En el siguiente estudio de Brad Barber y Terrance Odean, BOYS WILL BE BOYS: GENDER, OVERCONFIDENCE,AND COMMON STOCK INVESTMENT señala:
.
Theoretical models predict that overconfident investors trade excessively. We test this prediction by partitioning investors on gender. Psychological research demonstrates that, in areas such as finance, men are more overconfident than women. Thus, theory predicts that men will trade more excessively than women. Using account data for over 35,000 households from a large discount brokerage, we analyze the common stock investments of men and women from February 1991
through January 1997. We document that men trade 45 percent more than women. Trading reduces men’s net returns by 2.65 percentage points a year as opposed to 1.72 percentage points for women.
Theoretical models predict that overconfident investors trade excessively. We test this prediction by partitioning investors on gender. Psychological research demonstrates that, in areas such as finance, men are more overconfident than women. Thus, theory predicts that men will trade more excessively than women. Using account data for over 35,000 households from a large discount brokerage, we analyze the common stock investments of men and women from February 1991
through January 1997. We document that men trade 45 percent more than women. Trading reduces men’s net returns by 2.65 percentage points a year as opposed to 1.72 percentage points for women.
.
El tema tiene que ver con un concepto central en la Economía del Comportamiento (Behavioral Economics) que es el de Sobreconfianza y que conduce a resultados en las decisiones de los individuos distintas a las derivadas de los modelos dominantes. Por ejemplo, en finanzas es ampliamente aceptada la hipótesis de los mercados eficientes (EMH). En esta todos los activos en el mercado tienen los precios correctos por lo que no se puede esperar tanto ganancias como pérdidas derivadas del trading. Pero sabemos que muchos inversionistas pierden mucho y otros ganan. En BE se sugiere que en parte esto es resultado de una sobreconfianza que tienen muchos inversionistas que consideran que saben más que el mercado y que se refleja en un trading muy activo. En investigaciones empíricas se ha mostrado que, en promedio, los traders más activos tienen los resultados más pobres. El estudio que menciono arriba se ajusta a esta línea de trabajos, sólo que realizan una separación por género, y en cierta forma muestra que los hombres actúan de acuerdo a sus "ideas inútiles" sistemáticamente más veces que las mujeres y, en consecuencia, estas últimas obtienen mejores resultados en promedio que los hombres.
Es un tema interesante que se ha venido estudiando mucho en los últimos años por académicos como Thaler o Shiller y que menciona Kahneman en su último libro.
.
Ver este otro artículo en Psychology Today, Why Smart Women Don't Trade Around
.
"Here's my reductive but not, I hope, misrepresentative version of the results presented in Terrance Odean and Brad Barber's "Boys will be Boys: Gender, Overconfidence, and Common Stock Investment": their evidence shows that women trade less often, take fewer risks, look for smart advice and precise information, and remain loyal--one might even say monogamous--to patterns of fiscal management that have worked to our advantage in the past.
And, in what I imagine is a revelation that will cause only a very few hearts to leap in surprise, it turns out that men spew their cash all over creation, trade stocks like greedy kids at a baseball card convention, and feel a sense of deep satisfaction in trusting their own instincts about the market even when their hunches are 100-percent fact-free and--how to put this gently?--wrong."
And, in what I imagine is a revelation that will cause only a very few hearts to leap in surprise, it turns out that men spew their cash all over creation, trade stocks like greedy kids at a baseball card convention, and feel a sense of deep satisfaction in trusting their own instincts about the market even when their hunches are 100-percent fact-free and--how to put this gently?--wrong."
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario