Upload
deirdre-austin
View
213
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Why Do Individuals Exhibit Investment Biases?
National Taiwan UniversityInternational Conference on Finance
December 6, 2012
Henrik Cronqvist Claremont McKenna College
Stephan SiegelUniversity of Washington
Genes and Household FinanceResearch Agenda So Far
Save
Consume
Participate in stock market
Don’t participate in stock market
More risk
Less risk
Investment “biases”
We use twin study research design to examine, for each of the above choices, the effects of i) genetic and environmental influences, and ii) GxE moderators.
Parallel to molecular genetics and neuroscientific studies by Camerer, Bossaerts, Kuhnen, Laibson, Zak, and others.
Today:
Investment “styles” – value vs. growth
Investment “Biases”
Long list of investment behaviors that cannot be explained by standard preferences and belief formation:
Underdiversify Prefer local securities – home bias Avoid realizing losses Trade a lot Chase past performance Prefer lottery-type stocks
Some of these behaviors have been shown to be: Wide-spread; present also among professional investors Related to fundamental psychological mechanisms Costly
But, degrees of behavior vary across investors
Biological Basis for Investment Behaviors
Existing Evidence
Experimental evidence (previous slide)
Capuchin monkeys exhibit loss aversion Capuchin monkeys prefer gambles with good outcomes framed as bonuses
over identical pay-off gambles with bad outcomes framed as losses Loss aversion is part of “decision-making process that evolved before humans
and capuchins separated” (Chen et al. (2006), Lakshminarayanan et al. (2011))
But: No empirical evidence on the genetics of investment “biases” based on real world financial decisions and data
Josefin and ElinNordegren
Research Methodology: Twin Researc
Identical Twins
The Hodgson Twins
Fraternal Twins
Intuition of Methodology
Use identical & fraternal twins to decompose the variation in investment behaviors:
Identical (monozygotic, MZ) twins share 100% of their DNA
Fraternal (dizygotic, DZ) twins share on average 50% of their DNA
Twins who grew up in same family share a common environment
Each twin has his/her individual (non-shared) environment
If genes matter, then identical twins should be more similar than fraternal twins in terms of, e.g., their investment behaviors.
7
Methodology
Random effect model with genetic effect a, common effect c and individual-specific effect e:
Covariance structure implied by genetic theory: MZ
DZ
Methodology, cont’d
Estimate parameters σ2a, σ2
c, and σ2e via maximum likelihood
estimation (MLE) with bootstrapped standard errors
Derive the variance components:2
2 2 2a
a c
2
2 2 2c
a c
2
2 2 2a c
A-share – genetic component:
C-share – common environment(parenting):
E-share – individual environment & measurement error:
Data Swedish Twin Registry
Matched with annual financial data (including holdings of assets and sales transactions) and socioeconomic data from Statistics Sweden (1999 – 2007)
Filters: At least 18 years old Both twins hold some equities (directly or indirectly) in one year Average all variables over the years that individual is in sample
Measuring Investment “Biases”
DiversificationNumber of stocks in portfolio
Home Bias Proportion of equity portfolio in local (=Swedish) equities
Turnover Annual sales volume scaled by value of portfolio at beginning of year
Disposition Effect Proportion Gains Realized (PGR) – Proportion Losses Realized (PLR) (Odean (1998))
Performance Chasing Proportion of equities acquired with raw returns in top two deciles
Skewness Preference Proportion of “lottery” securities (Kumar (2009))
Evidence from Correlations
Variance Decomposition
Diver- sification
Home Bias Turnover
Disposition Effect
Performance Chasing
Skewness Preference
A Share 0.453 0.452 0.251 0.272 0.311 0.275
0.084 0.053 0.029 0.127 0.091 0.050
C Share 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.095 0.0000.052 0.028 0.007 0.045 0.065 0.028
E Share 0.516 0.548 0.749 0.728 0.594 0.7250.042 0.037 0.027 0.109 0.039 0.034
Variance Decomposition
D E T A I L
Robustness
Opposite-sex twins
Model misspecification Allowing for negative variance components
Communication Identical twins communicate more with one another Financial decisions are influenced by communication (e.g. Shiller and
Pound (1998), Hong, Kubik, and Stein (2004)) Sort pairs into 10 communication intensity bins and randomly drop
identical/fraternal pairs until both types are equally often present per bin. Estimate model across all 10 bins.
“A” component is somewhat reduced, but overall, results are robust.
Equal environments assumption
Two Additional Results
Moderators of genetic investment biases
Behavioral consistency: Investment biases and behaviors in other, non-investment, domains
Moderating Genetic Effects
Environment can enhance or reduce the effects of genetic predisposition
Example: Education seems to reduce genetic variation in health outcomes (Johnson et al. (2009))
Examine how years of education interact with the genetic effects
No significant evidence that years of education reduces genetic predispositions to investment biases
Moderator: Years of Education
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
8 10 12 14 16
Var(E) Var(C) Var(A)
Financial Experience
Does work experience in the financial industry or, e.g., in a corporate treasury department reduce genetic predispositions to investment biases?
Repeat analysis for individuals working with finance:
“A” components reduced (generally by >50%).
Experience in the finance industry seems to reduce the genetic predisposition to investment biases.
Behavior across different domains is often consistent If genetic factors matter, source of consistency should be genetic
Correlate Home Bias with Distance to birthplace Indicator whether spouse is from same home region
Behavioral Consistency
Behavioral Consistency
Conclusions
A long list of investment biases are “human” in the sense that investors are born with pre-dispositions
25-50% of variation explained by genetic variation
Provide empirical support for evolutionary models of investment biases (e.g., Brennan and Lo (2009))
Education does not reduce the genetic predisposition to investment biases. But finance industry experience reduces genetic effects.
Genetic factors influencing investment biases affect behaviors in other, non-investment, domains.