Search

Introduction Extraversion and Conscientiousness are well-studied personality traits associated with reward processing and goal prioritization, respectively, and bear on individual differences in financial risk-taking. Using unique large datasets, we investigated the link between these traits and male online gamblers' actual betting participation and intensity. Method We combined datasets containing online horse betting data (during 2015-2016) from the Finnish monopoly betting company, administrative registry data from Statistics Finland, and personality trait measures from the Finnish Defence Forces corresponding to Extraversion and Conscientiousness as defined in the five-factor model. We modelled associations between these traits and betting participation (n = 471,968) and intensity (n = 11,217) among male horse bettors (age = 36-53). Results Controlling for demographics and IQ, individuals scoring high on Conscientiousness (or Extraversion) were less (or more) likely to bet and less (or more) intensive bettors-even when personality was measured 16-34 years before betting occurred. One SD personality score increase represented an annual decrease (Conscientiousness) or increase (Extraversion) of euro570-754 in spending. Conclusions Extraversion and Conscientiousness are implicated in real-life financial behavior with tangible consequences for individuals. These effects are stronger than for many known demographic variables used in gambling studies and persist up to 34 years after personality has been measured.

Agency theory suggests that minority shareholders in private firms are vulnerable to shareholder oppression, which necessitates shareholder protection. This paper investigates a form of shareholder protection, the special representative of minority shareholders, which is used in Finland and Sweden. The special representative is a valuation expert, typically an auditor or a lawyer, who assists minority shareholders in shareholder dissent cases which require judicial appraisal of the minority interest in a firm. The different codes of conduct associated with these professions may manifest themselves in their performance as valuation experts. We examine a comprehensive data set of judicial valuation cases of Finnish private firms, in which the judge learns the valuation estimates of the controlling shareholder, the minority shareholder and the special representative and then issues a verdict on the fair price of the firm's shares. Our findings indicate that the special representative benefits minority shareholders by reducing the gap between the minority shareholders’ and the judge's valuation estimates. Our results also suggest that the special representative's professional background may affect how he or she values the company. We find that special representatives who are auditors propose more conservative valuation estimates than lawyers do.

While inputs used in analysts’ valuation models have been documented (Brown et al. 2015), it has not been studied how analysts’ personal characteristics are associated with their level of critical perception regarding agency conflict manifested in published financial statements. This is important because analysts are, to some extent, substitutes for industry‐specialised auditors in monitoring financial reporting (e.g., Sun and Liu 2011). To address this shortcoming, we investigate analysts’ level of critical perception concerning current goodwill accounting standards, which provide significant reporting latitude. We use data from a survey of Nordic financial analysts and examine this data with statistical methods, including factor analysis and structural equation modelling. We find two latent constructs, one which reflects a critical attitude to the current goodwill accounting standards and one which reflects an uncritical attitude to the current standards. Our structural equation model suggests that having a background in auditing, as well as general experience and exposure to different industries, is associated with a higher degree of critical perception of current standards. In contrast, having a basic (low) level of formal business (accounting) education is associated with a more uncritical perception than having a high level of education.