IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rfinst/v30y2017i6p1971-2005..html

Does Aggregated Returns Disclosure Increase Portfolio Risk Taking?

Author

Listed:
  • John Beshears
  • James J. Choi
  • David Laibson
  • Brigitte C. Madrian

Abstract

Many experiments have found that participants take more investment risk if they see less frequent returns, portfolio-level returns (rather than each individual asset’s returns), or long-horizon (rather than one-year) historical return distributions. In contrast, we find that such information aggregation treatments do not affect total equity investment when we make the investment environment more realistic than in prior experiments. Previously documented aggregation effects are not robust to changes in the risky asset’s return distribution or to the introduction of a multiday delay between portfolio choice and return realizations.

Suggested Citation

  • John Beshears & James J. Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte C. Madrian, 2017. "Does Aggregated Returns Disclosure Increase Portfolio Risk Taking?," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 30(6), pages 1971-2005.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rfinst:v:30:y:2017:i:6:p:1971-2005.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/rfs/hhw086
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Iturbe-Ormaetxe, Iñigo & Ponti, Giovanni & Tomás, Josefa, 2019. "Is it myopia or loss aversion? A study on investment game experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 36-40.
    2. Daniel Gottlieb & Olivia S. Mitchell, 2020. "Narrow Framing and Long‐Term Care Insurance," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 87(4), pages 861-893, December.
    3. Kazi Iqbal & Asadul Islam & John A. List & Vy Nguyen, 2021. "Myopic Loss Aversion and Investment Decisions: from the Laboratory to the Field," NBER Working Papers 28730, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Borsboom, Charlotte & Janssen, Dirk-Jan & Strucks, Markus & Zeisberger, Stefan, 2022. "History matters: How short-term price charts hurt investment performance," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    5. Gerhard, Patrick & Hoffmann, Arvid O.I. & Post, Thomas, 2017. "Past performance framing and investors’ belief updating: Is seeing long-term returns always associated with smaller belief updates?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 38-51.
    6. Asen Ivanov, 2018. "Optimal Default Policies in Defined Contribution Pension Plans when Employees are Biased," Working Papers 858, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    7. van der Heijden, Eline & Klein, Tobias J. & Müller, Wieland & Potters, Jan, 2012. "Framing effects and impatience: Evidence from a large scale experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 701-711.
    8. Sewaid, Ahmed & Parker, Simon C. & Kaakeh, Abdulkader, 2021. "Explaining serial crowdfunders' dynamic fundraising performance," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 36(4).
    9. Immanuel Lampe & Daniel Würtenberger, 2019. "Loss Aversion And The Demand For Index Insurance," Working Papers on Finance 1907, University of St. Gallen, School of Finance.
    10. Sesil Lim & Bas Donkers & Patrick Dijl & Benedict G. C. Dellaert, 2021. "Digital customization of consumer investments in multiple funds: virtual integration improves risk–return decisions," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 49(4), pages 723-742, July.
    11. Rene Schwaiger & Laura Hueber, 2021. "Do MTurkers Exhibit Myopic Loss Aversion?," Working Papers 2021-12, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    12. Fabio Bagarello & Francesco Gargano & Polina Khrennikova, 2025. "From Classical Rationality to Contextual Reasoning: Quantum Logic as a New Frontier for Human-Centric AI in Finance," Papers 2510.05475, arXiv.org.
    13. Lampe, Immanuel & Würtenberger, Daniel, 2020. "Loss aversion and the demand for index insurance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 678-693.
    14. Gärtner, Florian & Semmler, Darwin & Bannier, Christina E., 2023. "What could possibly go wrong? Predictable misallocation in simple debt repayment experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 28-43.
    15. William J. Bazley & Henrik Cronqvist & Milica Mormann, 2021. "Visual Finance: The Pervasive Effects of Red on Investor Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5616-5641, September.
    16. Beshears, John & Kosowsky, Harry, 2020. "Nudging: Progress to date and future directions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 161(S), pages 3-19.
    17. Asen Ivanov, 2021. "Optimal pension plan default policies when employees are biased," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 23(3), pages 583-596, June.
    18. Hueber, Laura & Schwaiger, Rene, 2022. "Debiasing through experience sampling: The case of myopic loss aversion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 87-138.
    19. Matthew Lee & Arzi Adbi & Jasjit Singh, 2020. "Categorical cognition and outcome efficiency in impact investing decisions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 86-107, January.
    20. Zhang, Yue & Chen, Haozhi & He, Xiaolei, 2025. "Assessing systemic importance using multilayer dynamic networks: Evidence from China's stock market," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    21. Schwaiger, Rene & Hueber, Laura, 2021. "Do MTurkers exhibit myopic loss aversion?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    22. Bradbury, Meike A.S. & Hens, Thorsten & Zeisberger, Stefan, 2019. "How persistent are the effects of experience sampling on investor behavior?," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 61-79.
    23. Jiakun Zheng & Ling Zhou, 2025. "Too risky to hedge: An experiment on narrow bracketing," Post-Print hal-05063379, HAL.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D14 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Household Saving; Personal Finance
    • G02 - Financial Economics - - General - - - Behavioral Finance: Underlying Principles
    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions

    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:oup:rfinst:v:30:y:2017:i:6:p:1971-2005.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sfsssea.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.