While neoclassical finance cannot explain irrationality and market anomalies, behavioural finance utilizes the principles of psychology to present plausible explanations for observed phenomena. It is argued that neoclassical finance models have failed miserably and that research in neoclassical finance has persisted because of the culture of publish or perish, which dominates contemporary academia. Belief in conspiracy theory is attributed to several behavioural biases, including confirmation bias, proportionality bias, projection, intentionality bias, pattern-seeking, availability bias, overconfidence, anchoring, the bandwagon effect, the base rate fallacy, conservatism and the focusing effect. It is concluded that the unrealistic propositions of neoclassical finance should go the way of the dinosaurs.


Market anomalies Publish or perish Conspiracy theory Confirmation bias Proportionality bias Projection Intentionality bias Pattern-seeking Availability bias Overconfidence Anchoring Bandwagon effect Base rate fallacy Conservatism Focusing effect 


  1. Brotherton, R. (2013). Towards a Definition of “Conspiracy Theory”. PsyPAG Quarterly, 88, 9–14.Google Scholar
  2. De Bondt, W., Muradoglu, G., Shefrin, H., & Staikouras, S. K. (2008). Behavioral Finance: Quo Vadis? Journal of Applied Finance, Fall/Winter, 1–15.Google Scholar
  3. Dodig, N., Hein, E., & Detzer, D. (2015). Financialisation and the Financial and Economic Crises: Theoretical Framework and Empirical Analysis for 15 Countries.
  4. Hein, E., & Detzer, D. (2014). Finance-Dominated Capitalism and Income Distribution: A Kaleckian Perspective on the Case of Germany.
  5. Moosa, I. A. (2017a). Publish or Perish: Perceived Benefits versus Unintended Consequences. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (in press).Google Scholar
  6. Moosa, I. A. (2017b). Does Financialization Retard Growth? The International Evidence (Working Paper). School of Economics, Finance and Marketing, RMIT.Google Scholar
  7. Morris, G. D. L. (2012, February 16). The Secret Meeting That Launched the Federal Reserve: Echoes. Bloomberg View.Google Scholar
  8. Sawyer, M. (2015). Financialisation, Financial Structures, Economic Performance and Employment.
  9. Shojai, S. (2009). Economists’ Hubris: The Case of Mergers and Acquisitions. Journal of Financial Transformation, 26, 4–12.Google Scholar
  10. Shojai, S., & Feiger, G. (2009). Economists’ Hubris: The Case of Asset Pricing. Journal of Financial Transformation, 27, 9–13.Google Scholar
  11. Shojai, S., & Feiger, G. (2010). Economists’ Hubris: The Case of Risk Management. Journal of Financial Transformation, 28, 25–35.Google Scholar
  12. Shojai, S., Feiger, G., & Kumar, R. (2010). Economists’ Hubris: The Case of Equity Asset Management. Journal of Financial Transformation, 29, 9–16.Google Scholar
  13. Vercelli, A. (2014). Financialisation and Sustainability: A Long-run Perspective.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics, Finance and MarketingRMITMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.School of CommerceUNISAAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations