IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ers/journl/vxxiiiy2020ispecial2p307-339.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Environment Test for Risk Tolerance Assessment Verification in Lifelong Financial Planning for Households

Author

Listed:
  • Pawel Rokita
  • Radoslaw Pietrzyk
  • Krzysztof Piontek

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study is to propose and discuss a theoretical framework of a testing environment for verification of household risk tolerance assessment methods, based on a financial plan optimization model. It is intended to be suited to the specificity of life-long financial planning for households. Design/Methodology/Approach: The assumption of the proposed testing environment is that a risk tolerance measure should be used as part of the input to a household life-long financial plan optimization procedure. The risk of the received plan should therefore be consistent with the risk tolerance estimated at the beginning. Findings: After the analysis of the structure of the existing financial plan optimization model (developed by the Authors as part of some former research project) it has been concluded that, after some modifications, it is possible to use it as a test environment for verification of household risk tolerance assessment methods. Practical Implications: The possibility of verification of a risk tolerance assessment method for a household life-long financial plan is necessary to be able to construct plans that are really suited to household needs. So far, there do not exist proper household risk aversion measures, nor methods of household risk aversion estimation, that would consider the nature of risk that is present in the household life-long financial planning. But as soon as such methods are developed, it will be necessary to be able to verify whether the risk tolerance estimates obtained from them are at all reliable and if they are in line with how households understand their risk tolerance. Originality/Value: This study is a step towards verifying household risk tolerance models for lifetime financial plans, which is a new research area, not yet undertaken in the literature. It is very important both from the point of view of the further development of the theory of personal finance and for the practice of financial planning.

Suggested Citation

  • Pawel Rokita & Radoslaw Pietrzyk & Krzysztof Piontek, 2020. "An Environment Test for Risk Tolerance Assessment Verification in Lifelong Financial Planning for Households," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(Special 2), pages 307-339.
    • Handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xxiii:y:2020:i:special2:p:307-339
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ersj.eu/journal/1826/download
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Saving, Fungibility, and Mental Accounts," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 4(1), pages 193-205, Winter.
    2. J. Tobin, 1958. "Liquidity Preference as Behavior Towards Risk," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 25(2), pages 65-86.
    3. Menahem E. Yaari, 1965. "Uncertain Lifetime, Life Insurance, and the Theory of the Consumer," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 32(2), pages 137-150.
    4. Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, 01-02.
    5. Shefrin, Hersh, 2007. "Beyond Greed and Fear: Understanding Behavioral Finance and the Psychology of Investing," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195304213.
    6. Alen Nosić & Martin Weber, 2010. "How Riskily Do I Invest? The Role of Risk Attitudes, Risk Perceptions, and Overconfidence," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 282-301, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mengyuan Zhou, 2022. "Does the Source of Inheritance Matter in Bequest Attitudes? Evidence from Japan," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 867-887, December.
    2. Martin Fochmann & Johannes Hewig & Dirk Kiesewetter & Katharina Schüßler, 2017. "Affective reactions influence investment decisions: evidence from a laboratory experiment with taxation," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 87(6), pages 779-808, August.
    3. Christian Ehm & Christine Laudenbach & Martin Weber, 2018. "Focusing on volatility information instead of portfolio weights as an aid to investor decisions," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(2), pages 457-480, June.
    4. Mengyuan Zhou, 2019. "The Effect of the Source of Inheritance on Bequest Attitudes: Evidence from Japan," Keio-IES Discussion Paper Series 2019-018, Institute for Economics Studies, Keio University.
    5. Sesil Lim & Bas Donkers & Patrick Dijl & Benedict G. C. Dellaert, 2021. "Digital customization of consumer investments in multiple funds: virtual integration improves risk–return decisions," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 49(4), pages 723-742, July.
    6. John Beshears & James J. Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte C. Madrian, 2017. "Does Aggregated Returns Disclosure Increase Portfolio Risk Taking?," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 30(6), pages 1971-2005.
    7. Moshe Levy & Haim Levy, 2013. "Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 7, pages 129-144, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Zubanov, Nick & Cadsby, Bram & Song, Fei, 2017. "The," IZA Discussion Papers 10542, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Mohammad Reza Nikbakht & Mehrdad Sadr Ara, 2016. "A new experimental model for profit maximization," Journal of Economic and Financial Studies (JEFS), LAR Center Press, vol. 4(3), pages 45-52, June.
    10. Jozsef Sakovics, 2007. "Reference price distortion," Edinburgh School of Economics Discussion Paper Series 177, Edinburgh School of Economics, University of Edinburgh.
    11. Brown, Jeffrey R., 2001. "Private pensions, mortality risk, and the decision to annuitize," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 29-62, October.
    12. Waidler, Jennifer, 2016. "On the fungibility of public and private transfers: A mental accounting approach," MERIT Working Papers 2016-060, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    13. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    14. James J. Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte C. Madrian, 2009. "Mental Accounting in Portfolio Choice: Evidence from a Flypaper Effect," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(5), pages 2085-2095, December.
    15. Jeffrey Brown, 2001. "Are the Elderly Really Over-Annuitized? New Evidence on Life Insurance and Bequests," NBER Chapters, in: Themes in the Economics of Aging, pages 91-126, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Isabelle Brocas & Juan D. Carrillo, 2008. "The Brain as a Hierarchical Organization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1312-1346, September.
    17. Cherry, Todd L., 2001. "Mental accounting and other-regarding behavior: Evidence from the lab," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 605-615, October.
    18. Kaufmann, Christine & Weber, Martin, 2013. "Sometimes less is more – The influence of information aggregation on investment decisions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 20-33.
    19. James Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte Madrian, 2008. "The Flypaper Effect in Individual Investor Asset Allocation," Yale School of Management Working Papers amz2560, Yale School of Management.
    20. Rachel Griffith & Sarah Smith & Stephanie von Hinke Kessler Scholder, 2014. "Getting a healthy start? Nudge versus economic incentives," The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 14/328, The Centre for Market and Public Organisation, University of Bristol, UK.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xxiii:y:2020:i:special2:p:307-339. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Marios Agiomavritis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ersj.eu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.