Coexistence of disposition investors and momentum traders in stock markets: experimental evidence

Prior research documents that many investors disproportionately hold on to losing stocks while selling stocks which have gained in value. This systematic behavior is labeled as the “disposition effect”. The phenomenon can be explained by prospect theory's idea that subjects value gains and losses relative to a reference point like the purchase price (PP), and that they are risk-seeking in the domain of possible losses and risk-averse when a certain gain is obtainable. Our experiments were designed to test whether individual-level disposition effects attenuate or survive in a dynamic market setting. We analyze a series of 36 stock markets with 490 subjects. The majority of our investors demonstrate a strong preference for realizing winners (paper gains) rather than losers (paper losses). We adopt different reference points and compare the behavioral patterns across three main trading mechanisms, i.e. rules of price formation. The disposition effect is greatly reduced only within high-pressure mechanisms like a dealer market (DM) when the last price (LP) is assumed as a reference point, which is a more market driven (external) benchmark. If disposition investors use the PP as a reference point, which is a more mental-accounting driven (internal) benchmark, they die hard in all market settings. Interestingly, our markets do not collapse or become illiquid by disposition investors' reluctance to trade. A main reason for this is the coexistence of two or more groups of investors, e.g. momentum traders and disposition investors.     

Looking for Someone to Blame: Delegation,Cognitive Dissonance,and the Disposition Effect

We analyze brokerage data and an experiment to test a cognitive dissonance based theory of trading: investors avoid realizing losses because they dislike admitting that past purchases were mistakes, but delegation reverses this effect by allowing the investor to blame the manager instead. Using individual trading data, we show that the disposition effect—the propensity to realize past gains more than past losses—applies only to nondelegated assets like individual stocks; delegated assets, like mutual funds, exhibit a robust reverse‐disposition effect. In an experiment, we show that increasing investors' cognitive dissonance results in both a larger disposition effect in stocks and a larger reverse‐disposition effect in funds. Additionally, increasing the salience of delegation increases the reverse‐disposition effect in funds. Cognitive dissonance provides a unified explanation for apparently contradictory investor behavior across asset classes and has implications for personal investment decisions, mutual fund management, and intermediation.     

Realization utility

A number of authors have suggested that investors derive utility from realizing gains and losses on assets that they own. We present a model of this “realization utility,” analyze its predictions, and show that it can shed light on a number of puzzling facts. These include the disposition effect, the poor trading performance of individual investors, the higher volume of trade in rising markets, the effect of historical highs on the propensity to sell, the individual investor preference for volatile stocks, the low average return of volatile stocks, and the heavy trading associated with highly valued assets.     

The Disposition Effect and Underreaction to News

This paper tests whether the “disposition effect,” that is the tendency of investors to ride losses and realize gains, induces “underreaction” to news, leading to return predictability. I use data on mutual fund holdings to construct a new measure of reference purchasing prices for individual stocks, and I show that post‐announcement price drift is most severe whenever capital gains and the news event have the same sign. The magnitude of the drift depends on the capital gains (losses) experienced by the stock holders on the event date. An event‐driven strategy based on this effect yields monthly alphas of over 200 basis points.     

IPO flipping in Australia: cross-sectional explanations

We access electronic share settlement records for each subscriber and aftermarket investor in 419 Australian IPOs to investigate whether initial subscribers flip their allocations, and we relate this flipping behaviour to issuer, shareholder, underwriter and market characteristics. We find that the main determinants are underpricing (consistent with the disposition effect, i.e., a tendency to realise gains before losses), whether the IPO market is “hot” (a proxy for the representativeness heuristic) and ex ante risk characteristics. When flipping is analysed separately for underpriced and overpriced IPOs we find that the most overpriced IPOs are flipped more than the less overpriced ones, a result which contrasts the disposition effect. This result is due to the action of institutional, rather than individual, investors. We also relate flipping activity to the firm's long-run return, and find that the flipping behaviour of large (informed) investors is unrelated to long-run returns, while uninformed investors consistently flip more of the IPOs that have better long-run returns.     

Overconfidence and emotion regulation failure: How overconfidence leads to the disposition effect in consumer investment behaviour

Investment decisions and outcomes often entail a myriad of emotions. In this article, the authors examine overconfidence and its effect on investment behaviour. The authors show that overconfident investors tend to trade in greater volumes and exhibit stronger disposition effect. Previous research has shown disposition effect to be an outcome of loss aversion and lack of self-control, and this article shows that the disposition effect is also caused by emotions such as ‘pride’ and ‘shame’, which shows up to a greater degree in overconfident people. Overconfident consumers are prone to realize gains early, in order to feel pride and hold on to losing stocks because admitting losses creates shame. It is also shown that overconfident investors trade in greater volumes and have greater ‘illusion of control’.     

Stock market investors' use of stop losses and the disposition effect

The disposition effect is an investment bias where investors hold stocks at a loss longer than stocks at a gain. This bias is associated with poorer investment performance and exhibited to a greater extent by investors with less experience and less sophistication. A method of managing susceptibility to the bias is through use of stop losses. Using the trading records of UK stock market individual investors from 2006 to 2009, this paper shows that stop losses used as part of investment decisions are an effective tool for inoculating against the disposition effect. We also show that investors who use stop losses have less experience and that, when not using stop losses, these investors are more reluctant to realise losses than other investors.     

Predicting Contemporary Volume with Historic Volume at Differential Price Levels: Evidence Supporting the Disposition Effect

This paper presents empirical evidence comparing two models of trading in equities—the well-known tax-loss-selling hypothesis and “the disposition effect.” According to the disposition effect, investors are reluctant to realize losses but are eager to realize gains. This paper distinguishes between the two models with a new methodology that examines the relationship between volume at a given point in time and volume that took place in the past at different stock prices. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the disposition effect not only as a determinant of year-end volume, but also as a determinant of volume levels throughout the year.     

中国个人投资者处置效应研究——一个非理性信念的视角

处置效应是指投资者过早卖出盈利股票而长期持有亏损股票的现象。大量文献表明金融市场投资者存在显著的处置效应,但其产生的原因和机理存在争议。本文在前景理论框架下,构建了包含投资者非理性预期的离散时间投资组合决策模型,发现处置效应随投资者情绪升高而减弱。本文使用我国某券商2007—2009年近177万个人投资者股票账户的交易数据进行了实证分析,得到与理论模型预测的一致结果,即投资者情绪与投资者处置效应之间呈现显著的负相关关系。而且,受情绪影响,投资者处置效应在估值难度较大的股票中更弱。本文结论对理解投资者处置效应、优化投资者卖出决策和加强资本市场基础制度建设具有一定理论和实践意义。     

Momentum and the Disposition Effect: The Role of Individual Investors

We hypothesize that disposition effect-induced momentum documented in Grinblatt and Han (2005) should be stronger in stocks with greater individual investors’ presence since individual investors are more prone to the disposition effect. We find strong evidence for our hypothesis for a large sample of NYSE/AMEX/NASDAQ stocks from the end of 1980 to 2005. Our results hold across different momentum strategies using alternative ways of defining individual investors’ presence in a stock and maintain even after controlling for variables known to drive momentum. Furthermore, we find that our results are stronger for hard-to-value stocks consistent with the findings of Kumar (2009).     

Disposition effect and analyst forecast dispersion

Behavioral finance theories posit that behavioral biases are more pronounced when there is higher information uncertainty about fundamentals. This paper examines the relation between the disposition effect, the tendency to ride losses and realize gains, and dispersion in financial analysts’ earnings forecasts for a sample of large U.S. discount brokerage accounts from January 1991 to December 1996. I find that the disposition effect is exacerbated in stocks with higher analyst forecast dispersion. In particular, the disposition effect is 10% in stocks in the highest forecast dispersion quintile and not significant in the lowest forecast dispersion quintile. The driving factor behind these findings is investors’ higher propensity to realize gains when facing higher information uncertainty. The results are robust to controlling for firm size, analyst coverage, idiosyncratic volatility, turnover, and past market-adjusted returns. The results provide supportive evidence for a behavioral bias explanation of the disposition effect consistent with mean-reversion beliefs for winners and loss actualization avoidance for losers.     

A detailed investigation of the disposition effect and individual trading behavior: a panel survival approach

This article uses a panel survival approach to analyze the trading behavior of foreign exchange traders. We concentrate on a detailed characterization of the shape of the disposition effect over the entire profit and loss regions. In doing so, we investigate the influence of a number of trading characteristics on the impact of the disposition effect. These trading characteristics include: special limit order strategies, trading success, size and the experience of our investors. Our main findings are that (i) the disposition effect has a nonlinear shape. For small profits and losses we find an inverted disposition effect, while for larger ones, the usual positive disposition effect emerges. (ii) The inverted disposition effect is driven to a great extend by patient and cautious investors closing their positions with special limit orders (take-profit and stop-loss). The normal positive disposition effect is found to be intensified for impatient investors closing their positions actively with market orders. (iii) We show that unsuccessful investors reveal a stronger inverse disposition effect. (iv) Evidence that bigger investors are less prone to the disposition effect than smaller investors is also found.     

US and Domestic Market Gains and Asian Investors’ Overconfident Trading Behavior

We find that subsequent to both US and domestic market gains, both Asian individual and institutional investors increase their trading and that this effect is more pronounced in bull markets, in periods of relatively favorable investor sentiment, in periods of extremely high market returns, and in markets with short‐sale constraints. We also find that individual investors trade more in response to market gains than institutional investors. Moreover, we find that further integration of Asian stock markets with US stock markets after the Asian financial crisis in 1998 is an important reason for Asian investors’ response to US market gains.     

Who is the more overconfident trader? Individual vs. institutional investors

Guided by the Gervais and Odean (2001) overconfident trading hypothesis, we comprehensively investigate the trading behavior of individual vs. institutional investors in Taiwan in an attempt to identify who is the more overconfident trader. Conditional on the various states of the market, on market volatility, and on the risk level of the securities they trade, we find that both individual and institutional investors trade more aggressively following market gains in bull markets, in up-market states, in up-momentum market states, and in low-volatility market states and that only individual investors trade more in riskier securities following market gains. More importantly, we find that individual investors trade more aggressively following market gains in the three conditional states of the market and in high-volatility market states than institutional investors. Also, individual investors trade more in relatively riskier securities following gains than institutional investors. These findings provide evidence that individual investors are more overconfident traders than institutional investors.     

Patterns of behavior of professionally managed and independent investors

In this paper, we analyze the investment patterns of a large number of clients of a major Israeli brokerage house during 1994. We compare the behavior of clients making independent investment decisions to that of investors whose accounts were managed by brokerage professionals. Our main objective is to investigate whether the disposition effect (i.e., the tendency to sell winners quicker than losers), demonstrated in the US only for individual investors, also holds for professional investors. This analysis is important, as accepted financial theory predicts that prices are determined mainly by decisions made by professionals. We show that both professional and independent investors exhibit the disposition effect, although the effect is stronger for independent investors.The second objective of our study is the comparison of trade frequency, volume and profitability between independent and professionally managed accounts. We believe that these comparisons not only provide insights of their own, but also help to put the differences in the disposition effect in a wider perspective. We demonstrate that professionally managed accounts were more diversified and that round trips were both less correlated with the market and slightly more profitable than those of independent accounts.     

The Dividend Disconnect

Many individual investors, mutual funds, and institutions trade as if dividends and capital gains are disconnected attributes, not fully appreciating that dividends result in price decreases. Behavioral trading patterns (e.g., the disposition effect) are driven by price changes instead of total returns. Investors rarely reinvest dividends, and trade as if dividends are a separate, stable income stream. Analysts fail to account for the effect of dividends on price, leading to optimistic price forecasts for dividend‐paying stocks. Demand for dividends is systematically higher in periods of low interest rates and poor market performance, leading to lower returns for dividend‐paying stocks.     

Do Investor Sophistication and Trading Experience Eliminate Behavioral Biases in Financial Markets?

This paper provides an in depth analysis of an investor’s reluctance to realize losses and his propensity to realize gains – a behavior known as the disposition effect. Together, sophistication (static differences across investors) and trading experience (evolving behavior of a single investor) eliminate the reluctance to realize losses. However, an asymmetry exists as sophistication and trading experience reduce the propensity to realize gains by 37% (but fail to eliminate this part of the behavior.) Our research design allows us to follow an individual’s behavior from the start of his investing life/career. This ability makes it possible to track the evolution of the disposition effect as it is reduced and/or disappears. Our results are robust to alternative explanations including feedback trading, calendar effects, and frequency of observation.     

What Drives the Disposition Effect? An Analysis of a Long‐Standing Preference‐Based Explanation

We investigate whether prospect theory preferences can predict a disposition effect. We consider two implementations of prospect theory: in one case, preferences are defined over annual gains and losses; in the other, they are defined over realized gains and losses. Surprisingly, the annual gain/loss model often fails to predict a disposition effect. The realized gain/loss model, however, predicts a disposition effect more reliably. Utility from realized gains and losses may therefore be a useful way of thinking about certain aspects of individual investor trading.     

What factors affect behavioral biases? Evidence from Turkish individual stock investors

This paper investigates behavioral biases among Turkish individual stock investors during 2011. Using transaction data, we analyze how common disposition effect, familiarity bias, representativeness heuristic, and status quo bias are, what factors affect these biases and how these biases relate to each other including overconfidence and return performance. We find that biases are common among investors. Male, younger investors, investors with lower portfolio value, and investors in low income, low education regions exhibit more familiarity bias. Female, older investors and investors with high portfolio values are more subject to disposition effect and representativeness heuristic. Individuals in the opposite edge of overconfidence are subject to status quo bias. Overconfidence is positively correlated with familiarity bias. Representativeness heuristic deteriorates wealth while status quo bias results in higher trade performance. Familiarity bias has a nonmonotonic effect on return; lower (higher) levels of familiarity bias have a negative (positive) effect on return. To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the few studies that focus on nationwide data and analyze the biases simultaneously. Using a unique dataset, we extend the findings of the behavioral finance literature to emerging markets. Besides, analysis of multiple biases helps us better understand the relationship among biases.     

The genetics of investment biases

For a long list of investment “biases,” including lack of diversification, excessive trading, and the disposition effect, we find that genetic differences explain up to 45% of the remaining variation across individual investors, after controlling for observable individual characteristics. The evidence is consistent with a view that investment biases are manifestations of innate and evolutionary ancient features of human behavior. We find that work experience with finance reduces genetic predispositions to investment biases. Finally, we find that even genetically identical investors, who grew up in the same family environment, often differ substantially in their investment behaviors due to individual-specific experiences or events.