<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Philipp Schirmer | Macro Paper Warehouse</title><link>https://macropaperwarehouse.com/authors/philipp-schirmer/</link><description>Philipp Schirmer</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en-us</language><atom:link href="https://macropaperwarehouse.com/authors/philipp-schirmer/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Mental Models of the Stock Market</title><link>https://macropaperwarehouse.com/papers/mental-models-of-the-stock-market/</link><guid>https://macropaperwarehouse.com/papers/mental-models-of-the-stock-market/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Using tailored surveys of more than 11,000 US and German households, retail investors, financial advisors, professional fund managers, and academic experts, the paper documents the &amp;ldquo;mental models&amp;rdquo; people use when reasoning from stale (four-week-old) earnings news to expected future stock returns. It finds that while a large majority of academic experts predict stale news does not change future returns (invoking market efficiency), majorities of households, retail investors, and financial professionals make &amp;ldquo;news-congruent&amp;rdquo; forecasts — for example, 75–81% of US retail investors expect higher returns after stale good news — because they directly equate higher expected earnings with higher expected returns and neglect the offsetting equilibrium price adjustment, a pattern the authors call &amp;ldquo;equilibrium neglect.&amp;rdquo; Through open-ended reasoning, the co-movement of elicited expectations, and experiments, the authors argue this neglect is not inattention to trading or price changes but a gap in respondents&amp;rsquo; mental model: an intervention explaining the concept of equilibrium reduces news-congruent good-news forecasts by 21 percentage points (an effect that persists days later), whereas interventions that rule out risk changes or temporary mispricing have no significant effect. In Bundesbank household-panel data, equilibrium neglect predicts previously documented belief anomalies — return extrapolation and the pro-cyclicality of return expectations. The evidence is survey- and experiment-based and rests largely on directional forecasts about mostly hypothetical scenarios (with a real-news, incentivized robustness study), so it documents reasoning patterns and their correlates rather than estimating market-level effects.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>