IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/ijbmjn/v13y2017i1p46.html

Benchmark-Based Preferences Make Investors Loss Averse in Bull Markets and Gain Seeking in Bear Markets

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Bordley
  • Luisa Tibiletti

Abstract

Recent empirical studies have shown that investors are far more likely to be loss averse during bull markets than during bear ones. The aim of this short note is to give solid foundations to this empirical evidence. Using the benchmark-based preference method we establish a direct connection between the individual perception of the market trend and the individual risk preferences. Then we develop a novel definition of loss aversion and gain seeking which intuitively captures the human attitudes described by the quotes “losses loom larger than gains” and “gains loom larger than losses”, respectively. Our findings have also practical applications. In fact they may offer a solid explanation to the disposition effect. According to this cognitive bias in bull markets investors are driven by loss aversion and tend to sell winners too early; whereas in bear markets investors are driven by gain seeking and tend to hold losers too long.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Bordley & Luisa Tibiletti, 2017. "Benchmark-Based Preferences Make Investors Loss Averse in Bull Markets and Gain Seeking in Bear Markets," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(1), pages 1-46, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:ibn:ijbmjn:v:13:y:2017:i:1:p:46
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/download/71544/39673
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/view/71544
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ron Kaniel & Gideon Saar & Sheridan Titman, 2008. "Individual Investor Trading and Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 63(1), pages 273-310, February.
    2. Abadir, Karim M., 2005. "The Mean-Median-Mode Inequality: Counterexamples," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(2), pages 477-482, April.
    3. Hwang, Soosung & Satchell, Steve E., 2010. "How loss averse are investors in financial markets?," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 2425-2438, October.
    4. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Imas, Alex, 2013. "Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 43-51.
    5. Darren Duxbury, 2015. "Behavioral finance: insights from experiments I: theory and financial markets," Review of Behavioral Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 7(1), pages 78-96, June.
    6. B. Abdous & R. Theodorescu, 1998. "Mean, median, mode IV," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 52(3), pages 356-359, November.
    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. Bohl, Martin T. & Diesteldorf, Jeanne & Siklos, Pierre L., 2015. "The effect of index futures trading on volatility: Three markets for Chinese stocks," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 207-224.
    2. Schnitzlein, Charles & Chelley-Steeley, Patricia & Steeley, James M, 2024. "Conflicting versus reinforcing private information, information aggregation, and the time series properties of asset prices," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    3. Galliera, Arianna, 2018. "Self-selecting random or cumulative pay? A bargaining experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 106-120.
    4. Schmidt Tobias & Sieber Susann, 2017. "The Influence of an Up-Front Experiment on Respondents’ Recording Behaviour in Payment Diaries: Evidence from Germany," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 33(2), pages 427-454, June.
    5. Yue Zhao & Difang Wan, 2018. "Institutional high frequency trading and price discovery: Evidence from an emerging commodity futures market," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(2), pages 243-270, February.
    6. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    7. Chen, Hung-Ling & Chow, Edward H. & Shiu, Cheng-Yi, 2015. "The informational role of individual investors in stock pricing: Evidence from large individual and small retail investors," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 36-56.
    8. Pan He & Marcella Veronesi & Stefanie Engel, 2016. "Consistency of Risk Preference Measures and the Role of Ambiguity: An Artefactual Field Experiment from China," Working Papers 03/2016, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    9. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    10. Banuri, Sheheryar & Murgia, Lucia Milena & Haq, Imtiaz Ul, 2024. "The power of religion: Islamic investing in the lab," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 96(PB).
    11. Selim Aren & Hatice Nayman Hamamcı, 2023. "Evaluation and Classification of Behavioral Biases According to Thinking Styles, Risky Investment Intention, and Subjective Financial Literacy," Istanbul Business Research, Istanbul University Business School, vol. 52(1), pages 133-160, April.
    12. Dalton, Patricio S. & Nhung, Nguyen & Rüschenpöhler, Julius, 2020. "Worries of the poor: The impact of financial burden on the risk attitudes of micro-entrepreneurs," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    13. Hiroyuki Yamada & Yuki Kanayama & Kanako Yoshikawa & Kyaw Wai Aung, 2023. "Risk attitude, risky behaviour and price determination in the sex market: A case study of Yangon, Myanmar," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 665-691, December.
    14. ALTINAY, Galip, 2016. "A Simple Class of Measures of Skewness," MPRA Paper 72353, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Belzil, Christian & Sidibé, Modibo, 2016. "Internal and External Validity of Experimental Risk and Time Preferences," IZA Discussion Papers 10348, IZA Network @ LISER.
    16. Piovesan, Marco & Willadsen, Helene, 2021. "Risk preferences and personality traits in children and adolescents," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 523-532.
    17. Sheridan Titman & Chishen Wei. Wei & Bin Zhao, 2021. "Corporate Actions and the Manipulation of Retail Investors in China: An Analysis of Stock Splits," NBER Working Papers 29212, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Barrot, Jean-Noel & Kaniel, Ron & Sraer, David, 2016. "Are retail traders compensated for providing liquidity?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 146-168.
    19. Chou, Pin-Huang & Hsieh, Chia-Hsun & Shen, Carl Hsin-Han, 2016. "What explains the orange juice puzzle: Sentiment, smart money, or fundamentals?," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 47-65.
    20. Julija Michailova & Tadeusz Tyszka & Katarzyna Pfeifer, 2017. "Are People Interested in Probabilities of Natural Disasters?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 1005-1017, May.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    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:ibn:ijbmjn:v:13:y:2017:i:1:p:46. 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: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.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.