Search results

The paper aims to provide the individual routes of the authors into behavioural finance in order to introduce the special issue.

The paper provides the background to the authors' personal route into behavioural finance.

The paper highlights general themes of development and influence of behavioural finance and relationships with practice and other areas of academic finance.

The paper offers the perspectives of the authors on how they feel the research area of behavioural finance will develop in the future.

This paper aims to investigate a double puzzle, empirical and theoretical. Empirically, can the authors document the influence of groups on financial decisions in investments and trading? Theoretically, if decisions in a group context can be documented, how can we account for them, against the background of the normative models, according to which financial decisions are individualized and atomized? Based on interviews and ethnographic observations with fund managers, analysts and traders, the authors document here decision-making in finance. Theoretically, the authors argue that financial decisions can be explained if, in addition to cognitive processes, the authors take into account the impact of social interactions on the decision-making process. Social interactions are not restricted to imitation processes, and can be seen here as the efforts deployed by decision-makers at maintaining and managing the context of their decisions. The authors present and discuss empirical evidence and argue that the study of social interactions can productively contribute to understanding how decisions are made in finance.

The data analyzed here have been gathered between 2001 and 2011, and include: interviews with investment professionals (fund managers and analysts) from the UK and Turkey; interviews with individual investors from the UK and the USA; and observations with individual investors from the UK and the USA. This captures decision activities conducted in different regulatory frameworks of those countries. The authors focussed in the interviews on general decision-making practices.

Conclusion the authors have sought to answer a double puzzle, empirical and theoretical. Empirically, the puzzle is how investors and traders resort to groups in their decision-making. Theoretically, the puzzle consists not only in providing an explanation for such processes but also in taking into account that they do not fit the normative models of decisions in mainstream finance. The argument has been that in addition to the cognitive processes identified and discussed in behavioural finance, the authors need to take into account the impact of social processes as well. Social processes include the efforts deployed by financial decision-makers at maintaining and managing the contexts within which decisions are made. The work of context maintenance is intrinsic to the logic of decision-making. The authors have identified, documented and discussed here the social dynamics in financial decisions with respect to performance, managing group relationships and possible conflicts.

Managing relationships within groups is not without consequences with regard to trading decisions. Oftentimes, avoiding group conflicts – or being confronted with them – leads to decisional adjustments, which have less to do with returns on trades than with the necessity of accommodating social relationships. As several of the interviewees emphasized, making decisions implies consensus and reaching consensus requires accommodating relationships.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the special issue of Review of Behavioural Finance entitled “Behavioural finance: the role of psychological factors in financial decisions”.

The authors present a brief outline of the origins of behavioural economics; discuss the role that experimental and survey methods play in the study of financial behaviour; summarise the contributions made by the papers in the issue and consider their implications; and assess why research in behavioural finance is important for finance researchers and practitioners.

The primary input to behavioural finance has been from experimental psychology. Methods developed within sociology such as surveys, interviews, participant observation, focus groups have not had the same degree of influence. Typically, these methods are even more expensive than experimental ones and so costs of using them may be one reason for their lack of impact. However, it is also possible that the training of finance academics leads them to prefer methodologies that permit greater control and a clearer causal interpretation.

The paper shows that interdisciplinary research is becoming more widespread and it is likely that greater collaboration between finance and sociology will develop in the future.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the effect of leverage mimicking factor portfolios in explaining stock return variations. This paper broadens the focus of the current asset pricing literature by forming portfolios mimicking the leverage factor.

Following Fama and French's and Carhart's procedure in forming size, book‐to‐market and momentum mimicking portfolios, the authors of this paper form leverage mimicking factor portfolios to explain stock returns. A five factor model is constructed that explains the variations in stock returns better relative to the other asset pricing models including the Fama‐French‐Carhart four factor model.

The findings indicate that the leverage mimicking portfolio helps to explain stock return variations better relative to the other asset pricing models including the Fama‐French‐Carhart four factor model. Results are robust to other risk factors.

The results lead us to explore further avenues in using other risk factors in asset pricing such as future work to consider other cross‐sectional attributes such as the stochastic behaviour of earnings or profitability that might also produce common variation in stock returns. There may be other risk factors that carry a premium and thus can be used for asset pricing.

The paper's findings are important in fund management when selecting or evaluating portfolio performance. The authors introduce an additional factor that has a sound theoretical appeal and show that leverage mimicking factor portfolios provide additional information in pricing assets, both in the cross section of all shares and in different sectors.

To the best of the authors' knowledge this is the first study of the effect of leverage mimicking factor portfolios in explaining stock return variations.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the recent banking and financial crisis in the UK. It discusses the triggers of the crisis from a UK perspective and then examines the immediate reactions in the form of short‐term policies and concludes with a discussion on longer‐term policies.

This is a conceptual paper that argues that some of the triggers of the crisis are real and some are behavioural.

The crisis has its roots in the sub‐prime crisis of the USA with spillover effects for the UK due to its well‐developed and international financial sector. The systemic environment of high leverage in the financial, corporate and household sectors, the international nature of finance, and the opacity in banks' balance sheets are real triggers. In contrast, the underestimation of risks by almost all agents in the economy is behavioural.

The paper argues that some of the conditions that led to the crisis will not change and should now be incorporated in new banking regulations. This is particularly true in the case of behavioural factors. Optimism, greed, herding and underestimation of low‐probability high‐impact events, are all parts of human nature. Human nature will not change. Thus, it need better regulations.

Less privileged groups, such as the poor, the uneducated, and the elderly, need better regulation to make them less vulnerable not only to others' biases but also to their own biases.

The paper is original in discussing behavioural side of the crisis along with the real side of it.

The purpose of this paper is to compare the short‐term trading behaviour of A shares owned by domestic investors and their dually‐traded B shares owned by foreign investors, after a period of significant price change.

Given that the fundamentals of A and B shares are the same, the paper tests the hypothesis that both types of stocks should behave homogeneously either by exhibiting a momentum behaviour or an over‐reaction pattern. The paper relates any deviations in post‐shock stock returns to the differences in the trading patterns of foreign relative to domestic investors.

While the prices of the A shares are relatively random after the event, those of the B shares carry on increasing significantly after both positive and negative shocks. This trend is more pronounced for large firms with high liquidity, in contrast to the efficient market hypothesis expectations, which suggests that any abnormal performance should be arbitraged away sooner in a frictionless (in this case liquid) market.

The paper relates these results to the high level of optimism of foreign investors, which is an under‐researched area in behaviour finance.