Skip to main content
Log in

Mispricing: failure to capture the risk preferences dependent on market states

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores the mispricing relative to the capital asset pricing model through an equilibrium model. We find that both the strong risk preference dependent on good market states and strong risk aversion dependent on bad market states can produce high mispricing. Choosing the China stock market, the largest emerging market dominated by individual investors and known for its volatile nature in a short history as our sample, the empirical results also support our theoretical findings. Overall, our paper sheds light on the mispricing caused by the investor’s risk preference reference-dependent on market states.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For example, Wang et al. (2017); An et al. (2020); Qu et al. (2019); Riley et al. (2020), among others.

  2. Lamont (2012) discusses various impediments created by the firm to short a stock, including legal threats, investigations, lawsuits, and various technical actions, and also argues that these impediments can become more severe when the stock is more overpriced. Almazan et al. (2004), Hong and Sraer (2016) suggest that the investment policy also do not allow investors to sell short. For example, in U.S. fund market only about thirty percent of mutual funds are allowed to sell short, and in China stock market only about one-quarter stocks are allowed to sell short. These short-sales constraints impede the overpriced stocks be corrected to their fundamental values.

  3. A large piece of literature in behavioral finance show that the investors have subjective beliefs on the expected dividends, in particular the optimistic beliefs, which induce the investors believe that they can sell a stock at a better price in the future and currently would rather pay exceed its fundamental value, causing a significant bubble component in the price (Harrison and Kreps, 1978; Scheinkman and Xiong, 2003). At the same time, the investors also have heterogeneous expectations on the future monetary policy and money supplies as a result of the imperfect opening of central banks, affecting profoundly on asset pricing by investors’ consumptions and stochastic discount rates (Croitoru and Lu, 2015). Synthetically, Chen et al. (2013) analyze the sources of the mispricing when investors have subjective expectations on both of dividend growth rates and discount rates, and find that the heterogeneous belief plays an important role in explaining stock mispricing.

  4. The survey on individual investors released by Shenzhen Stock Exchange in 2017 reports that the proportion of investors whose securities account less than 500 thousand yuan is more than three-quarter.

References

  • Almazan, A., Brown, K. C., Carlson, M., & Chapman, D. A. (2004). Why constrain your mutual fund manager? Journal of Financial Economics,73(2), 289–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amihud, Y. (2002). Illiquidity and stock returns: Cross-section and time-series effects. Journal of Financial Markets,5(1), 31–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • An, L., Wang, H., & Wang, J. (2020). Lottery-related anomalies: The role of reference-dependent preferences. Management Science,66(1), 473–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ang, A., Hodrick, R. J., Xing, Y., & Zhang, X. (2006). The cross-section of volatility and expected returns. The Journal of Finance,61(1), 259–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antoniou, C., Doukas, J. A., & Subrahmanyam, A. (2016). Investor sentiment, beta, and the cost of equity capital. Management Science,62(2), 347–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barberis, N., Greenwood, R., Jin, L., & Shleifer, A. (2015). X-CAPM: An extrapolative capital asset pricing model. Journal of Financial Economics,115(1), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunnermeier, M. K., & Nagel, S. (2008). Do wealth fluctuations generate time varying risk aversion? Micro-evidence on individuals’ asset allocation. American Economic Review,98(3), 713–736.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucciol, A., & Miniaci, R. (2011). Household portfolios and implicit risk aversion. Review of Economics and Statistics,93(4), 1235–1250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvet, L. E., Campbell, J. Y., & Sodini, P. (2009). Fight or flight? Portfolio rebalancing by individual investors. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,124(1), 301–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. Y., Ramadorai, T., & Ranish, B. (2014). Getting better or feeling better? How equity investors respond to investment experience, National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Cao, J., & Han, B. (2016). Idiosyncratic risk, costly arbitrage, and the cross-section of stock returns. Journal of Banking & Finance,73, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. R., Lung, P. P., & Wang, F. A. (2013). Where are the sources of stock market mispricing and excess volatility? Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting,41(4), 631–650.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, F., Chiao, C., Wang, C., Fang, Z., & Yao, S. (2021a). Does retail investor attention improve stock liquidity? A Dynamic Perspective. Economic Modelling,94, 170–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, F., Wang, C., Chiao, C., Yao, S., & Fang, Z. (2021b). Retail attention, retail trades, and stock price crash risk. Emerging Markets Review,4, 100821.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiappori, P. A., & Paiella, M. (2011). Relative risk aversion is constant: Evidence from panel data. Journal of the European Economic Association,9(6), 1021–1052.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croitoru, B., & Lu, L. (2015). Asset pricing in a monetary economy with heterogeneous beliefs. Management Science,61(9), 2203–2219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. F. (1965). The behavior of stock-market prices. The Journal of Business,38(1), 34–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1993). Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics,33(1), 3–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (2015). A five-factor asset pricing model. Journal of Financial Economics,116(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, E. F., & MacBeth, J. D. (1973). Risk, return, and equilibrium: Empirical tests. Journal of Political Economy,81(3), 607–636.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazzini, A., & Lamout, O. A. (2008). Dumb money: Mutual fund flows and the cross-section of stock returns. Journal of Financial Economics,88(2), 299–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, I., & Yang, L. (2015). Information diversity and complementarities in trading and information acquisition. The Journal of Finance,70(4), 1723–1765.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guiso, L., & Paiella, M. (2008). Risk aversion, wealth, and background risk. Journal of the European Economic Association,6(6), 1109–1150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2018). Time varying risk aversion. Journal of Financial Economics,128(3), 403–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. M., & Kreps, D. M. (1978). Speculative investor behavior in a stock market with heterogeneous expectations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,92(2), 323–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heaton, J., & Lucas, D. (2000). Portfolio choice in the presence of background risk. The Economic Journal,110(460), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, H., & Sraer, D. A. (2016). Speculative betas. The Journal of Finance,71(5), 2095–2144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, D., Li, J., Wang, L. (2021). Are disagreements agreeable? Evidence from information aggregation. Journal of Financial Economics (forthcoming).

  • Huang, X. (2019). Mark Twain’s cat: Investment experience, categorical thinking, and stock selection. Journal of Financial Economics,131(2), 404–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jegadeesh, N. (1990). Evidence of predictable behavior of security returns. The Journal of Finance,45(3), 881–898.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jegadeesh, N., & Titman, S. (1993). Returns to buying winners and selling losers: Implications for stock market efficiency. The Journal of Finance,48(1), 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, A. (2009). Who gambles in the stock market? The Journal of Finance,64(4), 1889–1933.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, O. A. (2012). Go down fighting: Short sellers vs firms. The Review of Asset Pricing Studies,2(1), 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. M., & Ready, M. J. (1991). Inferring trade direction from intraday data. The Journal of Finance,46(2), 733–746.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandelbrot, B. (1963). The variation of certain speculative prices. The Journal of Business,36(4), 394–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, M. H., & Modigliani, F. (1961). Dividend policy, growth, and the valuation of shares. The Journal of Business,34(4), 411–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ng, L., & Wu, F. (2007). The trading behavior of institutions and individuals in Chinese equity markets. Journal of Banking & Finance,31(9), 2695–2710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pindyck, R. S. (1988). Risk aversion and determinants of stock market behavior. Review of Economics and Statistics,70(2), 183–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qu, Z., Liu, X., & He, S. (2019). Abnormal returns and idiosyncratic volatility puzzle: Evidence from the Chinese stock market. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade,55(5), 1184–1198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riley, C., Summers, B., & Duxbury, D. (2020). Capital gains overhang with a dynamic reference point. Management Science,66(10), 4726–4745.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheinkman, J. A., & Xiong, W. (2003). Overconfidence and speculative bubbles. Journal of Political Economy,111(6), 1183–1220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stambaugh, R. F., Yu, J., & Yuan, Y. (2015). Arbitrage asymmetry and the idiosyncratic volatility puzzle. The Journal of Finance,70(5), 1903–1948.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strahilevitz, M. A., Odean, T., & Barber, B. M. (2011). Once burned, twice shy: How naive learning, counterfactuals, and regret affect the repurchase of stocks previously sold. Journal of Marketing Research,48, 102–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suhonen, N., & Saastamoinen, J. (2018). How do prior gains and losses affect subsequent risk taking? Management Science,64(6), 2797–2808.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H., Yan, J., & Yu, J. (2017). Reference-dependent preferences and the risk-return trade-off. Journal of Financial Economics,123, 395–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiong, W., & Yu, J. (2011). The Chinese warrants bubble. American Economic Review,101(6), 2723–2753.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yao, S., Wang, C., Cui, X., & Fang, Z. (2019). Idiosyncratic skewness, gambling preference, and cross-section of stock returns: Evidence from China. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal,53, 464–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yao, S., Wang, C., Fang, Z., & Chiao, C. (2021). MAX is not the max under the interference of daily price limits: Evidence from China. International Review of Economics & Finance,73, 348–369.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the financial support from National Social Science Fund (Grant No.19CGL023).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shouyu Yao.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

  • Return: The return of stock i in month t is defined as the logarithmic return including reinvestment of cash dividend on the stock in that month.

  • VOL: The total volatility (VOL) of stock i in month t is defined as the standard deviation of daily returns within month t,

    $$ VOL_{{i,t}} = \sqrt {\text{Var} (R_{{i,d}} )} , $$
    (A1)

    where \(R_{{i,d}}\) is the return on stock i on day d.

  • Price: The price of stock i in month t is defined as the closed price of the stock on the last trading day in that month.

  • Volume: The volume of stock i in month t is defined as the natural logarithm of total RMB trading volume of the stock in that month.

  • Size: The size of stock i in month t is measured by the natural logarithm of the market value of equity (the closed price of the stock on the last trading day in that month times shares outstanding in thousands of RMB at the end of month t).

  • Short-term reversal: Following Jegadeesh (1990), the reversal variable for each stock in month t is defined as the return on the stock in month t − 1.

  • Momentum: Following Jegadeesh and Titman (1993), the momentum for each stock in month t is defined as the cumulative return on the stock over the previous five months starting two months ago, i.e., the cumulative return from month t − 6 to month t − 2.

  • Illiquidity: Following Amihud (2002), we measure the illiquidity for each stock in month t as the ratio of the absolute monthly stock return to the respective RMB trading volume in that month,

    $$ Illiquidity_{{i,t}} = \frac{{\left| {R_{{i,t}} } \right|}}{{Volume_{{i,t}} }}, $$
    (A2)

    where \(R_{{i,t}}\) is the return on stock i in month t, \(Volume_{{i,t}}\) is the respective monthly trading volume in RMB.

  • Turnover: The turnover of stock i in month t is calculated as the ratio of the number of shares traded to the number of shares outstanding in that month.

  • Idiosyncratic volatility: Follow Ang et al. (2006), the idiosyncratic volatility (IVOL) of stock i in month t is defined as the standard deviation of daily residuals in a regression of the stock’s daily returns on the market factor in that month,

    $$ R_{{i,d}} - r_{{f,d}} = \alpha _{{i,t}} + \beta _{{i,t}} (R_{{m,d}} - r_{{f,d}} ) + \varepsilon _{{i,d}} , $$
    (A3)

    where \(R_{{i,d}}\) is the return on stock i on day d, \(r_{{f,d}}\) is the risk-free rate on day d, and \(R_{{m,d}}\) is the market return on day d.

    $$ IVOL_{{i,t}} = \sqrt {\text{Var} (\varepsilon _{{i,d}} )} . $$
    (A4)
  • Institutional ownership: In China’s stock market, the institutional investors include funds, qualified foreign investors, securities companies, insurance companies, social security funds, trust companies, financial companies, banks, non-financial listed companies, and other institutions. We take the sum of the shareholding proportions of these institutions as the institutional ownership (IO) and use quarterly IO as monthly IO for this quarter due to data disclosure restrictions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xing, H., Wang, H., Cheng, F. et al. Mispricing: failure to capture the risk preferences dependent on market states. Ann Oper Res 330, 1–26 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-04166-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-04166-1

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation