IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arz/wpaper/eres2011_213.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

CEO Overconfidence, Trading Activity, and Performance Evidence from REITs

Author

Listed:
  • Piet Eichholtz
  • Erkan Yonder

Abstract

The effects of overconfidence have been mainly investigated investorsí decisions regarding stock portfolios, and far less so the decisions of managers at corporations. The few exceptions that do investigate the effect of behavioral biases within a corporate setting include most notably the empirical studies by Malmendier and Tate (2005a, b, 2008), Malmendier, Tate, and Yan (2006), and Crane and Hartzell (2009). Malmendier and Tate (2005a) relate overconfidence to investmentñcash-flow sensitivity of CEOs and show that CEO overconfidence has a positive effect on investment, which is measured using firm capital expenditures. Crane and Hartzell (2008) investigate a different behavioral aspect, the disposition effect, using a REIT sample. REITs offer an ideal setting to investigate professional managersí investment decisions. Investment and divestment decisions can easily be identified since REITs mainly purchase and sell buildings, so most of the investment decisions can be followed by the researcher. Additionally, REIT asset values are transparent, making it possible to observe how much a firm spent when investing in a project. We investigate the effect of CEO overconfidence on trading activity using REITs. Using a REIT sample gives us the opportunity to identify each investment decision and observe how frequently REIT managers trade and to relate trading activity to overconfidence, and do that separately using purchases and sales. We define a CEO as overconfident if he buys more of his own company stock than he sells throughout the whole sample period, following Malmendier and Tate (2005a). We find that overconfident CEOs significantly purchase more properties than non-overconfident counterparts. Between 6% and 13%, we also document that overconfident CEOs are significantly more likely to hold properties than their non-overconfident counterparts. A CEO being a net buyer of his own companyís stock might either indicate overconfidence or access to private information. However, with private information, we expect managers to perform better, while overconfident CEOs trade non-optimally so must have worse performance. We evidence that they have worse operating performance than their non-overconfident counterparts. To separate overconfident managers from those who have access to private information, we combine being a net buyer of own company stock with the performance of the company. First, we interact net buyer with bad performance to have an extended measure of overconfidence. Additional to this, we also interact a net buyer dummy with a good performer dummy to proxy for managers having private information. An interaction dummy of being a bad performer and being a net buyer of own company stocks gives stronger results than the net buyer dummy alone. Overconfident CEOs purchase more and sell less. When we use an interaction dummy of being a good performer and a net buyer of own company stocks, it even has opposite impacts on purchasing and sales activities indicating that CEOs with private information behave and trade different from overconfident CEOs.

Suggested Citation

  • Piet Eichholtz & Erkan Yonder, 2011. "CEO Overconfidence, Trading Activity, and Performance Evidence from REITs," ERES eres2011_213, European Real Estate Society (ERES).
  • Handle: RePEc:arz:wpaper:eres2011_213
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://eres.architexturez.net/doc/oai-eres-id-eres2011-213
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Etse Nkukpornu & Prince Gyimah & Linda Sakyiwaa, 2020. "Behavioural Finance and Investment Decisions: Does Behavioral Bias Matter?," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(11), pages 1-65, November.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R3 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Real Estate Markets, Spatial Production Analysis, and Firm Location

    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:arz:wpaper:eres2011_213. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Architexturez Imprints (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eressea.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.