Do professional traders exhibit myopic loss aversion? An experimental analysis

By Michael S. Haigh, John A. List. 2005

753 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Finance, General Decision Sciences

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/09e9161d17d78d1c8e2c81eeb3e6fb5510a3b21e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

In Finance

In General Decision Sciences

Citations in the corpus

Paradoxes and mechanisms for choice under risk (2014, positive): “Isolation under PAS implies myopic behavior, which has previously been reported in experimental studies (Thaler et al., 1997; Gneezy and Potters, 1997; Gneezy, et al., 2003; Haigh and List, 2005; Langer and Weber 2005; Bellemare et al., 2005; Fellner and Sutter, 2008).”
Looking for Someone to Blame: Delegation, Cognitive Dissonance, and the Disposition Effect (2014, positive): “For example, List (2003) and List (2011) find that experienced sports card traders exhibit far less of an endowment effect than inexperienced traders, while Haigh and List (2005) find that experienced futures and options traders exhibit greater myopic loss aversion than student subjects. More direct”
Institutional Investors, Past Performance, and Dynamic Loss Aversion (2009, background): “Assuming a round-trip transactions cost of 5 bps (as in Levich and Thomas (1993) and Osier and Chang (1995)), this implies that transactions cost reduces annualized returns by 14.”
On the Linkage between Financial Risk Tolerance and Risk Aversion: Evidence from a Psychometrically-Validated Survey versus an Online Lottery Choice Experiment (2006, neutral): “For example, Haigh and List (2005) and Alevy et al. (2007) focus on professional CBOT traders, while Harrison et al. (2005 and 2006) analyze a representative sample of Danish people.”
A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes (2016, positive): “Significant differences, but lower than 10% in size, appear in Haigh and List (2005), Bellemare et al. (2005), and Crosetto and Filippin (2013b), while Gneezy et al. (2009) is the only contribution in which a gender gap does not appear.”
Expected utility theory and prospect theory: one wedding and a decent funeral (2009, background): “29Haigh and List (2005) report contrary evidence, using tasks involving risky lotteries and comparing field traders from the Chicago Board of Trade and students.”
Corruption, investments and contributions to public goods: Experimental evidence from rural Liberia (2014, neutral): “” After finishing the voluntary contribution game, we played a simple investment game with positive expected payoffs (e.g. Gneezy et al., 2009; Gneezy and Potters, 1997; Haigh and List, 2005) to measure the individual’s proclivity to make an uncertain investment for private gain.”
The disposition effect and investor experience (2013, result): “In stark contrast with the above studies using actual data, when it comes to the lab the disposition effect may be even higher for experienced investors (like in the ‘‘artefactual field experiments’’ of Haigh and List (2005) and of Abbink and Rockenbach (2006)).”
Rankings and Risk-Taking in the Finance Industry (2018, neutral): “Similar to other studies (List and Haigh (2005), Alevy, Haigh, and List (2007), Cohn et al. (2014)), we scaled student stakes down to 1/3 of the professionals’ payoffs in all parts of the experiment.”
Investors’ Risk Preference Characteristics and Conditional Skewness (2014, result): “Similar viewpoints were expressed by other authors [4, 5].”
Loss aversion and anchoring in commercial real estate pricing: Empirical evidence and price index implications (2010, background): “Haigh and List (2005) provide experimental evidence that CBOT traders are more likely to suffer from myopic loss aversion(4) than student participants.”