This article studies the impact of heterogeneous loss averse investors on asset prices. In very good states loss averse investors become gradually less risk averse as wealth rises above their reference point, pushing up equity prices. When wealth drops below the reference point the investors become risk seeking and demand for stocks increases drastically, eventually leading to a forced sell-off and stock market bust in bad states. Heterogeneity in reference points and initial wealth of the loss averse investors does not change the salient features of the equilibrium price process, such as a relatively high equity premium, high volatility and counter-cyclical changes in the equity premium.

We study how incentive fees and manager’s own investment in the fund affect the investment strategy of hedge fund managers. We find that loss averse managers increase the risk of the fund’s investment strategy with higher incentive fees. However, risk taking is greatly reduced if a substantial amount of the manager’s own money (at least 30%) is in the fund. Using the Zurich hedge fund universe, we test the relation between risk taking and incentive fees empirically. Hedge funds with incentive fees have significantly lower mean returns (net of fees), while downside risk is positively related to the incentive fee level. Fund of funds charging large incentive fees achieve relatively high mean returns, but with significantly higher risk as well.

This study shows that a group of individual investors in the financial markets displays symptoms of compulsive gambling, or an addiction to trading, based on a standard diagnostic checklist from the American Psychiatric Association. In a representative sample of Dutch retail investors, we find that 4.4% of the investors meet the criteria for compulsive gambling in the financial markets. Another 3.6% meet the criteria for problem gambling, which is a less severe form of gambling disorder. Investors with symptoms of compulsive gambling problems tend to follow a more active and speculative trading style, indicated by a higher frequency of stock trading, day-trading and investing in derivatives and leveraged products.

This paper analyzes the optimal investment strategy for loss averse investors, assuming a complete market and general Ito processes for the asset prices. The loss-averse investor follows a partial portfolio insurance strategy. When the investor's planning horizon is short (less than 5 years), he or she considerably reduces the initial portfolio weight of stocks compared to an investor with smooth power utility. The empirical section of the paper estimates the level of loss aversion implied by historical U.S. stock market data, using a representative agent model. We find that loss aversion and risk aversion cannot be disentangled empirically.

Exchange rate models with uncertain and incomplete information predict that investors focus on a small set of fundamentals that changes frequently over time. We design a model selection rule that captures the current set of fundamentals that best predicts the exchange rate. Out-of-sample tests show that the forecasts made by this rule significantly beat a random walk for 5 out of 10 currencies. Furthermore, the currency forecasts generate meaningful investment profits. We demonstrate that the strong performance of the model selection rule is driven by time-varying weights attached to a small set of fundamentals, in line with theory.

We test the relation between ambiguity aversion and five household portfolio choice puzzles: nonparticipation in equities, low allocations to equity, home-bias, own-company stock ownership, and portfolio under-diversification. In a representative US household survey, we measure ambiguity preferences using custom-designed questions based on Ellsberg urns. As theory predicts, ambiguity aversion is negatively associated with stock market participation, the fraction of financial assets in stocks, and foreign stock ownership, but it is positively related to own-company stock ownership. Conditional on stock ownership, ambiguity aversion is related to portfolio under-diversification, and during the financial crisis, ambiguity-averse respondents were more likely to sell stocks.

We test whether probability weighting affects household portfolio choice in a representative survey. On average, people display inverse-S-shaped probability weighting, overweighting low probability events. As theory predicts, probability weighting is positively associated with portfolio underdiversification and significant Sharpe ratio losses. Analyzing respondents’ individual stock holdings, we find higher probability weighting is associated with owning lottery-type stocks and positively skewed equity portfolios. People with higher probability weighting are less likely to own mutual funds and more likely to either avoid equities or hold individual stocks. We are the first to empirically link individuals’ elicited probability weighting and real-world decisions under risk.