The as-is journal review process: Let authors own their ideas
AbstractIn this paper we present a two period model, where the agent's preferences are described by prospect theory as proposed by Kahneman and Tversky. We solve for the agent's portfolio decision. Our findings are that the changes in portfolio weights depend crucially on the reference point and the ratio between the reference point and the current wealth, and thus only indirectly on the performance of the risky asset. Our model explains why investor keep on holding, or even buy, loosing investments.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich in its series IEW - Working Papers with number 282.
Date of creation: Apr 2006
Date of revision:
Disposition effect; house money effect; prospect theory; port-folio choice;
Other versions of this item:
- Eric W. K. Tsang & Bruno S. Frey, 2006. "The as-is journal review process: Let authors own their ideas," CREMA Working Paper Series 2006-09, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
- Eric W. K. Tsang & Bruno S. Frey, 2006. "The as-is journal review process: Let authors own their ideas," IEW - Working Papers 280, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
- D00 - Microeconomics - - General - - - General
- D60 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - General
- D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
- D92 - Microeconomics - - Intertemporal Choice - - - Intertemporal Firm Choice, Investment, Capacity, and Financing
- L83 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Sports; Gambling; Restaurants; Recreation; Tourism
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Engers, Maxim & Gans, Joshua S, 1998. "Why Referees Are Not Paid (Enough)," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1341-49, December.
- Glenn Ellison, 2000.
"The Slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process,"
NBER Working Papers
7804, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- B Kogut & U Zander, 2003. "A memoir and reflection: knowledge and an evolutionary theory of the multinational firm 10 years later," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 34(6), pages 505-515, November.
- Oswald, Andrew J., 2008. "Can We Test for Bias in Scientific Peer-Review?," IZA Discussion Papers 3665, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Marita Kieser).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.