IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/cfrwps/327125.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Animal spirits on steroids: Evidence from retail options trading in India

Author

Listed:
  • Agarwal, Vikas
  • Ghosh, Pulak
  • Prabhala, Nagpurnanand R.
  • Zhao, Haibei

Abstract

We analyze a market-wide panel dataset on retail options trading from India, a market with an 80% share in option contracts traded worldwide. Retail traders both concentrated in and dominate index options trading. They exhibit short-term speculative behavior with significant day trading, short- duration directional bets especially as options converge to 0DTE and make significant losses. Three natural experiments indicate that financial constraints and lottery-like preferences likely shape investor behavior. An exogenous increase in the supply of short-maturity options induces trading. Lot-size increases and delivery margins trying to curb speculation are offset by shifts to small ticket-size, riskier options. While financial market participation increases welfare in canonical household finance models, it can also entrench speculative behavior that is difficult to undo.

Suggested Citation

  • Agarwal, Vikas & Ghosh, Pulak & Prabhala, Nagpurnanand R. & Zhao, Haibei, 2025. "Animal spirits on steroids: Evidence from retail options trading in India," CFR Working Papers 25-09, University of Cologne, Centre for Financial Research (CFR).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:cfrwps:327125
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/327125/1/1937093808.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johnson, Travis L. & So, Eric C., 2012. "The option to stock volume ratio and future returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 262-286.
    2. 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.
    3. Laurent E. Calvet & John Y. Campbell & Paolo Sodini, 2007. "Down or Out: Assessing the Welfare Costs of Household Investment Mistakes," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 115(5), pages 707-747, October.
    4. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang, 2008. "Stocks as Lotteries: The Implications of Probability Weighting for Security Prices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(5), pages 2066-2100, December.
    5. Josef Lakonishok & Inmoo Lee & Neil D. Pearson & Allen M. Poteshman, 2007. "Option Market Activity," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 20(3), pages 813-857.
    6. John Y. Campbell & Tarun Ramadorai & Benjamin Ranish, 2019. "Do the Rich Get Richer in the Stock Market? Evidence from India," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 225-240, September.
    7. Jun Pan & Allen M. Poteshman, 2006. "The Information in Option Volume for Future Stock Prices," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 19(3), pages 871-908.
    8. Joshua D. Coval & Tyler Shumway, 2001. "Expected Option Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(3), pages 983-1009, June.
    9. Bauer, Rob & Cosemans, Mathijs & Eichholtz, Piet, 2009. "Option trading and individual investor performance," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 731-746, April.
    10. Nicholas Barberis & Wei Xiong, 2009. "What Drives the Disposition Effect? An Analysis of a Long‐Standing Preference‐Based Explanation," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 64(2), pages 751-784, April.
    11. Brian H. Boyer & Keith Vorkink, 2014. "Stock Options as Lotteries," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 69(4), pages 1485-1527, August.
    12. Robin Greenwood & Andrei Shleifer, 2014. "Expectations of Returns and Expected Returns," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 27(3), pages 714-746.
    13. Alok Kumar, 2009. "Who Gambles in the Stock Market?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 64(4), pages 1889-1933, August.
    14. Shefrin, Hersh & Statman, Meir, 1985. "The Disposition to Sell Winners Too Early and Ride Losers Too Long: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 40(3), pages 777-790, July.
    15. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 1995. "Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(1), pages 73-92.
    16. Shawn Cole & Xavier Gine & Jeremy Tobacman & Petia Topalova & Robert Townsend & James Vickery, 2013. "Barriers to Household Risk Management: Evidence from India," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 104-135, January.
    17. Liu, Jun & Pan, Jun, 2003. "Dynamic derivative strategies," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 401-430, September.
    18. Robin Burgess & Rohini Pande, 2005. "Do Rural Banks Matter? Evidence from the Indian Social Banking Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 780-795, June.
    19. Byun, Suk-Joon & Kim, Da-Hea, 2016. "Gambling preference and individual equity option returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 155-174.
    20. Michael Lemmon & Sophie Xiaoyan Ni, 2014. "Differences in Trading and Pricing Between Stock and Index Options," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(8), pages 1985-2001, August.
    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. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    2. Xindan Li & Avanidhar Subrahmanyam & Xuewei Yang & Wei Jiang, 0. "Winners, Losers, and Regulators in a Derivatives Market Bubble," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 313-350.
    3. Byun, Suk-Joon & Kim, Da-Hea, 2016. "Gambling preference and individual equity option returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 155-174.
    4. 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.
    5. Ramachandran, Lakshmi Shankar & Tayal, Jitendra, 2021. "Mispricing, short-sale constraints, and the cross-section of option returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(1), pages 297-321.
    6. Alejandro Bernales & Thanos Verousis & Nikolaos Voukelatos & Mengyu Zhang, 2020. "What do we know about individual equity options?," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(1), pages 67-91, January.
    7. Lee A. Smales & Zhangxin (Frank) Liu & Cameron D. Robertson, 2022. "One session options: Playing the announcement lottery?," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(2), pages 192-211, February.
    8. Adam Zaremba & Jacob Koby Shemer, 2018. "Price-Based Investment Strategies," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-319-91530-2, March.
    9. Aristidou, Andreas & Giga, Aleksandar & Lee, Suk & Zapatero, Fernando, 2025. "Aspirational utility and investment behavior," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    10. Li An & Huijun Wang & Jian Wang & Jianfeng Yu, 2015. "Lottery-related anomalies: the role of reference-dependent preferences," Globalization Institute Working Papers 259, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
    11. 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.
    12. Wang, Huijun & Yan, Jinghua & Yu, Jianfeng, 2017. "Reference-dependent preferences and the risk–return trade-off," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 395-414.
    13. Guiso, Luigi & Sodini, Paolo, 2013. "Household Finance: An Emerging Field," Handbook of the Economics of Finance, in: G.M. Constantinides & M. Harris & R. M. Stulz (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Finance, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1397-1532, Elsevier.
    14. Ebert, Sebastian & Hilpert, Christian, 2019. "Skewness preference and the popularity of technical analysis," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    15. David Hirshleife, 2015. "Behavioral Finance," Annual Review of Financial Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 7(1), pages 133-159, December.
    16. Liu, Hongqi & Peng, Cameron & Wei, Xiong & Wei, Xiong, 2022. "Taming the bias zoo," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 109301, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Henderson, Vicky & Hobson, David & Tse, Alex S.L., 2018. "Probability weighting, stop-loss and the disposition effect," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 360-397.
    18. Xingguo Luo & Xiaoli Yu & Shihua Qin & Qi Xu, 2020. "Option trading and the cross‐listed stock returns: Evidence from Chinese A–H shares," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(11), pages 1665-1690, November.
    19. Birru, Justin & Wang, Baolian, 2016. "Nominal price illusion," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(3), pages 578-598.
    20. Stelios Arvanitis & Olivier Scaillet & Nikolas Topaloglou, 2024. "Spanning Analysis of Stock Market Anomalies Under Prospect Stochastic Dominance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(9), pages 6002-6025, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D14 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Household Saving; Personal Finance
    • D18 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Protection
    • G14 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Information and Market Efficiency; Event Studies; Insider Trading
    • G15 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - International Financial Markets
    • G18 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Government Policy and Regulation
    • G50 - Financial Economics - - Household Finance - - - General
    • G53 - Financial Economics - - Household Finance - - - Financial Literacy
    • O16 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Financial Markets; Saving and Capital Investment; Corporate Finance and Governance

    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:zbw:cfrwps:327125. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cfkoede.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.