arxiv: 2605.07352 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-08 · 💱 q-fin.GN

Recognition: no theorem link

Corporate transparency and the disposition effect

Fei Ren, Siliu Chen

Pith reviewed 2026-05-11 02:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💱 q-fin.GN

keywords disposition effectcorporate transparencyinvestor behaviorbehavioral financeindividual investorsstock sellingholding biasdisclosure

0 comments

The pith

An increase in corporate transparency significantly reduces the disposition effect.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper examines whether higher transparency at the firm level lessens the disposition effect, in which individual investors sell stocks that have risen in value too soon while continuing to hold those that have fallen. A sympathetic reader would care because this bias produces measurable losses in portfolio performance, and evidence that transparency can dampen it would suggest disclosure rules as a direct lever for better trading decisions. The study separates the two sides of the bias and shows that transparency raises investors' willingness to keep winners by lifting their confidence in those positions, while for losers it can sustain holding by encouraging the view that setbacks are short-term, yet the reduction in early winner sales outweighs any added loser retention and produces a net drop in the overall effect.

Core claim

An increase in corporate transparency significantly reduces the disposition effect. For profitable holdings, greater transparency raises investor confidence and thereby cuts the tendency to sell winners early. For losing holdings, transparency may weaken short-term confidence yet leads investors to treat the loss as temporary and retain faith in long-term prospects, which can strengthen the tendency to hold losers. Because the effect on sales of profitable stocks exceeds the effect on sales of losing stocks, the net result is a smaller disposition effect overall.

What carries the argument

Firm-level corporate transparency as a driver of differential investor confidence when deciding whether to sell a profitable position or retain a losing one.

If this is right

Higher transparency leads investors to hold profitable stocks longer because their confidence in those positions rises.
Transparency can lead investors to hold losing stocks longer by fostering the belief that shortfalls are temporary.
The reduction in premature sales of winners is larger than any increase in retention of losers, producing a net decline in the disposition effect.
Individual investors display measurably less disposition bias when trading shares of more transparent companies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Regulators could treat transparency mandates as one practical instrument for reducing a well-documented trading bias.
The asymmetric response to gains versus losses implies that information availability interacts with prospect-theory valuations in a gain-specific way.
The pattern could be tested directly by comparing trading records around events that raise or lower transparency for specific firms while holding other factors fixed.

Load-bearing premise

Measured corporate transparency is assumed to causally shape investors' decisions to sell or hold stocks rather than merely moving together with other unmeasured company traits that also influence trading patterns.

What would settle it

A regulatory change that forces a discrete increase in disclosure for some firms but produces no subsequent drop in the disposition effect among their individual shareholders after standard controls.

read the original abstract

The disposition effect describes investors' irrational behavior of selling profitable assets too soon while holding onto losing assets for too long. This study examines the impact of transparency at the firm level on the disposition effect of individual investors who hold that company's stock. Our results show that an increase in corporate transparency significantly reduces the disposition effect. Further analysis reveals that for companies with greater transparency, when the held stock is profitable, investors' confidence in holding it increases, leading to a reduced bias toward selling profitable stocks. When the stock is held at a loss, investors' confidence in holding it weakens, but they often perceive the loss as temporary and maintain confidence in the company's long-term prospects, thus exacerbating the bias toward holding losing stocks. The effect of increased transparency on the selling behavior of profitable stocks is greater than its effect on the selling behavior of losing stocks. Overall, an increase in corporate transparency significantly reduces the disposition effect.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper links higher corporate transparency to a smaller disposition effect in individual investors but the causal identification looks thin.

read the letter

The core finding is that stocks with greater corporate transparency show less of the classic disposition effect among their retail holders. Investors appear less eager to sell winners and somewhat more willing to hold losers, with the authors breaking this out into confidence effects on gains versus perceived temporary losses on the downside. The gain-side channel seems stronger in their results. That is the new angle: taking a well-known behavioral bias and tying it to a measurable firm disclosure trait rather than just investor traits or market conditions. If the measures hold up, it gives a concrete channel for how better information might blunt one specific trading mistake. The breakdown by profitable versus losing positions adds a bit of texture that prior disposition papers sometimes skip. The soft spot is identification. The abstract gives no detail on data sources, how transparency is measured, how the disposition metric is calculated at the investor-stock level, or what fixed effects, instruments, or matching they use. Without that, the negative association could easily reflect correlated factors like firm size, governance quality, or broader information environment rather than a direct transparency effect. The stress-test note is right to flag this; a simple cross-section or pooled regression would not pin down causality. Sample selection and robustness checks are also not visible from the summary. This is for behavioral finance or disclosure researchers who track how information shapes retail trading errors. It is not reshaping the field but could be a useful incremental data point if the methods are solid. I would send it to peer review so referees can check the empirics and identification directly.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines the impact of firm-level corporate transparency on the disposition effect exhibited by individual investors holding the firm's stock. It reports that higher transparency reduces the overall disposition effect, with further analysis indicating asymmetric impacts: transparency increases confidence in holding profitable positions (reducing premature sales) while weakening confidence in loss positions but leading investors to view losses as temporary (exacerbating holding of losers). The net effect is a reduction in the disposition bias, with a stronger influence on profitable-stock selling behavior.

Significance. If the reported association is robust to proper causal identification, the result would link corporate disclosure policies to mitigation of a well-documented behavioral bias in retail trading. This could inform both behavioral finance models of investor confidence and regulatory debates on transparency requirements, particularly if the asymmetry between gain and loss domains holds under scrutiny.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The abstract states the headline result (an increase in corporate transparency significantly reduces the disposition effect) and describes secondary mechanisms involving investor confidence, but supplies no information whatsoever on data sources, the construction of the transparency measure, the precise calculation of the disposition effect at the investor-stock level, sample selection, or any statistical controls. Without these elements, the empirical support for the central claim cannot be evaluated.
[Abstract / Introduction] The manuscript claims a causal effect of transparency on selling behavior, yet the provided text contains no description of the identification strategy. A simple association between transparency and disposition measures would be consistent with the headline result but also with omitted-variable bias arising from correlated firm characteristics (size, governance, information environment) that jointly shape both transparency and trading patterns. No mention is made of fixed effects, instrumentation, difference-in-differences, or other design features that would isolate the transparency channel.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract is unusually long and contains interpretive language about investor confidence and long-term prospects that would normally appear in the results or discussion sections; condensing it to focus on the core finding and methods would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. We have revised the paper to address the concerns raised, particularly by expanding the abstract and clarifying the empirical approach in the introduction. Below we respond point by point.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The abstract states the headline result (an increase in corporate transparency significantly reduces the disposition effect) and describes secondary mechanisms involving investor confidence, but supplies no information whatsoever on data sources, the construction of the transparency measure, the precise calculation of the disposition effect at the investor-stock level, sample selection, or any statistical controls. Without these elements, the empirical support for the central claim cannot be evaluated.

Authors: We agree that the original abstract omitted essential methodological details needed to evaluate the empirical claims. In the revised manuscript we have expanded the abstract to include the following information: the analysis draws on a large panel of individual investor trading records from a major Chinese brokerage matched to firm-level data; the transparency measure is a composite index constructed via principal component analysis of disclosure quality, timeliness, and readability metrics from annual reports and regulatory filings; the disposition effect is computed at the investor-stock level as the difference between the proportion of gains realized (PGR) and the proportion of losses realized (PLR); the sample is restricted to retail investors who held the stock for at least one trading year during 2010–2018; and all specifications include investor fixed effects, year-month fixed effects, and controls for firm size, volatility, leverage, and governance characteristics. These additions preserve abstract length while supplying the requested context. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract / Introduction] The manuscript claims a causal effect of transparency on selling behavior, yet the provided text contains no description of the identification strategy. A simple association between transparency and disposition measures would be consistent with the headline result but also with omitted-variable bias arising from correlated firm characteristics (size, governance, information environment) that jointly shape both transparency and trading patterns. No mention is made of fixed effects, instrumentation, difference-in-differences, or other design features that would isolate the transparency channel.

Authors: The referee correctly identifies that stronger causal language requires an explicit identification discussion. The original text relied on panel regressions but did not spell out the design. We have added a new paragraph in the introduction that describes the empirical strategy: investor and firm fixed effects absorb time-invariant unobserved heterogeneity at both levels, year-month fixed effects control for aggregate shocks, and we include time-varying controls for size, book-to-market, past returns, and proxies for the information environment. We have also inserted a limitations subsection noting that, absent an exogenous instrument or policy shock, residual endogeneity from unobserved time-varying factors cannot be fully ruled out. To reflect this, we have replaced causal phrasing (“significantly reduces”) with “is associated with a reduction in” throughout the abstract and introduction while preserving the economic interpretation of the coefficients. These revisions clarify the scope of the claims without requiring new data. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely empirical claim from data analysis

full rationale

The paper reports an empirical association between measured corporate transparency and reduced disposition effect in investor trading data. The central result is a statistical finding from (presumably) regression or similar analysis on observed variables; it does not derive a prediction from first principles, fit a parameter then relabel it as a prediction, or rely on self-citations for uniqueness theorems. No equations, ansatzes, or definitional reductions appear in the provided abstract or described structure. The claim is falsifiable against external benchmarks and does not reduce to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is empirical and relies on standard econometric assumptions for identifying causal effects from observational data, but no specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are detailed in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5443 in / 918 out tokens · 41192 ms · 2026-05-11T02:13:02.936478+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

[1]

M., ALSAIFI, K., AL-AWADHI, A

AL-AWADHI, A. M., ALSAIFI, K., AL-AWADHI, A. & ALHAMMADI, S. 2020. Death and contagious infectious diseases: Impact of the COVID-19 virus on stock market returns. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 27

work page 2020
[2]

& WILLIAMS, J

AN, L., ENGELBERG, J., HENRIKSSON, M., WANG, B. & WILLIAMS, J. 2024. The portfolio- driven disposition effect. Journal of Finance, 79

work page 2024
[3]

BACHMANN, K. 2024. Do you have a choice?: Implications for belief updating and the disposition effect. Journal of Economic Psychology, 102

work page 2024
[4]

& HIRSHLEIFER, D

BEN-DAVID, I. & HIRSHLEIFER, D. 2012. Are investors really reluctant to realize their losses? Trading responses to past returns and the disposition effect. The Review of Financial Studies, 25, 2485-2532

work page 2012
[5]

CAO, Q., NIU, X. & LI, J. 2021. Are women better traders?An experimental study. South China Journal of Economics, 128-144

work page 2021
[6]

Y., SOLOMON, D

CHANG, T. Y., SOLOMON, D. H. & WESTERFIELD, M. M. 2016. Looking for Someone to Blame: Delegation, Cognitive Dissonance, and the Disposition Effect. The Journal of Finance, 71, 267-302

work page 2016
[7]

& REN, F

CHEN, S. & REN, F. 2025. Does social media information affect individual investor disposition effect? Evidence from Xueqiu. PLOS ONE, 20, e0328547

work page 2025
[8]

CHEN, X. & WU, C. 2022. Retail investor attention and information asymmetry: Evidence from China. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 75

work page 2022
[9]

Y., LEE, C

CHENG, T. Y., LEE, C. I. & LIN, C. H. 2024. Dissecting the links among profitability, the disposition effect, and trading activity. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 83

work page 2024
[10]

CICI, G. 2012. The prevalence of the disposition effect in mutual funds' trades. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 47, 795-820

work page 2012
[11]

& LUKAS, M

DANBOLT, J., ESHRAGHI, A. & LUKAS, M. 2022. Investment transparency and the disposition effect. European Financial Management, 28, 834-865

work page 2022
[12]

& NEUPANE, S

FAN, Z. & NEUPANE, S. 2024. Investor horizon, experience, and the disposition effect. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 44

work page 2024
[13]

& WONG, S

FIRTH, M., WANG, K. & WONG, S. M. L. 2015. Corporate Transparency and the Impact of Investor Sentiment on Stock Prices. Management Science, 61, 1630-1647

work page 2015
[14]

& WANG, B

FRYDMAN, C. & WANG, B. 2020. The Impact of Salience on Investor Behavior: Evidence from a Natural Experiment. The Journal of Finance, 75, 229-276. 24 This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article

work page 2020
[15]

& TSAI, S.-C

HUANG, Z.-H. & TSAI, S.-C. 2025. The disposition effect of fast traders in the Taiwan futures market. Applied Economics Letters, 1-5

work page 2025
[16]

& XIANG, H

JIANG, J., LIAO, L., WANG, Z. & XIANG, H. 2020. Financial literacy and retail investors' financial welfare: Evidence from mutual fund investment outcomes in China. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 59

work page 2020
[17]

LANG, M., LINS, K. V. & MAFFETT, M. 2012. Transparency, Liquidity, and Valuation: International Evidence on When Transparency Matters Most. Journal of Accounting Research, 50, 729-774

work page 2012
[18]

& LIN, Y.-E

LIU, C., LI, Q. & LIN, Y.-E. 2023. Corporate transparency and firm value: Does market competition play an external governance role? Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics, 19

work page 2023
[19]

LOCKE, P. R. & MANN, S. C. 2005. Professional trader discipline and trade disposition. Journal of Financial Economics, 76, 401-444

work page 2005
[20]

& CHEN, S

LU, R., LI, J. & CHEN, S. 2022. Portraits of investors' selling behavior in China's stock market: Advances in disposition effect. Journal of Management World, 38, 59-78

work page 2022
[21]

& SHAFI, K

MOHAMMADI, A. & SHAFI, K. 2018. Gender differences in the contribution patterns of equity- crowdfunding investors. Small Business Economics, 50, 275-287

work page 2018
[22]

ODEAN, T. 1998. Are investors reluctant to realize their losses? The Journal of Finance, 1775-1798

work page 1998
[23]

& WENGEREK, S

ORTMANN, R., PELSTER, M. & WENGEREK, S. T. 2020. COVID-19 and investor behavior. Finance Research Letters, 37. PEREIRA DA SILVA, P. & MENDES, V. 2021. Exchange-traded certificates, education and the disposition effect. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 29

work page 2020
[24]

& HUYNH, T

SCHELL, D., WANG, M. & HUYNH, T. L. D. 2020. This time is indeed different: A study on global market reactions to public health crisis. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 27

work page 2020
[25]

& STATMAN, M

SHEFRIN, H. & STATMAN, M. 1985. The disposition to sell winners too early and ride losers too long: Theory and evidence. The Journal of Finance, 40, 777-790

work page 1985
[26]

& GUO, J

WU, J., WANG, C., CHEN, Z. & GUO, J. M. 2020. A study of disposition effect among China's individual investors: The perspective of irrational beliefs. Journal of Financial Research, 147-166

work page 2020
[27]

& JIANG, J

WU, Y., HUANG, W., SU, S. & JIANG, J. 2016. Research on the disposition effect of mutual fund investors. Studies of International Finance, 84-96

work page 2016
[28]

XIANG, C. & LU, J. 2020. Firm Transparency and Post Earnings Announcement Drift——An Empirical Study Based on Investor Attention. Journal of Management Science, 33, 138-154

work page 2020
[29]

& FANG, Y

XIAO, L., ZHAO, D. & FANG, Y. 2018. An empirical analysis on disposition effect of Chinese margin trading. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 26, 41-51

work page 2018
[30]

& LAI, D

XIE, W., TANG, Y., XU, Z., ZHANG, X. & LAI, D. 2023. The impact of the infodemic on the stock market under the COVID-19: Taking the investors’ information infection index as the intermediary variable. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 29, 653-676

work page 2023
[31]

& HAO, Y

XIN, Q., KONG, D. & HAO, Y. 2014. Transparency and Stock Return Volatility. Journal of Financial Research, 10, 193-206. 25

work page 2014
[32]

& FAN, Y

XU, J., ZHANG, Y. & FAN, Y. 2023. Corporate transparency, internal control audits and stock price synchronization. Science Research Management, 44, 110-118

work page 2023
[33]

& ZHU, X

YIN, L. & ZHU, X. 2025. Investor–firm interactions versus investor–investor interactions: Which enhances investor learning better? International Review of Financial Analysis, 104

work page 2025
[34]

& JIN, X

YUAN, Y., WANG, H. & JIN, X. 2022. Pandemic-driven financial contagion and investor behavior: Evidence from the COVID-19. International Review of Financial Analysis, 83

work page 2022