Investment Decisions and Time Horizon: Risk Perception and Risk Behavior in Repeated Gambles

Abstract

To investigate the effect of time horizon on investment behavior, this paper reports the results of an experiment in which business graduate students provided certainty equivalents and judged various dimensions of the outcome distribution of simple gambles that were played either once or repeatedly for 5 or 50 times.Systematic mistakes in the ex-ante estimations of the distributions of outcomes after (independent) repeated plays were observed. Despite correctly realizing that outcome standard deviation increases with the number of plays, respondents showed evidence of Samuelson's (1963) fallacy of large numbers. Perceived risk judgments showed only low correlations with standard deviation estimates, but were instead related to the anticipated probability of a loss (which was overestimated), mean excess loss, and the coefficient of variation. Implications for future research and practical implications for financial advisors are discussed. * We are grateful to an associate editor, two anonymous referees, Markus Glaser, and seminar participants at the University of Mannheim for helpful comments and suggestions. Financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, at the University of Mannheim, is gratefully acknowledged.

Patient willingness to take teriparatide

“…Based on currently available risk reduction rates, few women, regardless of fracture risk, would choose rhPTH (1-34) over other treatment options. Subjects at risk for future osteoporotic fractures were willing to take rhPTH (1-34), but most demanded efficacy advantages greater than that demonstrated in clinical trials to date [10,[31][32][33].…”

“…An increasing number of women (regardless of risk) preferred rhPTH (1-34) over bisphosphonates as the efficacy of teriparatide increased (see Figure 1). However, rhPTH (1-34) became the preferred treatment option for the majority of respondents only when it is described as having benefits far greater than expected based on results of randomized trials ( Figure 1) [10,[31][32][33].…”

New Paradigms for the Old Question: Challenging the Expectation Rule Held by Risky Decision-Making Theories

“…In the single-application task, the selected risky option is only applied once; in the multiple-application task, the selected risky option is applied 100 times. Empirical research found that the behaviour of decision makers in multiple-application gambles is consistent with the predictions of compensatory theory (Colbert et al, 2009;DeKay et al, 2006;Keren, 1991;Klos, Weber, & Weber, 2005;Langer & Weber, 2001;S. Li, 2003;Redelmeier & Tversky, 1992;Wedell & Böckenholt, 1994).…”

Hidden Skewness: On the Difficulty of Multiplicative Compounding Under Random Shocks

“…Second, the elicited quantiles must be ordered in a consistent way: participants cannot switch from Security A to B1 at a threshold that exceeds the threshold at which she switches from Security A to B2, which in turn cannot exceed the threshold at which she switches from Security A to B3. 18 Participants receive a participation fee of £5 and a possible bonus of £5 per round. In each round, a single choice is randomly determined to be payoff-relevant, giving an ex-ante incentive to act optimally in each task.…”

“…17 All participants passed the understanding test, in a few cases after asking for some additional explanations. 18 The instructions explain that violations of these constraints are subjectively suboptimal. Additionally, the experimental software shows an error message if a participant violates either of the two constraints.…”