IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/asb/wpaper/201121.html

Economic Rationality, Risk Presentation, and Retirement Portfolio Choice

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 Ebling

    (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

This research studies the propensity of individuals to violate implications of expected utility maximization in allocating retirement savings within a compulsory defined contribution retirement plan. The paper develops the implications and describes the construction and administration of a discrete choice experiment to almost 1200 members of Australia's mandatory retirement savings scheme. The experiment finds overall rates of violation of roughly 25%, and substantial variation in rates, depending on the presentation of investment risk and the characteristics of the participants. Presentations based on frequency of returns below or above a threshold generate more violations than do presentations based on the probability of returns below or above thresholds. Individuals with low numeracy skills, assessed as part of the experiment, are several times more likely to violate implications of the conventional expected utility model than those with high numeracy skills. Older individuals are substantially less likely to violate these restrictions, when risk is presented in terms of event frequency, than are younger individuals. The results pose significant questions for public policy, in particular compulsory defined contribution retirement schemes, where the future welfare of participants in these schemes depends on quantitative decision-making skills that a significant number of them do not possess.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:asb:wpaper:201121
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cepar.edu.au/media/62136/economic_rationality__risk_presentation__and_retirement_portfolio_choice.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2011
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Friend, Irwin & Blume, Marshall E, 1975. "The Demand for Risky Assets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 65(5), pages 900-922, December.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Mankiw, N. Gregory & Zeldes, Stephen P., 1991. "The consumption of stockholders and nonstockholders," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 97-112, March.
    6. Levon Barseghyan & Jeffrey Prince & Joshua C. Teitelbaum, 2011. "Are Risk Preferences Stable across Contexts? Evidence from Insurance Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 591-631, April.
    7. 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.
    8. Annamaria Lusardi & Olivia S. Mitchell & Vilsa Curto, 2009. "Financial Literacy and Financial Sophistication Among Older Americans," NBER Working Papers 15469, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. 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.

    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. 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.
    3. Hsiao, Yu-Jen & Tsai, Wei-Che, 2018. "Financial literacy and participation in the derivatives markets," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 15-29.
    4. Johannes Hagen, 2015. "The determinants of annuitization: evidence from Sweden," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 22(4), pages 549-578, August.
    5. Stefano Athanasoulis & Eric Van Wincoop, 1998. "Risksharing within the United States: what have financial markets and fiscal federalism accomplished?," Research Paper 9808, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
    6. Eberhardt, Wiebke & Brüggen, Elisabeth & Post, Thomas & Hoet, Chantal, 2021. "Engagement behavior and financial well-being: The effect of message framing in online pension communication," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 448-471.
    7. Peijnenburg, J.M.J. & Nijman, T.E. & Werker, B.J.M., 2010. "Optimal Annuitization with Incomplete Annuity Markets and Background Risk During Retirement," Other publications TiSEM 0b8e2130-a64a-48c1-97d6-8, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    8. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    9. Daniel Gottlieb & Olivia S. Mitchell, 2020. "Narrow Framing and Long‐Term Care Insurance," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 87(4), pages 861-893, December.
    10. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Vassilopoulos, Achilleas, 2016. "Intertemporal stability of survey-based measures of risk and time preferences over a three-year course," MPRA Paper 73548, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Alicia H. Munnell & Gal Wettstein & Wenliang Hou, 2022. "How best to annuitize defined contribution assets?," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 89(1), pages 211-235, March.
    12. Vincenzo Merella & Steve Satchell, 2005. "The Impact of Consumer Confidence on Expected Utility Maximization: A Contribution to the Equity Premium Puzzle Literature," Birkbeck Working Papers in Economics and Finance 0525, Birkbeck, Department of Economics, Mathematics & Statistics.
    13. 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.
    14. Hurwitz, Abigail & Sade, Orly & Winter, Eyal, 2020. "Unintended consequences of minimum annuity laws: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 208-222.
    15. Hogarth, Robin M. & Soyer, Emre, 2015. "Communicating forecasts: The simplicity of simulated experience," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1800-1809.
    16. van der Heijden, Eline & Klein, Tobias J. & Müller, Wieland & Potters, Jan, 2012. "Framing effects and impatience: Evidence from a large scale experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 701-711.
    17. Markus Rieger‐Fels, 2024. "Why do people buy insurance? A modern answer to an old question," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 27(1), pages 89-114, April.
    18. Bockweg, Christian & Ponds, Eduard & Steenbeek, Onno & Vonken, Joyce, 2018. "Framing and the annuitization decision – Experimental evidence from a Dutch pension fund," Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(3), pages 385-417, July.
    19. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    20. George M. Constantinides, 2006. "Market Organization And The Prices Of Financial Assets," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 74(s1), pages 1-23, September.

    More about this item

    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:201121. 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 The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Elena Capatina to update the entry or send us the correct address (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.