We investigate loss aversion in financial markets using a typical asset allocation problem. Our theoretical and empirical results show that investors in financial markets are more loss averse than assumed in the literature. Moreover, loss aversion changes depending on market conditions; investors become far more loss averse during bull markets than during bear markets, indicating their more profound disutility for losses when others enjoy gains. Contrary to most previous results, we find that investors are more sensitive to changes in losses than changes in gains.

We investigate the dynamics of the value anomaly in order to identify the driving forces of the anomaly. We show that the large positive value-minus-growth portfolio returns are explained by an over-reaction (under-reaction) to the positive (negative) market movements in short, specific time periods, during which the average returns of value-minus-growth portfolios are more than 2% a month. We propose an explanation based on behavioral biases: the dynamics of the value anomaly reflect the increased speed of return reversals subsequent to overreaction. Two conditions that increase the return reversals are proposed: when investors respond to public signals asymmetrically or when public signals become noisy. Our empirical results reveal that the value anomaly is explained by either one of these two channels.

This paper proposes an unobserved fundamental component of volatility as a measure of risk. This concept of fundamental volatility may be more meaningful than the usual measures of volatility for market regulators. Fundamental volatility can be obtained using a stochastic volatility model, which allows us to `filter’ out the signal in the volatility information. We decompose four FTSE100 stock index related volatilities into transitory noise and unobserved fundamental volatility. Our analysis is applied to the question as to whether derivative markets destabilise asset markets. We find that introducing European options reduces fundamental volatility, while transitory noise in the underlying and futures markets does not show significant changes. We conclude that, for the FTSE100 index, introducing a new options market has stabilised both the underlying market and existing derivative markets.

We compare the long run reaction to anticipated and surprise information announcements using stock splits. Although there is underreaction in both cases, anticipated splits are treated differently to those that are unforeseen. After anticipated splits, cumulative abnormal returns peak at one-and-a-half times the level observed after unanticipated splits although the time taken for the announcement to be absorbed into prices is the same. We explain the difference in underreaction by the degree to which split announcements are believed and hence invested in. The favorable signal conveyed in forecast splits is more credible owing to their better pre-split performance, resulting in a far more pronounced underreaction effect.

We propose a novel method to estimate loss aversion together with risk aversion and subjective probability weighting in a reference-dependent utility. Using multiple asset allocations in the 31 OECD pension funds, we find that our estimates of loss aversion and subjective probability weights are similar to those reported by Wang et al. (2017) and Rieger et al. (2011), respectively, despite the differences in the estimation methods. However, loss aversion increases with wealth and only Hofstede's Individualism is positively related to loss aversion. Countries with high individualism or masculinity prefer high risk and high return assets to bonds, whereas countries that dislike uncertainty prefer bonds to risky assets.

This paper investigates the presence of global style factors in global equity investment. To this end, we apply Bayesian variable selection methods from the statistics literature to give guidance in the decision to include/omit factors in a global (linear factor) stock return model. Once we have accounted for country and sector, it is possible to see which style or styles best explains current asset returns. This study does not find compelling evidence for global styles as useful explanatory factors in a fixed parameter regression model, once country and sector have been accounted for.