IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/27155.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Prospect Theory and Stock Market Anomalies

Author

Listed:
  • Nicholas C. Barberis
  • Lawrence J. Jin
  • Baolian Wang

Abstract

We present a new model of asset prices in which investors evaluate risk according to prospect theory and examine its ability to explain 23 prominent stock market anomalies. The model incorporates all the elements of prospect theory, takes account of investors’ prior gains and losses, and makes quantitative predictions about an asset’s average return based on empirical estimates of its volatility, skewness, and past capital gain. We find that the model is helpful for thinking about a majority of the 23 anomalies.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicholas C. Barberis & Lawrence J. Jin & Baolian Wang, 2020. "Prospect Theory and Stock Market Anomalies," NBER Working Papers 27155, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:27155
    Note: AP
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w27155.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Y. Campbell & Jens Hilscher & Jan Szilagyi, 2008. "In Search of Distress Risk," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 63(6), pages 2899-2939, December.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Asset Prices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(3), pages 623-628, May.
    5. 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.
    6. Birru, Justin & Wang, Baolian, 2016. "Nominal price illusion," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(3), pages 578-598.
    7. Brian Boyer & Todd Mitton & Keith Vorkink, 2010. "Expected Idiosyncratic Skewness," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 23(1), pages 169-202, January.
    8. Nicholas Barberis & Abhiroop Mukherjee & Baolian Wang, 2016. "Prospect Theory and Stock Returns: An Empirical Test," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 29(11), pages 3068-3107.
    9. Conrad, Jennifer & Kapadia, Nishad & Xing, Yuhang, 2014. "Death and jackpot: Why do individual investors hold overpriced stocks?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(3), pages 455-475.
    10. Markus K. Brunnermeier & Jonathan A. Parker & Christian Gollier, 2007. "Optimal Beliefs, Asset Prices, and the Preference for Skewed Returns," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(2), pages 159-165, May.
    11. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. Gurdip Bakshi & Nikunj Kapadia & Dilip Madan, 2003. "Stock Return Characteristics, Skew Laws, and the Differential Pricing of Individual Equity Options," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 16(1), pages 101-143.
    13. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang, 2001. "Mental Accounting, Loss Aversion, and Individual Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(4), pages 1247-1292, August.
    14. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie Wang & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Loss Attitudes in the U.S. Population: Evidence from Dynamically Optimized Sequential Experimentation (DOSE)," CESifo Working Paper Series 7262, CESifo.
    15. Stambaugh, Robert F. & Yu, Jianfeng & Yuan, Yu, 2012. "The short of it: Investor sentiment and anomalies," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 288-302.
    16. Campbell R. Harvey & Akhtar Siddique, 2000. "Conditional Skewness in Asset Pricing Tests," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 55(3), pages 1263-1295, June.
    17. Dennis, Patrick & Mayhew, Stewart, 2002. "Risk-Neutral Skewness: Evidence from Stock Options," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(3), pages 471-493, September.
    18. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang & Richard H. Thaler, 2006. "Individual Preferences, Monetary Gambles, and Stock Market Participation: A Case for Narrow Framing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(4), pages 1069-1090, September.
    19. Drew Fudenberg & Jon Kleinberg & Annie Liang & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2019. "Measuring the Completeness of Theories," Papers 1910.07022, arXiv.org.
    20. Richard H. Thaler & Eric J. Johnson, 1990. "Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 643-660, June.
    21. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang, 2001. "Mental Accounting, Loss Aversion, and Individual Stock Returns," NBER Working Papers 8190, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    22. Grinblatt, Mark & Han, Bing, 2005. "Prospect theory, mental accounting, and momentum," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 311-339, November.
    23. Wenbo Hu & Alec Kercheval, 2010. "Portfolio optimization for student t and skewed t returns," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(1), pages 91-105.
    24. Lieven Baele & Joost Driessen & Sebastian Ebert & Juan M Londono & Oliver G Spalt, 2019. "Cumulative Prospect Theory, Option Returns, and the Variance Premium," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 32(9), pages 3667-3723.
    25. Angie ANDRIKOGIANNOPOULOU & Filippos PAPAKONSTANTINOU, 2015. "History-Dependent Risk Preferences: Evidence from Individual Choices and Implications for the Disposition Effect," Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper Series 15-11, Swiss Finance Institute, revised Jul 2015.
    26. 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.
    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. Liu, Hongqi & Peng, Cameron & Wei, Xiong & Wei, Xiong, 2022. "Taming the bias zoo," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 109301, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Liu, Hongqi & Peng, Cameron & Xiong, Wei A. & Xiong, Wei, 2022. "Taming the bias zoo," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(2), pages 716-741.
    3. Guo, Jing & He, Xue Dong, 2021. "A new preference model that allows for narrow framing," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    4. Mu Zhang, 2021. "A Theory of Choice Bracketing under Risk," Papers 2102.07286, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2021.

    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. Nicholas Barberis & Lawrence J. Jin & Baolian Wang, 2021. "Prospect Theory and Stock Market Anomalies," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 76(5), pages 2639-2687, October.
    2. 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.
    3. Li An & Huijun Wang & Jian Wang & Jianfeng Yu, 2015. "Lottery-related anomalies: the role of reference-dependent preferences," Globalization Institute Working Papers 259, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
    4. 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).
    5. Neszveda, G., 2019. "Essays on behavioral finance," Other publications TiSEM 05059039-5236-42a3-be1b-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    6. 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).
    7. Cosemans, Mathijs & Frehen, Rik, 2021. "Salience theory and stock prices: Empirical evidence," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(2), pages 460-483.
    8. Jondeau, Eric & Zhang, Qunzi & Zhu, Xiaoneng, 2019. "Average skewness matters," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 29-47.
    9. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Ohk, Seungbin & Ju, Biung-Ghi, 2021. "Capitalizing on prospect theory value: The Asian developed stock markets," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    13. Jack Clark Francis, 2021. "Reformulating prospect theory to become a von Neumann–Morgenstern theory," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 965-985, April.
    14. Hollstein, Fabian & Sejdiu, Vulnet, 2023. "Probability distortions, collectivism, and international stock prices," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    15. Adam Zaremba & Jacob Koby Shemer, 2018. "Price-Based Investment Strategies," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-319-91530-2, September.
    16. Lin, Chaonan & Chen, Hong-Yi & Ko, Kuan-Cheng & Yang, Nien-Tzu, 2021. "Time-dependent lottery preference and the cross-section of stock returns," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 272-294.
    17. Eric Jondeau & Xuewu Wang & Zhipeng Yan & Qunzi Zhang, 2020. "Skewness and index futures return," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(11), pages 1648-1664, November.
    18. Matteo Benuzzi & Matteo Ploner, 2024. "Skewness-seeking behavior and financial investments," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 129-165, March.
    19. Mohrschladt, Hannes & Schneider, Judith C., 2021. "Option-implied skewness: Insights from ITM-options," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    20. Wei Tang & Tianhao Wu & Liheng Xu, 2017. "Skewness Preference and IPO Anomalies in China," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 18(1), pages 173-199, May.

    More about this item

    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

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:nbr:nberwo:27155. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.