BEHAVIORAL AND COGNITIVE FACTORS IN THE FORMATION OF THE HEURISTIC MODEL OF THE EFFECTIVE INTERPRETER IN INVESTING IN HIGH-TECH COMPANIES ; ПОВЕДЕНЧЕСКИЕ И КОГНИТИВНЫЕ ФАКТОРЫ ФОРМИРОВАНИЯ ЭВРИСТИЧЕСКОЙ МОДЕЛИ ЭФФЕКТИВНОГО ИНТЕРПРЕТАТОРА ПРИ ИНВЕСТИРОВАНИИ В ВЫСОКОТЕХНОЛОГИЧНЫЕ КОМПАНИИ ; 高科技公司投资过程中 高效解释 启发法模型形成的行为和认知因素
Uloženo v:
| Název: | BEHAVIORAL AND COGNITIVE FACTORS IN THE FORMATION OF THE HEURISTIC MODEL OF THE EFFECTIVE INTERPRETER IN INVESTING IN HIGH-TECH COMPANIES ; ПОВЕДЕНЧЕСКИЕ И КОГНИТИВНЫЕ ФАКТОРЫ ФОРМИРОВАНИЯ ЭВРИСТИЧЕСКОЙ МОДЕЛИ ЭФФЕКТИВНОГО ИНТЕРПРЕТАТОРА ПРИ ИНВЕСТИРОВАНИИ В ВЫСОКОТЕХНОЛОГИЧНЫЕ КОМПАНИИ ; 高科技公司投资过程中 高效解释 启发法模型形成的行为和认知因素 |
|---|---|
| Autoři: | S. V. Ilkevich, С. В. Илькевич |
| Zdroj: | Strategic decisions and risk management; Том 14, № 2 (2023); 198-212 ; تصمیمات راهبردی و مدیریت ریسک ها; Том 14, № 2 (2023); 198-212 ; Стратегические решения и риск-менеджмент; Том 14, № 2 (2023); 198-212 ; 战略决策和风险管理; Том 14, № 2 (2023); 198-212 ; 2618-9984 ; 2618-947X ; 10.17747/2618-947X-2023-2 |
| Informace o vydavateli: | Real Economy Publishing House |
| Rok vydání: | 2023 |
| Sbírka: | Strategic decisions and risk management (E-Journal) / Стратегические решения и риск-менеджмент |
| Témata: | 认知扭曲、启发法、倖存者偏差、沉没成本误区、代表性启发法、市值、股票市场、组合投资、IPO、SPAC、创新、叙事、非理性乐观、非理性繁荣、行为金融学、成长型公司、高科技公司、新经济、密码货币、战略动力、投资论文, behavioral heuristics, survivor bias, sunk cost fallacy, representativeness heuristic, market capitalization, stock market, portfolio investment, IPO, SPAC, innovation, narratives, irrational optimism, irrational exuberance, behavioral finance, growth companies, high-tech companies, new economy, cryptocurrencies, momentum strategies, investment thesis, поведенческие эвристики, ошибка выжившего, ошибка невозвратных затрат, эвристика репрезентативности, рыночная капитализация, рынок акций, фондовый рынок, портфельные инвестиции, инновации |
| Popis: | The article presents a systematisation of the main factors of cognitive distortions and behavioural heuristics that make the switch to the effective interpreter model irreversible in portfolio investments, especially in high-tech companies. As the heuristic model of the effective interpreter can be perceived as generally increasing the risks in the system for all stakeholders at the current stage of the evolution of the investment system, the author focuses on the most negative manifestations of cognitive and behavioural factors in his description in the publication. However, this does not mean that it is possible or desirable to return to the rational investor model, as narrative and storytelling’s components are too important in the context of ‘new economy’ industry formation and and fast business expansion by disruptive companies. To better interpret the business potential of companies, stakeholders, especially investors, increasingly need to work with narratives, storytelling, aspects of perception and business trust, rather than the numerical values and ratios of financial reporting and analytics. This is partly due to the fact that the intangible assets of companies in the S&P500 index have accounted for up to 90% of the total market capitalisation over the last two decades.The author identifies the most significant cognitive and behavioral factors: the increase in the narrative component of equity value, the ‘fake it till you make it’ approach, the proliferation of cryptocurrencies as the asset with the largest narrative component of value, the boom in IPOs and SPACs in 2020-2021, buybacks as an unproductive signalling tool, the popularisation of chasing triple digit returns based on the survivor bias, the popularity of momentum strategies, the over-reliance on analyst recommendations and assessments, ‘pump and dump’ schemes, investment gamification and investor extroversion, anchoring and framing, the sunk cost fallacy, the lack of rigorous techniques for invalidating investment theses, and the ... |
| Druh dokumentu: | article in journal/newspaper |
| Popis souboru: | application/pdf |
| Jazyk: | Russian English |
| Relation: | https://www.jsdrm.ru/jour/article/view/1062/1024; https://www.jsdrm.ru/jour/article/view/1062/1034; Илькевич С.В. (2022). Эвристическая модель «эффективного интерпретатора» в портфельных инвестициях в высокотехнологичные компании. Стратегические решения и риск-менеджмент, 13(2): 116–128.; Austin J. (2021). Stock markets play ‘Whack a mole’ with pump and dump schemes (draft). UC Davis Business Law Journal, Forthcoming. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3972431 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3972431.; Azqueta-Gavaldón A. (2020). Causal inference between cryptocurrency narratives and prices: Evidence from a complex dynamic ecosystem. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 537: 122574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2019.122574 or https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437119314736.; Blau B.M. (2019). Price clustering and investor sentiment. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 20(1): 19–30. DOI:10.1080/15427560.2018.1431887.; Brady K., Premti A. (2019). How do investors determine stock prices after large price shocks? Journal of Behavioral Finance, 20(3): 354–368. DOI:10.1080/15427560.2018.1511563.; Brown A. (2020). Robinhood is not gamifying markets. It’s democratizing them. Bloomberg, 18 December. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-12-17/robinhood-is-democratizing-markets-not-making-them-a-game.; Chen A., Obizaeva O. (2022). Stock Buyback Motivations and Consequences: A Literature Review. CFA Institute Research Foundation. https://books.google.ru/books?id=bclgEAAAQBAJ&dq=buybacks+and+stock+prices&lr=&hl=ru&source=gbs_navlinks_s.; Chen D.-F., Chen P.-K., Chung S.-H., Cheng K.-C., Wu C.-H. (2020). The influence of performance feedback frequency and affective commitment on the sunk cost effect. Managerial and Decision Economics, 41: 873–882. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.3144.; Chen Y., Kumar A., Zhang C. (2021). Searching for gambles: Gambling sentiment and stock market outcomes. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 56(6): 2010–2038. DOI:10.1017/S0022109020000496.; Corredor P., Ferrer E., Santamaria R. (2014). Is cognitive bias really present in analyst forecasts? The role of investor sentiment. International Business Review, 23(4): 824–837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2014.01.001.; Deaves R., Lei J., Schröder M. (2019). Forecaster overconfidence and market survey performance. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 20(2): 173–194. DOI:10.1080/15427560.2018.1505727.; Demirer R., Zhang H. (2019). Industry herding and the profitability of momentum strategies during market crises. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 20(2): 195–212. DOI:10.1080/15427560.2018.1505728.; Grobys K., Sapkota N. (2019). Cryptocurrencies and momentum. Economics Letters, 180: 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2019.03.028 or https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176519301077.; Haita-Falah C. (2017). Sunk-cost fallacy and cognitive ability in individual decision-making. Journal of Economic Psychology, 58: 44–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2016.12.001.; Ishfaq M., Nazir M.S., Qamar M.A.J., Usman M. (2020). Cognitive bias and the extraversion personality shaping the behavior of investors. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.556506. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.556506.; Jo H., Park H., Shefrin H. (2020). Bitcoin and sentiment. Journal of Futures Markets, 40: 1861–879. https://doi.org/10.1002/fut.22156.; Johnson S.G.B., Tuckett D. (2022). Narrative expectations in financial forecasting. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 35(1): e2245. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2245.; Karamanou I. (2011). On the determinants of optimism in financial analyst earnings forecasts: The effect of the market’s ability to adjust for the bias. Abacus, 47: 1–26.; Kim K., Ryu D., Yu J. (2021). Do sentiment trades explain investor overconfidence around analyst recommendation revisions? Research in International Business and Finance, 56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2020.101376.; Klausner M.D., Ohlrogge M., Ruan E. (2022). A sober look at SPACs (December 20, 2021). Yale Journal on Regulation, 39(1). https://ssrn.com/abstract=3720919 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3720919.; Kudryavtsev A. (2018). The availability heuristic and reversals following large stock price changes. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 19(2): 159–176. DOI:10.1080/15427560.2017.1374276.; Leins S. (2022). Narrative authority: Rethinking speculation and the construction of economic expertise. Ethnos, 87(2): 347–364. DOI:10.1080/00141844.2020.1765832.; Lian C., Ma Y., Wang C. (2019). Low interest rates and risk-taking: Evidence from individual investment decisions. The Review of Financial Studies, 32(6): 2107–2148. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhy111.; Nguyen L., Gallery G., Newton C. (2019). The joint influence of financial risk perception and risk tolerance on individual investment decision-making. Accounting and Finance, 59: 747–771. DOI:10.1111/acfi.12295.; Oehler A., Wendt S., Wedlich F., Horn M. (2018). Investors’ personality influences investment decisions: Experimental evidence on extraversion and neuroticism. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 19(1): 30–48. DOI:10.1080/15427560.2017.1366495.; Palladino L. (2020). Do corporate insiders use stock buybacks for personal gain? International Review of Applied Economics, 34(2): 152–174. DOI:10.1080/02692171.2019.1707787.; Palladino L., Lazonick W. (2021). Regulating stock buybacks: The $ 6.3 trillion question. Roosevelt Institute Working Paper, May. https://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/RI_Stock-Buybacks_Working-Paper_202105.pdf.; Ponczek S. (2020). Reddit’s stock threads become a must-read on Wall Street. Bloomberg, 15 September. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-15/big-investors-are-dying-to-know-what-the-little-guys-are-doing.; Rudegeair P., Grind K., Farrell M. (2021). Robinhood’s reckoning: Facing life after GameStop. The Wall Street Journal, 5 February. https://www.wsj.com/articles/robinhoods-reckoning-can-it-survive-the-gamestop-bubble-11612547759.; Steinmetz F. (2023). The interrelations of cryptocurrency and gambling: Results from a representative survey. Computers in Human Behavior, 138: 107437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107437 or https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074756322200259X.; Stolowy H., Paugam L., Gendron Y. (2022). Competing for narrative authority in capital markets: Activist short sellers vs. financial analysts. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 100: 101334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2022.101334.; Tan G.K.S. (2021). Democratizing finance with Robinhood: Financial infrastructure, interface design and platform capitalism. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 53(8): 1862–1878. DOI:10.1177/0308518X211042378.; Taskinsoy J. (2021). The famous new bubbles of the 21st century: Cases of irrational exuberance. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3845422 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3845422.; Thomsett M.C. (2013). Dangerous waters: Risk inherent in comprehensive swing-based strategies. In: Options for Swing Trading. New York, Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137344113_4.; Zhang W., Wang P., Li X., Shen D. (2018). The inefficiency of cryptocurrency and its cross-correlation with Dow Jones Industrial Average. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 510(92): 658–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2018.07.032.; https://www.jsdrm.ru/jour/article/view/1062 |
| DOI: | 10.17747/2618-947X-2023-2-198-212 |
| Dostupnost: | https://www.jsdrm.ru/jour/article/view/1062 https://doi.org/10.17747/2618-947X-2023-2-198-212 |
| Rights: | Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access). ; Авторы, публикующие в данном журнале, соглашаются со следующим:Авторы сохраняют за собой авторские права на работу и предоставляют журналу право первой публикации работы на условиях лицензии Creative Commons Attribution License, которая позволяет другим распространять данную работу с обязательным сохранением ссылок на авторов оригинальной работы и оригинальную публикацию в этом журнале.Авторы сохраняют право заключать отдельные контрактные договорённости, касающиеся не-эксклюзивного распространения версии работы в опубликованном здесь виде (например, размещение ее в институтском хранилище, публикацию в книге), со ссылкой на ее оригинальную публикацию в этом журнале.Авторы имеют право размещать их работу в сети Интернет (например в институтском хранилище или персональном сайте) до и во время процесса рассмотрения ее данным журналом, так как это может привести к продуктивному обсуждению и большему количеству ссылок на данную работу (См. The Effect of Open Access). |
| Přístupové číslo: | edsbas.E5E36C5E |
| Databáze: | BASE |
Nájsť tento článok vo Web of Science | Abstrakt: | The article presents a systematisation of the main factors of cognitive distortions and behavioural heuristics that make the switch to the effective interpreter model irreversible in portfolio investments, especially in high-tech companies. As the heuristic model of the effective interpreter can be perceived as generally increasing the risks in the system for all stakeholders at the current stage of the evolution of the investment system, the author focuses on the most negative manifestations of cognitive and behavioural factors in his description in the publication. However, this does not mean that it is possible or desirable to return to the rational investor model, as narrative and storytelling’s components are too important in the context of ‘new economy’ industry formation and and fast business expansion by disruptive companies. To better interpret the business potential of companies, stakeholders, especially investors, increasingly need to work with narratives, storytelling, aspects of perception and business trust, rather than the numerical values and ratios of financial reporting and analytics. This is partly due to the fact that the intangible assets of companies in the S&P500 index have accounted for up to 90% of the total market capitalisation over the last two decades.The author identifies the most significant cognitive and behavioral factors: the increase in the narrative component of equity value, the ‘fake it till you make it’ approach, the proliferation of cryptocurrencies as the asset with the largest narrative component of value, the boom in IPOs and SPACs in 2020-2021, buybacks as an unproductive signalling tool, the popularisation of chasing triple digit returns based on the survivor bias, the popularity of momentum strategies, the over-reliance on analyst recommendations and assessments, ‘pump and dump’ schemes, investment gamification and investor extroversion, anchoring and framing, the sunk cost fallacy, the lack of rigorous techniques for invalidating investment theses, and the ... |
|---|---|
| DOI: | 10.17747/2618-947X-2023-2-198-212 |