Suchergebnisse

PurposeThis paper sets out to investigate investors' sustainable preferences under different market conditions. Specifically, the authors examine the existence of a positive sustainable asset pricing gap, and whether it is influenced by the socioeconomic and financial sentiments. The increase of uncertainty rises investors' skepticism whether sustainable companies are under-performing the traditional counterparts, causing larger increasing gap. Conversely, if sustainable assets are overperforming, the increase of market uncertainty raises investors' sustainable preferences.Design/methodology/approachThe authors examine the existence of a positive sustainable asset pricing gap, and whether it is influenced by the socioeconomic and financial sentiments. Through a quantile regression, the authors remark the variability of sustainable preferences where market participants, although recognizing the present and future value added of sustainable investing, also show skepticism (i.e. asymmetric tail behavior). However, the analysis of the total change of sustainable investments returns over time demonstrates the emergence of positive viewpoints incentivized by economic and market uncertainty.FindingsThe market-driven social responsibility exalts the positive insights regarding the future of sustainable developments. As the authors discuss along the paper, investors are gaining awareness about the environmental and social goals pursued by socially responsible companies. Hence, the authors consider how economic instability might stimulate the assessment of the social and environmental impact of the unsustainable production systems, switching investments toward virtuous sustainable companies. This could generate a series of positive externalities that might improve the welfare conditions of the whole society.Originality/valueThe authors conduct an original empirical exercise, combining different techniques (i.e. quantile regressions and wavelet analysis). To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first paper trying to evidence a systematic connection between market uncertainty and sustainable preferences accounting for different market states (thanks to quantile regressions).

PurposeExpanding on the real-world financial market framework and considering the current market turmoil, with cryptocurrencies (where contracts for difference (CFDs) are extremely common) (Hasso et al., 2019) displaying unprecedented volatility, the authors aim to test in an online laboratory setting whether displaying a risk warning message is truly effective in reducing the level of risk taken and whether the placement of this method makes a difference.Design/methodology/approachTo explore the impact of risk disclosure framing on risk-taking behavior, the authors conducted an online pair-wise lottery choice experiment. In addition to manipulating risk awareness through the presence or absence of risk warning messages of varying intensity, the authors also considered dynamic inconsistency, cognitive ability and questionnaire-based financial risk tolerance (FRT) scores. The authors aimed to identify potential relationships between these variables and experimentally elicited risk aversion. The authors' study offers valuable insights into the complex nature of risky decision-making and sheds light on the importance of considering dynamic inconsistency in addition to risk awareness and aversion.FindingsThe authors' results provide statistical evidence for the efficacy of informative and very salient messages in mitigating risky decision, hinting at several policy implications. The authors also provide some statistical evidence in support of the relationship between cognitive abilities and risk preferences. The authors detect that individual with low cognitive abilities scores display great risk aversion.Originality/valueThis study investigates the impact of risk warning messages on investment decisions in an online laboratory setting – a unique approach. However, the authors go beyond this and also examine the potential influence of dynamic inconsistency on decision-making, adding further value to the literature on this topic. To ensure a comprehensive understanding of the participants, the authors collect data on cognitive ability and FRT using questionnaires. This study provides a simple and cost-effective framework that can be easily replicated in future research – a valuable contribution to the field.

AbstractWe studied whether professional traders' risk attitudes varied according to social context. To this extent, we examined whether the level of wealth in the relevant group influenced traders' risky decisions. The results showed that risk aversion decreased with increased income/wealth conditions in the group context.

AbstractThis paper experimentally investigates the potential existence of dynamically inconsistent individuals in a situation of ambiguity. The experiment involves participants making two sequential decisions concerning the allocation of a sum of money, with an ambiguous move by Nature occurring after first decision, and again after the second. We conducted two between-subject sessions: one incentivised and one unincentivised. By analysing the resulting data, we are able to classify participants into four distinct decision-making types: Myopic, Resolute, Sophisticated and Expected Utility (EU). Our results suggest that a significant proportion of the participants do not exhibit dynamic inconsistency being either Resolute, Sophisticated or EU. We discuss how monetary incentives can change the dynamic consistency of decision-makers and the salience of the Ambiguity. Differently from the incentivised treatment, we detect a slight increase of the proportion of Myopic behaviour in the hypothetical case, suspecting that incentives might affect dynamic consistency. A noteworthy observation is that, in the majority of cases, ambiguity tends to simplify to risk in the absence of monetary incentives. These findings have implications for economic decision-making and policymaking. By identifying the different types of decision-makers and understanding how they make choices, we can develop more effective strategies to promote desirable outcomes.