Lottery-Related Anomalies: The Role of Reference-Dependent Preferences

References

• Agarwal V, Jiang L, Wen Q (2018) Why do mutual funds hold lottery stocks? Working paper, Georgia State University, Atlanta.Google Scholar
• Amihud Y (2002) Illiquidity and stock returns: Cross-section and time-series effects. J. Financial Markets 5(1):31–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
• An L (2016) Asset pricing when traders sell extreme winners and losers. Rev. Financial Stud. 29(3):823–861.Google Scholar
• An L, Argyle B (2017) Overselling winners and losers: Mutual fund trading behavior and price effects. Working paper, Tsinghua University, Beijing.Google Scholar
• Anderson A-M, DylEA (2005) Market structure and trading volume. J. Financial Res. 28(1):115–131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Asparouhova E, Bessembinder H, Kalcheva I (2013) Noisy prices and inference regarding returns. J. Finance 68(2):665–714.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Avramov D, Chordia T, Jostova G, Alexander P (2013) Anomalies and financial distress. J. Financial Econom. 108(1):139–159.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baker M, Wurgler J (2006) Investor sentiment and the cross-section of stock returns. J. Finance 61(4):1645–1680.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baker M, Pan X, Wurgler J (2012) The effect of reference point prices on mergers and acquisitions. J. Financial Econom. 106(1):49–71.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bali TG, Cakici N (2008) Idiosyncratic volatility and the cross section of expected returns. J. Financial Quant. Anal. 43(1):29–58.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bali TG, Murray S (2013) Does risk-neutral skewness predict the cross section of equity option portfolio returns? J. Financial Quant. Anal. 48(4):1145–1171.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bali TG, Cakici N, Whitelaw RF (2011) Maxing out: Stocks as lotteries and the cross-section of expected returns. J. Financial Econom. 99(2):427–446.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bali TG, Brown SJ, Murray S, Tang Yi (2017) A lottery demand-based explanation of the beta anomaly. J. Financial Quant. Anal. 52(6):2369–2397.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bali TG, Cakici N, Yan X, Zhang Z (2005) Does idiosyncratic risk really matter? J. Finance 60(2):905–929.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barber BM, Odean T (2000) Trading is hazardous to your wealth: The common stock investment performance of individual investors. J. Finance 55(2):773–806.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barber BM, Odean T (2001) Boys will be boys: Gender, overconfidence, and common stock investment. Quart. J. Econom. 116(1):261–292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barber BM, Odean T (2002) Online investors: Do the slow die first? Rev. Financial Stud. 15(2):455–488.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barberis N (2013) The psychology of tail events: Progress and challenges. Amer. Econom. Rev. 103(3):611–616.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barberis N, Huang M (2001) Mental accounting, loss aversion, and individual stock returns. J. Finance 56(4):1247–1292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barberis N, Huang M (2008) Stocks as lotteries: The implications of probability weighting for security prices. Amer. Econom. Rev. 98(5):2066–2100.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barberis N, Xiong W (2009) What drives the disposition effect? An analysis of a long-standing preference-based explanation. J. Finance 64(2):751–784.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barberis N, Xiong W (2012) Realization utility. J. Financial Econom. 104(2):251–271.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barberis N, Huang M, Santos T (2001) Prospect theory and asset prices. Quart. J. Econom. 116(1):1–53.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barberis N, Mukherjee A, Wang B (2016) Prospect theory and stock returns: An empirical test. Rev. Financial Stud. 29(11):3068–3107.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Belo F, Lin X, Santiago B (2014) Labor hiring, investment, and stock return predictability in the cross section. J. Political Econom. 122(1):129–177.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benartzi S, Thaler RH (1995) Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle. Quart. J. Econom. 110(1):73–92.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ben-David I, Hirshleifer D (2012) Are investors really reluctant to realize their losses? Trading responses to past returns and the disposition effect. Rev. Financial Stud. 25(8):2485–2532.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boyer B, Todd M, Keith V (2010) Expected idiosyncratic skewness. Rev. Financial Stud. 23(1):169–202.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Campbell JY, Cochrane JH (1999) By force of habit: A consumption-based explanation of aggregate stock market behavior. J. Political Econom. 107(2):205–251.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Campbell JY, Hilscher J, Szilagyi J (2008) In search of distress risk. J. Finance 63(6):2899–2939.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Conrad J, Dittmar RF, Ghysels E (2013) Ex ante skewness and expected stock returns. J. Finance 68(1):85–124.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Conrad J, Kapadia N, Xing Y (2014) Death and jackpot: Why do individual investors hold overpriced stocks? J. Financial Econom. 113(3):455–475.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coval JD, Shumway T (2005) Do behavioral biases affect prices? J. Finance 60(1):1–34.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Daniel K, Hirshleifer D, Subrahmanyam A (1998) Investor psychology and security market under- and overreactions. J. Finance 53(6):1839–1885.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Daniel K, Hirshleifer D, Subrahmanyam A (2001) Overconfidence, arbitrage, and equilibrium asset pricing. J. Finance 56(3):921–965.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DeVault L, Sias R, Starks L (2019) Sentiment metrics and investor demand. J. Finance. Forthcoming.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dhar R, Zhu N (2006) Up close and personal: Investor sophistication and the disposition effect. Management Sci. 52(5):726–740.Link, Google Scholar
• Dougal C, Joseph E, Parsons CA, Van Wesep ED (2015) Anchoring on credit spreads. J. Finance 70(3):1039–1080.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falkenstein EG (1996) Preferences for stock characteristics as revealed by mutual fund portfolio holdings. J. Finance 51(1):111–135.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fama EF, French KR (2008) Dissecting anomalies. J. Finance 63(4):1653–1678.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fama EF, MacBeth JD (1973) Risk, return, and equilibrium: Empirical tests. J. Political Econom. 81(3):607–636.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frazzini A (2006) The disposition effect and underreaction to news. J. Finance 61(4):2017–2046.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frederick S, Loewenstein G (1999) Hedonic adaptation. Kahneman D, Diener E, Schwartz N, eds. Scientific Perspectives on Enjoyment, Suffering, and Well-Being (Russell Sage Foundation, New York), 302–329.Google Scholar
• Frydman C, Hartzmark S, Solomon D (2018) Rolling mental accounts. Rev. Financial Stud. 31(1):362–397.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gao P, Parsons CA, Shen J (2017) The global relation between financial distress and equity returns. Rev. Financial Stud. 31(1):239–277.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garlappi L, Yan H (2011) Financial distress and the cross-section of equity returns. J. Finance 66(3):789–822.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garlappi L, Shu T, Yan H (2008) Default risk, shareholder advantage, and stock returns. Rev. Financial Stud. 21(6):2743–2778.Crossref, Google Scholar
• George TJ, Hwang C-Y (2004) The 52-week high and momentum in- vesting. J. Finance 59(5):2145–2176.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gompers PA, Metrick A (2001) Institutional investors and equity prices. Quart. J. Econom. 116(1):229–259.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green TC, Hwang B-H (2012) Initial public offerings as lotteries: Skewness preference and first-day returns. Management Sci. 58(2):432–444.Link, Google Scholar
• Grinblatt M, Han B (2005) Prospect theory, mental accounting, and momentum. J. Financial Econom. 78(2):311–339.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grinblatt M, Keloharju M (2001) What makes investors trade? J. Finance 56(2):589–616.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hartzmark S (2015) The worst, the best, ignoring all the rest: The rank effect and trading behavior. Rev. Financial Stud. 28(4):1024–9659.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Imas A (2016) The realization effect: Risk-taking after realized versus paper losses. Amer. Econom. Rev. 106(8):2086–2109.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ingersoll JE Jr, Jin LJ (2013) Realization utility with reference-dependent preferences. Rev. Financial Stud. 26(3):723–767.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jiang L, Wu K, Zhou G, Zhu Y (2016) Stock return asymmetry: Beyond skewness. Working paper, Tsinghua University, Beijing.Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kumar A (2009) Who gambles in the stock market? J. Finance 64(4):1889–1933.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kumar A, Page JK, Spalt OG (2011) Religious beliefs, gambling attitudes, and financial market outcomes. J. Financial Econom. 102(3):671–708.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li J, Yu J (2012) Investor attention, psychological anchors, and stock return predictability. J. Financial Econom. 104(2):401–419.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li Y, Yang L (2013) Prospect theory, the disposition effect, and asset prices. J. Financial Econom. 107(3):715–739.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lin T-C, Liu X (2016) Skewness, individual investor preference, and the cross-section of stock returns. Working paper, Hong Kong University, Hong Kong.Google Scholar
• Locke PR, Mann SC (2000) Do professional traders exhibit loss realization aversion? Working paper, George Washington University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Nagel S (2005) Short sales, institutional investors and the cross-section of stock returns. J. Financial Econom. 78(2):277–309.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Newey WK, West KD (1987) A simple, positive semi-definite, heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix. Econometrica 55(3):703–708.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Odean T (1998) Are investors reluctant to realize their losses? J. Finance 53(5):1775–1798.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ohlson JA (1980) Financial ratios and the probabilistic prediction of bankruptcy. J. Accounting Res. 18(1):109–131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rayo L, Becker GS (2007) Evolutionary efficiency and happiness. J. Political Econom. 115(2):302–337.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shapira Z, Venezia I (2001) Patterns of behavior of professionally managed and independent investors. J. Banking Finance 25(8):1573–1587.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shefrin H, Statman M (1985) The disposition to sell winners too early and ride losers too long: Theory and evidence. J. Finance 40(3):777–790.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stambaugh RF, Yu J, Yuan Y (2012) The short of it: Investor sentiment and anomalies. J. Financial Econom. 104(2):288–302.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thaler R (1980) Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 1(1):39–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thaler R (1985) Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Sci. 4(3):199–214.Link, Google Scholar
• Thaler RH, Johnson EJ (1990) Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: The effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management Sci. 36(6):643–660.Link, Google Scholar
• Verdelhan A (2010) A habit-based explanation of the exchange rate risk premium. J. Finance 65(1):123–146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wachter JA (2006) A consumption-based model of the term structure of interest rates. J. Financial Econom. 79(2):365–399.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang H, Yan J, Yu J (2017) Reference-dependent preferences and the risk-return trade-off. J. Financial Econom. 123(2):395–414.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wermers R (2003) Is money really “smart”? New evidence on the relation between mutual fund flows, manager behavior, and performance persistence. Working paper, University of Maryland, College Park.Crossref, Google Scholar
• White H (1980) A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroscedasticity. Econometrica 48(4):817–838.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Xing Y, Zhang X, Zhao R (2010) What does the individual option volatility smirk tell us about future equity returns? J. Financial Quant. Anal. 45(3):641–662.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang XF (2006) Information uncertainty and stock returns. J. Finance 61(1):105–137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zipf GK (1949) Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA).Google Scholar