2. LOSS AVERSION
3. RISK AVERSE
INVESTOR
4. GAMBLING
Page | 1
6. ARBITAGUER
Page | 2
8. IRRATIONALITY
Page | 3
3. BELL-CURVE
Page | 4
Risk as measured by BETA is a measure of volatility, but that is not all to the
definition of risk in behavioural finance.
Warren Buffet points out the following primary factors while judging RISK:
i. The certainty with which the long-term economic characteristics of the
business can be evaluated
ii. The certainty with which the management of the company can be
evaluated, both as to its ability to realize the full potential of the business
and to wisely employ its cash flows
iii. The certainty with which the management can be counted on to
channelling rewards from the business to the shareholders rather than to
itself.
iv. The purchase price of the business
Lets suppose beta as being the correct measure of risk and we were to examine Page | 5
this relationship, lets look at following statements:
i. Stocks with higher beta dont outperform stocks with lower beta
ii. No two stocks with identical beta give the same return
These two statements have been empirically concluded, which means that either
beta is not the correct measure of risk or the relationship between beta and
return is not what we were taught.
3) CAPM
The first critique given against CAPM is that the risk cannot be measured as a
single statistic like BETA as it is impossible to represent all kinds of risk involved
with a business
The second critique is that the model smells of a feeling of ENVY. Envy in this
context can be defined as the rejection of opportunities that would make you
rich because others have better ones.
While CAPM advocates that one should reject a portfolio or investment if its IRR
(Internal Rate of Return) is less than WACC (Weighted Average Cost of Capital),
behavioural finance terms it as being envious. As Charlie Munger says, What the
hell do I care if somebody else makes money faster. Theres always going to be
somebody who is making money faster, running the mile faster or what have
you. Once you get something that works fine in your life, the idea of caring
terribly that somebody else is making money faster strikes me as insane. If
youve got a way of investing your money that is overwhelmingly likely to keep
you comfortably rich and someone else finds something that would make him
richer faster, that is not a big tragedy.
EMT says that no investor can beat the market and if someone does earn year
after year, then he or she just got lucky. But we have examples like Warren
Buffet, who are super-investors and they have beaten the market year after year
that means, they are not just lucky and hence the EMT is a non-sense theory.
As humans, stock markets are semi-psychotic creatures as they are made of
humans only. Thus, the notion of an efficient market cannot be true in reality as
the market tends to over-react or under-react to any kind of news.
Is 1,000 saved on a 10 lac car is worth MORE than the 1,000 saved on a
10,000 lamp? After all the 1,000 saving when compared to 10 lacs looks SO
MUCH SMALLER than the 1,000 saving on a 10,000 lamp. In traditional
economics, the "rational" investor would have been indifferent about the 1000 Page | 6
gain but we all know a usual investor doesn't rank the gains as same. This is how
a human mind works and any financial models based on this assumption cannot
reflect reality.
In a world described by the bell curve, most values are clustered around the
middle. The average value is also the most common value. Outliers contribute
very little statistically. If 100 random people gather in a room and the world's
tallest man walks in, the average height doesn't change much. But if Bill Gates
walks in, the average net worth rises dramatically.
Wealth does not follow normal bell curve instead in follows the L-shaped curve
If one observes Low Probability and High Impact events then, the bell curve is
the wrong distribution to use. This is the way the world works now-a-days, the
winner takes it all and rest get nothing.
2. VIVIDNESS
Page | 7
Page | 8