Pub Date : 2022-05-27DOI: 10.1108/rbf-09-2021-0173
Carmen López-Martín
PurposeThis paper examines the effect of the holy month of Ramadan on the returns and conditional volatility of cryptocurrency markets.Design/methodology/approachThe closing prices of six cryptocurrencies have been considered. The study employs different classical tests for checking if the efficiency behaviour is similar during Ramadan celebration days and non-Ramadan days. Besides, dummy variable regression technique for assessing this anomaly on returns and volatilities has been applied.FindingsAlthough no significant effect on returns and volatility for Litecoin has been found, the results provide evidence about the existence of the Ramadan effects in cryptocurrency markets. The results of the mean equations show the existence of Ramadan effect for Ethereum, Ripple, Stellar and BinanceCoin for all considered models. Significant effect on Bitcoin returns is found with an autoregressive model of order 1. The results of conditional volatility show Ramadan effect on volatility is not detected.Originality/valueFirst, a new contribution in the incipient study of cryptocurrency analysis. Second, a comprehensive review of recently published empirical articles about Ramadan effect on traditional assets has been carried out. Third, unlike most of the papers focussed on the study of Bitcoin, this study has been extended to six cryptocurrencies. Ramadan effect have not been analysed in cryptomarkets yet. This study come to fill this gap and analyses Ramadan effect, previously documented for traditional assets, in particular, stock index from Muslim countries, but not yet analysed in the cryptocurrency markets.
{"title":"Ramadan effect in the cryptocurrency markets","authors":"Carmen López-Martín","doi":"10.1108/rbf-09-2021-0173","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/rbf-09-2021-0173","url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis paper examines the effect of the holy month of Ramadan on the returns and conditional volatility of cryptocurrency markets.Design/methodology/approachThe closing prices of six cryptocurrencies have been considered. The study employs different classical tests for checking if the efficiency behaviour is similar during Ramadan celebration days and non-Ramadan days. Besides, dummy variable regression technique for assessing this anomaly on returns and volatilities has been applied.FindingsAlthough no significant effect on returns and volatility for Litecoin has been found, the results provide evidence about the existence of the Ramadan effects in cryptocurrency markets. The results of the mean equations show the existence of Ramadan effect for Ethereum, Ripple, Stellar and BinanceCoin for all considered models. Significant effect on Bitcoin returns is found with an autoregressive model of order 1. The results of conditional volatility show Ramadan effect on volatility is not detected.Originality/valueFirst, a new contribution in the incipient study of cryptocurrency analysis. Second, a comprehensive review of recently published empirical articles about Ramadan effect on traditional assets has been carried out. Third, unlike most of the papers focussed on the study of Bitcoin, this study has been extended to six cryptocurrencies. Ramadan effect have not been analysed in cryptomarkets yet. This study come to fill this gap and analyses Ramadan effect, previously documented for traditional assets, in particular, stock index from Muslim countries, but not yet analysed in the cryptocurrency markets.","PeriodicalId":44559,"journal":{"name":"Review of Behavioral Finance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76099992","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-13DOI: 10.1108/rbf-09-2021-0184
Daphne Sobolev, J. Clunie
PurposePredatory trading is a stock market trading technique in which certain market participants exploit information about other market participants' need to trade. Predatory trading often harms others. Hence, this paper examines the determinants and effects of financial practitioners' and lay people's judgments of predatory trading. Specifically, it investigates how the public availability and reliability of the exploited information affect their ethics and legality judgments and how the latter influence their behavioral intentions and regulation support.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conducted two scenario judgment studies. In the first study, participants were financial practitioners, and in the second – lay people.FindingsPractitioners often judge predatory trading to be ethical. Practitioners and lay people incorporate in their ethics and legality judgments the public availability of the exploited information but tend to discount the legal reliability criterion. Lay people justify their ethics judgments using harm, legal or profit maximization principles. Practitioners' intentions to engage in predatory trading and lay people's intentions to let predatory fund managers invest their money depend on their judgments, which influence their regulation support.Originality/valueThis paper is the first to explore people's judgments of predatory trading. It highlights that despite the harm that predatory trading involves, practitioners often judge it to be ethical. Although law tends to lag behind financial innovation, people base their judgments and hence also behavioral intentions on their interpretation of the regulation. Hence, it reveals a dark aspect of the relationship between ethics and legality judgments.
{"title":"Predatory trading: ethics judgments, legality judgments and investment intentions","authors":"Daphne Sobolev, J. Clunie","doi":"10.1108/rbf-09-2021-0184","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/rbf-09-2021-0184","url":null,"abstract":"PurposePredatory trading is a stock market trading technique in which certain market participants exploit information about other market participants' need to trade. Predatory trading often harms others. Hence, this paper examines the determinants and effects of financial practitioners' and lay people's judgments of predatory trading. Specifically, it investigates how the public availability and reliability of the exploited information affect their ethics and legality judgments and how the latter influence their behavioral intentions and regulation support.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conducted two scenario judgment studies. In the first study, participants were financial practitioners, and in the second – lay people.FindingsPractitioners often judge predatory trading to be ethical. Practitioners and lay people incorporate in their ethics and legality judgments the public availability of the exploited information but tend to discount the legal reliability criterion. Lay people justify their ethics judgments using harm, legal or profit maximization principles. Practitioners' intentions to engage in predatory trading and lay people's intentions to let predatory fund managers invest their money depend on their judgments, which influence their regulation support.Originality/valueThis paper is the first to explore people's judgments of predatory trading. It highlights that despite the harm that predatory trading involves, practitioners often judge it to be ethical. Although law tends to lag behind financial innovation, people base their judgments and hence also behavioral intentions on their interpretation of the regulation. Hence, it reveals a dark aspect of the relationship between ethics and legality judgments.","PeriodicalId":44559,"journal":{"name":"Review of Behavioral Finance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79606320","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-13DOI: 10.1108/rbf-09-2021-0185
Daphne Sobolev, J. Clunie
Purpose Research has suggested that ethics judgments should be made from an impartial perspective. However, people are often partial about their money. This study aims to investigate the extent to which perspectives – the perspective of those who can gain from the use of a financial practice and the perspective of those who can incur losses due to it – affect lay people’s ethics and legality judgments of the practice. In addition, it asks which factors influence their investment intentions.Design/methodology/approach The study uses a between-participant scenario experiment, in which participants are presented with cases of predatory trading and front running. Each participant is asked to take either a gain or loss perspective through the formulation of the presented cases. Subsequently, all participants make ethics, legality and investment intention judgments.Findings The authors establish that perspectives significantly affect people’s ethics judgments and, to a lesser extent, their legality judgments. People’s investment intentions depend on their perspectives, too, as well as on their financial considerations, ethics judgments, legality judgments and trust.Originality/value Research has focused on relatively stable determinants of people’s ethics judgments of financial practices. This paper shows that the situational prospect of profit can sway lay people’s judgments. When people take the gain perspective, they judge financial practices to be more ethical than when they take the loss perspective. Furthermore, people’s perspectives can distort their legality judgments and influence their investment intentions.
{"title":"Judgments of ethically questionable financial practices: a new perspective","authors":"Daphne Sobolev, J. Clunie","doi":"10.1108/rbf-09-2021-0185","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/rbf-09-2021-0185","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose Research has suggested that ethics judgments should be made from an impartial perspective. However, people are often partial about their money. This study aims to investigate the extent to which perspectives – the perspective of those who can gain from the use of a financial practice and the perspective of those who can incur losses due to it – affect lay people’s ethics and legality judgments of the practice. In addition, it asks which factors influence their investment intentions.Design/methodology/approach The study uses a between-participant scenario experiment, in which participants are presented with cases of predatory trading and front running. Each participant is asked to take either a gain or loss perspective through the formulation of the presented cases. Subsequently, all participants make ethics, legality and investment intention judgments.Findings The authors establish that perspectives significantly affect people’s ethics judgments and, to a lesser extent, their legality judgments. People’s investment intentions depend on their perspectives, too, as well as on their financial considerations, ethics judgments, legality judgments and trust.Originality/value Research has focused on relatively stable determinants of people’s ethics judgments of financial practices. This paper shows that the situational prospect of profit can sway lay people’s judgments. When people take the gain perspective, they judge financial practices to be more ethical than when they take the loss perspective. Furthermore, people’s perspectives can distort their legality judgments and influence their investment intentions.","PeriodicalId":44559,"journal":{"name":"Review of Behavioral Finance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91258736","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-05DOI: 10.1108/rbf-02-2022-0048
Jinsha Zhao
PurposeThe paper provides new evidence for Bitcoin’s safe-haven property by examining the relationship between currency price, return and Bitcoin trading volume.Design/methodology/approachA unique dataset from a person-to-person (p2p) exchange is used to investigate association between Bitcoin trading volume and currency prices. Currency returns are used to identify local economic crises, the 8 crisis affected currencies are Venezuela Bolivar (VES), Iranian Rial (IRR), Ukrainian Hryvnia (UAH), Argentine Peso (ARS), Egyptian Pound (EGP), Nigerian Naira (NGN), Turkish Lira (TRY) and Kazakhstani Tenge (KZT).FindingsThe paper demonstrates that local economic crises are positively associated with increased Bitcoin trading. There is a negative association between trading volume and currency value (and return), suggesting low currency price and currency depreciation are accompanied with increased Bitcoin trading. The results not only hold for the crisis affected currencies but also currencies of advanced economies. Granger causality test also reinforces the negative association results.Originality/valueThe finding indicates some forms of flight-to-safety have occurred during local market crises when capital flight from domestic markets to Bitcoin, strengthening Bitcoin’s hedging asset status. However, total global trading volume declines after the start of the COVID pandemic, suggesting that Bitcoin is still regarded as a speculative asset. Overall, the findings show that Bitcoin is a hedging asset to protect against local currency depreciation, but not a safe-haven asset for the global crisis.
{"title":"Do economic crises cause trading in Bitcoin?","authors":"Jinsha Zhao","doi":"10.1108/rbf-02-2022-0048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/rbf-02-2022-0048","url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe paper provides new evidence for Bitcoin’s safe-haven property by examining the relationship between currency price, return and Bitcoin trading volume.Design/methodology/approachA unique dataset from a person-to-person (p2p) exchange is used to investigate association between Bitcoin trading volume and currency prices. Currency returns are used to identify local economic crises, the 8 crisis affected currencies are Venezuela Bolivar (VES), Iranian Rial (IRR), Ukrainian Hryvnia (UAH), Argentine Peso (ARS), Egyptian Pound (EGP), Nigerian Naira (NGN), Turkish Lira (TRY) and Kazakhstani Tenge (KZT).FindingsThe paper demonstrates that local economic crises are positively associated with increased Bitcoin trading. There is a negative association between trading volume and currency value (and return), suggesting low currency price and currency depreciation are accompanied with increased Bitcoin trading. The results not only hold for the crisis affected currencies but also currencies of advanced economies. Granger causality test also reinforces the negative association results.Originality/valueThe finding indicates some forms of flight-to-safety have occurred during local market crises when capital flight from domestic markets to Bitcoin, strengthening Bitcoin’s hedging asset status. However, total global trading volume declines after the start of the COVID pandemic, suggesting that Bitcoin is still regarded as a speculative asset. Overall, the findings show that Bitcoin is a hedging asset to protect against local currency depreciation, but not a safe-haven asset for the global crisis.","PeriodicalId":44559,"journal":{"name":"Review of Behavioral Finance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78718899","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-29DOI: 10.1108/rbf-10-2021-0216
Bei Chen, Quan Gan
PurposePrevious literature shows that market sentiment and the steepness of index option's implied volatility slope have a negative relation. This paper investigates the relation between firm-specific sentiment and individual option's implied volatility slope both theoretically and empirically.Design/methodology/approachThe authors develop a simple model with option traders' sentiment heterogeneity to show that sentiment and the steepness of individual option's implied volatility slope have a positive relation.FindingsWhen firm-specific sentiment is higher (more bullish), individual option's implied volatility slope becomes steeper. The positive relation is stronger when option traders' beliefs on risk are more dispersed. Empirical results support the theoretical model predictions.Originality/valueAlthough both firm-specific sentiment and individual options implied volatility slope predict future stock returns, there is no research exploring the relation between them. In particular, none of previous studies associates implied volatility slope's stock return predictability to investor behavior such as sentiment. The authors’ findings provide a behavior-based explanation on why steep implied volatility slope negatively predicts cross-sectional stock returns.
{"title":"Firm-specific sentiment and individual option's implied volatility slope","authors":"Bei Chen, Quan Gan","doi":"10.1108/rbf-10-2021-0216","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/rbf-10-2021-0216","url":null,"abstract":"PurposePrevious literature shows that market sentiment and the steepness of index option's implied volatility slope have a negative relation. This paper investigates the relation between firm-specific sentiment and individual option's implied volatility slope both theoretically and empirically.Design/methodology/approachThe authors develop a simple model with option traders' sentiment heterogeneity to show that sentiment and the steepness of individual option's implied volatility slope have a positive relation.FindingsWhen firm-specific sentiment is higher (more bullish), individual option's implied volatility slope becomes steeper. The positive relation is stronger when option traders' beliefs on risk are more dispersed. Empirical results support the theoretical model predictions.Originality/valueAlthough both firm-specific sentiment and individual options implied volatility slope predict future stock returns, there is no research exploring the relation between them. In particular, none of previous studies associates implied volatility slope's stock return predictability to investor behavior such as sentiment. The authors’ findings provide a behavior-based explanation on why steep implied volatility slope negatively predicts cross-sectional stock returns.","PeriodicalId":44559,"journal":{"name":"Review of Behavioral Finance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81649438","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-28DOI: 10.1108/rbf-09-2021-0183
Johannes Hagen, Amedeus Malisa, Thomas Post
PurposeHow did investors in the Swedish Premium Pension System (PPS) react to the stock market shock ignited by the COVID-19 pandemic?Design/methodology/approachThe authors use fund-level data from the Swedish Pensions Agency on investment choices in the PPS. For each fund, the authors use monthly information on the number of investors and holdings' market value up to November 2020. The authors also use information on the total number of portfolio changes per day. For analyzing whether PPS investors reacted to the pandemic with claiming their pension, the authors use monthly data on the number of investors of a certain age group who initiate their public pension payment.FindingsTrades more than doubled, and shifted capital from equity funds to low risk interest funds. In economic terms, however, trading stayed at low levels–less than two percent of investors traded in March 2020 and there was no effect on pension withdrawals. The increased trading during the market tumult was disproportionately concentrated among investors in the top of the pension capital distribution.Research limitations/implicationsWith fund-level data, the authors cannot investigate what in particular made retirement investors stay calm in the midst of a severe market decline. Either, those investors have a long-term investment horizon as they save for their pension or particular features of the system's choice architecture induce inertia and discourage from trading. The sub-group analyses are more consistent with the explanation that PPS-induced inertia is responsible for the relatively small increase in trading activity, but future research could exploit individual level data to explore this in more detail.Practical implicationsThe often-criticized PPS choice architecture provided positive side effects in times of a severe market shock by shielding retail investors from committing trading mistakes when trying to outsmart the market.Originality/valueThe study complements previous evidence on the effects of COVID-19 on investor activity. The small response of PPS investors to COVID-19 is in line with earlier US findings on 401(k) accounts during the 2007 financial crisis (Tang et al., 2012) and industry reports about the COVID-19 period (see, e.g. Mitchell, 2020). The authors find no effects at all on public pension withdrawals in Sweden, while evidence from US 401(k) plans indicates a small share of workers taking COVID-related early withdrawals.
{"title":"Trading behavior of Swedish retirement investors during the COVID-19 pandemic","authors":"Johannes Hagen, Amedeus Malisa, Thomas Post","doi":"10.1108/rbf-09-2021-0183","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/rbf-09-2021-0183","url":null,"abstract":"PurposeHow did investors in the Swedish Premium Pension System (PPS) react to the stock market shock ignited by the COVID-19 pandemic?Design/methodology/approachThe authors use fund-level data from the Swedish Pensions Agency on investment choices in the PPS. For each fund, the authors use monthly information on the number of investors and holdings' market value up to November 2020. The authors also use information on the total number of portfolio changes per day. For analyzing whether PPS investors reacted to the pandemic with claiming their pension, the authors use monthly data on the number of investors of a certain age group who initiate their public pension payment.FindingsTrades more than doubled, and shifted capital from equity funds to low risk interest funds. In economic terms, however, trading stayed at low levels–less than two percent of investors traded in March 2020 and there was no effect on pension withdrawals. The increased trading during the market tumult was disproportionately concentrated among investors in the top of the pension capital distribution.Research limitations/implicationsWith fund-level data, the authors cannot investigate what in particular made retirement investors stay calm in the midst of a severe market decline. Either, those investors have a long-term investment horizon as they save for their pension or particular features of the system's choice architecture induce inertia and discourage from trading. The sub-group analyses are more consistent with the explanation that PPS-induced inertia is responsible for the relatively small increase in trading activity, but future research could exploit individual level data to explore this in more detail.Practical implicationsThe often-criticized PPS choice architecture provided positive side effects in times of a severe market shock by shielding retail investors from committing trading mistakes when trying to outsmart the market.Originality/valueThe study complements previous evidence on the effects of COVID-19 on investor activity. The small response of PPS investors to COVID-19 is in line with earlier US findings on 401(k) accounts during the 2007 financial crisis (Tang et al., 2012) and industry reports about the COVID-19 period (see, e.g. Mitchell, 2020). The authors find no effects at all on public pension withdrawals in Sweden, while evidence from US 401(k) plans indicates a small share of workers taking COVID-related early withdrawals.","PeriodicalId":44559,"journal":{"name":"Review of Behavioral Finance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83613424","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-14DOI: 10.1108/rbf-07-2021-0132
Ming-yan Tsang, Adam W. Stivers
PurposeThis study aims to examine individuals' tendency to strictly follow their own signal while ignoring predecessors' decisions when making decisions under varying degrees of uncertainty.Design/methodology/approachUsing a controlled laboratory experiment, the authors separate the follow-own-signal behavior from other types of behavior such as Bayes consistent or herd-like (i.e. follow-the-majority) behavior.FindingsAs the authors systemically increase the degree of uncertainty in the information environment, participants are increasingly more likely to act only on their own signal. This suggests that financial decisions that are made under highly uncertain market conditions may be more signal revealing, and hence, may lead to better information aggregation than previously thought. The authors also find that as uncertainty increases, participants are more likely to switch in and out of this behavior, suggesting that behavior under highly uncertain conditions may also be more random and complex.Originality/valueThe authors are the first to examine how uncertainty affects the follow-own-signal behavior. The authors also offer potential testable empirical implications, such as an increase in contrarian investing, home bias, and own-company ownership under times of increased uncertainty or in more uncertain markets.
{"title":"An experimental investigation of the “follow own signal” decision rule under increased information uncertainty","authors":"Ming-yan Tsang, Adam W. Stivers","doi":"10.1108/rbf-07-2021-0132","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/rbf-07-2021-0132","url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis study aims to examine individuals' tendency to strictly follow their own signal while ignoring predecessors' decisions when making decisions under varying degrees of uncertainty.Design/methodology/approachUsing a controlled laboratory experiment, the authors separate the follow-own-signal behavior from other types of behavior such as Bayes consistent or herd-like (i.e. follow-the-majority) behavior.FindingsAs the authors systemically increase the degree of uncertainty in the information environment, participants are increasingly more likely to act only on their own signal. This suggests that financial decisions that are made under highly uncertain market conditions may be more signal revealing, and hence, may lead to better information aggregation than previously thought. The authors also find that as uncertainty increases, participants are more likely to switch in and out of this behavior, suggesting that behavior under highly uncertain conditions may also be more random and complex.Originality/valueThe authors are the first to examine how uncertainty affects the follow-own-signal behavior. The authors also offer potential testable empirical implications, such as an increase in contrarian investing, home bias, and own-company ownership under times of increased uncertainty or in more uncertain markets.","PeriodicalId":44559,"journal":{"name":"Review of Behavioral Finance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81778575","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-14DOI: 10.1108/rbf-09-2021-0176
Haruo H. Horaguchi
PurposeThis article examines the accuracy and bias inherent in the wisdom of crowd effect. The purpose is to clarify what kind of bias crowds have when they make predictions. In the theoretical inquiry, the effect of the accumulated absolute deviation was simulated. In the empirical study, the observed biases were examined using data from forecasting foreign exchange rates.Design/methodology/approachIn the theoretical inquiry, the effect of the accumulated absolute deviation was simulated based on mathematical propositions. In the empirical study, the data from 2004 to 2011 were provided by Nikkei, which holds the “Nikkei Yen Derby” competition. In total, 3,657 groups forecasted the foreign exchange rate, and the first prediction was done in early May to forecast the rate at the end of May. The second round took place in June in a similar manner.FindingsThe average absolute deviation in May was smaller than that in June. The first round of prediction was more accurate than the second round one. Predictors were affected by the observable real exchange rate, such that they modified their forecasts by referring to the actual data in early June. An actuality bias existed when the participants lost their diverse prospects. Since the standard deviations of the June forecasts were smaller than those of May, the fact-convergence effect was supported.Originality/valueThis article reports novel findings that affect the wisdom of crowd effect—referred to as actuality bias and fact-convergence effect. The former refers to a forecasting bias toward the observable rate near the forecasting date. The latter implies that predictors, as a whole, indicate smaller forecast deviations by observing the realized foreign exchange rate.
{"title":"Forecasting foreign exchange rates as group experiment: actuality bias and fact-convergence effect within wisdom of crowds","authors":"Haruo H. Horaguchi","doi":"10.1108/rbf-09-2021-0176","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/rbf-09-2021-0176","url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis article examines the accuracy and bias inherent in the wisdom of crowd effect. The purpose is to clarify what kind of bias crowds have when they make predictions. In the theoretical inquiry, the effect of the accumulated absolute deviation was simulated. In the empirical study, the observed biases were examined using data from forecasting foreign exchange rates.Design/methodology/approachIn the theoretical inquiry, the effect of the accumulated absolute deviation was simulated based on mathematical propositions. In the empirical study, the data from 2004 to 2011 were provided by Nikkei, which holds the “Nikkei Yen Derby” competition. In total, 3,657 groups forecasted the foreign exchange rate, and the first prediction was done in early May to forecast the rate at the end of May. The second round took place in June in a similar manner.FindingsThe average absolute deviation in May was smaller than that in June. The first round of prediction was more accurate than the second round one. Predictors were affected by the observable real exchange rate, such that they modified their forecasts by referring to the actual data in early June. An actuality bias existed when the participants lost their diverse prospects. Since the standard deviations of the June forecasts were smaller than those of May, the fact-convergence effect was supported.Originality/valueThis article reports novel findings that affect the wisdom of crowd effect—referred to as actuality bias and fact-convergence effect. The former refers to a forecasting bias toward the observable rate near the forecasting date. The latter implies that predictors, as a whole, indicate smaller forecast deviations by observing the realized foreign exchange rate.","PeriodicalId":44559,"journal":{"name":"Review of Behavioral Finance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75015558","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-08DOI: 10.1108/rbf-10-2021-0223
Smita Roy Trivedi
PurposeThe study tests the hypothesis that following the arrival of news in the forex market, the trader/dealers demonstrate two kinds of biases which makes markets volatile: “Recurrence bias,” the belief that news which formerly led to volatility, will again generate volatility (i.e. volatility is recurring), and “Volatility Perception Bias,” the belief that increased volatility following the arrival of a news would persist.Design/methodology/approachThe author uses a preliminary survey and three simulated trading game experiments involving professional foreign exchange dealers to understand these heuristic-led biases and the biases' impact on market volatility.FindingsThe paper finds evidence supporting the presence of both “Recurrence Bias” and “Volatility Perception Bias” and a statistically significant, positive impact of participant biases' on market heterogeneity.Originality/valueThe paper makes two important contributions: first, the use of simulated trading game experiment involving professional dealers and second, the incorporation of dealers' biases and heuristics in understanding forex volatility.
{"title":"A volatile mind? Experimental evidence on dealers' biases and market volatility","authors":"Smita Roy Trivedi","doi":"10.1108/rbf-10-2021-0223","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/rbf-10-2021-0223","url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe study tests the hypothesis that following the arrival of news in the forex market, the trader/dealers demonstrate two kinds of biases which makes markets volatile: “Recurrence bias,” the belief that news which formerly led to volatility, will again generate volatility (i.e. volatility is recurring), and “Volatility Perception Bias,” the belief that increased volatility following the arrival of a news would persist.Design/methodology/approachThe author uses a preliminary survey and three simulated trading game experiments involving professional foreign exchange dealers to understand these heuristic-led biases and the biases' impact on market volatility.FindingsThe paper finds evidence supporting the presence of both “Recurrence Bias” and “Volatility Perception Bias” and a statistically significant, positive impact of participant biases' on market heterogeneity.Originality/valueThe paper makes two important contributions: first, the use of simulated trading game experiment involving professional dealers and second, the incorporation of dealers' biases and heuristics in understanding forex volatility.","PeriodicalId":44559,"journal":{"name":"Review of Behavioral Finance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78194987","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-02DOI: 10.1108/rbf-05-2021-0087
N. Arora, B. Mishra
PurposeThis study aims to analyze how risk tolerance is influenced by bull and bear market phases, age and professional work experience (PWE) of investors in emerging economies. The authors also analyze how different market phases (bull and bear) influence risk tolerance of investors in emerging economies for different age groups and with varying PWE.Design/methodology/approachThe study uses two quantitative methods, one-way ANOVA and hierarchical regression model (HLM) to analyze individual investors' financial risk tolerance (FRT) in India.FindingsThe authors find that age and PWE have positive relationship with FRT behavior. However, interactions of these variables with market phase variable indicate that risk tolerance has nonlinear increasing relationship with investor's age and PWE. The risk tolerance of older investors is consistently high in both bull and bear market conditions, while young investors display a nonlinear risk behavior in different market conditions.Practical implicationsThe study suggests that financial planners should include a longitudinal risk profiling of investors based on age groups, PWE and the current market phase to better understand investors' FRT and also to prefer more context-specific advice to investors in emerging economies, which, consequently, result in increasing the retail investors' interest in otherwise sparsely participated equity market.Originality/valueInteraction effect of bull and bear market phases on relationship between age and PWE and FRT has been scantly studied.
{"title":"Influence of bull and bear market phase on financial risk tolerance of urban individual investors in an emerging economy","authors":"N. Arora, B. Mishra","doi":"10.1108/rbf-05-2021-0087","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1108/rbf-05-2021-0087","url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis study aims to analyze how risk tolerance is influenced by bull and bear market phases, age and professional work experience (PWE) of investors in emerging economies. The authors also analyze how different market phases (bull and bear) influence risk tolerance of investors in emerging economies for different age groups and with varying PWE.Design/methodology/approachThe study uses two quantitative methods, one-way ANOVA and hierarchical regression model (HLM) to analyze individual investors' financial risk tolerance (FRT) in India.FindingsThe authors find that age and PWE have positive relationship with FRT behavior. However, interactions of these variables with market phase variable indicate that risk tolerance has nonlinear increasing relationship with investor's age and PWE. The risk tolerance of older investors is consistently high in both bull and bear market conditions, while young investors display a nonlinear risk behavior in different market conditions.Practical implicationsThe study suggests that financial planners should include a longitudinal risk profiling of investors based on age groups, PWE and the current market phase to better understand investors' FRT and also to prefer more context-specific advice to investors in emerging economies, which, consequently, result in increasing the retail investors' interest in otherwise sparsely participated equity market.Originality/valueInteraction effect of bull and bear market phases on relationship between age and PWE and FRT has been scantly studied.","PeriodicalId":44559,"journal":{"name":"Review of Behavioral Finance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91167198","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：