Skip to main content
Log in

Disposition effect and analyst forecast dispersion

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Clifford S. Asness, Andrea Frazzini & Lasse Heje Pedersen

Notes

  1. 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).

  2. Other measures of differences of opinion include breadth of ownership (Chen et al. 2002) and the institutional ratio (Hobbs et al. 2017). I do not use these measures as they are only available quarterly.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. More recent studies find opposite results, e.g. Coval et al. (2005), Kaniel et al. (2008), and document that individual investor trading improves stock liquidity (Wang and Zhang 2015).

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. The irrational belief in mean reversion in their model works in the domain of losses.

  11. See Barber and Odean (2000) for details on the large discount brokerage dataset.

  12. Results in this paper are similar using the summary statistics from the I/B/E/S U.S. Summary History files.

  13. 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.

  14. The average purchase price, for example, is used by Odean (1998) and Ranguelova (2001). LIFO is used by Goetzmann and Massa (2008). FIFO, which is motivated by U.S. tax practice, is used by Frazzini (2006) and Kaustia (2010).

  15. There are 231,456,050 observations for which CRSP data is available.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. Results in the paper are similar using the residuals from a Fama–French three factor model regression.

  19. http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/data_library.html.

  20. Grinblatt and Keloharju (2001) find that the propensity to sell a stock is related to returns over the past month.

  21. 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.

  22. Since smaller stocks have lower analyst coverage, the I/B/E/S data is effectively restricted to larger stocks.

  23. http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/data_library.html.

  24. T-statistics for the differences in PGR, PLR and PGR-PLR across all forecast dispersion quintiles are available upon request.

  25. Unlike Ranguelova (2001), I find that the small stocks in my sample do not exhibit a reverse disposition effect.

  26. 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.

  27. The results are robust to using the analyst coverage measure.

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barberis N, Xiong W (2012) Realization utility. J Financ Econ 104(2):251–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coval J, Shumway T (2005) Do behavioral biases affect prices? J Financ 60(1):1–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhar R, Zhu N (2006) Up close and personal: investor sophistication and the disposition effect. Manag Sci 52(5):726–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diether K, Malloy C, Scherbina A (2002) Differences of opinion and the cross-section of stock returns. J Financ 57(5):2113–2141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn H (1980) Overconfidence in judgment. New Dir Methodol Soc Behav Sci 4:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Feng L, Seasholes M (2005) Do investor sophistication and trading experience eliminate behavioral biases in financial markets. Review of Finance 9(3):305–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazzini A (2006) The disposition effect and underreaction to news. J Financ 61(4):2017–2046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genesove D, Mayer C (2001) Loss aversion and seller behavior: evidence from the housing market. Quart J Econ 116(4):1233–1260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goetzmann W, Massa M (2008) Disposition matters: volume, volatility and price impact of a behavioral bias. J Portf Manag 34(2):103–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomes F (2005) Portfolio choice and trading volume with loss averse investors. J Bus 78(2):675–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin D, Tversky A (1992) The weighting of evidence and the determinants of confidence. Cogn Psychol 24(3):411–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grinblatt M, Han B (2005) Prospect theory, mental accounting and momentum. J Financ Econ 78(2):311–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grinblatt M, Keloharju M (2001) What makes investors trade? J Financ 56(2):589–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hens T, Vlcek M (2011) Does prospect theory explain the disposition effect? J Behav Financ 12(3):141–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong H, Stein J (1999) A unified theory of underreaction, momentum trading and overreaction in asset markets. J Financ 54(6):2143–2184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung M-W, Yu H-Y (2006) A heterogeneous model of disposition effect. Appl Econ 38(18):2147–2157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ji L-J, Nisbett R, Su Y (2001) Culture, change, and prediction. Psychol Sci 12(6):450–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang G, Lee C, Zhang Y (2005) Information uncertainty and expected returns. Rev Acc Stud 10(2):185–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin L, Scherbina A (2011) Inheriting losers. Rev Financ Stud 24(3):786–820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson T (2004) Forecast dispersion and the cross section of expected returns. J Financ 59(5):1957–1978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision making under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaniel R, Saar G, Titman S (2008) Individual investor trading and stock returns. J Financ 63(1):273–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaustia M (2010) Prospect theory and the disposition effect. J Financ Quant Anal 45(3):791–812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar A (2009) Hard-to-value stocks, behavioral biases and informed trading. J Financ Quant Anal 44(6):1375–1401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makarov I, Rytchkov O (2012) Forecasting the forecasts of others: implications for asset pricing. J Econ Theory 147(3):941–966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odean T (1998) Are investors reluctant to realize their losses? J Financ 53(5):1775–1798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncert 5(4):297–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Q, Zhang J (2015) Individual investor trading and stock liquidity. Rev Quant Financ Acc 45(3):485–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber M, Camerer C (1998) The disposition effect in securities trading: an experimental analysis. J Econ Behav Organ 33(2):167–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuchel H (2001) What drives the disposition effect? Working paper, University of Mannheim

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniela Vesselinova Balkanska.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-017-0648-7

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation