Abstract
Behavioral finance theories posit that behavioral biases are more pronounced when there is higher information uncertainty about fundamentals. This paper examines the relation between the disposition effect, the tendency to ride losses and realize gains, and dispersion in financial analysts’ earnings forecasts for a sample of large U.S. discount brokerage accounts from January 1991 to December 1996. I find that the disposition effect is exacerbated in stocks with higher analyst forecast dispersion. In particular, the disposition effect is 10% in stocks in the highest forecast dispersion quintile and not significant in the lowest forecast dispersion quintile. The driving factor behind these findings is investors’ higher propensity to realize gains when facing higher information uncertainty. The results are robust to controlling for firm size, analyst coverage, idiosyncratic volatility, turnover, and past market-adjusted returns. The results provide supportive evidence for a behavioral bias explanation of the disposition effect consistent with mean-reversion beliefs for winners and loss actualization avoidance for losers.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
There is an on going debate in the literature as to whether dispersion in analyst earnings forecasts captures differences of opinion or parameter uncertainty. See, for example, Johnson (2004).
Higher heterogeneity of beliefs could thus simply imply that mean reversion beliefs are more extreme and these erroneous expectations take longer to be corrected. For example, suppose that there are two sets of investors holding rational or mean-reversion beliefs. In this setting, as the dispersion in beliefs increases, so does the fraction of mean-reversion investors (up to one half of the total number of investors.) Thus, it is plausible to expect stronger mean reversion beliefs or slower updating of investor beliefs when there is higher heterogeneity of beliefs.
Among behavioral finance models focusing on the importance of disagreement for mispricing, Hong and Stein (1999) derive momentum in a setting where information diffuses gradually across heterogeneous agents.
It is also possible that higher order beliefs could cause slower incorporation of information and updating of investors’ beliefs. A higher order beliefs setup could be useful to study the effect of disagreement on the disposition effect. This setup has been used by Makarov and Rytchkov (2012), for example, to model heterogeneous beliefs and the momentum anomaly, predicting stronger momentum for stocks with higher belief heterogeneity.
The reverse disposition effect in their paper is obtained using the historical purchase price as the reference price, which is the approach followed in this paper. A low disposition effect is obtained in their paper when using the ever high price as the reference price.
Li and Yang (2008) model prospect theory preferences in a full equilibrium setting in which investors hold heterogeneous beliefs about the dividend growth rate and time variation in beliefs is important.
Gomes (2005) finds that the optimal portfolio choice with loss averse investors is consistent with the disposition effect, but he does not consider the initial investment decision. Barberis and Xiong (2008) and Hens and Vlcek (2011) model the trading behavior of an investor with prospect theory preferences, taking into account the initial decision. In a partial equilibrium setting, Barberis and Xiong (2008) find that prospect theory cannot explain the ex-post disposition effect for short time horizons, as the equity premium must be relatively high for loss averse investors to invest initially in the stock.
Based on the psychological literature on entrapment, escalating commitment, and sunk cost, Zuchel (2001) also suggests that the disposition effect and investors’ reluctance to realize losses in particular could be explained based on cognitive dissonance stemming from self-justification. In order to avoid cognitive dissonance, investors may irrationally prefer to hold losers to justify their initial purchase decision. Reluctant to close mental accounts at a loss, investors could become entrapped in a losing situation if they believe they are close to breaking even.
With regard to beliefs about future reversals, there are also some studies (Ji et al. 2001) which argue that Asians have a stronger tendency to expect reversal of fortune than do Westerners, suggesting that the effects considered in this study may operate differently across cultures.
The irrational belief in mean reversion in their model works in the domain of losses.
See Barber and Odean (2000) for details on the large discount brokerage dataset.
Results in this paper are similar using the summary statistics from the I/B/E/S U.S. Summary History files.
I also correct some errors in the classification of purchases and sales based on the sign of the quantities traded. The sales or purchase price for the aggregated transactions is the weighted average price.
There are 231,456,050 observations for which CRSP data is available.
Due to availability of I/B/E/S data, the large discount brokerage portfolio holding sample is reduced by 28% to 165,844,122 observations.
The standard error for the difference in the proportions PGR and PLR is:
\( se = sqrt(PGR \times (1 - PGR)/(nRG + nPG) + PLR \times (1 - PLR)/(nRL + nPL)), \)
where nRG, nPG, nRL, nPL are the number of realized gains, paper gains, realized losses and paper losses.
Results in the paper are similar using the residuals from a Fama–French three factor model regression.
Grinblatt and Keloharju (2001) find that the propensity to sell a stock is related to returns over the past month.
For the sake of brevity, Table 2 reports the statistical significance of the difference between dispersion quintile 5 (high) and quintile 1 (low) only. The full results are available upon request.
Since smaller stocks have lower analyst coverage, the I/B/E/S data is effectively restricted to larger stocks.
T-statistics for the differences in PGR, PLR and PGR-PLR across all forecast dispersion quintiles are available upon request.
Unlike Ranguelova (2001), I find that the small stocks in my sample do not exhibit a reverse disposition effect.
For the sake of brevity, Table 3 reports the statistical significance of the difference between dispersion quintile 5 (high) and quintile 1 (low) only. The full results are available upon request. The differences are positive but insignificant between D1 and D2 in the bottom size quintile, between D1 and D2 in the second size quintile, D2 and D3 in the fourth size quintile, and D2 and D3 in the top size quintile.
The results are robust to using the analyst coverage measure.
Quintile differences are insignificant for dispersion quintiles D2 and D3 in the second, third and fourth coverage quintiles. For the sake of brevity, Table 4 reports the statistical significance of the difference between dispersion quintile 5 (high) and quintile 1 (low) only. The full results are available upon request.
For the purpose of brevity, Table 5 reports the statistical significance of the difference between dispersion quintile 5 (high) and quintile 1 (low) only. The full results are available upon request.
The differences in PGR across dispersion quintile are significant for 17 out of 20 cases, except for D3–D2 for V1, D3–D2 for V2, and D2–D1 for V4.
For the sake of brevity, Table 6 reports the statistical significance of the difference between dispersion quintile 5 (high) and quintile 1 (low) only. The full results are available upon request.
Differences in adjacent forecast dispersion quintile PGR are insignificant for D4–D3 for T1, D3–D2 for T2, T4 and T5.
References
Andreassen P (1988) Explaining the price-volume relationship: the difference between price changes and changing prices. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 41(3):371–496
Barber B, Odean T (2000) Trading is hazardous to your wealth: the common stock investment performance of individual investors. J Financ 55(2):773–806
Barberis N, Xiong W (2008) What drives the disposition effect? An analysis of a long-standing preference-based explanation. J Financ 64(2):751–784
Barberis N, Xiong W (2012) Realization utility. J Financ Econ 104(2):251–271
Ben-David I, Doukas J, Hirshleifer D (2009) Uncertainty and trading strategies of institutional investors. Working paper
Chen J, Hong H, Stein J (2002) Breadth of ownership and stock returns. J Financ Econ 66(2–3):171–205
Choe H, Kho Kho B-C, Stulz R (1999) Do foreign investors destabilize stock markets? The Korean experience in 1997. J Financ Econ 54(2):227–264
Coval J, Shumway T (2005) Do behavioral biases affect prices? J Financ 60(1):1–34
Coval J, Hirshleifer D, Shumway T (2005) Can individual investors beat the market? Working paper
Daniel K, Hirshleifer D, Subrahmanyam A (1998) Investor psychology and security market under- and overreactions. J Financ 53(6):1839–1885
Dhar R, Zhu N (2006) Up close and personal: investor sophistication and the disposition effect. Manag Sci 52(5):726–740
Diether K, Malloy C, Scherbina A (2002) Differences of opinion and the cross-section of stock returns. J Financ 57(5):2113–2141
Einhorn H (1980) Overconfidence in judgment. New Dir Methodol Soc Behav Sci 4:1–16
Feng L, Seasholes M (2005) Do investor sophistication and trading experience eliminate behavioral biases in financial markets. Review of Finance 9(3):305–351
Frazzini A (2006) The disposition effect and underreaction to news. J Financ 61(4):2017–2046
Genesove D, Mayer C (2001) Loss aversion and seller behavior: evidence from the housing market. Quart J Econ 116(4):1233–1260
Goetzmann W, Massa M (2008) Disposition matters: volume, volatility and price impact of a behavioral bias. J Portf Manag 34(2):103–125
Gomes F (2005) Portfolio choice and trading volume with loss averse investors. J Bus 78(2):675–706
Griffin D, Tversky A (1992) The weighting of evidence and the determinants of confidence. Cogn Psychol 24(3):411–435
Grinblatt M, Han B (2005) Prospect theory, mental accounting and momentum. J Financ Econ 78(2):311–339
Grinblatt M, Keloharju M (2001) What makes investors trade? J Financ 56(2):589–616
Hens T, Vlcek M (2011) Does prospect theory explain the disposition effect? J Behav Financ 12(3):141–157
Hobbs J, Lee H, Singh V (2017) New evidence on the effect of belief heterogeneity on stock returns. Rev Quant Financ Acc 48(2):289–309
Hong H, Stein J (1999) A unified theory of underreaction, momentum trading and overreaction in asset markets. J Financ 54(6):2143–2184
Hong H, Lim T, Stein J (2000) Bad news travels slowly: size, analyst coverage and the profitability of momentum strategies. J Financ 55(1):265–295
Hung M-W, Yu H-Y (2006) A heterogeneous model of disposition effect. Appl Econ 38(18):2147–2157
Ji L-J, Nisbett R, Su Y (2001) Culture, change, and prediction. Psychol Sci 12(6):450–456
Jiang G, Lee C, Zhang Y (2005) Information uncertainty and expected returns. Rev Acc Stud 10(2):185–221
Jin L, Scherbina A (2011) Inheriting losers. Rev Financ Stud 24(3):786–820
Johnson T (2004) Forecast dispersion and the cross section of expected returns. J Financ 59(5):1957–1978
Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision making under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–292
Kaniel R, Saar G, Titman S (2008) Individual investor trading and stock returns. J Financ 63(1):273–310
Kaustia M (2010) Prospect theory and the disposition effect. J Financ Quant Anal 45(3):791–812
Kumar A (2009) Hard-to-value stocks, behavioral biases and informed trading. J Financ Quant Anal 44(6):1375–1401
Li Y, Yang L (2008) Prospect theory, the disposition effect and asset prices. Working paper
Locke P, Mann S (2005) Professional trader discipline and trade disposition. J Financ Econ 76(2):401–444
Makarov I, Rytchkov O (2012) Forecasting the forecasts of others: implications for asset pricing. J Econ Theory 147(3):941–966
Muermann A, Volkman J (2006) Regret, pride and the disposition effect. Working paper
O’Curry Fogel S, Berry T (2006) The disposition effect and individual investor decisions: the roles of regret and counterfactual alternatives. J Behav Financ 7(2):107–116
Odean T (1998) Are investors reluctant to realize their losses? J Financ 53(5):1775–1798
Ranguelova E (2001) Disposition effect and firm size: new evidence on individual investor trading activity. Working paper
Shefrin H, Statman M (1985) The disposition to sell winners too early and ride losers too long: theory and evidence. J Financ 40(3):777–790
Shumway T, Wu G (2009) Does disposition drive momentum? Working paper
Talpsepp T, Vlcek M, Wang M (2014) Speculating in gains, waiting in losses: a closer look at the disposition effect. J Behav Exp Financ 2:31–43
Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncert 5(4):297–323
Wang Q, Zhang J (2015) Individual investor trading and stock liquidity. Rev Quant Financ Acc 45(3):485–508
Weber M, Camerer C (1998) The disposition effect in securities trading: an experimental analysis. J Econ Behav Organ 33(2):167–184
Weber M, Welfens F (2008) Splitting the disposition effect: asymmetric reactions towards “selling winners” and “holding losers”. Working paper, University of Mannheim
Zhang F (2006) Information uncertainty and stock returns. J Financ 61(1):105–137
Zuchel H (2001) What drives the disposition effect? Working paper, University of Mannheim
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my dissertation committee: Nai-fu Chen, David Hirshleifer, and Ashley Wang for their guidance and support. I am grateful to Philippe Jorion, Byoung-Hyoun Hwang, Lu Zheng, and finance seminar participants at the Paul Merage School of Business of the University of California at Irvine for valuable comments and suggestions. I am indebted to Terrance Odean for sharing with me the large discount brokerage data. All errors are my own.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Balkanska, D.V. Disposition effect and analyst forecast dispersion. Rev Quant Finan Acc 50, 837–859 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-017-0648-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-017-0648-7