IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/darddp/dar_28002.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Investors Facing Risk II: Loss Aversion and Wealth Allocation When Utility Is Derived From Consumption and Narrowly Framed Financial Investments

Author

Listed:
  • Rengifo, Erick W.
  • Trifan, Emanuela

Abstract

This paper studies the attitude of non-professional investors towards financial losses and their decisions concerning wealth allocation among consumption, risky, and risk-free financial assets. We employ a two-dimensional utility setting in which both consumption and financial wealth fluctuations generate utility. The perception of financial wealth is modelled in an extended prospect-theory framework that accounts for both the distinction between gains and losses with respect to a subjective reference point and the impact of past performance on the current perception of the risky portfolio value. The decision problem is addressed in two distinct equilibrium settings in the aggregate market with a representative investor, namely with expected and non-expected utility. Empirical estimations performed on the basis of real market data and for various parameter configurations show that both settings similarly describe the attitude towards financial losses. Yet, the recommendations regarding wealth allocation are different. Maximizing expected utility results on average in low total-wealth percentages dedicated to consumption, but supports myopic loss aversion. Non-expected utility yields more reasonable assignments to consumption but also a high preference for risky assets. In this latter setting, myopic loss aversion holds solely when financial wealth fluctuations are viewed as the main utility source and in very soft form.

Suggested Citation

  • Rengifo, Erick W. & Trifan, Emanuela, 2007. "Investors Facing Risk II: Loss Aversion and Wealth Allocation When Utility Is Derived From Consumption and Narrowly Framed Financial Investments," Darmstadt Discussion Papers in Economics 181, Darmstadt University of Technology, Department of Law and Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:darddp:dar_28002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/32073/1/535287038.PDF
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Campbell, Rachel & Huisman, Ronald & Koedijk, Kees, 2001. "Optimal portfolio selection in a Value-at-Risk framework," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(9), pages 1789-1804, September.
    2. Rengifo, Erick W. & Trifan, Emanuela, 2006. "Investors Facing Risk: Loss Aversion and Wealth Allocation Between Risky and Risk-Free Assets," Darmstadt Discussion Papers in Economics 180, Darmstadt University of Technology, Department of Law and Economics.
    3. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang & Richard Thaler, 2003. "Individual Preferences, Monetary Gambles and the Equity Premium," NBER Working Papers 9997, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang & Tano Santos, 2001. "Prospect Theory and Asset Prices," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(1), pages 1-53.
    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. Rengifo, Erick W. & Trifan, Emanuela, 2007. "Investors Facing Risk II: Loss Aversion and Wealth Allocation When Utility Is Derived From Consumption and Narrowly Framed Financial Investments," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 28002, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    2. Rengifo, Erick W. & Trifan, Emanuela, 2006. "Investors Facing Risk: Loss Aversion and Wealth Allocation Between Risky and Risk-Free Assets," Darmstadt Discussion Papers in Economics 180, Darmstadt University of Technology, Department of Law and Economics.
    3. Philip Bromiley, 2009. "A Prospect Theory Model of Resource Allocation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 124-138, September.
    4. Rengifo, Erick W. & Trifan, Emanuela, 2007. "Investors Facing Risk: Loss Aversion and Wealth Allocation Between Risky and Risk-Free Assets," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 28063, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    5. Edward L. Glaeser, 2004. "Psychology and the Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(2), pages 408-413, May.
    6. Josef Lakonishok & Inmoo Lee & Allen M. Poteshman, 2004. "Investor Behavior in the Option Market," NBER Working Papers 10264, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang & Richard H. Thaler, 2006. "Individual Preferences, Monetary Gambles, and Stock Market Participation: A Case for Narrow Framing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(4), pages 1069-1090, September.
    8. Erick Rengifo & Emanuela Trifan, 2008. "How Investors Face Financial Risk Loss Aversion and Wealth Allocation," Fordham Economics Discussion Paper Series dp2008-01, Fordham University, Department of Economics.
    9. Erick W. Rengifo & Debra Emanuela Trifan & Debra Rossen Trendafilov, 2014. "Investors Facing Risk: Prospect Theory and Non-Expected Utility in Portfolio Selection," Fordham Economics Discussion Paper Series dp2014-03, Fordham University, Department of Economics.
    10. Paul Heidhues & Botond Köszegi, 2004. "The Impact of Consumer Loss Aversion on Pricing," CIG Working Papers SP II 2004-17, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
    11. Erick W. Rengifo & Debra Emanuela Trifan & Debra Rossen Trendafilov, 2014. "The Individually Accepted Loss," Fordham Economics Discussion Paper Series dp2014-04, Fordham University, Department of Economics.
    12. David Hirshleifer & Danling Jiang, 2010. "A Financing-Based Misvaluation Factor and the Cross-Section of Expected Returns," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 23(9), pages 3401-3436.
    13. Alessia Naccarato & Andrea Pierini & Giovanna Ferraro, 2021. "Markowitz portfolio optimization through pairs trading cointegrated strategy in long-term investment," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 299(1), pages 81-99, April.
    14. Singal, Vijay & Xu, Zhaojin, 2011. "Selling winners, holding losers: Effect on fund flows and survival of disposition-prone mutual funds," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 2704-2718, October.
    15. Luigi Guiso, 2015. "A Test of Narrow Framing and its Origin," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 1(1), pages 61-100, March.
    16. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    17. Johannes Abeler & Felix Marklein, 2017. "Fungibility, Labels, and Consumption," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 99-127.
    18. Cakici, Nusret & Zaremba, Adam, 2022. "Salience theory and the cross-section of stock returns: International and further evidence," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(2), pages 689-725.
    19. Damian S. Damianov & Diego Escobari, 2021. "Getting on and Moving Up the Property Ladder: Real Hedging in the U.S. Housing Market Before and After the Crisis," Real Estate Economics, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, vol. 49(4), pages 1201-1237, December.
    20. Jawadi, Fredj & Soparnot, Richard & Sousa, Ricardo M., 2017. "Assessing financial and housing wealth effects through the lens of a nonlinear framework," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 39(PB), pages 840-850.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    prospect theory; Value-at-Risk; loss aversion; expected utility; non-expected utility;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C32 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Time-Series Models; Dynamic Quantile Regressions; Dynamic Treatment Effect Models; Diffusion Processes; State Space Models
    • C35 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions
    • G10 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - General (includes Measurement and Data)

    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:darddp:dar_28002. 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/vwthdde.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.