IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/inn/wpaper/2018-17.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Determinants of investor expectations and satisfaction. A study with financial professionals

Author

Listed:
  • Rene Schwaiger
  • Michael Kirchler
  • Florian Lindner
  • Utz Weitzel

Abstract

We investigate determinants of price expectations and satisfaction levels of financial professionals and students. In experiments with 150 professionals and 576 students, we systematically vary price paths according to the final return (positive or negative) and the way the final return is achieved (upswing followed by downswing or vice versa). Professionals show the most optimistic price expectations and are most satisfied if assets fall in price first and then recover. In addition, professionals' price expectations are highest after positive returns. Among students, qualitatively similar patterns emerge, but professionals' price expectations are less prone to framing effects.

Suggested Citation

  • Rene Schwaiger & Michael Kirchler & Florian Lindner & Utz Weitzel, 2018. "Determinants of investor expectations and satisfaction. A study with financial professionals," Working Papers 2018-17, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck.
  • Handle: RePEc:inn:wpaper:2018-17
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www2.uibk.ac.at/downloads/c4041030/wpaper/2018-17.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marco Cipriani & Antonio Guarino, 2009. "Herd Behavior in Financial Markets: An Experiment with Financial Market Professionals," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 7(1), pages 206-233, March.
    2. Smith, Vernon L & Walker, James M, 1993. "Monetary Rewards and Decision Cost in Experimental Economics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 31(2), pages 245-261, April.
    3. Haugtvedt, Curtis P & Wegener, Duane T, 1994. "Message Order Effects in Persuasion: An Attitude Strength Perspective," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(1), pages 205-218, June.
    4. Michael Kirchler & Florian Lindner & Utz Weitzel, 2018. "Rankings and Risk‐Taking in the Finance Industry," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 73(5), pages 2271-2302, October.
    5. König-Kersting, Christian & Trautmann, Stefan T., 2018. "Countercyclical risk aversion: Beyond financial professionals," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 94-101.
    6. Brice Corgnet & Mark Desantis & David Porter, 2018. "What Makes a Good Trader? On the Role of Intuition and Reflection on Trader Performance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 73(3), pages 1113-1137, June.
    7. Michael S. Haigh & John A. List, 2005. "Do Professional Traders Exhibit Myopic Loss Aversion? An Experimental Analysis," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 60(1), pages 523-534, February.
    8. Oechssler, Jörg & Roider, Andreas & Schmitz, Patrick W., 2009. "Cognitive abilities and behavioral biases," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 147-152, October.
    9. Anna Dreber & Tore Ellingsen & Magnus Johannesson & David Rand, 2013. "Do people care about social context? Framing effects in dictator games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(3), pages 349-371, September.
    10. Daniel J. Benjamin & James O. Berger & Magnus Johannesson & Brian A. Nosek & E.-J. Wagenmakers & Richard Berk & Kenneth A. Bollen & Björn Brembs & Lawrence Brown & Colin Camerer & David Cesarini & Chr, 2018. "Redefine statistical significance," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 2(1), pages 6-10, January.
      • Daniel Benjamin & James Berger & Magnus Johannesson & Brian Nosek & E. Wagenmakers & Richard Berk & Kenneth Bollen & Bjorn Brembs & Lawrence Brown & Colin Camerer & David Cesarini & Christopher Chambe, 2017. "Redefine Statistical Significance," Artefactual Field Experiments 00612, The Field Experiments Website.
    11. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Hilda Kammoun, 2013. "Do financial professionals behave according to prospect theory? An experimental study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(3), pages 411-429, March.
    12. Grosshans, Daniel & Zeisberger, Stefan, 2018. "All’s well that ends well? On the importance of how returns are achieved," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 397-410.
    13. Hommes, Cars & in ’t Veld, Daan, 2017. "Booms, busts and behavioural heterogeneity in stock prices," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 101-124.
    14. Deaves, Richard & Lüders, Erik & Schröder, Michael, 2010. "The dynamics of overconfidence: Evidence from stock market forecasters," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 402-412, September.
    15. Erik R. Sirri & Peter Tufano, 1998. "Costly Search and Mutual Fund Flows," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 53(5), pages 1589-1622, October.
    16. Gächter, Simon & Orzen, Henrik & Renner, Elke & Starmer, Chris, 2009. "Are experimental economists prone to framing effects? A natural field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 443-446, June.
    17. Markku Kaustia & Eeva Alho & Vesa Puttonen, 2008. "How Much Does Expertise Reduce Behavioral Biases? The Case of Anchoring Effects in Stock Return Estimates," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 37(3), pages 391-412, September.
    18. James J. Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte C. Madrian, 2010. "Why Does the Law of One Price Fail? An Experiment on Index Mutual Funds," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 23(4), pages 1405-1432, April.
    19. Alain Cohn & Jan Engelmann & Ernst Fehr & Michel André Maréchal, 2015. "Evidence for Countercyclical Risk Aversion: An Experiment with Financial Professionals," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(2), pages 860-885, February.
    20. John A. List, 2003. "Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 118(1), pages 41-71.
    21. Sheffer, Lior & Loewen, Peter John & Soroka, Stuart & Walgrave, Stefaan & Sheafer, Tamir, 2018. "Nonrepresentative Representatives: An Experimental Study of the Decision Making of Elected Politicians," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 112(2), pages 302-321, May.
    22. John A. List, 2004. "Neoclassical Theory Versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(2), pages 615-625, March.
    23. Druckman, James N., 2001. "Evaluating framing effects," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 91-101, February.
    24. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    25. Utz Weitzel & Christoph Huber & Florian Lindner & Jürgen Huber & Julia Rose & Michael Kirchler, 2018. "Bubbles and financial professionals," Working Papers 2018-04, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck, revised Oct 2018.
    26. Jonathan E. Alevy & Michael S. Haigh & John A. List, 2007. "Information Cascades: Evidence from a Field Experiment with Financial Market Professionals," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 62(1), pages 151-180, February.
    27. Hommes, Cars & Sonnemans, Joep & Tuinstra, Jan & van de Velden, Henk, 2008. "Expectations and bubbles in asset pricing experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 116-133, July.
    28. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    29. Landier, Augustin & Ma, Yueran & Thesmar, David, 2017. "New Experimental Evidence on Expectations Formation," CEPR Discussion Papers 12527, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    30. Pikulina, Elena & Renneboog, Luc & Tobler, Philippe N., 2017. "Overconfidence and investment: An experimental approach," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 175-192.
    31. Robin Greenwood & Andrei Shleifer, 2014. "Expectations of Returns and Expected Returns," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 27(3), pages 714-746.
    32. Sheffer, Lior & Loewen, Peter John & Soroka, Stuart & Walgrave, Stefaan & Sheafer, Tamir, 2018. "Nonrepresentative Representatives: An Experimental Study of the Decision Making of Elected Politicians - CORRIGENDUM," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 112(2), pages 428-428, May.
    33. Michael Kirchler & Florian Lindner & Utz Weitzel, 2018. "Delegated Decision Making and Social Competition in the Finance Industry," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2018_08, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    34. Arrow, Kenneth J, 1982. "Risk Perception in Psychology and Economics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 20(1), pages 1-9, January.
    35. Narasimhan Jegadeesh & Sheridan Titman, 2001. "Profitability of Momentum Strategies: An Evaluation of Alternative Explanations," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(2), pages 699-720, April.
    36. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    37. Haipeng (Allan) Chen & Akshay R. Rao, 2002. "Close Encounters of Two Kinds: False Alarms and Dashed Hopes," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(2), pages 178-196, August.
    38. Roszkowski, Michael J. & Snelbecker, Glenn E., 1990. "Effects of "Framing" on measures of risk tolerance: Financial planners are not immune," Journal of Behavioral Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 237-246.
    39. Jegadeesh, Narasimhan & Titman, Sheridan, 1993. "Returns to Buying Winners and Selling Losers: Implications for Stock Market Efficiency," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 48(1), pages 65-91, March.
    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. Kirchler, Michael & Lindner, Florian & Weitzel, Utz, 2020. "Delegated investment decisions and rankings," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    2. Laura Hueber & Rene Schwaiger, 2021. "Debiasing Through Experience Sampling: The Case of Myopic Loss Aversion," Working Papers 2021-01, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck.
    3. Razen, Michael & Kirchler, Michael & Weitzel, Utz, 2020. "Domain-specific risk-taking among finance professionals," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 27(C).

    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. Razen, Michael & Kirchler, Michael & Weitzel, Utz, 2020. "Domain-specific risk-taking among finance professionals," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 27(C).
    2. Michael Razen & Michael Kirchler & Utz Weitzel, 2019. "Determinants Of Prepaid Systems Of Healthcare Financing - A Worldwide Country-Level Perspective," Working Papers 2019-12, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck.
    3. Adam Farago & Martin Holmén & Felix Holzmeister & Michael Kirchler & Michael Razen, 2019. "Cognitive Skills and Economic Preferences in the Fund Industry," Working Papers 2019-16, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck.
    4. Laura Hueber & Rene Schwaiger, 2021. "Debiasing Through Experience Sampling: The Case of Myopic Loss Aversion," Working Papers 2021-01, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck.
    5. Martin Holmen & Felix Holzmeister & Michael Kirchler & Matthias Stefan & Erik Wengström, 2021. "Economic Preferences and Personality Traits Among Finance Professionals and the General Population," Working Papers 2021-03, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck.
    6. Holzmeister, Felix & Holmén, Martin & Kirchler, Michael & Stefan, Matthias & Wengström, Erik, 2019. "Delegated Decision-Making in Finance," OSF Preprints 3umdf, Center for Open Science.
    7. Kirchler, Michael & Lindner, Florian & Weitzel, Utz, 2020. "Delegated investment decisions and rankings," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    8. Michael Kirchler & Florian Lindner & Utz Weitzel, 2018. "Rankings and Risk‐Taking in the Finance Industry," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 73(5), pages 2271-2302, October.
    9. Michael Kirchler & Florian Lindner & Utz Weitzel, 2018. "Delegated Decision Making and Social Competition in the Finance Industry," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2018_08, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    10. Felix Holzmeister & Martin Holmén & Michael Kirchler & Matthias Stefan & Erik Wengström, 2019. "Delegation Decisions in Finance," Working Papers 2019-21, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck.
    11. Utz Weitzel & Christoph Huber & Florian Lindner & Jürgen Huber & Julia Rose & Michael Kirchler, 2018. "Bubbles and financial professionals," Working Papers 2018-04, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck, revised Oct 2018.
    12. Grosshans, Daniel & Zeisberger, Stefan, 2018. "All’s well that ends well? On the importance of how returns are achieved," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 397-410.
    13. König-Kersting, Christian & Trautmann, Stefan T., 2018. "Countercyclical risk aversion: Beyond financial professionals," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 94-101.
    14. Christoph Huber & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler, 2020. "Market shocks and professionals' investment behavior - Evidence from the COVID-19 crash," Working Papers 2020-11, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck.
    15. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2016. "Field Experiments in Markets," Artefactual Field Experiments j0002, The Field Experiments Website.
    16. Lindner, Florian & Kirchler, Michael & Rosenkranz, Stephanie & Weitzel, Utz, 2021. "Social Motives and Risk-Taking in Investment Decisions," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    17. Christoph Huber & JŸrgen Huber & Michael Kirchler, 2021. "Volatility Shocks and Investment Behavior," Working Papers 2021-06, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck.
    18. Markku Kaustia & Eeva Alho & Vesa Puttonen, 2008. "How Much Does Expertise Reduce Behavioral Biases? The Case of Anchoring Effects in Stock Return Estimates," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 37(3), pages 391-412, September.
    19. Sébastien Duchêne & Adrien Nguyen-Huu & Dimitri Dubois & Marc Willinger, 2021. "Why finance professionals hold green and brown assets? A lab-in-the-field experiment [Pourquoi investir dans le vert et le brun ? Une expérience sur des professionnels de la finance]," Working Papers hal-03285376, HAL.
    20. Florian Lindner & Michael Kirchler & Stephanie Rosenkranz & Utz Weitzel, 2019. "Social Status and Risk-Taking in Investment Decisions," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2019_07, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Investor satisfaction; price expectations; financial professionals; experimental finance; investor behavior;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G02 - Financial Economics - - General - - - Behavioral Finance: Underlying Principles
    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments

    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:inn:wpaper:2018-17. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fuibkat.html .

    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: Janette Walde (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fuibkat.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.