The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Why stocks may disappoint
Open accessAbstract
Recently much progress has been made in developing optimal portfolio choice models accomodating time-varying opportunity sets, but unless investors are unreasonably risk averse, optimal holdings include unreasonably large equity positions. One reason is that most studies assume investors behave as expected utility maximizers with power utility. In this article, we provide a formal treatment of both static and dynamic portfolio choice using the Disappointment Aversion preferences of Gul (1991). While different from the Kahneman-Tversky (1979) loss aversion utility, these preferences imply asymmetric aversion to gains versus losses and are consistent with the tendency of some people to like lottery-type gambles but dislike stock in-vestments. By calibrating a number of data generating processes to actual US data on stock and bond returns, we find very reasonable portfolios for moderately disappointment averse investors with utility functions exhibiting low curvature. Disappointment aversion preferences affect intertemporal hedging demands and the state dependence of asset allocation in such a way as to not be replicable by standard expected utility functions with higher curvature. Furthermore, it is easy to reconcile the large equity premium observed in the data with disappointment aversion utility of low curvature and reasonable disappointment aversion.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Stutzer, M. (2000) · Financial Analysts Journal · doi:10.2469/faj.v56.n3.2360 · Cited by 169
Cited by
Stocks as Lotteries: The Implications of Probability Weighting for Security Prices
Barberis, N., & Huang, M. (2008) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.98.5.2066 · Cited by 1,544
Asymmetric correlations of equity portfolios
Ang, A., & Chen, J. (2002) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/s0304-405x(02)00068-5 · Cited by 1,522
Self-citationIndividual Preferences, Monetary Gambles, and Stock Market Participation: A Case for Narrow Framing
Barberis, N., Huang, M., & Thaler, R. (2006) · The American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/000282806779468652 · Cited by 600
Gomes, F., Haliassos, M., & Ramadorai, T. (2021) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.20201461 · Cited by 396
Brandt, M. W. (2010) · Handbook of Financial Econometrics: Tools and Techniques · doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-50897-3.50008-0 · Cited by 304
Metadata
- Authors
- Ang, A., Bekaert, G., & Liu, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Financial Economics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2005-06
- Volume
- 76
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 471-508
- ISSN
- 0304-405X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3121977148
- Cited by
- 353
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 9.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Why stocks may disappoint. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jfineco.2004.03.009
- The paper
- Ang, A., Bekaert, G., & Liu, J. (2005). Why stocks may disappoint. Journal of Financial Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2004.03.009
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.