To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
3 results ✕ Clear filters

Realization Utility with Reference-Dependent Preferences

Review of Financial Studies 2013 26(3), 723-767 open access
We develop a tractable model of realization utility that studies the role of reference-dependent S-shaped preferences in a dynamic investment setting with reinvestment. Our model generates both voluntarily realized gains and losses. It makes specific predictions about the volume of gains and losses, the holding periods, and the sizes of both realized and paper gains and losses that can be calibrated to a variety of statistics, including Odean's measure of the disposition effect. Our model also predicts several anomalies, including, among others, the flattening of the capital market line and a negative price for idiosyncratic risk.

Extrapolation and bubbles

Journal of Financial Economics 2018 129(2), 203-227 open access
We present an extrapolative model of bubbles. In the model, many investors form their demand for a risky asset by weighing two signals—an average of the asset’s past price changes and the asset’s degree of overvaluation—and “waver” over time in the relative weight they put on them. The model predicts that good news about fundamentals can trigger large price bubbles, that bubbles will be accompanied by high trading volume, and that volume increases with past asset returns. We present empirical evidence that bears on some of the model’s distinctive predictions.

Prospect Theory and Stock Market Anomalies

Journal of Finance 2021 76(5), 2639-2687 open access
We present a new model of asset prices in which investors evaluate risk according to prospect theory and examine its ability to explain 23 prominent stock market anomalies. The model incorporates all of the elements of prospect theory, accounts for investors' prior gains and losses, and makes quantitative predictions about an asset's average return based on empirical estimates of the asset's return volatility, return skewness, and past capital gain. We find that the model can help explain a majority of the 23 anomalies.