Citation

Discussion Paper Details

Please find the details for DP3941 in an easy to copy and paste format below:

Full Details   |   Bibliographic Reference

Full Details

Title: Overconfidence and Trading Volume

Author(s): Markus Glaser and Martin Weber

Publication Date: June 2003

Keyword(s): combination of psychometric measures of judgement biases and field data, correlation of Economic and psychological variables, differences of opinion, individual investors, investor behaviour, overconfidence and trading volume

Programme Area(s): Financial Economics

Abstract: Theoretical models predict that overconfident investors will trade more than rational investors. We directly test this hypothesis by correlating individual overconfidence scores with several measures of trading volume of individual investors (number of trades, turnover). Approximately 3000 online broker investors were asked to answer an internet questionnaire which was designed to measure various facets of overconfidence (miscalibration, the better than average effect, illusion of control, unrealistic optimism). The measures of trading volume were calculated by the trades of 215 individual investors who answered the questionnaire. We find that investors who think that they are above average in terms of investment skills or past performance trade more. Measures of miscalibration are, contrary to theory, unrelated to measures of trading volume. This result is striking as theoretical models that incorporate overconfident investors mainly motivate this assumption by the calibration literature and model overconfidence as underestimation of the variance of signals. The results hold even when we control for several other determinants of trading volume in a cross-sectional regression analysis. In connection with other recent findings, we conclude that the usual way of motivating and modeling overconfidence - which is mainly based on the calibration literature - has to be treated with caution. We argue that our findings present a psychological foundation for the ?differences of opinion? explanation of high levels of trading volume. In addition, our way of empirically evaluating behavioural finance models - the correlation of economic and psychological variables and the combination of psychometric measures of judgment biases (such as overconfidence scores) and field data - seems to be a promising way to better understand which psychological phenomena drive economic behaviour.

For full details and related downloads, please visit: https://cepr.org/active/publications/discussion_papers/dp.php?dpno=3941

Bibliographic Reference

Glaser, M and Weber, M. 2003. 'Overconfidence and Trading Volume'. London, Centre for Economic Policy Research. https://cepr.org/active/publications/discussion_papers/dp.php?dpno=3941