Sign Effect, Speedup – Delay Asymmetry and Gender Effect In the Tehran Stock Exchange

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Accounting and Management, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Accounting and Management, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

3 PhD Student in Financial Management, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The present study first investigates the asymmetry of speedup - delay (gain and loss) and Sign Effect in Tehran Stock Exchange, then examine the effect of gender on the discount rate and explain it with the loss aversion. The sample is 403 investors in Tehran Stock Exchange, and the nonparametric Tests are used to test the research hypotheses. The research results show that there is an asymmetry of speedup - delay in the Tehran Stock Exchange, which means; for gains, investors delay premium (a discount rate) is larger than the speed-up cost (a discount rate) and for losses; the discount rates of speed-up are larger than discount rates of delay.
Also, the findings of this study indicate that there is a Sign effect in the Tehran Stock Exchange; in other words, the discount rate of gains is greater than the discount rate of losses. This study also finds that gender is correlated with discount rates, which that means; women have a higher discount rate for the delay in gains and lower discount rate for the delay in losses, which is due to their higher loss aversion than men.
These anomalies are incompatible with the traditional discount model predictions, which is widely used in financial matters and assumes a constant discount rate.

Keywords

References

1) Abdellaoui, M., Attema, A. E., & Bleichrodt, H. (2009). Intertemporal Tradeoffs for Gains and Losses: An Experimental Measurement of Discounted Utility. The Economic Journal, 120(545): 845–866.
2) Anbarci, Nejat; Arin, K. Peren; Kuhlenkasper, Torben and Christina Zenker. (2017). revisiting loss-aversion: Evidence from Professional TennisJournal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 153: 1–18.
3) Appelt, Kirstin C., Hardisty, David J., Weber, Elke U. (2011). Asymmetric discounting of gains and losses: A query theory account. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 43:107–126.
4) Barberis, N., Huang, M., (2001). Mental Accounting, Loss Aversion, and Individual Stock Returns. Journal of Finance, 56: 1247-1292.
5) Barberis, N., Huang, M., Santos, T., (2001). Prospect Theory and Asset Prices. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116: 1-53.
6) Benzion, U., Rapoport, A., and Yagil, J. (1989). Discount rates inferred from decisions: an experimental study. Management Science, 35(3): 270–84.
7) Dhami, sanjit. (2016). Foundations of Behavioral Economic Analysis, Oxford university press, first edition
8) Dimmock, S. G., and Kouwenberg, R. (2010). Loss-Aversion and Household Portfolio Choice. Journal of Empirical Finance, 17(3): 441-459.
9) Fishburn, P. C. and Rubinstein, A. (1982). Time preference. International Economic Review, 23(3): 677–94.
10) Johnson, E. J., Gachter, S., and Herrmann, A. (2006). Exploring the nature of loss aversion. CeDEx. Discussion Paper 2006-02.
11) Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2): 263-292.
12) Lee, B., & Veld-Merkoulova, Y. (2016). Myopic loss aversion and stock investments: An empirical study of private investors. Journal of Banking & Finance, 70: 235–246.
13) Li, T., Tan, Y., Gong, X., Yin, S., Qiu, F., & Hu, X. (2018). Future Time Perspective Impacts Gain-Related but Not Loss-Related Intertemporal Choice. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00523
14) Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (1992). Anomalies in Intertemporal Choice: Evidence and an Interpretation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(2): 573–597
15) Loewenstein, G., (1988). Frames of Mind in Intertemporal Choice, Management Science, 34, 200-214.
16) Qu, W., Zhang, W., & Ge, Y. (2020). The moderating effect of delay discounting between
sensation seeking and risky driving behavior. Safety Science, 123, 104558. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2019.104558 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.104558)
17) Rau, H. A. (2014). The disposition effect and loss aversion: Do gender differences matter? Economics Letters, 123(1): 33–36
18) Rieger, M. O., Wang, M., & Hens, T. (2011). Prospect Theory around the World. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1957606 (https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1957606)
19) Samuelson, P. A. (1937). A note on measurement of utility. Review of Economic Studies, 4(2): 155–61.
20) Shelley, M. K. (1993). Outcome signs, question frames and discount rates. Management Science, 39(7): 806–15.
21) Thaler, R. (1981). Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency. Economics Letters, 8(3): 201–207
22) Tu, Q., (2004), Reference Points and Loss Aversion in Intertemporal Choice”, Working Paper, Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=644142.
23) Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D., (1992), Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representations of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4):297-323.
International Journal of Finance & Managerial Accounting
Volume 5, Issue 18
September 2020
Pages 41-53

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics