Experimental Evidences for Prospect Theory in Vietnam
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17010/ijf/2021/v15i5-7/164491Keywords:
Behavioral Finance
, Experimental Research, Loss Aversion, Prospect Theory, Vietnam.JEL Classification Codes
, G10, G11, G41.Paper Submission Date
, February 5, 2020, Paper sent back for Revision, September 18, Paper Acceptance Date, December 20, Paper Published Online, July 5, 2021.Abstract
In the context of growing literature about behavioral finance and experimental research, there is an urgent need to expand this contemporary branch in emerging markets in general and Vietnam in particular. Therefore, this paper aimed at finding evidence of prospect theory in Vietnam using a battery of experimental approach. The objective of experiment design is to understand the economic market and represent almost all risk suffering levels. The research outcomes strengthened arguments of prospect theory in terms of both slope and reference point. This research found evidence for the hypothesis that the utility curve reference point lies in the positive domain. This suggested that in the case of low profitability, investors could still prefer risk over certainty, but they shall be more risk averse as returns are increased. Besides, the relationship between loss aversion and other behavioral biases was also examined, and evidence of strong relation between loss aversion and anchoring and overreaction was found, while there existed no clear correlation between loss aversion and overconfidence. The findings of this paper shed light on current research about behavioral finance, especially about prospect theory in Vietnam, suggesting a pilot approach to find evidence of various behavioral biases that might affect stock market investors’ decisions.Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
References
Abdellaoui, M. (2000). Parameter - Free elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions. Management Science, 46(11), 1497–1512. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2661664
Abdellaoui, M., Bleichrodt, H., & Kammoun, H. (2011). Do financial professionals behave according to prospect theory ? An experimental study. Theory and Decision, 74(3), 411–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-011-9282-3
Abdellaoui, M., Bleichrodt, H., & Paraschiv, C. (2007). Loss aversion under prospect theory : A parameter-free measurement. Management Science, 53(10), 1659–1674. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1070.0711
Alquraan, T., Alqisie, A., & Al Shorafa, A. (2016). Do behavioral finance factors influence stock investment decisions of individual investors ? (Evidences from Saudi Stock Market). American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 6(3), 159–169.
Barberis, N., Huang, M., & Santos, T. (2001). Prospect theory and asset prices. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 1– 53. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355301556310
Benartzi, S., & Thaler, R. (1993). Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(1), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.3386/w4369
Bleichrodt, H., Pinto, J. L., & Wakker, P. P. (2001). Making descriptive use of prospect theory to improve the prescriptive use of expected utility. Management Science, 47(11), 1498–1514. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.47.11.1498.10248
Camerer, C. F., Loewenstein, G., & Rabin, M. (Eds.). (2004). Advances in behavioral economics. In, The roundtable series in behavioral economics. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400829118
Costa, D. F., Carvalho, F. D., & Moreira, B. C. (2019). Behavioral economics and behavioral finance : A bibliometric analysis of the scientific fields. Journal of Economic Surveys, 33(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12262
Dangi, M., & Kohli, B. (2018). Role of behavioral biases in investment decisions : A factor analysis. Indian Journal of Finance, 12(3), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.17010/ijf/2018/v12i3/121997
Dzung, P. T., & Quang, H. P. (2019). Adaptive market hypothesis : Evidence from the Vietnamese stock market. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 12(2), 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm12020081
Fishburn, P. C., & Kochenberger, G. A. (1979). Two-piece Von Neumann-Morgenstern utility functions. Decision Sciences, 10(4), 503–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1979.tb00043.x
Isidore, R. R., & Christie, P. (2018). Investment behavior of secondary equity investors : An examination of the relationship among the biases. Indian Journal of Finance, 12(9), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.17010/ijf/2018/v12i9/131556
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory : An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
Köbberling, V., & Wakker, P. P. (2005). An index of loss aversion. Journal of Economic Theory, 122(1), 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2004.03.009
Mehta, K., & Chander, R. (2010). Examination of January, December and November effects on the Indian stock market. Indian Journal of Finance, 4(9), 25–33. http://www.indianjournaloffinance.co.in/index.php/IJF/article/view/72570
Neilson, W. S. (2002). Comparative risk sensitivity with reference-dependent preferences. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 24(2), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014015926103
Nguyen, Q., Villeval, M. C., & Xu, H. (2012). Trust and trustworthiness under the prospect theory : A field experiment in Vietnam. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2144628
Pennings, J. M., & Smidts, A. (2003). The shape of utility functions and organizational behavior. Management Science, 49(9), 1251–1263. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.9.1251.16566
Phan, D. T., Le, V. H., & Nguyen, T. T. (2020). Overconfidence bias, comparative evidences between Vietnam and selected ASEAN countries. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(3), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.13106/JAFEB.2020.VOL7.NO3.101
Quiggin, J. (1982). A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(4), 323–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(82)90008-7
Raghuram, G., & Erickson, C. (2017). Identifying structural breaks in asset pricing behavior in the Indian context. Indian Journal of Finance, 11(6), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.17010/ijf/2017/v11i6/115592
Raut, R. K., & Das, N. (2015). Behavioral prospects of individual investor decision making process : A review. Indian Journal of Finance, 9(4), 44–55. https://doi.org/10.17010/ijf/2015/v9i4/71457
Schmidt, U., & Traub, S. (2002). An experimental test of loss aversion. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 25(3), 233–249. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020923921649
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory : Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122574
Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1(1), 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(80)90051-7
Trang, K. H., & Nguyen, Q. (2019). Manager’s risk and time preferences in economic behavior : Review from the experiment. Journal of International Economics and Management, 118, 33–49. http://tracuutapchi.ftu.edu.vn/index.php/tcqlktqt/article/view/553
Vo, X. V., Vo, V. P., & Nguyen, T. P. (2020). Abnormal returns and idiosyncratic volatility puzzle : An empirical investigation in Vietnam stock market. Cogent Economics & Finance, 8(1), Article 1735196. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2020.1735196
Vo, X. V., & Thao, L. D. (2013). Empirical investigation of efficient market hypothesis in Vietnam stock market. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2226866
Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1945). John von Neumann faculty file : Theory of games and economic behavior with Oskar Morgenstern. Director's Office : Faculty files. Institute for Advanced Study. https://albert.ias.edu/handle/20.500.12111/2546
Wakker, P., & Deneffe, D. (1996). Eliciting von Neumann - Morgenstern utilities when probabilities are distorted or unknown. Management Science, 42(8), 1131–1150. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.42.8.1131
Wakker, P., & Tversky, A. (1993). An axiomatization of cumulative prospect theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7(2), 147–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01065812
