IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jpenef/v13y2014i01p27-61_00.html

Financial competence, risk presentation and retirement portfolio preferences

Author

Listed:
  • BATEMAN, HAZEL
  • ECKERT, CHRISTINE
  • GEWEKE, JOHN
  • LOUVIERE, JORDAN
  • SATCHELL, STEPHEN
  • THORP, SUSAN

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

  • Bateman, Hazel & Eckert, Christine & Geweke, John & Louviere, Jordan & Satchell, Stephen & Thorp, Susan, 2014. "Financial competence, risk presentation and retirement portfolio preferences," Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 27-61, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jpenef:v:13:y:2014:i:01:p:27-61_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1474747213000188/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.

    More about this item

    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:cup:jpenef:v:13:y:2014:i:01:p:27-61_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pef .

    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.