IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tse/wpaper/32196.html

Ambiguity Preferences and Portfolio Choices: Evidence from the Field

Author

Listed:
  • Bianchi, Milo
  • Tallon, Jean-Marc

Abstract

We match administrative panel data on portfolio choices with survey data on preferences over ambiguity. We show that ambiguity averse investors bear more risk, due to a lack of diversiÖcation. In particular, they exhibit a form of home bias that leads to higher exposure to the domestic relative to the international stock market. While more sensitive to market factors, their returns are on average higher, suggesting that ambiguity averse investors need not be driven out of the market for risky assets. We also show that these investors rebalance their portfolio more actively and in a contrarian direction relative to past market trends, which allow them to keep their risk exposure relatively constant over time. We discuss these Öndings in relation to the theoretical literature on portfolio choice under ambiguity.

Suggested Citation

  • Bianchi, Milo & Tallon, Jean-Marc, 2017. "Ambiguity Preferences and Portfolio Choices: Evidence from the Field," TSE Working Papers 17-862, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    • Handle: RePEc:tse:wpaper:32196
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/TSE/documents/doc/wp/2017/wp_tse_862.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Elisa Cavatorta & David Schröder, 2019. "Measuring ambiguity preferences: A new ambiguity preference survey module," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 71-100, February.
    3. Jim Engle-Warnick & Diego Pulido & Marine de Montaignac, 2016. "Trust, ambiguity, and financial decision-making," CIRANO Working Papers 2016s-44, CIRANO.
    4. Loïc Berger & Louis Eeckhoudt, 2020. "Risk, Ambiguity, And The Value Of Diversification," Working Papers hal-02910906, HAL.
    5. John Griffin, 2015. "Risk Premia and Knightian Uncertainty in an Experimental Market Featuring a Long-Lived Asset," Fordham Economics Discussion Paper Series dp2015-01, Fordham University, Department of Economics.
    6. Meglena Jeleva & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2016. "Ambiguïté, comportements et marchés financiers," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 92(1-2), pages 351-383.
    7. John Griffin, 2015. "Risk Premia and Knightian Uncertainty in an Experimental Market Featuring a Long-Lived Asset," Fordham Economics Discussion Paper Series dp2015-01er:dp2015-01, Fordham University, Department of Economics.
    8. Kostopoulos, Dimitrios & Meyer, Steffen & Uhr, Charline, 2020. "Ambiguity and investor behavior," SAFE Working Paper Series 297, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    9. Milo Bianchi, 2018. "Financial Literacy and Portfolio Dynamics," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 73(2), pages 831-859, April.
    10. Loïc Berger & Louis Eeckhoudt, 2021. "Risk, ambiguity, and the value of diversification," Post-Print hal-02910906, HAL.
    11. Sujoy Mukerji & Han N. Ozsoylev & Jean‐Marc Tallon, 2023. "Trading Ambiguity: A Tale Of Two Heterogeneities," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 64(3), pages 1127-1164, August.
    12. Chen Li, 2017. "Are the poor worse at dealing with ambiguity?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(3), pages 239-268, June.
    13. Jean Paul Rabanal & Aleksei Chernulich & John Horowitz & Olga A. Rud & Manizha Sharifova, 2019. "Market timing under public and private information," Working Papers 151, Peruvian Economic Association.
    14. Echenique, Federico & Imai, Taisuke & Saito, Kota, 2019. "Decision Making under Uncertainty: An Experimental Study in Market Settings," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 197, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    15. Farago, Adam & Holmén, Martin & Holzmeister, Felix & Kirchler, Michael & Razen, Michael, 2019. "Cognitive Skills and Economic Preferences in the Fund Industry," OSF Preprints 964ba, Center for Open Science.
    16. Naqvi, Syed Muhammad Waqar Azeem & Rizvi, Syed Kumail Abbas & Orangzab & Ali, Muhammad, 2016. "Value at Risk at Asian Emerging Stock Markets," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 28(3), pages 311-319.
    17. Takao Asano & Yusuke Osaki, 2020. "Portfolio allocation problems between risky and ambiguous assets," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 284(1), pages 63-79, January.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:tse:wpaper:32196. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tsetofr.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.