Coarse Thinking and Pricing a Financial Option
Mullainathan et al [Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 2008] present a formalization of the concept of coarse thinking in the context of a model of persuasion. The essential idea behind coarse thinking is that people put situations into categories and the values assigned to attributes in a given situation are affected by the values of corresponding attributes in other co-categorized situations. We derive a new option pricing formula based on the assumption that the market consists of coarse thinkers as well as rational investors. The new formula, called the behavioral Black-Scholes formula is a generalization of the Black-Scholes formula. The new formula provides an explanation for the implied volatility skew puzzle in index options. In contrast with the Black-Scholes model, the implied volatility backed-out from the behavioral Black-Scholes formula is a constant. This finding suggests that the volatility skew (smile) may be a reflection of coarse thinking. That is, the skew is seen if rational investors are assumed to exist when actual investors are heterogeneous; coarse thinkers and rational investors.
|Date of creation:||30 Dec 2009|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Shleifer, Andrei & Mullainathan, Sendhil & Schwartzstein, Joshua, 2008.
"Coarse Thinking and Persuasion,"
11022284, Harvard University Department of Economics.
- Rockenbach, Bettina, 2004. "The behavioral relevance of mental accounting for the pricing of financial options," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 513-527, April.
- Linda Babcock & George Loewenstein, 1997. "Explaining Bargaining Impasse: The Role of Self-Serving Biases," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(1), pages 109-126, Winter.
- Babcock, Linda & Wang, Xianghong & Lowenstein, George, 1996. "Choosing the Wrong Pond: Social Comparisons in Negotiations That Reflect a Self-Serving Bias," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 111(1), pages 1-19, February.
- Siddiqi, Hammad, 2009. "Is the lure of choice reflected in market prices? Experimental evidence based on the 4-door Monty Hall problem," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 203-215, April.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:21749. 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: (Ekkehart Schlicht)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.