
Behavioral bubble models typically assume that uninformed trend-chasers, presumably individual investors, cause bubbles, while informed contrarian investors such as institutions, trade against bubbles. DeLong et al. (1990a) highlight that to be considered a “bubble”, the mis-pricing must prevail in a large, diversified portfolio. To meet this criterion, we use a unique dataset of all transactions by investor type for all non-financial Korean firms, and find evidence at odds with such assumptions. Domestic individual investors systematically apply aggressive contrarian trades, while foreign and some domestic institutions are mostly trend-chasers. These findings suggest that institutional investors rather than individuals are agents of bubbles.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 22 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
