Aversion to a sure loss: turning investors into gamblers

In situations where there is a lack of relevant information for proper decisionmaking, investors tend to be ambiguity-averse, opting for the probabilities with predictable outcomes. In cases where investors are faced with options without known probabilities, they tend to choose an option that will guarantee the most negligible loss. When faced with a diminutive loss, the investors will try to avoid these losses, even if that means exposing more resources to potential losses. Average down investment strategy can help to overcome losses faster while risking large amounts of resources, thus, showing investors’ propensity for loss-aversion. However, stock trading under ambiguity is not rational behavior, and is closer to gambling than investing, even when faced with losses. The choice of average down as investment strategy can explain the effect that dominates during investment decision-making process when losses occur due to ambiguity. This paper presents the results of a research conducted in order to determine if investors will use average down strategy when there is a lack of information on the market, and the size of the loss when they will be willing to use it. Obtained results show strong probability of average down usage among the subject group, thus proving aversion to a sure loss. The relation between risk aversion and aversion to a sure loss is tested. The results show that there is no influence of risk aversion on choice to use average down investment strategy. The results and possible applications of the research are thoroughly discussed.

• Publication year

  2018

• Venue

  Journal of Economics and Business

• Publication date

  2018-12-30

• Fields of study

  Economics

• Identifiers
  DOI 10.18045/zbefri.2018.2.537
• External record

  Open on Semantic Scholar

• Source metadata

  Semantic Scholar

• No claims are published for this paper.

• No concepts are published for this paper.

• Ambiguity aversion is not universal

  2018cited by this paper
• Is loss-aversion magnitude-dependent? Measuring prospective affective judgments regarding gains and losses

  2017cited by this paper
• Measuring Loss Aversion under Ambiguity: A Method to Make Prospect Theory Completely Observable

  2016cited by this paper
• Endowment Effects in the Field: Evidence from India's IPO Lotteries

  2016cited by this paper
• Realization Utility with Reference-Dependent Preferences

  2013cited by this paper
• Investment Decision Making and Risk

  2013cited by this paper
• Is Tiger Woods Loss Averse? Persistent Bias in the Face of Experience, Competition, and High Stakes

  2011cited by this paper
• Behavior in a simplified stock market: the status quo bias, the disposition effect and the ostrich effect

  2009influential reference
• Bad riddance or good rubbish? Ownership and not loss aversion causes the endowment effect.

  2009cited by this paper
• Choosing Outcomes versus Choosing Products: Consumer‐Focused Retirement Investment Advice

  2008influential reference
• Causes of ambiguity aversion: Known versus unknown preferences

  2008cited by this paper
• Are Older Adults Less Subject to the Sunk-Cost Fallacy Than Younger Adults?

  2008cited by this paper
• Loss aversion, diminishing sensitivity, and the effect of experience on repeated decisions†

  2008influential reference
• Realization utility $

  2007cited by this paper
• Searching for the sunk cost fallacy

  2007cited by this paper
• The Neural Basis of Loss Aversion in Decision-Making Under Risk

  2007cited by this paper
• Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) :

  2007cited by this paper
• A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences

  2006cited by this paper
• The Disposition E ff ect and Underreaction to News

  2006cited by this paper
• Double or Nothing: Patterns of Equity Fund Holdings and Transactions

  2005influential reference
• Laws of Fear: Libertarian Paternalism

  2005cited by this paper
• A foundation for statistics

  2003cited by this paper
• The sunk cost and Concorde effects: Are humans less rational than lower animals?

  1999cited by this paper
• Are Investors Reluctant to Realize Their Losses

  1999cited by this paper
• The Effect of Myopia and Loss Aversion on Risk Taking: An Experimental Test

  1997cited by this paper
• Returns to Buying Winners and Selling Losers: Implications for Stock Market Efficiency

  1993cited by this paper
• Fisher's Exact Test

  1992cited by this paper
• Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty

  1992cited by this paper
• Sunk and Opportunity Costs in Valuation and Bidding

  1991cited by this paper
• Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias

  1991cited by this paper
• Decision, probability, and utility: Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms

  1988influential reference
• Status quo bias in decision making

  1988cited by this paper
• The Psychology of Sunk Cost

  1985cited by this paper
• The Disposition to Sell Winners Too Early and Ride Losers Too Long: Theory and Evidence: Discussion

  1985cited by this paper
• A network algorithm for the exact treatment of Fisher's exact test in RxC contingency tables

  1983cited by this paper
• Centre De Referència En Economia Analítica Barcelona Economics Working Paper Series Working Paper Nº 114 Ambiguity Seeking as a Result of the Status Quo Bias

  year unknowncited by this paper

• No citing papers are available for this paper.