Prof. Dr. Christoph Merkle

Associate Professor of Finance

Publications

Journal Articles (Peer-Reviewed)

Copy reference link   DOI: 10.1093/rof/rfw011

Abstract: Return-chasing investors almost exclusively consider top-performing funds for their investment decisions. When drawing conclusions about the managerial skill of these top performers, they tend to neglect fund volatility and the cross-sectional information contained in the number of funds and the distribution of skill. In multiple surveys of sophisticated retail investors, we show that they do not fully understand the role of chance in experimental samples of fund populations. Respondents evaluate each fund in isolation and do not sufficiently account for fund volatility. They confuse risk taking with manager skill and are thus likely to over-allocate capital to lucky past winners.

Export record: Citavi Endnote RIS ISI BibTeX WordXML

Copy reference link   DOI: doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2015.05.007

Abstract: We study investor happiness in a panel survey of brokerage clients at a 5UK6 bank. When investors anticipate future happiness, they set their return aspirations according to personal portfolio risk, objectives, investment horizon, confidence, and other individual characteristics. They are accurate in their forecasts, only rarely are investors unhappy with outcomes they predicted they would be happy with, and vice versa. However, determinants of experienced happiness only partially correspond to the ones found for anticipated happiness. In particular, relative performance plays an important role investors do not anticipate. Having outperformed other people contributes to investor happiness, as does active trading success.

Export record: Citavi Endnote RIS ISI BibTeX WordXML

Copy reference link   DOI: doi:10.1111/eufm.12001

Abstract: This experimental study investigates the impact of affective attitudes on risk and return estimates of stocks. Participants rate well-known blue-chip firms on an affective scale and forecast risk and return of the firms’ stock. We find that positive affective attitudes lead to a prediction of high return and low risk, while negative attitudes lead to a prediction of low return and high risk. This bias increases with participants’ confidence in their ratings and decreases with financial literacy. Firm characteristics such as a firm’s marketing expenditures and the strength of its brand have a positive impact on its affective rating.

Export record: Citavi Endnote RIS ISI BibTeX WordXML

Copy reference link   DOI: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2014.03.042

Abstract: To understand how real investors use their beliefs and preferences in investing decisions, we examine a panel survey of self-directed online investors at a UK bank. The survey asks for return expectations, risk expectations, and risk tolerance of these investors in three-month intervals between 2008 and 2010. We combine the survey data with investors’ actual trading data and portfolio holdings. We find that investor beliefs have little predictive power for immediate trading behavior. The exception is a positive effect of increases in return expectation on buying activity. Portfolio risk levels and changes are more systematically related to return and risk expectations. In line with financial theory, risk taking increases with return expectations and decreases with risk expectations. In response to their expectations, investors also adjust the riskiness of assets they trade.

Export record: Citavi Endnote RIS ISI BibTeX WordXML

Copy reference link   DOI: doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2014.04.001

Abstract: In a panel survey of individual investors, we show that investors’ second-order beliefs—their beliefs about the return expectations of other investors—influence investment decisions. Investors who believe others hold more optimistic stock market expectations allocate more of their own portfolio to stocks even after controlling for their own risk and return expectations. However, second-order beliefs are inaccurate and exhibit several well-known psychological biases. We observe both the tendency of investors to believe that their own opinion is relatively more common among the population (false consensus) and that others who hold divergent beliefs are considered to be biased (bias blind spot).

Export record: Citavi Endnote RIS ISI BibTeX WordXML

Copy reference link   DOI: doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.07.004

Abstract: The better-than-average effect describes the tendency of people to perceive their skills and virtues as being above average. We derive a new experimental paradigm to distinguish between two possible explanations for the effect, namely rational information processing and overconfidence. Experiment participants evaluate their relative position within the population by stating their complete belief distribution. This approach sidesteps recent methodology concerns associated with previous research. We find that people hold beliefs about their abilities in different domains and tasks which are inconsistent with rational information processing. Both on an aggregated and an individual level, they show considerable overplacement. We conclude that overconfidence is not only apparent overconfidence but rather the consequence of a psychological bias.

Export record: Citavi Endnote RIS ISI BibTeX WordXML

Journal Articles (Professional)

Books

Working Papers