IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sjobre/v50y1998i6d10.1007_bf03371521.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Das Risiko-Rendite Paradoxon. Stand der Forschung und Ergebnisse einer empirischen Untersuchung

Author

Listed:
  • Volker Wiemann

    (Mitarbeiter im Bereich Finanzierung & Contolling der Flores Holding GmbH)

  • Thomas Mellewigt

    (Leiter Regulierungsökonomie der o.tel.o Communications GmbH)

Abstract

Summary Bowman (1980) found an unexpected and paradoxical negative relationship between risk and return in many firms across industries. This article summarizes major findings concerning this so called risk/return paradoxon. Following an assessment of previous research the authors develop a framework based on prospect theory and contingency approach for a further investigation of the phenomenon. Based on a sample of 155 firms (groups), it is shown that the risk/return paradoxon is valid for German groups. This is a surprising result given that groups are established among other things with the intention to reduce risk. In addition, the results show that diversification and size are variables that effect the risk of a group. These results support the basic propositions of prospect theory and are robust within and across industries. Some implications for further research are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Volker Wiemann & Thomas Mellewigt, 1998. "Das Risiko-Rendite Paradoxon. Stand der Forschung und Ergebnisse einer empirischen Untersuchung," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 50(6), pages 551-572, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sjobre:v:50:y:1998:i:6:d:10.1007_bf03371521
    DOI: 10.1007/BF03371521
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF03371521
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF03371521?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alan Collins & Wesley N. Musser & Robert Mason, 1991. "Prospect Theory and Risk Preferences of Oregon Seed Producers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(2), pages 429-435.
    2. Johnson, Hazel J., 1992. "The relationship between variability, distance from target, and firm size: A test of prospect theory in the commercial banking industry," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 153-171.
    3. Imran S. Currim & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1989. "Prospect Versus Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 22-41, January.
    4. March, James G., 1988. "Variable risk preferences and adaptive aspirations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 5-24, January.
    5. 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..
    6. Toland, Anne & O'Neill, Patrick, 1983. "A test of prospect theory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 53-56, March.
    7. Sinha, Tapen, 1994. "Prospect theory and the risk return association: Another look," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 225-231, July.
    8. Lev, B, 1969. "Industry Averages As Targets For Financial Ratios," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(2), pages 290-299.
    9. 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.
    10. David B. Jemison, 1987. "Risk and the Relationship Among Strategy, Organizational Processes, and Performance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(9), pages 1087-1101, September.
    11. Frecka, Tj & Lee, Cf, 1983. "Generalized Financial Ratio Adjustment Processes And Their Implications," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(1), pages 308-316.
    12. Battalio, Raymond C & Kagel, John H & Jiranyakul, Komain, 1990. "Testing between Alternative Models of Choice under Uncertainty: Some Initial Results," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 25-50, March.
    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. Giamouzi, Maria & Nomikos, Nikos K, 2021. "Identifying shipowners’ risk attitudes over gains and losses: Evidence from the dry bulk freight market," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    2. Schade, Christian & Schroeder, Andreas & Krause, Kai Oliver, 2010. "Coordination after gains and losses: Is prospect theory’s value function predictive for games?," Structural Change in Agriculture/Strukturwandel im Agrarsektor (SiAg) Working Papers 59524, Humboldt University Berlin, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    3. Johannes M. Lehner, 2000. "Shifts of Reference Points for Framing of Strategic Decisions and Changing Risk-Return Associations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(1), pages 63-76, January.
    4. Ranjan Das Gupta & Rajesh Pathak, 2018. "Firm’s Risk-Return Association Facets and Prospect Theory Findings—An Emerging versus Developed Country Context," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-32, December.
    5. Gooding, Richard Z. & Goel, Sanjay & Wiseman, Robert M., 1996. "Fixed versus variable reference points in the risk-return relationship," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 331-350, March.
    6. Henkel, Joachim, 2007. "The Risk-Return Paradox for Strategic Management: Disentangling True and Spurious Effects," CEPR Discussion Papers 6538, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Farrukh Mahmood & Robert M. Kunst, 2023. "Modeling nonlinear in Bowman’s paradox: the case of Pakistan," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 64(5), pages 2357-2372, May.
    8. Peter Brooks & Horst Zank, 2005. "Loss Averse Behavior," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 301-325, December.
    9. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.
    10. Andrea Lippi & Laura Barbieri & Mariacristina Piva & Werner De Bondt, 2018. "Time-varying risk behavior and prior investment outcomes: Evidence from Italy," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(5), pages 471-483, September.
    11. W. Wong & R. Chan, 2008. "Prospect and Markowitz stochastic dominance," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 105-129, January.
    12. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent & Olivier l’Haridon, 2011. "Monetary incentives in the loss domain and behavior toward risk: An experimental comparison of three reward schemes including real losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 61-83, February.
    13. Nickel, Manuel Núñez & Rodriguez, Manuel Cano, 2002. "A review of research on the negative accounting relationship between risk and return: Bowman's paradox," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 1-18, February.
    14. Maximilian Rüdisser & Raphael Flepp & Egon Franck, 2017. "Do casinos pay their customers to become risk-averse? Revising the house money effect in a field experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(3), pages 736-754, September.
    15. Lucy Ackert & Narat Charupat & Bryan Church & Richard Deaves, 2006. "An experimental examination of the house money effect in a multi-period setting," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(1), pages 5-16, April.
    16. James C. Cox & Maroš Servátka & Radovan Vadovič, 2012. "Status Quo Effects in Fairness Games: Acts of Commission vs. Acts of Omission," Working Papers in Economics 12/01, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.
    17. Kuhberger, Anton & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Michael & Perner, Josef, 1999. "The Effects of Framing, Reflection, Probability, and Payoff on Risk Preference in Choice Tasks, ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 204-231, June.
    18. Haijiao Cui & Bin Cao & Aimei Li & Zhaohui Li, 2023. "A General Model of Subjective Value and Stimulus-Intensity-Sensitive Hedonic Editing Strategy," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 1191-1217, March.
    19. Desmond Lam & Bernadete Ozorio, 2013. "The effect of prior outcomes on gender risk-taking differences," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(7), pages 791-802, August.
    20. Cano Rodríguez, Manuel & Núñez-Nickel, Manuel, 2002. "Is the risk-return paradox still alive?," DEE - Working Papers. Business Economics. WB wb024818, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.

    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:spr:sjobre:v:50:y:1998:i:6:d:10.1007_bf03371521. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.