Martijn J. van den Assem

Risky Choice in the Limelight

This paper examines how risk behavior in the limelight differs from that in anonymity. In two separate experiments, we find that subjects are more risk averse in the limelight. However, risky choices are similarly path dependent in the different treatments. Under both limelight and anonymous laboratory conditions, a simple prospect theory model with a path-dependent reference point provides a better explanation for subjects’ behavior than a flexible specification of expected utility theory. In addition, our findings suggest that ambiguity aversion depends on being in the limelight, that passive experience has little effect on risk taking, and that reference points are determined by imperfectly updated expectations.

Risky Choice and the Relative Size of Stakes

We examine framing effects by analyzing how risky choice depends on the absolute and relative size of the amounts at stake, using an extensive sample of choices from ten different editions of the large-stake TV game show Deal or No Deal. Our analyses within and across the samples suggest that risky choice is highly sensitive to the context, as defined by the initial set of prizes in the game. In each sample, contestants respond in a similar way to the stakes relative to their initial level, even though the initial level differs widely across the various editions. Amounts therefore appear to be primarily evaluated relative to a subjective frame of reference rather than in terms of their absolute monetary value.

Number Preferences in Lotteries

We explore people’s preferences for numbers in large proprietary data sets from two different lottery games. We find that choice is far from uniform, and exhibits some familiar and some new tendencies and biases. Players favor personally meaningful and situationally available numbers, and are attracted towards numbers in the center of the choice form. Frequent players avoid winning numbers from recent draws, whereas infrequent players chase these. Combinations of numbers are formed with an eye for aesthetics, and players tend to spread their numbers relatively evenly across the possible range.

Can the Market Divide and Multiply? A Case of 807 Percent Mispricing under Short-Selling Constraints

This paper documents a strong violation of the law of one price surrounding a large rights issue. If prices are right, the relation between the prices of shares and rights follows the outcome of a simple calculation. In the case of Royal Imtech N.V. in 2014, prices deviated sharply and persistently from the theoretical prediction. Throughout the term of the rights, investors were buying shares at prices that were many times what they should have been given the price of the rights. Short-selling constraints in the form of high recall risk and lacking stock lending supply are the most likely explanation for the failure of arbitrage as a safeguard of market efficiency. Still, it remains remarkable that investors were buying large volumes of shares at highly inflated prices in the presence of a cheap, perfect substitute.

Company Name Fluency and Stock Returns

Research shows that stocks with fluent names trade at higher prices. However, it is not clear whether fluency simply appeals to naive investors, or actually identifies better firms. In this paper, we disentangle these two explanations. Consistent with our theoretical model, we find that the effects of fluency are concentrated among firms with a below-median market capitalization and an above-median sentiment beta. Companies with fluent names are more profitable, but this information appears to be only partially reflected in stock prices due to the presence of unsophisticated investors. Correspondingly, stocks with fluent names yield higher abnormal returns relative to stocks with nonfluent names.

Malleable Lies: Communication and Cooperation in a High Stakes TV Game Show

We investigate the credibility of non-binding pre-play statements about cooperative behavior, using data from a high-stakes TV game show in which contestants play a variant on the classic Prisoner’s Dilemma. We depart from the conventional binary approach of classifying statements as promises or not, and propose a more fine-grained two-by-two typology inspired by the idea that lying aversion leads defectors to prefer statements that are malleable to ex-post interpretation as truths. Our empirical analysis shows that statements that carry an element of conditionality or implicitness are associated with a lower likelihood of cooperation, and confirms that malleability is a good criterion for judging the credibility of cheap talk.