Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how social comparison and motivation to compete account for elevated risk-taking in fund management corroborated by asset market experiments when performance depends on rank-based incentives.

In two laboratory experiments, university students (n1 = 240/n2 = 120) make choices between risky and certain outcomes of hypothetical sums of money. Both experiments investigate in which direction risky choices in an individual condition (individual risk preference) are shifted when participants compare their performance to another participant's performance (social comparison), being instructed or not to outperform the other (incentive to compete).

In the absence of incentives to compete, participants tend to minimize the differences between expected outcomes to themselves and to the other, but when provided with incentives to compete, they tend to maximize these differences. An independent additional increase in risk-taking is observed when participants are provided with incentives to compete.

Original findings include that social comparison does not evoke motivation to compete unless incentives are offered and that increases in risk-taking depend both on what the other chooses and the incentives.

The paper aims to investigate differences in non-professional and professional stock investors’ trust in and tendency to follow financial analysts’ buy and sell recommendations.

Online experiment conducted in Sweden in March 2022 comparing non-professional private investors (n = 80), professional investors (n = 33), and master students in finance (n = 28). Information was presented about four company stocks listed on the New York stock exchange. Two stocks were buy-recommended and two stocks sell-recommended by financial analysts. For one stock of each type, the recommendation was presented to participants. Dependent variables were predictions of the stock price after three months, ratings of confidence in the predictions and choices of holding, buying or selling the stock. Ratings were also made of the importance of presented stock-related information as well as trust in analysts’ skill and integrity.

More positive return predictions were made of buy-recommended than sell-recommended stocks. Non-professionals and to some degree finance students tended to trust financial analysts more than professional investors did and they were more influenced by the presentation of the buy recommendations. All groups made too optimistic return predictions, but the professionals were less confident in their predictions, more likely to sell the stocks and lost less on their investments.

A new finding is that non-professional stock investors are more likely than professional stock investors to trust financial analysts and follow their recommendations. It suggests that financial analysts’ recommendations influence non-professional investors to take unmotivated investment risks. Non-professionals in the stock market should hence be advised to exercise more caution in following analysts’ recommendations.