Risk and Decision Making By Finance Executives: A Survey Study

L. Coleman
{"title":"Risk and Decision Making By Finance Executives: A Survey Study","authors":"L. Coleman","doi":"10.1108/17439130710721680","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose - When finance managers face decisions, they do not always make clinical evaluations using rational methodology, but systematically depart from utility maximisation. This article addresses biases that are related to risk propensity, and categorises them under five headings: decision makers' characteristics and perception; reference levels; mental accounting and the assumption of mean reversion; the longshot bias or overconfidence; and the desire for immediate gratification. The research reported in the paper seeks to understand the mechanisms of these biases using a study of decision making by Australian finance executives in a setting that is representative of a typical business decision. Design/methodology/approach - This paper uses a case study that was designed to identify why decision makers facing choices will prefer a risky alternative. Data were collected using e-mail contact and an electronic survey. Respondents ( Findings - Just over half the executives proved willing to take a risk, and almost half the variance in their risk propensity was explained roughly equally by respondents': endowment, perception of risk's role in decisions, assessment of alternative choices, and expectation of the decision's outcome. Manipulation of the cases along four dimensions varied the decision's facts, but they proved only marginally significant to risk taking. Originality/value - The study provides a practical explanation of the risk taking behaviour of finance executives; confirms that context is more important to decisions than their content; and adds to the growing body of applied behavioural research in finance.","PeriodicalId":224430,"journal":{"name":"Decision-Making in Economics eJournal","volume":"196 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"25","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Decision-Making in Economics eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/17439130710721680","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25

Abstract

Purpose - When finance managers face decisions, they do not always make clinical evaluations using rational methodology, but systematically depart from utility maximisation. This article addresses biases that are related to risk propensity, and categorises them under five headings: decision makers' characteristics and perception; reference levels; mental accounting and the assumption of mean reversion; the longshot bias or overconfidence; and the desire for immediate gratification. The research reported in the paper seeks to understand the mechanisms of these biases using a study of decision making by Australian finance executives in a setting that is representative of a typical business decision. Design/methodology/approach - This paper uses a case study that was designed to identify why decision makers facing choices will prefer a risky alternative. Data were collected using e-mail contact and an electronic survey. Respondents ( Findings - Just over half the executives proved willing to take a risk, and almost half the variance in their risk propensity was explained roughly equally by respondents': endowment, perception of risk's role in decisions, assessment of alternative choices, and expectation of the decision's outcome. Manipulation of the cases along four dimensions varied the decision's facts, but they proved only marginally significant to risk taking. Originality/value - The study provides a practical explanation of the risk taking behaviour of finance executives; confirms that context is more important to decisions than their content; and adds to the growing body of applied behavioural research in finance.
财务主管的风险与决策:一项调查研究
目的-当财务经理面临决策时,他们并不总是使用理性的方法进行临床评估,而是系统地偏离效用最大化。本文讨论了与风险倾向相关的偏见,并将其分为五个标题:决策者的特征和感知;参考水平;心理会计与均值回归假设目光短浅的偏见或过度自信;以及对即时满足的渴望。论文中报告的研究试图通过对澳大利亚财务主管在典型商业决策中代表的决策制定的研究来理解这些偏见的机制。设计/方法论/方法-本文使用了一个案例研究,旨在确定为什么决策者面临选择时会选择一个有风险的选择。通过电子邮件联系和电子调查收集数据。受访者(调查结果)——超过一半的高管被证明愿意承担风险,几乎一半的风险倾向差异大致可以由受访者的禀赋、对决策中风险角色的感知、对替代选择的评估和对决策结果的预期来解释。在四个维度上对案例的操纵改变了决定的事实,但事实证明,它们对风险承担的影响微乎其微。原创性/价值——该研究为财务高管的风险承担行为提供了实用的解释;确认上下文比内容对决策更重要;这为金融领域日益增长的应用行为研究增添了新的内容。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信