Prospect theory and the risk-return paradox: Some recent evidence

被引：18

作者：

Chou P.-H. ^{[1
]}

Chou R.K. ^{[1
]}

Ko K.-C. ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Department of Finance, School of Management, National Central University, Jhongli, Taoyuan

来源：

Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting | 2009年 / 33卷 / 3期

关键词：

Least trimmed squares (LTS); Prospect theory; Risk-return paradox; Survivorship bias;

D O I：

10.1007/s11156-009-0109-z

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

There is extensive evidence indicating a negative risk-return relation when a firm's performance is measured based on accounting measures such as return on asset (ROA) and return on equity (ROE). Previous studies show that the risk-return paradox can be explained by the prospect theory, which predicts that managers' risk attitudes are different for firms of different performances. However, those studies mostly use earlier data from the COMPUSTAT database, which suffers from a survivorship bias. Failure to account for delisting firms may understate the risk-return relation. We reexamine the mixture of risk-seeking and risk-averse behaviors based on an updated 20-year sample period that is free from the survivorship problem. Interestingly, our results show stronger and robust evidence supporting the prospect theory during the period from 1984 to 2003. © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009.

引用

页码：193 / 208

页数：15

共 20 条

[1]

Banz R.W., Breen W.J., Sample-dependent results using accounting and market, J Finance, 41, pp. 779-793, (1986)

[2]

Bowman E.H., A risk/return paradox for strategic management, Sloan Manag Rev, 21, pp. 17-31, (1980)

[3]

Brown S.J., Goetzmann W., Ibbotson R., Ross S., Survivorship bias in performance studies, Rev Financ Stud, 5, pp. 553-580, (1992)

[4]

Davis J.L., The cross-section of returns and survivorship bias: Evidence from delisted stocks, Q Rev Econ Finance, 36, pp. 365-375, (1996)

[5]

Davis J.L., Explaining stock returns: A literature survey, (2001)

[6]

Elton E.J., Gruber M.J., Blake C.R., The persistence of risk-adjusted mutual fund performance, J Bus, 69, pp. 133-157, (1996)

[7]

Fama E.F., French K.R., Industry costs of equity, J Financ Econ, 43, pp. 153-193, (1997)

[8]

Fiegenbaum A., Prospect theory and the risk-return association: An empirical examination in 85 industries, J Econ Behav Organ, 14, pp. 187-203, (1990)

[9]

Fiegenbaum A., Thomas H., Attitudes toward risk and the risk-return paradox: Prospect theory explanations, Acad Manag J, 31, pp. 85-106, (1988)

[10]

Horowitz J.L., Loughran T., Savin N.E., Three analyses of the firm size premium, J Empir Finance, 7, pp. 143-153, (2000)

← 1 2 →