IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/11056.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Skewness Seeking in a Dynamic Portfolio Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Carrillo, Juan
  • Brocas, Isabelle
  • Giga, Aleksandar
  • Zapatero, Fernando

Abstract

We conduct a controlled laboratory experiment in which subjects dynamically choose to allocate their portfolio between (i) a safe asset, (ii) a risky asset and (iii) a skewed asset with negative expected value (a ?bet?), in an environment where they can sometimes choose to acquire some information about the performance of their peers. We find three distinct groups of individuals: 16% of subjects never buy the bet, 29% of subjects learn not to buy the bet and 55% subjects persist purchasing the bet throughout the experiment. Among the latter group, purchases are most frequent when subjects are rich and when it is their last opportunity. Our subjects are also interested in the wealth of others, especially relative to theirs. Indeed, a subject with low, medium and high wealth has a preference for finding out what is the minimum, average and maximum wealth in the session, respectively. We also find that subjects buy more bets when they are richer and (unexpectedly) learn that their peers outperform them.

Suggested Citation

  • Carrillo, Juan & Brocas, Isabelle & Giga, Aleksandar & Zapatero, Fernando, 2016. "Skewness Seeking in a Dynamic Portfolio Choice Experiment," CEPR Discussion Papers 11056, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:11056
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cepr.org/publications/DP11056
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Erik Snowberg & Justin Wolfers, 2010. "Explaining the Favorite-Long Shot Bias: Is it Risk-Love or Misperceptions?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 118(4), pages 723-746, August.
    2. Lucy F. Ackert & Narat Charupat & Bryan K. Church & Richard Deaves, 2006. "Margin, Short Selling, And Lotteries In Experimental Asset Markets," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 73(2), pages 419-436, October.
    3. Kroll, Yoram & Levy, Haim, 1992. "Further Tests of the Separation Theorem and the Capital Asset Pricing Model," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(3), pages 664-670, June.
    4. Olivier Coibion & Yuriy Gorodnichenko & Marianna Kudlyak & John Mondragon, 0. "Greater Inequality and Household Borrowing: New Evidence from Household Data," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(6), pages 2922-2971.
    5. Asch, Peter & Malkiel, Burton G. & Quandt, Richard E., 1982. "Racetrack betting and informed behavior," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 187-194, July.
    6. Tobias Brunner & Rene Levinsky & Jianying Qiu, 2011. "Preferences for skewness: evidence from a binary choice experiment," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(7), pages 525-538.
    7. Schwerter, Frederik, 2013. "Social Reference Points and Risk Taking," Bonn Econ Discussion Papers 11/2013, University of Bonn, Bonn Graduate School of Economics (BGSE).
    8. Cary Deck & Harris Schlesinger, 2010. "Exploring Higher Order Risk Effects," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 77(4), pages 1403-1420.
    9. Bali, Turan G. & Cakici, Nusret & Whitelaw, Robert F., 2011. "Maxing out: Stocks as lotteries and the cross-section of expected returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 427-446, February.
    10. Jennifer Conrad & Robert F. Dittmar & Eric Ghysels, 2013. "Ex Ante Skewness and Expected Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 68(1), pages 85-124, February.
    11. Schoenberg, Eric J. & Haruvy, Ernan, 2012. "Relative performance information in asset markets: An experimental approach," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1143-1155.
    12. Sebastian Ebert & Daniel Wiesen, 2011. "Testing for Prudence and Skewness Seeking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(7), pages 1334-1349, July.
    13. Richard H. Thaler & Eric J. Johnson, 1990. "Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 643-660, June.
    14. Philip Grossman & Catherine Eckel, 2015. "Loving the long shot: Risk taking with skewed lotteries," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 195-217, December.
    15. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    16. Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael & Stefan, Matthias, 2014. "Experimental evidence on varying uncertainty and skewness in laboratory double-auction markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 798-809.
    17. Levy, Haim, 1994. "Absolute and Relative Risk Aversion: An Experimental Study," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 289-307, May.
    18. Filiz-Ozbay, Emel & Guryan, Jonathan & Hyndman, Kyle & Kearney, Melissa & Ozbay, Erkut Y., 2015. "Do lottery payments induce savings behavior? Evidence from the lab," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 1-24.
    19. Garrett, Thomas A. & Sobel, Russell S., 1999. "Gamblers favor skewness, not risk: Further evidence from United States' lottery games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 85-90, April.
    20. Yuriy Gorodnichenko & Marianna Kudlyak & John Mondragon & Olivier Coibion, 2014. "Does Greater Inequality Lead to More Household Borrowing? New Evidence from Household Data," 2014 Meeting Papers 402, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    21. Ali, Mukhtar M, 1977. "Probability and Utility Estimates for Racetrack Bettors," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 85(4), pages 803-815, August.
    22. Brian H. Boyer & Keith Vorkink, 2014. "Stock Options as Lotteries," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 69(4), pages 1485-1527, August.
    23. Dijk, Oege & Holmen, Martin & Kirchler, Michael, 2014. "Rank matters–The impact of social competition on portfolio choice," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 97-110.
    24. Joseph Golec & Maurry Tamarkin, 1998. "Bettors Love Skewness, Not Risk, at the Horse Track," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(1), pages 205-225, February.
    25. Ebert, Sebastian, 2015. "On skewed risks in economic models and experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 85-97.
    26. Todd Mitton & Keith Vorkink, 2007. "Equilibrium Underdiversification and the Preference for Skewness," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 20(4), pages 1255-1288.
    27. T. Clifton Green & Byoung-Hyoun Hwang, 2012. "Initial Public Offerings as Lotteries: Skewness Preference and First-Day Returns," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(2), pages 432-444, February.
    28. Kroll, Yoram & Levy, Haim & Rapoport, Amnon, 1988. "Experimental Tests of the Separation Theorem and the Capital Asset Pricing Model," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(3), pages 500-519, June.
    29. Alok Kumar, 2009. "Who Gambles in the Stock Market?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 64(4), pages 1889-1933, August.
    30. Brown, Keith C & Harlow, W V & Starks, Laura T, 1996. "Of Tournaments and Temptations: An Analysis of Managerial Incentives in the Mutual Fund Industry," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 51(1), pages 85-110, March.
    31. Thaler, Richard H & Ziemba, William T, 1988. "Parimutuel Betting Markets: Racetracks and Lotteries," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 2(2), pages 161-174, Spring.
    32. Friedman, Daniel & Isaac, R. Mark & James, Duncan & Sunder, Shyam, 2014. "Risky Curves: On the Empirical Failure of Expected Utility," Santa Cruz Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt87v8k86z, Department of Economics, UC Santa Cruz.
    33. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Imas, Alex, 2013. "Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 43-51.
    34. Thomas Åstebro & José Mata & Luís Santos-Pinto, 2015. "Skewness seeking: risk loving, optimism or overweighting of small probabilities?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 78(2), pages 189-208, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Markus Dertwinkel-Kalt & Mats Köster, 2020. "Salience and Skewness Preferences [Risk-neutral Firms can Extract Unbounded Profits from Consumers with Prospect Theory Preferences]," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(5), pages 2057-2107.
    2. Cristina Sacala, 2016. "Portfolio Dynamics. A Macroeconomic Model," International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, vol. 6(3), pages 170-176, July.

    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. Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Kasinger, Johannes & Schneider, Dmitrij, 2022. "Skewness preferences: Evidence from online poker," SAFE Working Paper Series 351, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    2. Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Köster, Mats, 2017. "Local thinking and skewness preferences," DICE Discussion Papers 248, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    3. Matteo Benuzzi & Matteo Ploner, 2024. "Skewness-seeking behavior and financial investments," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 129-165, March.
    4. Markus Dertwinkel-Kalt & Johannes Kasinger & Dmitrij Schneider, 2024. "Skewness Preferences: Evidence from Online Poker," CESifo Working Paper Series 10977, CESifo.
    5. Goto, Shingo & Yamada, Toru, 2023. "What drives biased odds in sports betting markets: Bettors’ irrationality and the role of bookmakers," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 252-270.
    6. Markus Dertwinkel-Kalt & Mats Köster, 2020. "Salience and Skewness Preferences [Risk-neutral Firms can Extract Unbounded Profits from Consumers with Prospect Theory Preferences]," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(5), pages 2057-2107.
    7. Ebert, Sebastian & Hilpert, Christian, 2019. "Skewness preference and the popularity of technical analysis," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    8. Douadia Bougherara & Lana Friesen & Céline Nauges, 2021. "Risk Taking with Left- and Right-Skewed Lotteries," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 62(1), pages 89-112, February.
    9. Marie-Hélène Broihanne & Maxime Merli & Patrick Roger, 2016. "Diversification, gambling and market forces," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 129-157, July.
    10. Giorgio Coricelli & Enrico Diecidue & Francesco D. Zaffuto, 2018. "Evidence for multiple strategies in choice under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 193-210, April.
    11. Philip Grossman & Catherine Eckel, 2015. "Loving the long shot: Risk taking with skewed lotteries," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 195-217, December.
    12. Brocas, Isabelle & Carrillo, Juan D. & Giga, Aleksandar & Zapatero, Fernando, 2019. "Risk Aversion in a Dynamic Asset Allocation Experiment," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 54(5), pages 2209-2232, October.
    13. Tilman H. Drerup & Matthias Wibral & Christian Zimpelmann, 2023. "Skewness expectations and portfolio choice," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(1), pages 107-144, March.
    14. Trautmann, Stefan T. & Kuilen, Gijs van de, 2018. "Higher order risk attitudes: A review of experimental evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 108-124.
    15. Martin Kukuk & Stefan Winter, 2008. "An Alternative Explanation of the Favorite-Longshot Bias," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 2(2), pages 79-96, September.
    16. Erik Snowberg & Justin Wolfers, 2010. "Explaining the Favorite-Long Shot Bias: Is it Risk-Love or Misperceptions?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 118(4), pages 723-746, August.
    17. Jondeau, Eric & Zhang, Qunzi & Zhu, Xiaoneng, 2019. "Average skewness matters," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 29-47.
    18. Philip W. S. Newall & Dominic Cortis, 2021. "Are Sports Bettors Biased toward Longshots, Favorites, or Both? A Literature Review," Risks, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, January.
    19. Stephen G Dimmock & Roy Kouwenberg & Olivia S Mitchell & Kim Peijnenburg, 2021. "Household Portfolio Underdiversification and Probability Weighting: Evidence from the Field," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 34(9), pages 4524-4563.
    20. Li An & Huijun Wang & Jian Wang & Jianfeng Yu, 2020. "Lottery-Related Anomalies: The Role of Reference-Dependent Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 473-501, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Laboratory experiment; Portfolio allocation; Skewed asset; Relative performance;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions

    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:cpr:ceprdp:11056. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

    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.