居民家庭风险型金融资产选择行为研究——基于赣州市1043户居民的微观调查数据

以赣州市居民的相关统计数据为样本,通过对赣州市居民家庭金融资产持有状况的调研和分析,论述了影响居民家庭风险型金融资产选择行为的主要因素及其作用机理,建立了基于Probit的居民家庭风险型金融资产选择行为回归模型并进行了实证研究。研究结果显示,家庭决策者文化水平、决策者职业、家庭收入和家庭房产持有状况四个因素是居民家庭风险型金融资产持有行为的重要影响因素;决策者年龄和家庭人口数对风险型金融资产持有行为影响不够显著。房产投资对居民家庭风险型金融资产持有行为存在正向作用,对居民家庭风险型金融资产投资不存在"挤出效应"。     

居民家庭风险型金融资产选择行为研究——基于赣州市1043户居民的微观调查数据

以赣州市居民的相关统计数据为样本,对赣州市居民家庭金融资产持有状况进行调研和分析,论述了影响居民家庭风险型金融资产选择行为的主要因素及其作用机理,构建了基于Probit的居民家庭风险型金融资产选择行为回归模型并进行了实证研究。研究结果显示,家庭决策者文化水平、决策者职业、家庭收入和家庭房产持有状况四个因素是居民家庭风险型金融资产持有行为的重要影响因素;决策者年龄和家庭人口数对风险型金融资产持有行为影响不够显著。房产投资对居民家庭风险型金融资产持有行为存在正向作用,对居民家庭风险型金融资产投资不存在"挤出效应"。     

关于行为财务理论的研究综述

行为财务是在对“有效市场假说”（EMH）和资本资产定价模型（CAPM）的质疑和挑战中提出来的。自进入20世纪80年代以来,出现了大量与EMH相矛盾的市场异象,如：阿莱悖论、日历效应、股权溢价之谜等,这些异像给传统财务理论造成了极大的冲击,并且大量心理学和行为学研究显示,投资者表现出非理性的特征。于是行为财务理论在这种投资者非理性决策的背蒂下应运而生了。     

决策责任、项目认知与资本预算项目恶性增资——基于自辩理论的模型

关于决策责任和恶性增资的关系,目前有三种研究结论:对投资失败负责的决策者才有恶性增资倾向、无论对投资失败是否负责的决策者都有恶性增资倾向、无论对投资失败是否负责的决策者都没有恶性增资倾向.这些结论互相矛盾,甚至相反.针对这一现象,在自辩理论的框架下,运用数学分析方法构建的决策责任、项目认知和恶性增资之间的关系模型表明,恶性增资行为取决于不同决策责任下的原生性认知和失调认知程度.     

行为保险学系列(一) 什么是对的保险决策?——理性保险决策理论及其由来(下)

上文梳理了理性风险决策理论①及其由来。所谓理性风险决策理论,就是指丹尼尔·伯努利1738年发明的期望效用理论。所谓理性风险决策,或对的风险决策,就是指在面临风险时,决策者对可能的行动方案（如不买保险和买保险）所致的期望效用进行比较,选择期望效用最大的行动方案。     

行为金融学与证券市场中的噪声交易理论综述

在标准金融理论中,噪声交易不会对证券价格产生影响,但是近年来我国证券市场中的各种异象和投资者的非理性表现均证实非理性交易者行为可对证券市场产生影响,因此以投资者有限理性为前提的噪声交易理论被引入到对我国金融市场的研究中来。本文首先回顾了行为金融学的兴起和发展,其次综述了行为金融学范畴热门理论--噪声交易理论,最后对行为金融学与噪声交易理论的发展前景作出了展望。     

卖空机制与证券价格关系的理论研究综述

通过对卖空机制与证券价格关系理论研究文献的初步梳理,笔者发现该领域的研究大致也是沿着现代金融理论发展的方向在不断深化与拓展,研究主要围绕两个主题展开,一是从静态角度考察卖空限制与证券价格高估的关系问题,二是从动态角度考察卖空机制对证券价格波动性（或市场稳定性）的影响。就研究的范式和方法而言,一是基于市场微观结构和行为金融理论,二是基于经济学的供需分析方法。目前,理论界在继续从市场微观结构与行为金融角度深化对该领域研究的同时,越来越发现把借券市场纳入研究框架,并从市场宏观层面进行研究可以一定程度上拓展和深化对该领域相关问题的认识。     

行为金融学与证券市场中的噪声交易理论综述

在标准金融理论中,噪声交易不会对证券价格产生影响,但是近年来我国证券市场中的各种异象和投资者的非理性表现均证实非理性交易者行为可对证券市场产生影响,因此以投资者有限理性为前提的噪声交易理论被引入到对我国金融市场的研究中来。本文首先回顾了行为金融学的兴起和发展,其次综述了行为金融学范畴热门理论--噪声交易理论,最后对行为金融学与噪声交易理论的发展前景作出了展望。     

行为财务理论研究述评

传统财务理论曾经为我们对财务市场的探索与研究做出了突出贡献.但是随着对资本市场研究的进一步深入,发现越来越多的与传统财务理论相违背的市场异象.在这样的背景下,更多的学者开始从另一个研究范式——行为财务理论,来研究这些市场现象的产生原因及过程.不同于传统财务理论,行为财务理论认为资本市场的参与者为有限理性,且他们的心理决定行为,进而对资本市场造成一定的影响.本文通过梳理国内外各学者的研究成果,介绍行为财务学的起源、发展及理论基础和现有的局限,最后对行为财务理论这一新兴领域提出展望.     

行为财务理论问题研究

完全理性的经济人是传统财务理论的基本出发点,行为财务理论对原有财务理论假设下的有效市场假说和理性经济人的假设提出了必要的质疑.行为财务理论是财务学界研究和关注的焦点.本文在综合国内外研究成果的基础上,分析行为财务理论的内涵和研究对象,系统阐述行为财务理论基本内容,对行为财务理论与传统财务理论进行了比较     

Non‐Monotonicity of the Tversky‐Kahneman Probability‐Weighting Function: A Cautionary Note

Cumulative Prospect Theory has gained a great deal of support as an alternative to Expected Utility Theory as it accounts for a number of anomalies in the observed behavior of economic agents. Expected Utility Theory uses a utility function and subjective or objective probabilities to compare risky prospects. Cumulative Prospect Theory alters both of these aspects. The concave utility function is replaced by a loss‐averse utility function and probabilities are replaced by decision weights. The latter are determined with a weighting function applied to the cumulative probability of the outcomes. Several different probability weighting functions have been suggested. The two most popular are the original proposal of Tversky and Kahneman and the compound‐invariant form proposed by Prelec. This note shows that the Tversky‐Kahneman probability weighting function is not increasing for all parameter values and therefore can assign negative decision weights to some outcomes. This in turn implies that Cumulative Prospect Theory could make choices not consistent with first‐order stochastic dominance.     

An Individual’s Chosen Retirement Age: When is the Economically Feasible Retirement Age Chosen over the Anchor Provided by Known Others?

Abstract

Do individuals make rational, well-planned retirement age decisions? Evidence is not conclusive; some decisions seem to be quite reasonable, while others, including the long-term trends generated by these decisions, seem irrational. In order to be able to predict and influence these important decisions, the process leading up to making them needs to be better understood. The process an individual uses to make a retirement decision may be influenced by a rational allocation of money, time, and effort, as suggested by a utility-maximizing Household Production approach. Alternately, the decision process may be strongly influenced by an anchor, defined by the retirement ages chosen by friends, neighbors, relatives, and colleagues, as suggested by Anchoring and Prospect Theory. Studies investigating anchoring and risk-seeking or risk-aversion behavior, which results when a target is seen as a loss or a gain from the anchor, have found that individuals make irrational decisions under many different circumstances. A set of retirement decision propositions, which hypothesize that the heuristic of Anchoring and the resulting cognitive biases described by Prospect Theory will influence the chosen retirement age, are developed in this paper. Retirement information provided by the employer is a possible moderator that may reduce the influence of the anchor on the retirement decision; a set of moderator hypotheses are also developed in this paper. Propositions strongly supported by existing research predict that, unless sufficient information regarding retirement issues is used by an individual, he or she is likely to choose an inappropriate retirement age.     

Insurance customer behavior: Lessons from behavioral economics

In economics it has traditionally been assumed that people make all their decisions like the so‐called homo oeconomicus – that is, maximizing (expected) utility of total wealth. In recent years, economics increasingly recognized that people often exhibit behavioral patterns which are incompatible with the idea of the homo oeconomicus. The field of behavioral economics incorporates insights from the field of psychology to explain discrepancies between predictions of traditional economic theory and actual observed behavior. In this paper, we summarize a selection of well‐established behavioral patterns observed in reality and discuss their relevance for the insurance industry when it comes to better understanding and predicting customer behavior. We also explain that people are not always risk‐averse and give a brief overview over Prospect Theory (probably the most popular behavioral economics alternative to Expected Utility Theory), its shortcomings for predicting behavior over a long time horizon, and its extensions. In total, we point out that, since dealing with risks and insurance products requires complex decision making processes, a deep understanding of the impacts of behavioral factors is essential to better assess and explain costumer behavior.     

As you like it: Explaining the popularity of life‐cycle funds with multi cumulative prospect theory

Life‐cycle (or target‐date) funds are funds, which typically decrease their risk exposure over time. They have been very successful in many countries, particularly in the segment of old age provision. However, Expected Utility Theory (EUT) cannot explain their popularity. Moreover, recent results of Graf (2016), imply that not only EUT but also its behavioral counterpart Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT) is often not able to explain the popularity of these products, since for each life‐cycle fund a corresponding balanced fund can be constructed, which is preferable from the investor's perspective in most circumstances. In a recent paper, Ruß and Schelling (2018), have argued that potential future changes in an investment's value already impact the decision of long‐term investors at outset. Based on this, they have introduced Multi Cumulative Prospect Theory (MCPT), which is based on CPT and considers the subjective utility generated by annual value changes. This paper shows that for MCPT‐investors, life‐cycle funds are typically more attractive than their corresponding balanced funds since they reduce the potential losses toward the end of the investment horizon. Hence, our findings provide an explanation for inferior decisions in old age provision. This can serve as a basis to improve such decisions.     

Two Paradigms and Nobel Prizes in Economics: a Contradiction or Coexistence?

Abstract Markowitz and Sharpe won the Nobel Prize in Economics for the development of Mean‐Variance (M‐V) analysis and the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). Kahneman won the Nobel Prize in Economics for the development of Prospect Theory. In deriving the CAPM, Sharpe, Lintner and Mossin assume expected utility (EU) maximisation in the face of risk aversion. Kahneman and Tversky suggest Prospect Theory (PT) as an alternative paradigm to EU theory. They show that investors distort probabilities, make decisions based on change of wealth, exhibit loss aversion and maximise the expectation of an S‐shaped value function, which contains a risk‐seeking segment. Can these two apparently contradictory paradigms coexist? We show in this paper that although CPT (and PT) is in conflict to EUT, and violates some of the CAPM's underlying assumptions, the Security Market Line Theorem (SMLT) of the CAPM is intact in the CPT framework. Therefore, the CAPM is intact also in CPT framework.     

Information Transparency and Coordination Failure: Theory and Experiment

We examine the effect of higher order beliefs on the ability of decentralized decision makers to coordinate and take advantage of improvements in information transparency that can increase welfare. Theories that address this question have not been empirically explored. We study coordination in a laboratory experiment with privately informed decision makers. Economic outcomes in the setting depend both on agents' rational beliefs regarding economic fundamentals and on their rational beliefs regarding the beliefs of other agents. Increasing information transparency mitigates uncertainty about economic fundamentals but may increase strategic uncertainty, precipitating multiple equilibria and less efficient group outcomes. We provide evidence that sometimes the equilibrium attained by creditors is inferior from a welfare perspective to other available equilibria. Risk dominance appears to determine equilibrium selection in our setting.     

Does Prospect Theory Explain IPO Market Behavior?

We derive a behavioral measure of the IPO decision‐maker's satisfaction with the underwriter's performance based on Loughran and Ritter (2002) and assess its ability to explain the decision‐maker's choice among underwriters in subsequent securities offerings. Controlling for other known factors, IPO firms are less likely to switch underwriters when our behavioral measure indicates they were satisfied with the IPO underwriter's performance. Underwriters also extract higher fees for subsequent transactions involving satisfied decision‐makers. Although our tests suggest that the behavioral model has explanatory power, they do not speak directly to whether deviations from expected utility maximization determine patterns in IPO initial returns.     

THE USE OF PROTOCOL ANALYSIS IN ACCOUNTING

The primary objective of accounting is to provide information that helps decision makers make better decisions. Yet knowledge about how accountants and other professionals make decisions is limited. This article examines verbal protocol analysis, a methodology that uses detailed process information to model decision making behavior. There are many protocol analysis techniques, with different ways to collect data and different ways to analyze it. The selection of a particular technique depends on the specific research objectives. The article concludes with an illustration of a detailed protocol analysis study and a discussion of its results.     

The review process as a control for differential recall of evidence in auditor judgments

This experiment examines whether there are systematic offsetting differences in the manner in which initial decision makers and reviewers attend to information which ensure that evidence inconsistent with initial judgments is given adequate consideration. Differences in attention are proposed, which result in differential recall of evidence by the initial decision maker and reviewer and thus influence what knowledge initial decision makers and reviewers bring to their discussions and subsequent decisions. The results suggest that the review process can act as an effective control by increasing the chances that the implications of inconsistent evidence are considered.