Home > Topics > Behavioural Finance > Biases in Quantitative & Numerical Information

Biases in Quantitative & Numerical Information

Even with hard numbers, investors make systematic errors in processing quantitative data.

Numerosity & Scale Errors

Number Blindness: Inability to intuitively grasp very large or small numbers.

Examples:

  • ₹1 million vs ₹1 billion doesn't feel as different as it is (1,000x difference!)
  • Market cap ₹50,000 crore vs ₹2,50,000 crore feels similar (5x difference)
  • 0.01% vs 0.1% probability feels the same (10x difference!)

Ratio Bias: Preferring larger absolute numbers even when ratios are identical.

Option AOption BRational View
1 in 10 chance (10%)10 in 100 chance (10%)Identical
Investor preference:Option B (sounds better!)Irrational

People choose "10 winning tickets out of 100" over "1 winning ticket out of 10" despite identical 10% odds.

Denomination Effect

Money's perceived value changes based on denomination:

  • ₹1,000 note feels "precious" → Less likely to spend
  • Ten ₹100 notes feel "less valuable" → More likely to spend casually

Investment Impact:

  • ₹10 lakhs invested at once feels different than ten ₹1 lakh monthly SIPs
  • Psychologically, breaking large sums into smaller pieces makes investing easier

Price Per Share Bias

Indian Market Phenomenon: Retail investors disproportionately buy ₹10-50 priced stocks, avoid ₹1,000+ stocks as "expensive."

Reality Check:

StockPriceMarket CapP/EActual Value
Stock A₹10₹500 cr50Overvalued
MRF₹1,00,000₹42,000 cr22Fair/Undervalued

Price per share is meaningless without considering market cap, earnings, growth!

Why it matters: Missing quality high-priced stocks (MRF, Page Industries) because of arbitrary price anchors costs returns.

Percentage vs Absolute Framing

Same outcome, different emotional reactions:

FramingInvestor Reaction
"Stock fell 50%"Panic! Huge loss!
"Stock went ₹200 to ₹100"Less dramatic
"Fund returned 12% annually over 20 years"Sounds modest
"₹1 lakh became ₹9.6 lakh"Impressive!

These describe identical outcomes! Brains react differently to percentages vs absolute amounts.

Base Rate Neglect

Error: Ignoring statistical base rates when evaluating specific numbers.

Example:

  • Base rate: Average stock returns ~12% annually
  • Your friend's stock: Returned 80% last year
  • Your expectation: "I'll get 80% too!"
  • Mistake: Ignoring base rate (performance mean-reverts toward ~12%)

Most high-return years are followed by lower/negative returns.

Small Probability Errors

Overweight Tiny Risks:

  • 0.01% chance terrorist attack feels huge (vivid, scary)
  • Leads to over-insurance, security theater

Underweight Small but Real Gains:

  • 1% daily return feels trivial
  • Reality: Compounds to 3,678% annually!

Anchoring on Arbitrary Numbers

Experiment: Show investors random number (spin wheel: lands on 65). Then ask: "Estimate market return next year?"

Result: Answers cluster around 65%! Completely random anchor biased their numerical judgment.

Investment Application:

  • Stock's 52-week high becomes anchor
  • Analyst's price target becomes anchor
  • Previous portfolio peak becomes anchor

All arbitrary, yet all influence decisions.


Debiasing Numerical Thinking

Break Down Large Numbers:

  • ₹1 crore = ₹83,333/month for 1 year
  • Makes retirement needs feel concrete

Always Check Base Rates:

  • Before extrapolating performance, ask: "What's normal for this category?"
  • High returns usually mean-revert

Focus on Ratios, Not Prices:

  • Compare P/E, EV/EBITDA, dividend yield
  • Ignore price per share completely

Use Absolute and Percentages:

  • "15% annual return" AND "₹10 lakh becomes ₹40 lakh in 10 years"
  • Triangulate understanding

Question Anchors:

  • "Why does ₹500 feel meaningful for this stock? It's just last year's price."
  • "Analyst target is ₹800. What if they're wrong?"

Key Takeaways

  • Even "objective" numbers are perceived subjectively
  • Ratio bias, denomination effect, and price anchors distort judgment
  • Base rate neglect causes chasing past performance
  • Small probabilities are massively overweighted
  • Combat biases by using multiple framings, checking base rates, focusing on ratios not absolute prices

Loading quiz…