High volatility eliminates the disposition effect in a market crisis

Raymond Dacey, Piotr Zielonka

Abstrakt


The disposition effect is an effect whereby investors tend to sell winning stocks and tend to hold losing stocks. This inclination is detrimental for investment results. Dacey and Zielonka (2008) showed the impact of the probability of further stock price rise under low stock price volatility on the disposition effect. Specifically, they showed that under low volatility, in the case of a gain, the investor is more likely to sell the winner even if the probability of the further gain is high, whereas in the case of a loss, the investor is more likely to hold the loser even when the probability of a further gain is small. In this paper we examined the disposition effect under high volatility. The general conclusion is that under high volatility, in the case of a gain, the investor behaves in the same way as for low volatility, whereas in the case of a loss, the investor is less and less likely to hold the loser as volatility increases. Thus, in the case of a loss under high volatility, the investor acts contrary to the disposition effect. This result explains the panic selling of stocks during a market collapse.

Słowa kluczowe


disposition effect, high volatility, panic selling, crisis selling.

Pełny tekst / Download full text:

PDF (English)

Bibliografia


Dacey, Raymond and Piotr Zielonka. 2008. “A Detailed Prospect Theory Explanation of the Disposition Effect,” Journal of Behavioral Finance, 9: 43-50.

Fogel, Suzanne O’Curry and Thomas Berry. 2006. “The Disposition Effect and Individual Investor Decisions: The Roles of Regret and Counterfactual Alternatives,” Journal of Behavioral Finance, 7: 107-116.

Goldberg, Joachim and Rüdiger von Nietzsch. 2001. Behavioral Finance, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Grinblatt, Mark and Matti Keloharju. (2001). “What Makes Investors Trade?,” The Journal of Finance, 56: 589-616

Hur, Jungshik, Mahesh Pritamani, and Vivek Sharma. 2010. “Momentum and the Disposition Effect: The Role of Individual Investors.” Financial Management, 39: 1155-1176.

Jeffrey, Richard C. 2004, Subjective Probability, Princeton University Press; Princeton.

Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky. 1972, Subjective Probability: A Judgment of Representativeness,” Cognitive Psychology 3: 430-454.

Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decisions Under Risk,” Econometrica, 47: 263-291.

Kaustia, Markku. 2010. “Prospect Theory and the Disposition Effect”, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 45: 791-812.

Kumar, Alok. 2009. “Hard-to-Value Stocks, Behavioral Biases, and Informed Trading,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 44: 1375-1401,

Lerner, Jennifer S. and Dacher Keltner. 2000. “Beyond Valence: Toward a Model of Emotion-Specific Infl uences on Judgment and Choice,” Cognition and Emotion 14: 473-493.

Lerner, Jennifer S. and Dacher Keltner. 2001. “Fear, Anger, and Risk.,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81: 146-159.

Mandelbrot, Benoit and Richard L. Hudson. 2004. The (mis)Behavior of Markets, Basic Books.

Odean, Terrance. 1998. “Are Investors Reluctant to Realize Their Losses?,” The Journal of Finance, 53: 1775-1798.

Oehler, Andreas, Klaus Heilmann, Volker Läger, and Michael Oberländer. 2003. “Coexistence of Disposition Investors and Momentum Traders in Stock Markets: Experimental Evidence,” Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 13: 503-524.

Shefrin, Hersh. 2005. A Behavioral Approach to Asset Pricing, Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press.

Shefrin, Hersh and Meir Statman. 1985. “The Disposition to Sell Winners Too Early and Ride Losers Too Long: Theory and Evidence,” Journal of Finance, 40: 777-790.

Taleb, Nassim Nicholas. 2012. Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder, Random House.

Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman. 1992. “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5: 297-323.

Wakker, Peter P. 2010. Prospect Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.9

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.