Explore
For Enterprise
Join for Free
Log In

艺术与人文
商务
计算机科学
数据科学
信息技术
健康
数学和逻辑
个人发展
物理科学与工程
社会科学
语言学习
學位
證書

瀏覽 Coursera 的全部課程

瀏覽
搜索
企業版
登錄
免費加入

3-2.9. Emotion and Financial Decisions

Loading...

Investments II: Lessons and Applications for Investors

伊利诺伊大学香槟分校

4.8（383 個評分） | 8.8K 名學生已註冊

課程 4（共 7 門，财务管理專項課程）

In this course, you will start by reviewing the fundamentals of investments, including the trading off of return and risk when forming a portfolio, asset pricing models such as the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) and the 3-Factor Model, and the efficient market hypothesis. You will be introduced to the two components of stock returns – dividends and capital gains – and will learn how each are taxed and the incentives provided to investors from a realization-based capital gains tax. You will examine the investment decisions (and behavioral biases) of participants in defined-contribution (DC) pension plans like 401(k) plans in the U.S. and will learn about the evidence regarding the performance of individual investors in their stock portfolios. The course concludes by discussing the evidence regarding the performance of actively-managed mutual funds. You will learn about the fees charged to investors by mutual funds and the evidence regarding the relation between fees charged and fund performance. Segments of the portfolios of mutual funds that may be more likely to outperform and examples of strategies designed to “earn alpha” will also be introduced. Learners are welcome to take this course even if they have not completed "Investments I: Fundamentals of Performance Evaluation," as the first module contain a review of investment fundamentals and regression analysis to get everyone up to speed. Also, the course contains several innovative features, including creative out-of-the-studio introductions followed by quick-hitting "Module in 60" countdowns that highlight what will be covered in each module, four "Faculty Focus" interview episodes with leading professors in finance, and a summary of each module done with the help of animations! This course is part of the iMBA offered by the University of Illinois, a flexible, fully-accredited online MBA at an incredibly competitive price. For more information, please see the Resource page in this course and onlinemba.illinois.edu.

查看授課大綱

您將學習的技能

Stock, Financial Markets, Investment Strategy, Investment

審閱

4.8（383 個評分）

5 stars
326 ratings
4 stars
45 ratings
3 stars
10 ratings
1 star
2 ratings

KL

Dec 07, 2017

Professor Weisbenner is amazing! Insanely smart, yet delvers complex concepts in such a manner you would never realize it. This is a must take class for investments!

DH

Mar 12, 2018

Professor Weisbenner is phenomenal! The course material is accessible, very well presented, highly informative, and can be applied for the rest of your life.

從本節課中

Module 3: Performance of Individual Investors

In Module 3, we will learn about the evidence regarding the performance of individual investors in their stock portfolios. A few key behavioral biases that affect many individuals will be highlighted, and the potential information embedded in some parts of individual investors’ stock portfolios will be discussed.

3-2.1. Overconfidence17:46

3-2.2. Loss Aversion16:50

3-2.3. Effects of Loss Aversion (Part 1): Loss Aversion & Tax Incentives for Stock Trades18:55

3-2.4. Effects of Loss Aversion (Part 2): Personal Connection to Asset12:53

3-2.5. Effects of Loss Aversion (Part 3): Corporate Finance Decisions9:25

3-2.6. Faculty Focus with Professor Yuhai Xuan (interview)28:24

3-2.7. Effects of Loss Aversion (Part 4): Explanation for Momentum?5:21

3-2.8. Effects of Loss Aversion (Part 5): Importance of Endowment15:34

3-2.9. Emotion and Financial Decisions15:59

教學方

Scott Weisbenner
William G. Karnes Professor of Finance

腳本

Let's think about

emotion and the role

it has in investing.

We talked about loss aversion, overconfidence.

Can we provide some additional evidence on the role emotion has on investing?

It should be key to behavioral biases, emotion, the psychologies,

what's behind some of these behavioral biases we talked about.

If behavioral biases are a detriment to performance, then it raises

a natural question, are psychopaths the best investors?

This was an interesting article published in Psychological Science here by

scholars at Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, and Iowa where they actually do an experiment

with actual psychopaths to see, do they make better financial decisions?

Is this who you want as your financial advisor at the end of the day?

Let's see what the evidence is.

The role of emotion in financial decisions, let's consider this experiment.

You start with $20, 20 sequential and independent rounds of gambles.

There's going to be 20 gambles, each of them is independent.

For each gamble, it's like flipping a fair coin.

You can pay $1 to participate in the flipping of the coin, and

then you're either going to win $2.50, or you get back 0.

There's 20 gambles, you have $20.

To participate in each gamble, you have to pay $1.

Then you're either going to get back nothing, or

you're going to get back $2.50.

Let's think about this gamble here.

What would we do?

What is the expected payoff from this gamble?

Remember, we pay $1 and than, we either get 0 or $2.50 back.

How many times out of 20 would you do the gamble?

You can do this gamble 20 separate times.

How many times would you do it?

Finally, whether you won or lost last round, whether you got 0 or

$2.50, should it affect whether you gamble the next round?

As a fourth question, I wanted to ask, are you yourself a psychopath?

I decided probably best not to do that.

Let's think about these three questions.

Keep the psychopath answer to yourself and then I'll give you my take.

Let's just go through the simple math on the expected value of these gambles here.

First, what's the expected payoff per gamble?

In expected value, we'd get $1.25, the average of $2.50 and

0 is $1.25 minus $1 we spent for the gamble,

that's a $0.25 payoff each time we flip the coin.

How many times out of 20 would you do the gamble?

Given the positive expected payoff,

you'd say gamble it every time because this is a good deal.

You can actually do the combinatorics.

If you gamble each of the 20 rounds, it's easy to calculate the expected wealth as

$25, $0.25 payoff times 20 rounds is $5.

You started out with 20, so $25 is your expected wealth.

Also, you can do the calculation a little more complicated.

There's only a 13% chance of losing money, if you gamble each of the 20 rounds.

There's only a 13% chance you end up with less than $20,

if you gamble all 20 rounds.

Since all the gambles are independent of each other, what happened last

round should not affect your gambling or investment decision for the next round.

But you can see this is where psychology may enter in to the decision.

But given these are independent,

we would predict that people who don't have emotions should basically be gambling

each round, regardless of what happened the last round.

Let's think about three groups of participants to use for

this study to test whether emotions affect financial decisions, at least,

in this experimental context.

Group one, the psychopaths.

What do we mean by psychopaths?

They have a brain lesion that short circuits their emotions, so

any behavioral finance story shouldn't apply to them.

Because they don't have any of this emotion, feeling bad, realizing losses,

that would be key to a lot of behavioral finance.

What's group two?

We'll call them normal folks, in that they don't have any brain lesions.

This is the part where I can say, wow, these are like,

serious academics going above and beyond to control in this experiment.

Let's have a third group, the individuals that also have brain lesions, but

unlike psychopaths,

the brain lesions are in a part of the brain that doesn't short circuit emotion.

The three groups are psychopaths, brain lesion that short circuits emotions,

people with no brain lesions, who we'll just call the normal folks.

And then the third group is individuals with brain lesions but

it doesn't affect their emotions.

Let's consider three potential behavioral biases in decisions.

Loss aversion, we talked about that earlier in the module.

A house-money effect.

House-money effect is, maybe, if you've gambled it all, you should think money as

money whether I earned it at work, whether I got it as interest in my bank account,

whether grandma gave it to me or whether I won at a casino, money is money.

But the house-money effect would suggest money you won,

you might view differently that money you came into the casino with.

Maybe I win at the casino, I'm more willing to be more risk loving.

Somehow I view it as free money or money I didn't really earn, so

maybe I'm more willing to gamble with the house-money,

money I've won at the casino than I would be with money I brought in myself.

That's a house-money effect.

Finally, we talked about representativeness in Module

2 in the context of people's decisions in their retirement plans.

Do we think people maybe extrapolate past performance into the future?

Now, even though these are independent flipping of coins,

you still might think hey, I just think there's trends.

I got two heads in a row, I bet the next one will also be heads,

I'm on a hot streak.

Let's bring Le Penseur.

Time to think about what are the predictions that would come

with each of these three behavioral phenomena in terms of,

are you more likely to gamble if you won or lost in the prior round?

Do you expect people to be more likely gamble if they won the last round or

if they lost the last round under these behavioral biases?

Let's think of loss aversion, then let's think of the house-money effect and

then let's think of representativeness.

Consider for each of these,

are people going to be more likely to gamble if they won or lost the last round?

Think about it for each three of these behavioral biases and

then I'll give you my take.

Do you expect people to be more likely to gamble if they won the last round or

if they lost the last round under these three behavioral biases?

Let's just take them one at a time.

First, loss aversion.

I think here the prediction would be that if you have lost last round,

you feel like I'm in the hole, that makes you more

risk-loving.

That would suggest hey, I'm willing to gamble more to try and

get out of the hole.

I've lost up to this point, I just want to continue to gamble,

so I can break even, get back to the $20 I went in with.

Or if I won last round, then I'm above $20,

I feel good, maybe I want to stop gambling.

I think the prediction under a loss aversion,

you're going to be more likely to gamble in the future if you've lost in the prior

round, than if you've won and this actually explains my behavior.

Gambling once at Foxwood's casino in Connecticut,

I went in with $20, I probably lost $5.

I'm playing $0.50 slot machines.

I put in the $0.50, all of a sudden, $40 of quarters comes pouring out.

Done!

Haven't gambled since.

I leave a net winner in terms of my visit to the casino.

This loss aversion effect, me realizing the gain, I win, I stop, then I'm done.

So that would describe me, but maybe not the typical person.

House-money effect.

Here, the idea is you've won in the past,

now you have your original $20 you came in with.

You have some additional money from your winnings.

With that additional money, it makes you more willing to gamble in the future

because you view that as free money.

So you're very risk-loving, you throw caution to the wind.

The prediction for house-money, If you won last round, you continue to let it ride,

you gamble in the future.

Where if you lost last round, then you maybe are becoming more conservative,

less likely to gamble and a similar predication for representativeness.

That's just extrapolating the past into the future, so if you've won last time,

then you're like hey, I think I'm on a hot streak, let me continue to gamble.

Where if you lost last time, I'm cold, let me just stop gambling here.

Although, of course, this hot or cold doesn't make any sense

because it's just totally independent flipping of the coin.

Let's actually just see the results from this

experiment that were published in Psychological Science.

We have these three groups.

Psychopaths, the normal people which I just want to emphasize I am just putting

in quotations marks.

It is a shorter way to write it than people without any brain lesions, but

that is really what is in the second group.

The third group of people, they have brain legions but it's not affecting emotions.

We're looking at what fraction of the time do they do the gamble.

Our prediction is you should do it 100% of the time.

And then really interesting is to look at what is the amount of

time they gamble when they have won the last time,

versus the percent of time they invest or gamble when they lost the last time.

So really interesting to look at is not only what fraction of the time do they

gamble or invest, but are there any differences whether they won last time or

they lost last time?

Let's look at the results.

Frst, we start out with the psychopaths.

They're not investing 100% of the time but they are investing 84% of the time and

actually, their average wealth there, at the end of the experiment was $25.70.

These guys actually, on average, had a little good luck, right,

because if you invested 100% of the time, your average wealth would be $25.

They invested 84% of the time, they took the gamble 84% of the time, and

their average wealth was actually a little more than $25.

So they just happened to have some good luck when it came to flipping the coin,

but another reason their wealth is much higher than the $20,

is they gambled a lot.

But particularly interesting for these psychopaths, look at this likelihood of

gambling if they won last time versus they lost last time.

It's identical, 84%, 85%.

This is key, this did you win,

did you lose last time, does it affect your subsequent decisions?

Economically, we'd say no, it shouldn't, and

the psychopaths are behaving perfectly that way.

Maybe anyone who's had an economic class says, I'm not surprised.

It seemed like most of the economics professors I had seem like psychopaths.

How about column two?

These are the people without brain lesions, so

they are influenced by emotion.

They're only gambling 58% of the time.

They end the experiment with lower wealth than the psychopaths.

But look at this interesting breakdown.

They're much more likely to gamble if they won last time than if they lost last time.

If they won last time, they'll gamble 62% of the time.

If they lost last time, they'll gamble 41% of the time.

It seems like this would be consistent with the belief in a house-money effect,

or consistent with a representativeness,

like the extrapolation of I have hot hands, so let me continue to gamble.

Now the third control group.

Maybe there's just something different with people who have brain lesions.

Let's look at another group of people that have brain lesions like the psychopaths,

but they're different.

The brain lesion is in a different part of the brain, so

emotions are fine, just something else is affected.

For the third group, they are behaving pretty much like the quote, unquote,

normal people that don't have brain lesions.

They're investing their wealth 61% of the time, much less than the 84% of

the psychopaths, and very similar to the 58% of the people without brain lesions.

It's just unfortunate for the third group that they're investing 61% of the time.

So just a simple expected value would be they should have $23 of wealth at the end,

but unfortunately, they only have $20 of wealth.

So it's like bad draw,

I have a brain lesion plus I had a bad luck with the flipping of coins,

or probably if I am contributing 60% of the time, I expected wealth should be 23.

It turned out to be 20, so they just had bad luck with the flipping.

They also had this dramatic difference, like the people without brain lesions

here, if they won last time, their likelihood of gambling is 75%.

But if they lost last time, their likelihood of gambling is only 37%.

Again, for those who have brain lesions but

it's not affecting emotions, they act just like the people without brain lesions.

Both groups, emotions are fine.

They seem to be subject in this experiment to either, representativeness

like believing in hot hands, extrapolating the past performance into the future.

Or they are subject to the house-money effect that they become more risk-loving

if they've won in the prior round.

You see here who is doing the best job with this experiment,

it's clearly the psychopaths here, group one.

They're investing a lot, which they should because it's a good investment and

they are investing whether they won or lost last time.

This raises a natural question.

Who do you want as your financial advisor?

You might think, I want someone like my surgeon,

I want someone there with steady hands, that isn't going to be subject to emotion.

Do you want to have the psychopath as your financial advisor?

You might want someone who isn't making emotional decisions.

If you do go this route, I just recommend one thing.

Do your business over the phone.

探索我們的目錄

免費加入並獲得個性化推薦、更新和優惠。

Coursera 致力於普及全世界最好的教育，它與全球一流大學和機構合作提供在線課程。

© 2019 Coursera Inc. 保留所有權利。

通過 App Store 下載

通過 Google Play 獲取

Coursera
關於
管理團隊
工作機會
目錄
證書
MasterTrack™ 證書
學位
企業版
政府版

社區
Learners
Partners
Developers
Beta Testers
Translators

連接
博客
Facebook
領英
Twitter
Instagram
YouTube
技術博客

更多
條款
隱私
幫助
內容訪問
媒體
聯繫我們
目錄
附屬公司