Psychology of Lenders: An Explanation of Behaviour in Puzzles of Finance

This work deals with the clarification of behaviour in finance of two finance puzzles: “stock price under- and overreactions” and “excessive trading and the gender puzzle.” The work bids behavioural cognizance to describe the puzzles upon interpretation of data heuristics and biases.

PSYCHOLOGY OF LENDERS: AN EXPLANATION OF
BEHAVIOUR IN PUZZLES OF FINANCE
NAME OF THE STUDENT:
NAME OF THE UNIVERSITY:

Table of Contents
SYNOPSIS:..............................................................................................................................................3
A BEHAVIOURAL EXPLANATION OF TWO FINANCE PUZZLES-................................................................3
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................3
Two ”puzzles of finance”...................................................................................................................3
Puzzle 1: “Asset price over- and under reaction”..........................................................................3
Puzzle 2: Excessive trading and the gender puzzle........................................................................6
CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................................8
References.............................................................................................................................................9

SYNOPSIS:
This work deals with the clarification of behaviour in finance of two finance puzzles. These puzzles
are: “stock price under- and overreactions” and “excessive trading and the gender puzzle.” The work
bids behavioural cognizance to describe the puzzles upon interpretation of data heuristics and
biases.
A BEHAVIOURAL EXPLANATION OF TWO FINANCE PUZZLES-
INTRODUCTION
Faced with financial-market phenomena which were hard to describe within the logical
requirements and expected beneficial structure in the 1980s, financial economists began
considering the idea of some market players would behave less than logically, and to find
out if market as a whole could be affected.
At the beginning, people did not make direct utilization of psychological findings. Although,
the book on theory of expectation came out for the first time in 1979 authored by
psychologist Daniel Kahneman and his co-author Amos Tversky, neither of the economists
were aware that this info existed or it held such an important place in field of economics.
In order to describe the apparent anomalies, they introduced data asymmetries and shifts in
preferences, or just thought that people less often act logically.
Two ”puzzles of finance”
Puzzle 1: “Asset price over- and under reaction”
EVALUATION:
A stock price under reaction occurs when the impact on stock market in the time frame
following the release of the news, but also in upcoming time frames. In the facing instance,
overreaction occurs: stock price reacts just after the happening of event, partially offset by
one or more changes in the opposite direction in the subsequent periods.“If you see
everyone running around, the first impulse is to follow them, the behaviour of the lenders
can cause a real mass hysteria, and the personality of the individual completely vanishes
(you can speak of primary emotionality). These extreme forms can result in destructive

results and the collapse of the stock exchange ”between 1960-1988, Cutler, Poterba and
Simmons (1991) studied various markets.
Research by Jegadeesh and Titman suggests “a model of late reaction: during a given period,
the income of the winning stocks exceeds the income of the loser stocks.” De Bondt and
Thaler show the long-term reversal of the situation.
The pattern of over and under reaction are described using various ways of behavioural
finance.
The concepts of conservatism and heuristic representativeness are used by Barberis, Shleifer
and Vishny (1998); Daniel, Hirschleifer and Subrahmanyam (1998) focus on unfair personal
affection and over-confidence.
Barberis, Shleifer and Vishny (1998) discuss under reaction as “a situation in which the
return is on average higher in the period following the publication of good news (and after
the very first reaction of stock prices) than it would have been if the news had been bad.
The news would be fully processed in an efficient market in the period immediately after the
news release.”The effect on stock prices would therefore be not relying on the news
released in the beginning and in subsequent periods. If prices continue to rise after a
favourable news fact, an under reaction must have occurred in the days immediately
following the initial headlines. Indeed, the rise would have been realized immediately if the
reaction had been adequate (Behavioral Finance: The Closed-End Fund Puzzle, 2004). If the
price reacts too strongly, there will be an overreaction. In that case, declines (increases) will
follow the stock price increase (decrease).By combining conservatism and heuristic
representativeness, Barberis, Shleifer and Vishny tell us about the method of under
reactions and overreactions. They are developing a model that includes one lender and one
benefit. Every gain as a dividend is spent. The asset's balance value is equal to the sum of
money of anticipated returns. Capital value is dependent on occurrences as lenders are
using occurrences to better their future earnings suppositions. Conservatism still results in
short-term occurrences to be inadequately depicted in values. The regular lender
understands in a slow pace than what is recommended, and prices take more time than
logical understanding to get to the updated balance. This describes the under reaction in the
shorter period of time. In the greater period, the heuristic representativeness makes the
lender to attach too much value to a news fact when it is part of a series of similar
unsystematic info where the lender mistakenly makes a conclusion. The lender feels that
either of the authorities appeals, i.e. either gains are 'average-reversing ' followed by a
constructive blow by a gloomy one, or defined by a tendency. If a number of good earnings
shocks have been observed by the investor, his thinking that gains are following a tendency
is growing. In other words, if he has viewed a pattern of happenings that are constructive to
destructive blows in earnings and otherwise, he may change his belief to gains are average-
returning. These belief upgrades are intended to indicate the working of heuristic and
conservative representativeness. Generating gains with a uneven walk experiments,

Barberis, Shleifer and Vishny tell that “these basic assumptions can produce a pattern of
under reactions, an overreaction pattern, or a pattern of under reactions alternated by
overreactions, depending on the values chosen for the parameters. “
Daniel, Hirschleifer and Subrahmanyam (1998) develop an investment behaviour
experiment that considers “overconfidence and biased self-assignment.” They design these
conceptual frameworks by supposing that lenders incline towards miscounting their value of
personal info and their capability to understand that info. Data is private unless (yet) it has
been publicly disclosed. The investor feels he is one of the selected individuals, if not the
only, who can understand the significance of the clues he gets because of his
overconfidence. He feels that he has found an important clue that allows him a data gain
over competitors, who won’t take action until the relevant data is made public. If the
personal data is great, the lender will purchase, as he is confident that such a data still
needs to be integrated into the rates. Daniel, Hirschleifer and Subrahmanyam tell “the
investor following this line of reasoning tends to purchase more (if the private data is
favourable) than is warranted by the fundamental, which leads to an overreaction of stock
prices.”Along with complacency, this model also involves biased self-attribution, as the
lender asymmetrically deduces public data. If new data which is made public confirms what
the lender has already deduced based on his personal data, this will raise the belief of the
investor or else, other people are blamed by the investor. Overconfidence is not at all going
to decrease and is probably improve.
Conservatism
“The phenomenon of people adjusting their beliefs to new data only gradually” is meaning
of conservatism (Edwards, 1968). It is thus similar to System which plays a major part in
cognitive dissonance theory. Econometric analysis shows that a change of data or opinion
requires two to five observations where one observation would have sufficed in the case of
Bayesian learning. The New data is more helpful, the more conservative it is. This is because
it is tougher to accept new data that conflicts with existing knowledge.
“Representativeness heuristic”
The algorithmic representation is defined as “the phenomenon that in a series of random
incidents people are looking for a pattern” (Tversky and Kahneman, 1974). The heuristic
depiction results to generalizing and makes the surrounding look highly organized than the
original state. It can make people come to conclusion beyond grasp based on just a few
parameters. The algorithmic representativeness is many a times depicted by the effect of
the “Great Bear.” People are generally willing to detect a familiar pattern when watching a
starry sky which even known as the law of small numbers is the mechanism. Public inclines
towards generalizing relying on negligible analytical data and draw conclusions.

BEHAVIOURAL SOLUTION:
Behavioural solution for puzzle of over and under reaction of asset price is conservatism;
representativeness heuristic.
Puzzle 2: “Excessive trading and the gender puzzle.”
EVALUATION:
Odean (1998b) develops a theoretical model that takes overconfidence into account. He
says, “By assuming market participants overestimate their ability to interpret data, he
models overconfidence. Each market participant feels that it is better to collect and
interpret data and that the accuracy of the data it receives is therefore above average.”
Thus, lenders do excessive trading as forecasted by the method. They assume that two asset
types, zero risk and interest rate, and the other asset of high risk are traded. Their data is
the same a priori. All lenders receive a clue on the risky asset's likelihood distribution of
return. Every investor feels that his clue is more accurate than other clues, but knows that
few merchants are receiving similar info. So every lender feels he is with the above-average
cluster of lenders. (Daxhammer & Facsar, 2018)
In this context, overconfidence causes fluctuations in dealing volume and price of stocks to
rise and fall in stock price efficiency. Odean (1998), however, tells us that complacency is
sometimes a barrier to market effectiveness. In a noise traders market – “traders following
the market trend, despite knowing that share and bond prices are inconsistent with
fundamental factors – including an insider overestimating himself, the volume of
transactions and price fluctuations will increase, but pricing will be more efficient.”
Votes of opinion tell us that, in fact, the regular incompetent lender is overconfident. In the
period June-1998 to January 2000, Gallup conducted fifteen surveys, each among thousands
of lenders (Barber and Odean, 2001). One of the inquiry was what return was expected to
be realized by the respondents in the following year on their portfolio. The inquiries also
asked the projection of lenders about the mean return on the stock market next year. On
average, assenters felt they could overpower the market, which is impossible as discussed.

Indeed, as discussed in before, Barber and Odean (2000) find that,” first, the regular lender
deals at a higher rate and, second, the lenders who deal the minimum in their survey earned
a return higher than the return of the lenders who dealt the most.”Barber and Odean (2001)
survey variations in spending conduct among males and females to evaluate if excessive
self-belief could actually be the justification for increased trade. Intellectual experiment has
shown that males are more confident than females on average. If depiction can be done
that female lenders deal less often than male while achieving a greater return, this would
promote the thinking that excessive dealing could be reason of excessive confidence, as
forecasted by the theoretical experiment of Odean. Barber and Odean research over a six-
year period the investment behaviour of over 35,000 lenders, differentiate between
accounts opened by female and male. They study the speculation pattern, transaction
occurrence, and result thereof. Their hypothesis on the two consisted of male dealing quite
often than female, and realizing a lesser return. In conclusion, they are correct. Males deal
1.5 times more often than female on average, but the return earned is lower. Women can't
attribute superior performance to their more experienced lenders. In the survey, half of the
female allegedly admitted to be knowledgeable lenders, compared to more than 60 percent
of men. Barber and Odean, having collected proofs of a connection by chance among
complacency and excessive dealing, went on to investigate the sub-set of singles in their
research. According to them, “it cannot be ruled out that a man is managing an investment
account opened by a woman, and vice versa. But for single people this is less likely than for
married couples. One would therefore expect the gender difference in the frequency of
trading and return to be even greater in the sub-set of singles.” That's what Barber and
Odean actually find. The average male bachelor traded 67 percent more frequently than his
female counterpart, and realized a return that was almost 1.5 percentage point lower.
Barber and Odean consider excessive trade as a substitute argument. It could be that
trading is considered a hobby by the average investor. The lessened profit could be seen in
that case as the money the lender wants to give for this free time. (Venezia, 2019) And the
variation between male and female could be described by understanding that investment is
more likely to be seen in males than it is for females. Though, this possibility is not accepted
by Barber and Odean. They calculate that by trading excessively, the most active trader
loses 3.9% of his annual household income. This exceeds all spending on a typical family's
leisure activities with a similar income to those in the sample.
Overconfidence
In mental psychology, empirical research concludes that the person on an average is
complacent (Branch, 2014). Overconfidence indicates overestimating a one owns’ capability.
“The degree of overconfidence between professions varies. In professions, it is strongest
that can easily blame others for mistakes or unforeseen circumstances” (Odean, 1998b). An
analyst or economic sector experts who were unable to retroactively wrongly forecast
financial development can result in these kinds of unexpected social and financial
occurrences, or even erratic conduct towards lenders and buyers. Thus, no one has to blame

a mathematician who can't prove a theorem but himself. Gender differences also exist in
complacency. On average males were higher in confidence compared to females. (Barber
and Odean, 2011).
BEHAVIOURAL SOLUTION:
The behavioural solution for puzzle of excessive trading and the gender is overconfidence.
CONCLUSION
Cognitive funding has made two useful creative contributions to funding theory and
scientific studies. First, it shows that market participants evaluate financial results rather
than expected utility theory in accordance with prospect theory. Many preferences
anomalies result from thumb rules that are applied to facilitate decision-making when
editing prospects. In addition, a higher reaction to compared to profits shows that choices
vary depending on how a situation of choice is decided. Lastly, by using behavioural
psychological clues, cognitive finance takes into consideration the use of algorithms and
prejudices that are hard, if not unfeasible, to overcome when judging data and creating
views.

References
Barber, B. and Odean, T. (2011). The Behavior of Individual Investors. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Behavioral Finance: The Closed-End Fund Puzzle. (2004). Quantitative Finance, 4(1), pp.17-17.
Bondt, W. and Thaler, R. (1987). Further Evidence on Investor Overreaction and Stock Market
Seasonality. The Journal of Finance, 42(3), p.557.
Branch, B. (2014). Institutional economics and behavioral finance. Journal of Behavioral and
Experimental Finance, 1, pp.13-16.
Daniel, K., Hirshleifer, D. and Subrahmanyam, A. (1998). Investor Psychology and Security Market
Under- and Overreactions. The Journal of Finance, 53(6), pp.1839-1885.
Daniel, K., Hirshleifer, D. and Subrahmanyam, A. (2005). Investor Psychology and Tests of Factor
Pricing Models. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Daxhammer, R. and Facsar, M. (2018). Behavioral Finance. Stuttgart: UTB GmbH.
De BONDT, W. and THALER, R. (1985). Does the Stock Market Overreact?. The Journal of Finance,
40(3), pp.793-805.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (n.d.). Choices, values, and frames.
Odean, T. (1998). Do Investors Trade Too Much?. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Odean, T. (1999). Do Investors Trade Too Much?. American Economic Review, 89(5), pp.1279-1298.
Odean, T. (2001). Learning to Be Overconfident. Review of Financial Studies, 14(1), pp.1-27.
Thaler, R. (2005). Advances in behavioral finance. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Venezia, I. (2019). Behavioral Finance. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co Pte Ltd.