非专业与专业投资者对金融分析师建议的信任度及对投资的影响

IF 1.9 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE Review of Behavioral Finance Pub Date : 2024-05-09 DOI:10.1108/rbf-07-2023-0191
Magnus Jansson, Patrik Michaelsen, Doron Sonsino, Tommy Gärling
{"title":"非专业与专业投资者对金融分析师建议的信任度及对投资的影响","authors":"Magnus Jansson, Patrik Michaelsen, Doron Sonsino, Tommy Gärling","doi":"10.1108/rbf-07-2023-0191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>The paper aims to investigate differences in non-professional and professional stock investors’ trust in and tendency to follow financial analysts’ buy and sell recommendations.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>Online experiment conducted in Sweden in March 2022 comparing non-professional private investors (<em>n</em> = 80), professional investors (<em>n</em> = 33), and master students in finance (<em>n</em> = 28). Information was presented about four company stocks listed on the New York stock exchange. Two stocks were buy-recommended and two stocks sell-recommended by financial analysts. For one stock of each type, the recommendation was presented to participants. Dependent variables were predictions of the stock price after three months, ratings of confidence in the predictions and choices of holding, buying or selling the stock. Ratings were also made of the importance of presented stock-related information as well as trust in analysts’ skill and integrity.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>More positive return predictions were made of buy-recommended than sell-recommended stocks. Non-professionals and to some degree finance students tended to trust financial analysts more than professional investors did and they were more influenced by the presentation of the buy recommendations. All groups made too optimistic return predictions, but the professionals were less confident in their predictions, more likely to sell the stocks and lost less on their investments.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>A new finding is that non-professional stock investors are more likely than professional stock investors to trust financial analysts and follow their recommendations. It suggests that financial analysts’ recommendations influence non-professional investors to take unmotivated investment risks. Non-professionals in the stock market should hence be advised to exercise more caution in following analysts’ recommendations.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":44559,"journal":{"name":"Review of Behavioral Finance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Non-professional versus professional investors’ trust in financial analysts’ recommendations and influences on investments\",\"authors\":\"Magnus Jansson, Patrik Michaelsen, Doron Sonsino, Tommy Gärling\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/rbf-07-2023-0191\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Purpose</h3>\\n<p>The paper aims to investigate differences in non-professional and professional stock investors’ trust in and tendency to follow financial analysts’ buy and sell recommendations.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\\n<p>Online experiment conducted in Sweden in March 2022 comparing non-professional private investors (<em>n</em> = 80), professional investors (<em>n</em> = 33), and master students in finance (<em>n</em> = 28). Information was presented about four company stocks listed on the New York stock exchange. Two stocks were buy-recommended and two stocks sell-recommended by financial analysts. For one stock of each type, the recommendation was presented to participants. Dependent variables were predictions of the stock price after three months, ratings of confidence in the predictions and choices of holding, buying or selling the stock. Ratings were also made of the importance of presented stock-related information as well as trust in analysts’ skill and integrity.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Findings</h3>\\n<p>More positive return predictions were made of buy-recommended than sell-recommended stocks. Non-professionals and to some degree finance students tended to trust financial analysts more than professional investors did and they were more influenced by the presentation of the buy recommendations. All groups made too optimistic return predictions, but the professionals were less confident in their predictions, more likely to sell the stocks and lost less on their investments.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\\n<p>A new finding is that non-professional stock investors are more likely than professional stock investors to trust financial analysts and follow their recommendations. It suggests that financial analysts’ recommendations influence non-professional investors to take unmotivated investment risks. Non-professionals in the stock market should hence be advised to exercise more caution in following analysts’ recommendations.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\",\"PeriodicalId\":44559,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Behavioral Finance\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Behavioral Finance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/rbf-07-2023-0191\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Behavioral Finance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/rbf-07-2023-0191","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 本文旨在研究非专业和专业股票投资者对金融分析师买卖建议的信任度和遵循倾向的差异。设计/方法/途径 2022 年 3 月在瑞典进行了一项在线实验,比较了非专业私人投资者(n = 80)、专业投资者(n = 33)和金融专业硕士生(n = 28)。实验介绍了在纽约证券交易所上市的四家公司股票的相关信息。两只股票由金融分析师推荐买入,两只股票由金融分析师推荐卖出。每种类型的一只股票都向参与者展示了推荐信息。因变量包括对三个月后股票价格的预测、对预测的信心评级以及对持有、买入或卖出股票的选择。此外,还对所提供的股票相关信息的重要性以及对分析师技能和诚信的信任度进行了评分。研究结果 对买入推荐股票的预测回报率高于卖出推荐股票。非专业人员以及在某种程度上金融专业的学生往往比专业投资者更信任金融分析师,他们受买入建议的影响更大。所有组别都对收益预测过于乐观,但专业人士对自己的预测信心不足,更有可能卖出股票,投资损失也更少。 原创性/价值一项新发现是,非专业股票投资者比专业股票投资者更有可能信任金融分析师并听从他们的建议。这表明,金融分析师的建议会影响非专业投资者,使其冒无动机的投资风险。因此,应建议股市中的非专业人士在遵循分析师的建议时更加谨慎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Non-professional versus professional investors’ trust in financial analysts’ recommendations and influences on investments

Purpose

The paper aims to investigate differences in non-professional and professional stock investors’ trust in and tendency to follow financial analysts’ buy and sell recommendations.

Design/methodology/approach

Online experiment conducted in Sweden in March 2022 comparing non-professional private investors (n = 80), professional investors (n = 33), and master students in finance (n = 28). Information was presented about four company stocks listed on the New York stock exchange. Two stocks were buy-recommended and two stocks sell-recommended by financial analysts. For one stock of each type, the recommendation was presented to participants. Dependent variables were predictions of the stock price after three months, ratings of confidence in the predictions and choices of holding, buying or selling the stock. Ratings were also made of the importance of presented stock-related information as well as trust in analysts’ skill and integrity.

Findings

More positive return predictions were made of buy-recommended than sell-recommended stocks. Non-professionals and to some degree finance students tended to trust financial analysts more than professional investors did and they were more influenced by the presentation of the buy recommendations. All groups made too optimistic return predictions, but the professionals were less confident in their predictions, more likely to sell the stocks and lost less on their investments.

Originality/value

A new finding is that non-professional stock investors are more likely than professional stock investors to trust financial analysts and follow their recommendations. It suggests that financial analysts’ recommendations influence non-professional investors to take unmotivated investment risks. Non-professionals in the stock market should hence be advised to exercise more caution in following analysts’ recommendations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Review of Behavioral Finance
Review of Behavioral Finance BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: Review of Behavioral Finance publishes high quality original peer-reviewed articles in the area of behavioural finance. The RBF focus is on Behavioural Finance but with a very broad lens looking at how the behavioural attributes of the decision makers influence the financial structure of a company, investors’ portfolios, and the functioning of financial markets. High quality empirical, experimental and/or theoretical research articles as well as well executed literature review articles are considered for publication in the journal.
期刊最新文献
Deciphering CEO disclosure tone inconsistency: a behavioural exploration Lottery stocks in Brazil: investigating risk premium and investor behavior Do executive facial trustworthiness have impact on IPO underpricing in the Indonesia stock exchange? Global reversal strategy: equilibrium of endogenous trading? Global reversal strategy: equilibrium of endogenous trading?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1