Risk Aversion Or Myopia? Choices in Repeated Gambles and Retirement Investments

@article{Benartzi1999RiskAO,
  title={Risk Aversion Or Myopia? Choices in Repeated Gambles and Retirement Investments},
  author={Shlomo Benartzi and Richard H. Thaler},
  journal={Management Science},
  year={1999},
  volume={45},
  pages={364-381}
}
We study how decision makers choose when faced with multiple plays of a gamble or investment. When evaluating multiple plays of a simple mixed gamble, a chance to win x or lose y, subjects show a sensitivity to the amount to lose on a single trial, holding the distribution of returns for the portfolio constant; that is, they display "myopic loss aversion." Many subjects who decline multiple plays of such a gamble will accept it when shown the resulting distribution. This analysis is applied to… 

Figures and Tables from this paper

Team decision making under risk and myopic loss aversion
Myopic loss aversion has been put forward by Benartzi and Thaler (1995) as an explanation for the equity premium puzzle. Several studies have shown that myopic loss aversion is, indeed, a persistent
Myopic risk-seeking: The impact of narrow decision bracketing on lottery play
In two experiments conducted with low-income participants, we find that individuals are more likely to buy state lottery tickets when they make several purchase decisions one-at-a-time, i.e.
Myopic loss aversion: Potential causes of replication failures
This paper presents two studies on narrow bracketing and myopic loss aversion. The first study shows that the tendency to segregate multiple gambles is eliminated if subjects face a certainty
Myopic Loss Aversion or Randomness in Choice? An Experimental Investigation
This paper shows that myopic loss aversion (MLA) cannot explain the results of a simple experiment where subjects choose between a fixed lottery and varying certain payments. While the subjects tend
Investment Decisions and Time Horizon: Risk Perception and Risk Behavior in Repeated Gambles
TLDR
The results of an experiment in which business graduate students provided certainty equivalents and judged various dimensions of the outcome distribution of simple gambles that were played either once or repeatedly for 5 or 50 times are reported.
Myopia and Randomness in Choice
Subjects in laboratory experiments are more risk-averse when they make their decisions myopically (e.g., one versus several at a time). While this finding is typically explained using loss-averse
Myopic loss aversion, reference point, and money illusion
We use the portfolio selection model presented in He and Zhou [Manage. Sci., 2011, 57, 315–331] and the NYSE equity and US treasury bond returns for the period 1926–1990 to revisit Benartzi and
...
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 32 REFERENCES
Repeated optional gambles and risk aversion
We analyze in this paper the effect of age on the optimal dynamic strategy toward repeated independent gambles. When deciding to accept or to reject a lottery that is offered today, the gambler knows
Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle
The equity premium puzzle, first documented by Mehra and Prescott, refers to the empirical fact that stocks have greatly outperformed bonds over the last century. As Mehra and Prescott point out, it
LIFETIME PORTFOLIO SELECTION BY DYNAMIC STOCHASTIC PROGRAMMING
Risk-preference in coin-toss games
Standard Risk Aversion
This paper introduces the concept of standard risk aversion. A von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function has standard risk aversion if any risk makes a small reduction in wealth more painful (in the
When Time Is of the Essence: Averaging, Aspiration, and the Short Run
A variety of experiments have demonstrated that people's choices among gambles differ according to whether the gamble is to be played just once (the unique case) or multiple times (the repeated
Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: the effects of prior outcomes on risky choice
How is risk-taking affected by prior gains and losses? While normative theory implores decision makers to only consider incremental outcomes, real decision makers are influenced by prior outcomes. We
Lifetime Portfolio Selection under Uncertainty: The Continuous-Time Case
OST models of portfolio selection have M been one-period models. I examine the combined problem of optimal portfolio selection and consumption rules for an individual in a continuous-time model
On the Framing of Multiple Prospects
We investigated decisions involving multiple independent uncertain prospects. At the extremes, a decision maker may either consider each prospect as a separate event (segregation) or evaluate the
THE EQUITY PREMIUM A Puzzle
...
...