What it means
Classical economics says people weigh outcomes by probability and utility, then pick the best bundle. Regret theory adds the emotion everyone actually feels: the anguish of learning the road not taken was better.
The theory was developed independently in 1982 by Graham Loomes and Robert Sugden, whose Economic Journal paper framed regret as an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty, and by David Bell. The core move is to make utility comparative: the value of an outcome depends on what the rejected option would have delivered, so the same prize feels different depending on the counterfactual.
That single addition explains famous violations of expected utility, including the Allais paradox, where people choose inconsistently in ways that anticipated regret predicts and classical theory forbids. In markets, regret theory explains both fear and herding: investors avoid selling losers because realising the loss confirms the regret, and they follow the crowd because contrarian mistakes hurt more than conventional ones.
The disposition effect, holding losers too long and selling winners too early, reads naturally through regret: realising a gain forecloses the regret of having sold too soon, while realising a loss certifies it. Regret aversion also distorts new decisions: after a painful missed opportunity, investors either chase the next one recklessly or freeze entirely, and both responses are regret management, not analysis.
For a non-finance reader, regret theory is the formal version of 'what if I had': decisions are made against imaginary alternative histories, and markets inherit the distortion. Experimental economics put the theory through decades of tests.
The core predictions survive well, especially the comparative-utility move, though researchers continue to refine how regret interacts with probability weighting. Institutional design quietly reflects regret logic.
Default options in pension enrolment work partly because opting out carries the regret of a visible, chosen mistake, while inertia carries none. The theory also warns portfolio reviewers: performance judged trade-by-trade maximises regret sensitivity, while performance judged at the portfolio level gives the emotion less surface to grip.
In practice
Real-world examples.
Example
An investor refuses to sell a losing stock for years, avoiding the certified regret of a realised mistake. Selling would turn a paper loss into a confirmed one, so holding keeps the question open. The cost is capital tied up in a position that no longer deserves it.
Example
A saver sells a winner early to pre-empt the regret of watching gains evaporate. The relief was worth more to the saver than the upside given up. A rule such as selling only when the original thesis breaks would move the decision onto criteria instead of emotion.
Example
After missing a rally, an investor chases the next hot fund, buying regret insurance at peak prices. The purchase is driven by fear of a second missed wave, not by valuation. A friend's gains in the same fund make the imagined alternative feel vivid.
Formula
Calculation
Modified utility: the value of outcome x, given the rejected option would have yielded y, depends on the difference between x and y through a regret function, typically convex so large regrets weigh disproportionately.
Worked example. A fictional investor puts $10,000 into one of two shares. The chosen share rises 30%, a gain of $3,000, while the rejected share triples, a gain of $20,000. The shortfall against the road not taken is $20,000 - $3,000 = $17,000. Using a deliberately simple regret weight of 0.5 on the shortfall, the regret penalty is 0.5 x $17,000 = $8,500, so the modified value of the choice is $3,000 - $8,500 = -$5,500: a profitable outcome that feels like a loss. A convex regret function would weigh the large shortfall even more heavily than this linear weight does.Case study
Seen in the real world.
This case study is fictional and illustrative. A made-up retail investor in Sydney watches two mining stocks for months and finally buys one. It rises 30%, but the one she rejected triples, and her account statement somehow feels like a loss. The classical model says she should be pleased; her behaviour says otherwise. The next year shows regret theory's full cycle.
She holds a collapsing small-cap for two years past every sensible exit, because selling would certify the regret of the original purchase. She then sells a winner far too early, locking in the relief of never having to regret giving gains back. Finally, after watching a friend double money in a technology fund, she buys the same fund at its peak, unable to bear a second missed wave, and rides the subsequent correction down. Her adviser, reviewing the wreckage, does not lecture on valuation; he builds her a written decision journal, because the pattern in her trades is not greed or fear but counterfactual pain, and the only known defence is making the decision criteria explicit before the imaginary scoreboard starts counting.
Watch out
Common mistakes.
- Treating regret as irrational noise; the theory shows it is systematic and predictable, which makes it tradable by those who keep their own heads.
- Confusing regret aversion with risk aversion; the same person can be risk-seeking to avoid regret and risk-averse to lock in relief.
- Believing awareness cures it; knowing the bias exists rarely stops the behaviour, which is why rules and journals beat intentions.
Questions
People also ask.
What is regret theory?
A decision theory holding that people anticipate the regret of choosing worse than the rejected option, making utility comparative rather than absolute, developed by Loomes and Sugden and by Bell in 1982.
What does it explain that expected utility cannot?
Violations like the Allais paradox, holding losers too long, selling winners too early, and herding driven by fear of unconventional mistakes.
How do investors defend against it?
With pre-committed rules: written decision criteria, rebalancing discipline, and journals that force the real scoreboard to outrank the imaginary one.
From the founder's library
Take it further with the book.
Build your financial confidence beyond this definition. Shihan's full-length guide, Accounting Fundamentals, takes the same plain-English approach and turns it into a complete, practical playbook for non-finance managers, business owners and students - with chapter-end quiz answers and presentation slides included.
25% off with code MMHQ25, applied at checkout. Priced in USD - checkout may show the equivalent in your local currency.
View the book and save 25%Related