Examining Financial Puzzles From An Evolutionary Perspective by Kenrick Guo B.S. Industrial Engineering Nrnrt1hxxpltp.rnI IVLLI **V~VII T I1nivr *V+LIL-- itv ·-9)()Ui V- SUBMITTED TO THE SLOAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN OPERATIONS RESEARCH I~ AT THE b~~ MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY FEBRUARY 2006 © 2006 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. All rights reserved Author................................................................................. ............................. Sloan School of Management f1 November 10, 2005 Certified by ......... .............................. _ ....... ................ .. Andrew W. Lo Harris & Harris Group Professor, Sloan School of Management Thesis Supervisor Acceptedby ................ ......... ................................................. James B. Orlin Co-Director, Operations Research Center Examining Financial Puzzles From An Evolutionary Perspective by Kenrick Guo Submitted to the Sloan School of Management on November 10, 2005, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Operations Research Abstract In this thesis, we examine some puzzles in finance from an evolutionary perspective. We first provide a literature review of evolutionary psychology, and discuss three main findings; the frequentist hypothesis, applications from risk-sensitive optimal foraging theory, and the cheater detection hypothesis. Next we introduce some of the most-researched puzzles in the finance literature. Examples include overreaction, loss aversion, and the equity premium puzzle. Following this, we discuss risk-sensitive optimal foraging theory further and examine some of the financial puzzles using the framework of risk-sensitive foraging. Finally, we develop a dynamic patch selection model which gives the patch selection strategy that maximizes an organism's long-run probability of survival. It is from this optimal patch strategy that we observe loss aversion. Throughout the thesis, we stress the following: humans' behavior in financial markets is neither inherently irrational, nor is it rational. Rather the puzzles occur as a consequence of evolutionarily-optimal cognitive mechanisms being utilized in environments other than the ancestral domain in which they evolved to adapt in. Thesis Supervisor: Andrew W. Lo Title: Harris & Harris Group Professor 2 Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Professor Andrew Lo. Without his guidance and invaluable advice over the past year, this thesis would certainly not have been possible. I would also like to thank the Singapore Economic Development Board, and the Singapore Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board for their support over the last four- and-a-half years. Next, I would also like to thank my family for their encouragement, advice and support; and all my friends here at MIT who made my stay both tremendously fulfilling, and thoroughly enjoyable. Last but not least, Joann. Thank you for your understanding and support over the last two years. 3 Contents CHAPTER 1 ...........................................................................................................................8 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................8 1.1 THE "HEURISTICS AND BIASES" PROGRAM AND EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY RECONCILED......................................................................................................................... 8 1.2 THESIS MOTIVATION ..................................................................................................... 9 1.3 THESIS OUTLINE............................................................................................................ 9 CHAPTER 2 .................................................................... 10 EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY .................................................................... 10 2.1 BACKGROUND................................................................... 10 2.2 THE FREQUENTIST HYPOTHESIS .................................................................................. 1 2.2.1 Bayesian Reasoning and Base-Rate Neglect..................................................... 12 2.2.2 The Conjunction Fallacy .................................................................... 13 2.2.3 Overconfidence.................................................................... 15 2.3 RISK-SENSITIVE OPTIMAL FORAGING THEORY ........................................................... 16 2.3.1 The Ambiguity Effect .................................................................... 16 2.3.2 Framing and Preference Reversal ................................................................... 17 2.4 THE CHEATER DETECTION HYPOTHESIS................................................................... 18 CHAPTER 3 .................................................................... 22 FINANCIAL PUZZLES .................................................................... 22 3.1 CITATION COUNT .................................................................... 22 3.2 FINANCIALPUZZLES ........................................ .................................. 24 3.2.1 Overreaction......................................................................................................24 3.2.2 Loss Aversion and the Disposition Effect .......................................................... 24 3.2.3 The Equity Premium Puzzle ......... ............................................................ 25 3.2.4 The Home Bias Puzzle ......... ....................................... .......... 26 3.2.5 Underreactionand Post-EarningsAnnouncement Drift ..................................27 3.2.6 The Dividend Puzzle ............................................................. .............................28 3.2.7 The Closed-End Fund Puzzle . ...........................................................................29 3.2.8 The Volatility Puzzle ................................................. ........................................30 CHAPTER 4 ................................................................... 32 APPLYING RISK-SENSITIVE FORAGING THEORY TO FINANCIAL MARKETS .......................................................................................................................................... 32 4.1 RISK-SENSITIVE FORAGING THEORY .......................................................................... 32 4.1.1 Background ........................................ .........................................................32 4 4.1.2 Ellsberg Problem Revisited ........................................ 3...................................33 4.2 RISK-SENSITIVE FORAGING IN FINANCIAL MARKETS .................................................. 35 4.2.1 Background........................................ 35 4.2.2 Overreaction............................ ................................. ......... ..35 4.2.3 The Equity Premium Puzzle ........................................ 36 4.2.4 The Home Bias Puzzle ........................................ 37 4.2.5 The Dividend Puzzle ......................................... 37 CHAPTER 5 ................................................................ 38 DYNAMIC MODELING AND LOSS AVERSION .......................................................... 38 5.1 DYNAMIC PATCH SELECTION MODEL ................................................................ 38 5.2 IMPLEMENTINGTHE MODEL ................................................................. 42 5.2.1 Model Validation ......... ..................................................................................42 5.2.2 Observations............................ ................4................................... 42 5.3 EXAMINING THE MODEL FURTHER .............................................................................. 46 5.3.1 Input Parameters................................................................ 46 5.3.2 Observations ................................................................ 48 5.4 COMPARISON OF DYNAMIC MODEL WITH STANDARD MODELS OF RATIONALITY ....... 50 5.4.1 Input Parameters ...............................................................................................50 5.4.2 Results and Observations ..................................................................................52 CHAPTER 6 ........................................ 56 CONCLUSION........................................ 56 APPENDIX A ...................................... 58 APPENDIX B..................................... 3 IMPLEMENTATION OF DYNAMIC PATCH SELECTION MODEL USING MATLAB ................... 63 APPENDIX C ....................................................................................................................... 65 C. 1 ORIGINAL RESULTS OF MANGEL AND CLARK ........................................ 65 C.2 SURVIVAL PROBABILITIES OF VALIDATION STUDY ........................................ 66 C.3 SURVIVAL PROBABILITIES OF STUDY 1 .................................................... 67 C.4 SURVIVAL PROBABILITIES OF STUDY 2 . .................................................... 68 C.5 SURVIVAL PROBABILITIES OF STUDY 3 ..................................................... 69 C.6 SURVIVALPROBABILITIES -DYNAMIC MODEL ..................................................... 70 C.7 SURVIVAL PROBABILITIES - CONVENTIONAL RATIONAL MODEL ............................... 72 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................