Overconfidence, Recency, and Narrative Bias
Three ways investors misjudge what they know: being more certain than the evidence allows, assuming the recent past will continue, and trusting a good story over the odds. What the research and nearly a century of market data show about each.
The short version
Overconfidence is being more certain than the evidence justifies, and it shows up as trading too much: in one study, men traded 45% more than women, and trading cut their returns by 2.65 percentage points a year. Recency bias is assuming what just happened will continue, yet in US data since 1928, one year's stock return has told you almost nothing about the next. Narrative bias is trusting a compelling story over the base rates, such as the fact that most individual stocks have done worse than Treasury bills. The defenses are humility built into habits: base rates first, a written case against yourself, and fewer, slower decisions.
By the end of this lesson, you'll be able to
- Explain overconfidence and its link to excessive trading
- Show why the recent past is a poor guide to next year's returns
- Recognize when a story is crowding out the base rates
Why this matters
The last lesson was about how we feel about gains and losses. This one is about how we judge what we know. All three biases here make a decision feel more certain than it is, which makes them dangerous in a field where almost nothing is certain.
Overconfidence
Overconfidence. Being more certain of your own judgment than the evidence supports. In investing, it often shows up as trading too much. Glossary is being more sure of your judgment than the evidence supports. In investing, it often shows up as trading: if you're confident you know which stock will do better, switching feels smart.
Brad Barber and Terrance Odean tested this by comparing men and women, since psychological research suggests men tend to be more overconfident in areas such as finance. Using data from more than 35,000 households at a large discount brokerage, they found that men traded 45% more than women, and that trading reduced men's net returns by 2.65 percentage points a year, compared with 1.72 percentage points for women.1 The lesson isn't about gender. It's that more confidence led to more trading, and more trading led to lower returns.
Overconfidence also makes people easier to defraud. The SEC-commissioned report on investor behavior notes research identifying overconfidence as a main psychological reason otherwise sophisticated investors fall for frauds.2
Recency bias
Recency bias. Giving too much weight to what happened recently and assuming it will continue. Glossary is giving too much weight to what just happened. After a great year, it feels natural to expect another; after a bad one, to expect more pain. The data doesn't support either instinct.
| After a year when stocks... | How many times | Average return the next year | Next year was a loss |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rose 25% or more | 26 | 9.3% | 9 times |
| Fell | 26 | 13.1% | 8 times |
| Any year | 97 | 11.5% | 26 times |
S&P 500 yearly returns, including dividends, from Damodaran's data.3 Calculated for this lesson; "average" is the simple average of yearly returns. The correlation between one year's return and the next is about −0.02, essentially zero.
Great years weren't reliably followed by more great years, and losing years weren't reliably followed by more losses. An investor who piled in after strong years, or fled after weak ones, was acting on a pattern that didn't exist.
The rest of this lesson is for members
Still to come in this lesson: Narrative bias, Defenses, the key takeaways, and 2 quiz questions with explanations.
Membership opens every lesson in the curriculum, the capstone projects, the interactive tools, and the members-only channels in the Hyperion Entities Discord. The first lesson of every module stays free.
Go deeper
- Fact, Interpretation, and Confirmation BiasPart 4: Research and Valuation
- Concentration vs. DiversificationPart 5: Building a Portfolio
- Probability and Expected ValueMath and Statistics for Investors (depth track)
Notes and sources
- Brad M. Barber and Terrance Odean, Quarterly Journal of Economics 116(1), 261-292. Boys Will Be Boys: Gender, Overconfidence, and Common Stock Investment (2001). Checked 2026-10-06. Back to text
- Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Behavioral Patterns and Pitfalls of U.S. Investors (August 2010). Checked 2026-10-06. Back to text
- Aswath Damodaran, NYU Stern School of Business. Historical Returns on Stocks, Bonds and Bills, with annual data through 2025 (updated January 2026). Checked 2026-10-12. Back to text
- Hendrik Bessembinder, Journal of Financial Economics 129(3), 440-457. Do Stocks Outperform Treasury Bills? (2018). Checked 2026-10-05.