IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/asb/wpaper/201120.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Financial Competence, Risk Presentation and Retirement Portfolio Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Hazel Bateman

    (Centre for Pensions and Superannuation and ARC Centre of Excellence in Population Ageing Research, Australian School of Business, University of New South Wales)

  • Christine Eckert

    (Centre for the Study of Choice, University of Technology Sydney)

  • John Geweke

    (Centre for the Study of Choice, University of Technology Sydney)

  • Jordan Louviere

    (Centre for the Study of Choice, University of Technology Sydney)

  • Stephen Satchell

    (Trinity College, University of Cambridge and University of Sydney)

  • Susan Thorp

    (Centre for the Study of Choice, University of Technology Sydney)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Hazel Bateman & Christine Eckert & John Geweke & Jordan Louviere & Stephen Satchell & Susan Thorp, 2011. "Financial Competence, Risk Presentation and Retirement Portfolio Preferences," Working Papers 201120, ARC Centre of Excellence in Population Ageing Research (CEPAR), Australian School of Business, University of New South Wales.
    • Handle: RePEc:asb:wpaper:201120
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cepar.edu.au/media/62139/financial_competence_risk_presentation_and_retirement_portfolio_preferences__september_2011.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2011
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeffrey R. Brown & Nellie Liang & Scott Weisbenner, 2007. "Individual Account Investment Options and Portfolio Choice: Behavioral Lessons from 401(k) Plans," NBER Chapters, in: Public Policy and Retirement, Trans-Atlantic Public Economics Seminar (TAPES), pages 1992-2013, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Lisa Anderson & Jennifer Mellor, 2009. "Are risk preferences stable? Comparing an experimental measure with a validated survey-based measure," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 137-160, October.
    3. Jeffrey R. Brown & Jeffrey R. Kling & Sendhil Mullainathan & Marian V. Wrobel, 2008. "Why Don’t People Insure Late-Life Consumption? A Framing Explanation of the Under-Annuitization Puzzle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(2), pages 304-309, May.
    4. Burks, Stephen V. & Carpenter, Jeffrey P. & Götte, Lorenz & Rustichini, Aldo, 2008. "Cognitive Skills Explain Economic Preferences, Strategic Behavior, and Job Attachment," IZA Discussion Papers 3609, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Emmanuel Saez, 2009. "Details Matter: The Impact of Presentation and Information on the Take-Up of Financial Incentives for Retirement Saving," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 204-228, February.
    6. Hazel Bateman & Christine Ebling & John Geweke & Jordan Louviere & Stephen Satchell & Susan Thorp, 2011. "Economic Rationality, Risk Presentation, and Retirement Portfolio Choice," Working Papers 201121, ARC Centre of Excellence in Population Ageing Research (CEPAR), Australian School of Business, University of New South Wales.
    7. Lusardi, Annamaria & Mitchell, Olivia S., 2007. "Baby Boomer retirement security: The roles of planning, financial literacy, and housing wealth," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 205-224, January.
    8. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    9. Sumit Agarwal & Bhashkar Mazumder, 2013. "Cognitive Abilities and Household Financial Decision Making," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-207, January.
    10. Jeffrey R. Brown & Jeffrey B. Liebman & David A. Wise, 2009. "Social Security Policy in a Changing Environment," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number brow08-1.
    11. James Banks & Zoe Oldfield, 2007. "Understanding Pensions: Cognitive Function, Numerical Ability and Retirement Saving," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 28(2), pages 143-170, June.
    12. van Rooij, Maarten C.J. & Kool, Clemens J.M. & Prast, Henriette M., 2007. "Risk-return preferences in the pension domain: Are people able to choose?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(3-4), pages 701-722, April.
    13. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 1999. "Risk Aversion or Myopia? Choices in Repeated Gambles and Retirement Investments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(3), pages 364-381, March.
    14. Annamaria Lusardi & Olivia S. Mitchell, 2017. "How Ordinary Consumers Make Complex Economic Decisions: Financial Literacy and Retirement Readiness," Quarterly Journal of Finance (QJF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 7(03), pages 1-31, September.
    15. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    16. Brigitte C. Madrian & Dennis F. Shea, 2001. "The Power of Suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) Participation and Savings Behavior," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(4), pages 1149-1187.
    17. John Beshears & James J. Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte C. Madrian, 2009. "The Importance of Default Options for Retirement Saving Outcomes: Evidence from the United States," NBER Chapters, in: Social Security Policy in a Changing Environment, pages 167-195, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Gur Huberman & Wei Jiang, 2006. "Offering versus Choice in 401(k) Plans: Equity Exposure and Number of Funds," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 61(2), pages 763-801, April.
    19. Robert B. Barsky & F. Thomas Juster & Miles S. Kimball & Matthew D. Shapiro, 1997. "Preference Parameters and Behavioral Heterogeneity: An Experimental Approach in the Health and Retirement Study," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 537-579.
    20. van Rooij, Maarten C.J. & Lusardi, Annamaria & Alessie, Rob J.M., 2011. "Financial literacy and retirement planning in the Netherlands," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 593-608, August.
    21. Angela Hung & Aileen Heinberg & Joanne K. Yoong, 2010. "Do Risk Disclosures Affect Investment Choice?," Working Papers 788, RAND Corporation.
    22. Luigi Guiso & Tullio Jappelli, 2008. "Financial Literacy and Portfolio Diversification," EIEF Working Papers Series 0812, Einaudi Institute for Economics and Finance (EIEF), revised Oct 2008.
    23. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 2002. "How Much Is Investor Autonomy Worth?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 57(4), pages 1593-1616, August.
    24. Julie R. Agnew & Lisa R. Anderson & Jeffrey R. Gerlach & Lisa R. Szykman, 2008. "Who Chooses Annuities? An Experimental Investigation of the Role of Gender, Framing, and Defaults," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(2), pages 418-422, May.
    25. Isaac M. Lipkus, 2007. "Numeric, Verbal, and Visual Formats of Conveying Health Risks: Suggested Best Practices and Future Recommendations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 696-713, September.
    26. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    27. Chetan Dave & Catherine Eckel & Cathleen Johnson & Christian Rojas, 2010. "Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 219-243, December.
    28. Daniel G. Goldstein & Eric J. Johnson & William F. Sharpe, 2008. "Choosing Outcomes versus Choosing Products: Consumer-Focused Retirement Investment Advice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(3), pages 440-456, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michael P. Keane & Susan Thorp, 2016. "Complex Decision Making: The Roles of Cognitive Limitations, Cognitive Decline and Ageing," Economics Papers 2016-W10, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    2. Andreas Oehler & Stefan Wendt, 2017. "Good Consumer Information: the Information Paradigm at its (Dead) End?," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 179-191, June.
    3. Marija Kuzmanovic & Dragana Makajic-Nikolic & Nebojsa Nikolic, 2019. "Preference Based Portfolio for Private Investors: Discrete Choice Analysis Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-20, December.
    4. Sebastian Bachler & Felix Holzmeister & Michael Razen & Matthias Stefan, 2021. "The Impact of Presentation Format and Choice Architecture on Portfolio Allocations: Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 2021-15, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    5. Keane, M.P. & Thorp, S., 2016. "Complex Decision Making," Handbook of the Economics of Population Aging, in: Piggott, John & Woodland, Alan (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Population Aging, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 661-709, Elsevier.
    6. Fiebig, D.G. & Viney, R. & Haas, M. & Knox, S. & Street, D. & Weisberg, E. & Bateson, D., 2015. "Complexity and doctor choices when discussing contraceptives," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 15/14, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    7. Mara Hammerle & Paul Crosby & Rohan Best, 2021. "Super‐sizing Renewable Energy Investment: Examining the Portfolio Preferences of Superannuation Fund Members," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 97(317), pages 267-284, June.
    8. Hazel Bateman & Christine Eckert & John Geweke & Jordan Louviere & Stephen Satchell & Susan Thorp, 2016. "Risk Presentation and Portfolio Choice," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 20(1), pages 201-229.
    9. Rafal Chomik & John Piggott, 2012. "Pensions, Ageing and Retirement in Australia: Long-Term Projections and Policies," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 45(3), pages 350-361, September.

    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. Hazel Bateman & Christine Eckert & John Geweke & Jordan Louviere & Stephen Satchell & Susan Thorp, 2016. "Risk Presentation and Portfolio Choice," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 20(1), pages 201-229.
    2. Keane, M.P. & Thorp, S., 2016. "Complex Decision Making," Handbook of the Economics of Population Aging, in: Piggott, John & Woodland, Alan (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Population Aging, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 661-709, Elsevier.
    3. Michael P. Keane & Susan Thorp, 2016. "Complex Decision Making: The Roles of Cognitive Limitations, Cognitive Decline and Ageing," Economics Papers 2016-W10, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    4. Beshears, John & Choi, James J. & Laibson, David & Madrian, Brigitte C., 2011. "Behavioral economics perspectives on public sector pension plans," Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 315-336, April.
    5. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    6. Hazel Bateman & Christine Eckert & Fedor Iskhakov & Jordan Louviere & Stephen Satchell & Susan Thorp, 2017. "Default and naive diversification heuristics in annuity choice," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 42(1), pages 32-57, February.
    7. Gürdal, Mehmet Y. & Kuzubaş, Tolga U. & Saltoğlu, Burak, 2017. "Measures of individual risk attitudes and portfolio choice: Evidence from pension participants," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 186-203.
    8. Mustabsar Awais & M. Fahad Laber & Nilofer Rasheed & Aisha Khursheed, 2016. "Impact of Financial Literacy and Investment Experience on Risk Tolerance and Investment Decisions: Empirical Evidence from Pakistan," International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Econjournals, vol. 6(1), pages 73-79.
    9. Holzmeister, Felix & Stefan, Matthias, 2019. "The Risk Elicitation Puzzle Revisited: Across-Methods (In)consistency?," OSF Preprints pj9u2, Center for Open Science.
    10. Kay Blaufus & Michael Milde, 2021. "Tax Misperceptions and the Effect of Informational Tax Nudges on Retirement Savings," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(8), pages 5011-5031, August.
    11. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2019. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Working Papers 2019-19, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    12. Johannes Hagen & Daniel Hallberg & Gabriella Sjögren, 2022. "A Nudge to Quit? The Effect of a Change in Pension Information on Annuitisation, Labour Supply and Retirement Choices Among Older Workers," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(643), pages 1060-1094.
    13. Blake, David & Cairns, Andrew & Dowd, Kevin, 2008. "Turning pension plans into pension planes: What investment strategy designers of defined contribution pension plans can learn from commercial aircraft designers," MPRA Paper 33749, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard Thaler, 2007. "Heuristics and Biases in Retirement Savings Behavior," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(3), pages 81-104, Summer.
    15. Meraner, Manuela & Musshoff, Oliver & Finger, Robert, 2018. "Using involvement to reduce inconsistencies in risk preference elicitation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 22-33.
    16. Hans-Martin Gaudecker & Arthur Soest & Erik Wengström, 2012. "Experts in experiments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 159-190, October.
    17. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2021. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 593-616, June.
    18. van Rooij, Maarten & Teppa, Federica, 2014. "Personal traits and individual choices: Taking action in economic and non-economic decisions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 33-43.
    19. Mitchell, O.S. & Piggott, J., 2016. "Workplace-Linked Pensions for an Aging Demographic," Handbook of the Economics of Population Aging, in: Piggott, John & Woodland, Alan (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Population Aging, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 865-904, Elsevier.
    20. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    : Discrete choice; risk preference; disclosure; Financial literacy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G23 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Non-bank Financial Institutions; Financial Instruments; Institutional Investors
    • G28 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Government Policy and Regulation
    • D14 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Household Saving; Personal Finance

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:asb:wpaper:201120. 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: Elena Capatina (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ceparau.html .

    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.