en pl
en pl

Decyzje

Show issue
Year 12/2013 
Issue 20

High Volatility Eliminates The Disposition Effect In A Market Crisis

Raymond Dacey
University of Idaho

12/2013 (20) Decyzje

DOI 10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.9

Article contents

Abstract

The disposition effect is an effect whereby investors tend to sell winning stocks and tend to hold losing stocks. This inclination is detrimental for investment results. Dacey and Zielonka (2008) showed the impact of the probability of further stock price rise under low stock price volatility on the disposition effect. Specifically, they showed that under low volatility, in the case of a gain, the investor is more likely to sell the winner even if the probability of the further gain is high, whereas in the case of a loss, the investor is more likely to hold the loser even when the probability of a further gain is small. In this paper
we examined the disposition effect under high volatility. The general conclusion is that under high volatility, in the case of a gain, the investor behaves in the same way as for low volatility, whereas in the case of a loss, the investor is less and less likely to hold the loser as volatility increases. Thus, in the case of a loss under high volatility, the investor acts contrary to the disposition effect. This result explains the panic selling of stocks during a market collapse.

References

  1. Dacey, Raymond and Piotr Zielonka. 2008. “A Detailed Prospect Theory Explanation of the Disposition Effect,” Journal of Behavioral Finance, 9: 43-50. [Google Scholar]
  2. Fogel, Suzanne O’Curry and Thomas Berry. 2006. “The Disposition Effect and Individual Investor Decisions: The Roles of Regret and Counterfactual Alternatives,” Journal of Behavioral Finance, 7: 107-116. [Google Scholar]
  3. Goldberg, Joachim and Rüdiger von Nietzsch. 2001. Behavioral Finance, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  4. Grinblatt, Mark and Matti Keloharju. (2001). “What Makes Investors Trade?,” The Journal of Finance, 56: 589-616 [Google Scholar]
  5. Hur, Jungshik, Mahesh Pritamani, and Vivek Sharma. 2010. “Momentum and the Disposition Effect: The Role of Individual Investors.” Financial Management, 39: 1155-1176. [Google Scholar]
  6. Jeffrey, Richard C. 2004, Subjective Probability, Princeton University Press; Princeton. [Google Scholar]
  7. Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky. 1972, Subjective Probability: A Judgment of Representativeness,” Cognitive Psychology 3: 430-454. [Google Scholar]
  8. Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decisions Under Risk,” Econometrica, 47: 263-291. [Google Scholar]
  9. Kaustia, Markku. 2010. “Prospect Theory and the Disposition Effect”, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 45: 791-812. [Google Scholar]
  10. Kumar, Alok. 2009. “Hard-to-Value Stocks, Behavioral Biases, and Informed Trading,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 44: 1375-1401, [Google Scholar]
  11. Lerner, Jennifer S. and Dacher Keltner. 2000. “Beyond Valence: Toward a Model of Emotion-Specifi c Infl uences on Judgment and Choice,” Cognition and Emotion 14: 473-493. [Google Scholar]
  12. Lerner, Jennifer S. and Dacher Keltner. 2001. “Fear, Anger, and Risk.,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81: 146-159. [Google Scholar]
  13. Mandelbrot, Benoit and Richard L. Hudson. 2004. The (mis)Behavior of Markets, Basic Books. [Google Scholar]
  14. Odean, Terrance. 1998. “Are Investors Reluctant to Realize Their Losses?,” The Journal of Finance, 53: 1775-1798. [Google Scholar]
  15. Oehler, Andreas, Klaus Heilmann, Volker Läger, and Michael Oberländer. 2003. “Coexistence of Disposition Investors and Momentum Traders in Stock Markets: Experimental Evidence,” Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 13: 503-524. [Google Scholar]
  16. Shefrin, Hersh. 2005. A Behavioral Approach to Asset Pricing, Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  17. Shefrin, Hersh and Meir Statman. 1985. “The Disposition to Sell Winners Too Early and Ride Losers Too Long: Theory and Evidence,” Journal of Finance, 40: 777-790. [Google Scholar]
  18. Taleb, Nassim Nicholas. 2012. Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder, Random House. [Google Scholar]
  19. Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman. 1992. “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5: 297-323. [Google Scholar]
  20. Wakker, Peter P. 2010. Prospect Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [Google Scholar]
  21. [Google Scholar]

Full metadata record

Cite this record

APA style

Dacey, Raymond (2013). High Volatility Eliminates The Disposition Effect In A Market Crisis. (2013). High Volatility Eliminates The Disposition Effect In A Market Crisis. Decyzje, (20), 5-20. https://doi.org/10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.9 (Original work published 12/2013AD)

MLA style

Dacey, Raymond. “High Volatility Eliminates The Disposition Effect In A Market Crisis”. 12/2013AD. Decyzje, no. 20, 2013, pp. 5-20.

Chicago style

Dacey, Raymond. “High Volatility Eliminates The Disposition Effect In A Market Crisis”. Decyzje, Decyzje, no. 20 (2013): 5-20. doi:10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.9.

Copyright info

copyright info

CC-BY

People also read:

No related content.