Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 570

Could this flaw in human thinking be exploited for market gains?

Conventional economic theory assumes individuals are perfectly rational in their decision making under uncertainty. This is usually known as expected utility theory.

Prospect theory, on the other hand, represents more how people actually behave rather than how they are expected to behave. Its two main components are overweighting of tail probabilities and the shape of utility function.

Prospect theory considers options relative to a reference point – see below – rather than in terms of absolute wealth. This is contrary to the long-accepted theory that losses and gains are felt equally. While controversial, it has been shown to appear in many human pursuits.

Here are some examples:

Insurance: Prospect theory implies that we tend to overweight low probability events, like a house fire or some other catastrophe. We are willing to pay insurance premiums for these highly unlikely events, effectively switching a low probability large loss for a certain smaller loss. At the same time, we are less likely to purchase insurance for higher probability lower loss events, like loss or damage to a mobile phone.[1]

Gambling: Why are gamblers willing to bet on zero or negative expected value games in casinos?[2] Think of the example of a gambler who loses $500 compared to a gambler who has won $200. The losing gambler is more likely to take on another $500 gamble (“to make up the loss”) than the winning gambler. Losses matter more than gains.

Health: Prospect theory seems to apply to non-monetary rewards as well as monetary. It seems obvious but individuals who are less satisfied with their body shape and wish to lose weight tend to have higher risk seeking behaviour when it comes to weight loss or gain. That is, they equate weight loss (gain) with “psychological” gain (loss), and their aversion to weight gain is roughly twice their desire for weight loss (in the sample from the paper).[3]

In investments, a similar behaviour has been observed, which has been named the disposition effect.

Disposition theory was first identified and named by Shefrin and Statman (1985) [4],[5], where it was found while looking at trading patterns of individual retail investors. The name comes from the idea that:

Investors are “predisposed” to sell winners too early and to sell losers too late, and they find evidence that this exists – and it is not a tax effect.

An example: you own stock A which has risen in value. You believe that there is still upside in the stock but timing the top is difficult, and “you never go broke taking a profit”. That is, you are aware that the price might go higher, but you are comfortable missing out and would repeat the action.

Or you own stock B which has fallen in value. You think the stock could fall further, and it could also rise again, but you decide to “hang on for the ride”. You don’t sell out because you have already absorbed the loss, and you are ok if it goes lower and would repeat the action.

The figures below come from Frazzini (2006)[6] with some additions to clarify the ideas.

Case 1: Stock falls $10 and we don’t sell

In the first chart below (Figure 1), we own a stock with the Reference Point at the centre or origin. The stock then falls $10 and we want to assess whether we would sell now. For simplicity, assume the next move is equally likely to be +$10 or -$10.

If risk neutral – blue dot – so we are indifferent to buying or selling.

However, if we use the Prospect Theory utility function - red dot - then the story is different.

If the stock recovers and we have not sold, the positive change in utility from continuing to hold the stock is the green bar. That is, there is significant upside to our utility if we don’t sell and the price recovers. If the stock continues to fall and we have not sold, we lose another $10 but the reduction in utility (the red bar) is smaller than the green bar.

In other words, the $10 upside means more to us than the $10 downside. If the stock is equally likely to go up or down by $10, and we do not sell, then the expected change in utility (green bar less red bar) is positive. So we don’t sell.

Figure 1: The Disposition Effect with a loss – do not sell.

Case 2: Stock rises $10 and we sell

In the second chart below (Figure 2), we own a stock with the Reference Point again at the origin. The stock then rises $10 and we want to assess whether we would sell now. For simplicity, again assume the next move is equally likely to be +$10 or -$10.

If risk neutral – blue dot – so we are indifferent to buying or selling.

However, if we use the Prospect Theory utility function - red dot - then the story is different.

If the stock falls and we have not sold, the negative change in utility from continuing to hold the stock is the red bar. That is, there is significant downside to our utility if we don’t sell and the price falls. If the stock continues to rise and we have not sold, we gain another $10 but the increase in utility (the green bar) is smaller than the red bar.

In other words, the $10 upside means less to us than the $10 downside. If the stock is equally likely to go up or down by $10, and we do not sell, then the expected change in utility (green bar less red bar) is negative. So we sell.

Figure 2: The Disposition Effect with a gain – sell

To summarise, even if the probability of the next price change is equally likely to be up and down, we will choose to sell if the price has already risen but not sell if it has fallen.

Can we trade on this? Operationalising Prospect Theory

Behavioural biases push prices away from fundamentals – e.g., selling early or late in the case of the disposition effect.

Here, if prices have fallen below the individual’s reference price, the individual is less likely to sell, creating an imbalance of buying over selling so future returns will be higher. On the other hand, if prices have risen above the reference price, selling has an increased likelihood, so the resulting imbalance selling over buying means future returns will be lower.

This idea might be captured by a strategy which buys stocks which have fallen and sells stocks which have risen. In other words, it may look like a price reversal/value or anti-momentum strategy. While academic research suggests that such a strategy may be additive, this remains to be seen in practice.

 

[1] https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/loss-aversion
[2] Barberis (2011) NBER working paper, “A Model of Casino Gambling”
[3] For example, Lim and Bruce (2015), Frontiers in Psychology: “Prospect theory and body mass: characterising psychological parameters for weight related risk attitudes and weight-gain aversion”
[4] Shefrin and Statman (1985), Journal of Finance, “The Disposition to Sell Winners Too Early and Ride Losers Too Long: Theory and Evidence”
[5] There are many other examples in the literature which demonstrate the disposition effect. An early sample:
     Heisler (1994), Review of Futures Markets, “Loss aversion in a futures market: An empirical test”
     Weber and Camerer (1998), Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation, “The disposition effect in securities trading: An experimental analysis”
     Odean (1998), Journal of Finance, “Are investors reluctant to realize their losses?”
     Odean (1999), American Economic Review, “Do investors trade too much?”
     Heath, Huddart and Lang (1999), Quarterly Journal of Economics, “Psychological Factors and Stock Option Exercise”
[6] Frazzini (2006), Journal of Finance, “The Disposition Effect and Underreaction to News”

 

Dr. David Walsh is Head of Investment at RQI Investors, a wholly owned investment management subsidiary of First Sentier Investors, a sponsor of Firstlinks. This article is general information and does not consider the circumstances of any investor. You can read the full version of David’s research paper on Prospect Theory and the Disposition Effect here.

For more articles and papers from First Sentier Investors, please click here.

 

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Australian house prices close in on world record

Sydney is set to become the world’s most expensive city for housing over the next 12 months, a new report shows. Our other major cities aren’t far behind unless there are major changes to improve housing affordability.

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

Tariffs are a smokescreen to Trump's real endgame

Behind market volatility and tariff threats lies a deeper strategy. Trump’s real goal isn’t trade reform but managing America's massive debts, preserving bond market confidence, and preparing for potential QE.

Latest Updates

Shares

Are franking credits hurting Australia’s economy?

Business investment and per capita GDP have languished over the past decade and the Labor Government is conducting inquiries to find out why. Franking credits should be part of the debate about our stalling economy.

Superannuation

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

Have Apple and Google reached the beginning of the end?

It might be hard to imagine a world where Apple and Google aren’t dominant, but disruption often starts with tiny cracks. AI's emergence into the mainstream might have set the stage for a new generation of leaders.

Superannuation

Did retirees lose out when they accepted defined benefit schemes?

Defined benefit pensions were designed to offer security in retirement. But new tax policies and arbitrary limits now erode their value - especially for Australians who contributed their own savings to these plans.

Property

Why Australia's agricultural land boom has stalled

Farmland prices have flatlined, bringing one of the most dramatic rural property cycles in Australian history to an end. The market for agricultural land now seems to be entering a new and more nuanced phase.

Property

The retail property niche offering income and growth

Neighbourhood shopping centres have fought off one perceived threat after another. What's more, they continue to offer secure income from blue-chip firms and other tenants linked mostly to essential spending.

ASX plans to attract more IPOs don’t go far enough

High-profile Australian stock market listings, like Guzman Y Gomez's IPO in 2024, are rare. ASIC aims to streamline the IPO process to boost listings, but faces barriers like share structures and governance.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.