017. "Richard H. Thaler: Integrating Economics with Psychology," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2017-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    7. Vincze, János & Koltay, Gábor, 2009. "Fogyasztói döntések a viselkedési közgazdaságtan szemszögéből [Consumer decisions from the angle of behavioural economics]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(6), pages 495-525.
    8. Andrea Lippi, 2014. "Does menu design influence retirement investment choices? Evidence from Italian occupational pension funds," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(1), pages 77-82, January.
    9. van Rooij, Maarten C.J. & Kool, Clemens J.M. & Prast, Henriette M., 2007. "Risk-return preferences in the pension domain: Are people able to choose?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(3-4), pages 701-722, April.
    10. Davies, G.B. & Satchell, S.E., 2004. "Continuous Cumulative Prospect Theory and Individual Asset Allocation," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0467, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    11. Neil Stewart & Stian Reimers & Adam J. L. Harris, 2015. "On the Origin of Utility, Weighting, and Discounting Functions: How They Get Their Shapes and How to Change Their Shapes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(3), pages 687-705, March.
    12. Philippe Fevrier & Sebastien Gay, 2005. "Informed Consent Versus Presumed Consent The Role of the Family in Organ Donations," HEW 0509007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Anne Lavigne, 2006. "Gouvernance et investissement des fonds de pension privés aux Etats-Unis," Working Papers halshs-00081401, HAL.
    14. Wiebke Roß & Jens Weghake, 2018. "Wa(h)re Liebe: Was Online-Dating-Plattformen über zweiseitige Märkte lehren," TUC Working Papers in Economics 0017, Abteilung für Volkswirtschaftslehre, Technische Universität Clausthal (Department of Economics, Technical University Clausthal).
    15. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.
    16. Insoo Cho & Peter F. Orazem, 2021. "How endogenous risk preferences and sample selection affect analysis of firm survival," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1309-1332, April.
    17. Boyce, Christopher & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Hanley, Nick, 2019. "Personality and economic choices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-100.
    18. Koszegi, Botond & Rabin, Matthew, 2004. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt0w82b6nm, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    19. Heavey, Emily & Baxter, Kate & Birks, Yvonne, 2019. "Financial advice for funding later life care: a scoping review of evidence from England," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 91497, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    20. Daniel Agness & Travis Baseler & Sylvain Chassang & Pascaline Dupas & Erik Snowberg, 2022. "Valuing the Time of the Self-Employed," Working Papers 2022-2, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    21. Chang, Xiaochen & Guo, Songlin & Huang, Junkai, 2022. "Kidnapped mutual funds: Irrational preference of naive investors and fund incentive distortion," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).

    More about this item

    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:oup:revfin:v:20:y:2016:i:4:p:1427-1447.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eufaaea.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.