IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/ohidic/2014-03.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Psychological Barriers, Expectational Errors, and Underreaction to News

Author

Listed:
  • Birru, Justin

    (OH State University)

Abstract

This paper provides evidence that the 52-week high serves as a psychological barrier, inducing expectational errors and underreaction to news. Two clear predictions emerge and are confirmed in the data. First, nearness to a 52-week high induces expectational errors; evidence from earnings surprises and analyst price targets indicate that investor and analyst expectations are biased in a downward direction for stocks near a 52-week high and biased in an upward direction for stocks trading far from a 52-week high. Second, nearness to a 52-week high induces underreaction to news. Among positive earnings surprise stocks, post-announcement drift exists only for those stocks near a 52-week high. The evidence suggests that in contrast to currently offered preference-based explanations, a belief-based explanation may better explain the previously documented 52-week high anomalies.

Suggested Citation

  • Birru, Justin, 2015. "Psychological Barriers, Expectational Errors, and Underreaction to News," Working Paper Series 2014-03, Ohio State University, Charles A. Dice Center for Research in Financial Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ecl:ohidic:2014-03
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2352474
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Juwon Jang & Eunju Lee, 2021. "Do record earnings affect market reactions to earnings news?," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1259-1287, May.
    2. Byun, Suk-Joon & Goh, Jihoon & Kim, Da-Hea, 2020. "The role of psychological barriers in lottery-related anomalies," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    3. Zhaobo Zhu & Licheng Sun & Min Chen, 2023. "Fundamental strength and the 52-week high anchoring effect," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 60(4), pages 1515-1542, May.
    4. Utpal Bhattacharya & Wei-Yu Kuo & Tse-Chun Lin & Jing Zhao, 2019. "Do Superstitious Traders Lose Money?," HKUST IEMS Working Paper Series 2019-62, HKUST Institute for Emerging Market Studies, revised May 2019.
    5. Goh, Jihoon & Jeon, Byoung-Hyun, 2017. "Post-earnings-announcement-drift and 52-week high: Evidence from Korea," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 150-159.
    6. Zhaobo Zhu & Licheng Sun & Chris Stivers, 2021. "Price anchors and short‐term reversals," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 50(2), pages 425-454, June.
    7. Caglayan, Mustafa O. & Lawrence, Edward & Reyes-Peña, Robinson, 2023. "Hot potatoes: Underpricing of stocks following extreme negative returns," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    8. Huang, Shiyang & Lee, Charles M.C. & Song, Yang & Xiang, Hong, 2022. "A frog in every pan: Information discreteness and the lead-lag returns puzzle," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 83-102.
    9. Li, Fengfei & Lin, Ji-Chai & Lin, Tse-Chun & Shang, Longfei, 2023. "Behavioral bias, distorted stock prices, and stock splits," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    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. Utpal Bhattacharya & Wei-Yu Kuo & Tse-Chun Lin & Jing Zhao, 2018. "Do Superstitious Traders Lose Money?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(8), pages 3772-3791, August.
    12. Weber, Michael, 2018. "Cash flow duration and the term structure of equity returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(3), pages 486-503.
    13. Siu Kai Choy & Jason Wei, 2022. "Option trading and returns versus the 52‐week high and low," The Financial Review, Eastern Finance Association, vol. 57(3), pages 691-726, August.
    14. Li, Fengfei & Lin, Chen & Lin, Tse-Chun, 2021. "Salient anchor and analyst recommendation downgrade," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    15. Huang, Shiyang & Lin, Tse-Chun & Xiang, Hong, 2021. "Psychological barrier and cross-firm return predictability," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(1), pages 338-356.
    16. Mei‐Chen Lin, 2018. "The effect of 52 week highs and lows on analyst stock recommendations," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 58(S1), pages 375-422, November.

    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
    • G14 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Information and Market Efficiency; Event Studies; Insider Trading

    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:ecl:ohidic:2014-03. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cdohsus.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.