IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/128050.html

Verbal humility, behavioral overconfidence, and the cost of ego: a Kelly-optimal consistency test for Form 13F strategy cloning

Author

Listed:
  • Fang, Meng

Abstract

This paper develops a normative decision framework for a common behavioral tension in delegated investing. Many investors are willing to acknowledge that a benchmark manager is likely superior to their own discretionary stock-picking, yet still retain a personal trading sleeve. Under a long-run log-growth (Kelly) objective, such a choice is not merely a “style preference”: it becomes a testable consistency problem about what the investor is implicitly claiming. The model separates two questions. First, when is delayed replication viable once information staleness and implementation frictions are accounted for? Second, when mixing is feasible, when is an all-in clone uniquely optimal? In a tractable diffusion benchmark with a reduced-form lag penalty, the paper derives (i) a viability boundary for replication, (ii) sufficient conditions—including an explicit correlation threshold—for which any positive weight on an inferior, positively correlated discretionary sleeve strictly reduces expected log growth, and (iii) a closed-form “Cost of Ego” that prices the compounding sacrificed to preserve subjective control. Importantly, holding cash for fractional-Kelly sizing is distinguished from retaining an inferior risky sleeve. An empirical calibration using Form 13F filings is used only to bound the lag-cost channel rather than to claim systematic outperformance. In two low-turnover case studies, the implied annualized log-growth penalty from a one-quarter delay is on the order of 0.4%–1.2%, providing a concrete scale for the “delay fear” objection. The framework yields operational diagnostics—how to compute lag, turnover/continuity proxies, and how to apply the viability and consistency tests—along with transparent scope limits rooted in 13F’s structural blind spots and discrete rebalancing risk. Archived version (DOI): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18639091 Zenodo record: https://zenodo.org/records/18639091

Suggested Citation

  • Fang, Meng, 2026. "Verbal humility, behavioral overconfidence, and the cost of ego: a Kelly-optimal consistency test for Form 13F strategy cloning," MPRA Paper 128050, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:128050
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/128050/1/Verbal-Humility-Overconfidence-13f-Cloning_MengFang_MPRA_v1_20260214.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brad M. Barber & Terrance Odean, 2000. "Trading Is Hazardous to Your Wealth: The Common Stock Investment Performance of Individual Investors," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 55(2), pages 773-806, April.
    2. Frank, Mary Margaret & Poterba, James M & Shackelford, Douglas A & Shoven, John B, 2004. "Copycat Funds: Information Disclosure Regulation and the Returns to Active Management in the Mutual Fund Industry," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(2), pages 515-541, October.
    3. Terrance Odean, 1999. "Do Investors Trade Too Much?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1279-1298, December.
    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. Kenneth Yung & Yen-Chih Liu, 2009. "Implications of futures trading volume: Hedgers versus speculators," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(5), pages 318-337, December.
    2. Moeeni, Shahram & Tayebi, Komeil, 2018. "Is It Necessary to Restrict Forex Financial Trading? A Modified Model," Journal of Money and Economy, Monetary and Banking Research Institute, Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran, vol. 13(1), pages 63-80, January.
    3. Camille Magron & Maxime Merli, 2012. "Stocks repurchase and sophistication of individual investors," Working Papers of LaRGE Research Center 2012-02, Laboratoire de Recherche en Gestion et Economie (LaRGE), Université de Strasbourg.
    4. Choi, James J. & Laibson, David & Metrick, Andrew, 2002. "How does the Internet affect trading? Evidence from investor behavior in 401(k) plans," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 397-421, June.
    5. Wang, Albert Y. & Young, Michael, 2023. "Mood, attention, and household trading: Evidence from terrorist attacks," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    6. Muñoz, Francisco, 2013. "Liquidity and firm investment: Evidence for Latin America," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 18-29.
    7. Sunaina kanojia & Deepali Malhotra, 2025. "Hegemony of behavioral biases dislodging financial well-being: evidence from India, USA and UK," Future Business Journal, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 1-22, December.
    8. Drobetz, Wolfgang & Kugler, Peter & Wanzenried, Gabrielle & Zimmermann, Heinz, 2009. "Heterogeneity in asset allocation decisions: Empirical evidence from Switzerland," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 18(1-2), pages 84-93, March.
    9. Natasha Sarin & Lawrence Summers & Owen Zidar & Eric Zwick, 2022. "Rethinking How We Score Capital Gains Tax Reform," Tax Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(1), pages 1-33.
    10. Juhani T. Linnainmaa, 2011. "Why Do (Some) Households Trade So Much?," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 24(5), pages 1630-1666.
    11. Wang, Wei & Lan, Yingjie, 2022. "Robust one-way trading with limited number of transactions and heuristics for fixed transaction costs," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 247(C).
    12. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    13. Luigi Guiso & Tullio Jappelli, 2008. "Financial Literacy and Portfolio Diversification," Economics Working Papers ECO2008/31, European University Institute.
    14. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    15. Kuo-Hwa Chang & Michael Nayat Young, 2019. "Portfolios Optimizations of Behavioral Stocks with Perception Probability Weightings," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 20(2), pages 817-845, November.
    16. Jordi Mondria & Xavier Vives & Liyan Yang, 2022. "Costly Interpretation of Asset Prices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(1), pages 52-74, January.
    17. Yosef Bonaparte & George M. Korniotis & Alok Kumar & Alexander Michaelides & Yuxin Zhang, 2025. "Stock Market Ownership Transitions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 71(6), pages 4977-5000, June.
    18. Jang, Jeewon, 2017. "Stock return anomalies and individual investors in the Korean stock market," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 46(PA), pages 141-157.
    19. Andrea Lippi & Laura Barbieri & Mariacristina Piva & Werner De Bondt, 2018. "Time-varying risk behavior and prior investment outcomes: Evidence from Italy," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(5), pages 471-483, September.
    20. Daniel, Kent & Hirshleifer, David & Teoh, Siew Hong, 2002. "Investor psychology in capital markets: evidence and policy implications," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 139-209, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • G02 - Financial Economics - - General - - - Behavioral Finance: Underlying Principles
    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
    • G14 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Information and Market Efficiency; Event Studies; Insider Trading
    • G23 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Non-bank Financial Institutions; Financial Instruments; Institutional Investors

    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:pra:mprapa:128050. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.