Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T13:43:08.357Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Financial competence, risk presentation and retirement portfolio preferences*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 August 2013

HAZEL BATEMAN ,
CHRISTINE ECKERT ,
JOHN GEWEKE ,
JORDAN LOUVIERE ,
STEPHEN SATCHELL  and
SUSAN THORP
HAZEL BATEMAN
Affiliation:
School of Risk and Actuarial Studies, University of New South Wales Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia (e-mail: h.bateman@unsw.edu.au)
CHRISTINE ECKERT
Affiliation:
Marketing Discipline Group and Centre for the Study of Choice, University of Technology, Sydney PO Box 123, Broadway NSW 2007, Australia (e-mail: christine.eckert@uts.edu.au)
JOHN GEWEKE
Affiliation:
Centre for the Study of Choice, University of Technology, Sydney PO Box 123, Broadway NSW 2007, Australia (e-mail: john.geweke@uts.edu.au)
JORDAN LOUVIERE
Affiliation:
Centre for the Study of Choice, University of Technology, Sydney PO Box 123, Broadway NSW 2007, Australia (e-mail: jordan.louviere@uts.edu.au)
STEPHEN SATCHELL
Affiliation:
Trinity College, University of Cambridge Trinity Street, Cambridge CB2 1TQ, United Kingdom (e-mail: ses11@cam.ac.uk)
SUSAN THORP
Affiliation:
Finance Discipline Group and Centre for the Study of Choice, University of Technology, Sydney PO Box 123, Broadway NSW 2007, Australia (e-mail: susan.thorp@uts.edu.au)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Financial regulators are weighing up the effectiveness of different templates for communicating investment risk to retirement savers since welfare depends on comprehension of risk information. We compare nine standard risk presentations using a discrete choice experiment where subjects choose between three retirement accounts. Switching between graphical or textual presentations, or between formats that emphasize benchmarks rather than return ranges or values at risk, affects predicted choices more than large changes in underlying risk. Innumerate individuals are more susceptible to presentation, and those with weak basic financial literacy are insensitive to increasing risk levels, regardless of presentation. Presentation effects are moderated but not eliminated as financial literacy improves.

Keywords

G23G28D14Discrete choicerisk preferencedisclosurefinancial literacy
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Pension Economics & Finance , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 27 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

We thank Olivia Mitchell, Jack Gray and participants at the 2011 Econometrics Society Australasian Meetings for helpful comments. The authors acknowledge financial support under Australian Research Council DP1093842, generous assistance with the development and implementation of the internet survey from Pure Profile and the staff of the Centre for the Study of Choice, University of Technology Sydney; and excellent research assistance from Frances Terlich, Edward Wei and Jagjeev Dosanjh. Part of this work was completed while Bateman visited the School of Finance and Economics at the University of Technology Sydney. The Chair of Finance and Superannuation, UTS (Thorp) receives support from the Sydney Financial Forum (Colonial First State Global Asset Management), the NSW Government, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA), the Industry Superannuation Network (ISN), and the Paul Woolley Centre for the Study of Capital Market Dysfunctionality, UTS.

References

Agarwal, S. and Mazumder, B. (2011) Cognitive abilities and household financial decision making. Second Boulder Conference on Consumer Financial Decision Making, June 2011, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
AGESTSuper (2010) AGESTSuper Product Disclosure Statement, January 2010.Google Scholar
Agnew, J. R. and Szykman, L. R. (2005) Asset allocation and information overload: the influence of information display, asset choice and investor experience. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 6: 57–90.Google Scholar
Agnew, J. R., Anderson, L. R., Gerlach, J. R. and Szykman, L. R. (2008) Who chooses annuities? an experimental investigation of the role of gender, framing and defaults. American Economic Review, 98(2): 418–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anagol, S. and Gamble, K. J. (2010) Presenting Investment Results Asset by Asset Lowers Risk Taking. Available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1640791 Google Scholar
Anderson, L. R. and Mellor, J. M. (2009) Are risk preferences stable? comparing an experimental measure with a validated survey-based measure. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 39: 137–160.Google Scholar
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2008) Employment Arrangements, Retirement and Superannuation. Australia: ABS 6361.0.Google Scholar
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) (2010) Good Practice Guidance – Investment Risk Description. Available online at http://www.apra.gov.au/Super/Documents/Ltr-IRD-29-June-2010-FINAL-trustee.pdf Google Scholar
Banks, J. and Oldfield, Z. (2007) Understanding pensions: cognitive function, numerical ability, and retirement saving. Fiscal Studies, 28: 143–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsky, R. B., Juster, F. T., Kimball, M. S. and Shapiro, M. D. (1997) Preference parameters and behavioral heterogeneity: an experimental approach in the health and retirement study. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2): 537–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, H. J., Ebling, C., Geweke, J., Louviere, J. J., Satchell, S. E. and Thorp, S. J. (2010) Economic Rationality, Risk Presentation and Retirement Portfolio Choice. CenSoC Working Paper No. 10–004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benartzi, S. and Thaler, R. H. (1999) Risk aversion or myopia? choices in repeated gambles and retirement investments. Management Science, 45(3): 364–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benartzi, S. and Thaler, R. H. (2001) Naïve diversification strategies in defined contribution saving plans. American Economic Review, 91(1): 79–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benartzi, S. and Thaler, R. H. (2002) How much is investor autonomy worth? Journal of Finance, 57(4): 1593–1616.Google Scholar
Beshears, J., Choi, J. J., Laibson, D. and Madrian, B. C. (2009) The importance of default options for retirement saving outcomes: evidence from the United States. In Brown, J. R., Liebman, J. and Wise, D. A. (eds), Social Security Policy in a Changing Environment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 167–195.Google Scholar
Brown, J. R., Liang, N. and Weisbenner, S. J. (2007) Individual account investment options and portfolio choice: Behavioral lessons from 410(k) plans. Journal of Public Economics, 91(10): 1992–2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. R., Kling, J. R., Mullainathan, S. and Wrobel, M. V. (2008) Why don't people insure late life consumption? a framing explanation of the under-annuitization puzzle. American Economic Review, 98(2): 304–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucher-Koenen, T. (2010) Financial Literacy and Private Old Age Provision in Germany. University of Mannheim Discussion Paper No. 104.Google Scholar
Burks, S. V., Carpenter, J. P., Goette, L. and Rustichini, A. (2009) Cognitive skills affect economic preferences, strategic behavior, and job attachment. Proceedings of the National Association of Sciences, 106(19): 7745–7750.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dave, C., Eckel, C. C., Johnson, C. A. and Rojas, C. (2010) Eliciting risk preferences: when is simple better? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 41: 219–243.Google Scholar
Department of Labor (2010) Fiduciary Requirements for Disclosure in Participant-Directed Individual Account Plans; Final Rule. 29 CFR Part 2550, Federal Register 75(202), Wednesday, October 20.Google Scholar
Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J. and Wagner, G. G. (2011) Individual risk attitudes: measurement, determinants and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association 9(3); 522–550.Google Scholar
European Commission (2009a) UCITS Disclosure Testing Research Report, prepared for the European Commission by IFF Research and YouGov, June 2009.Google Scholar
European Commission (2009b) Update on Commission work on Packaged Retail Investment Products, December 2009.Google Scholar
European Commission (2012) Commission Proposes Legislation to Improve Consumer Protection in Financial Services. Brussels: Press Release.Google Scholar
Gerardi, K., Goette, L. and Meier, S. (2010) Financial Literacy and Subprime Mortgage Delinquency: Evidence from a Survey Matched to Administrative Data. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Working Paper Series No. 2010-10.Google Scholar
Goldstein, D. G., Johnson, E. J. and Sharpe, W. F. (2008) Choosing outcomes versus choosing products: consumer-focused retirement investment advice. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 440–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guiso, L. and Jappelli, T. (2008) Financial Literacy and Portfolio Diversification, European University Institute Working Paper, No. ECO 2008/31.Google Scholar
Hastings, J., Mitchell, O. S. and Chyn, E. (2010) Fees, framing, and financial literacy in the choice of pension manager, Pension Research Council Working Paper No. PRC WP2010-09.Google Scholar
Holt, C. A. and Laury, S. K. (2002) Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92(5): 1644–1655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huberman, G. and Jiang, W. (2006) Offering versus choice in 401(k) plans: equity exposure and number of funds. Journal of Finance, 56(2): 763–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jorion, P. (2007) Value at Risk: The New Benchmark for Managing Financial Risk, 3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2): 263–291.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, C., Weber, M. and Haisley, E. (2013) The role of experience sampling and graphical displays on one's investment risk appetite. Management Science, 59(2): 323–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L. and Gaeth, G. J. (1998) All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2): 149–188.Google Scholar
Lipkus, I. M. (2007) Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Medical Decision Making, 27: 696–713.Google Scholar
Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A. and Swait, J. D. (2002) Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lusardi, A. and Mitchell, O. S. (2009) How Ordinary Consumers Make Complex Economic Decisions: Financial Literacy and Retirement Readiness. NBER Working Paper No. w15350.Google Scholar
Madrian, B. C. and Shea, D. F. (2001) The power of suggestion: inertia in 401(k) participation and saving behavior. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 16(4): 1149–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magidson, J. and Vermunt, J. K. (2005) Technical guide to Latent Gold Software 4.5. Statistical Innovations.Google Scholar
Maule, J. and Villejoubert, G. (2007) What lies beneath: reframing framing effects. Thinking and Reasoning, 13(1): 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minister for Financial Services (2010) Explanatory statement, select legislative instrument 2010 (No.135), Corporations Amendment Regulations (No.5), Canberra. Available online at http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2010L01585/Explanatory%20Statement/Text Google Scholar
Peters, E. and Levin, I. P. (2008) Dissecting the risky-choice framing effect: numeracy as an individual-difference factor in weighting risky and riskless options. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(6): 435–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Revelt, D. and Train, K. (1998) Mixed logit with repeated choices: households’ choices of appliance efficiency level. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4): 647–657.Google Scholar
Rubaltelli, E., Rubichi, S., Savadori, L., Tedeschi, M. and Ferretti, R. (2005) Numerical information format and investment decisions: implications for the disposition effect and status quo bias. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 6(1): 19–26.Google Scholar
Saez, E. (2009) Details matter: the impact of presentation and information on the take-up of financial incentives for retirement saving. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 1(1): 204–228.Google Scholar
Schirillo, J. A. and Stone, E. R. (2005) The greater ability of graphical versus numerical displays to increase risk avoidance involves a common mechanism. Risk Analysis, 25(3): 555–566.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Securities and Exchange Commission (2009) Enhanced Disclosure and New Prospectus Delivery Option for Registered Open-End Management Investment Companies. Investment Company Act Release No. 28,585, 74, Federal Registry 4546, January 26.Google Scholar
Super System Review (2010) Super System Review Final Report, Part 1, Overview and Recommendations, Commonwealth of Australia. Available at http://www.supersystemreview.gov.au/content/downloads/final_report/part_one/Final_Report_Part_1_Consolidated.pdf Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481): 453–458.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1986) Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business, 2(2): 73–85.Google Scholar
van Rooij, M. C. J., Clemens, J. M. K. and Prast, H. M. (2007) Risk-return preferences in the pension domain: are people able to choose? Journal of Public Economics, 91(3–4): 701–722.Google Scholar
van Rooij, M. C. J., Lusardi, A. and Alessie, R. (2009) Financial literacy and retirement planning in the Netherlands. DNB Working Paper No. 231, November, De Nederlandsche Bank.Google Scholar
Vlaev, I., Chater, N. and Stewart, N. (2009) Dimensionality of risk perception: factors affecting consumer understanding and evaluation of financial risk. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 10(3): 158–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, E. U., Siebenmorgen, N. and Weber, M. (2005) Communicating asset risk: how name recognition and the format of historic volatility information affect risk perception and investment decisions. Risk Analysis, 25(3): 597–609.Google Scholar
Yoong, J. (2010) Financial Illiteracy and Stock Market Participation: Evidence from the RAND American Life Panel. Pension Research Council Working Paper, No. PRC WP2010-29.Google Scholar