AN EVALUATION OF ROBO-ADVISOR RISK ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRES IN SELECTED ASIA PACIFIC ECONOMIES

Lai Yan Thong, Chow Peng Yee
{"title":"AN EVALUATION OF ROBO-ADVISOR RISK ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRES IN SELECTED ASIA PACIFIC ECONOMIES","authors":"Lai Yan Thong, Chow Peng Yee","doi":"10.35382/tvujs.13.3.2023.2428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study was conducted to evaluate the risk assessment questionnaires of a sample of 30 robo-advisors from seven selected Asia Pacific economies. Using a descriptive research approach, the study initially classified the questions gathered from the robo-advisor risk assessment questionnaires into risk capacity and risk tolerance, and further divided them into 26 subcategories. Then a comparison of the number of questions in each robo-advisor’s questionnaire was followed, where the risk tolerance wa found to have a higher proportion of questions than risk capacity. Next, the comparison of the questions per subcategory for each sample economy was done and reported that questions on investment amount dominate the risk capacity category, while risk versus return preference prevails in the risk tolerance category. Lastly, an analysis of the correlation between the answer value and percentage of equity in the recommended portfolios of robo-advisors in each sample economy was performed. The findings revealed that most of the robo-advisors formulate their portfolio recommendations without utilizing all the parameters or questions in the risk assessment questionnaires. The key influences of robo-advisors’ portfolio recommendations were asset allocation choices of the investors, followed by the investors’ attitude towards risk and risk versus return preference. This paper enriches the literature on robo-advisors by evaluating the risk assessment questionnaires adopted in the Asia Pacific region. In terms of practical implications, the results highlight the deficiencies of the existing questionnaires and assert that they should be reviewed and redesigned to more accurately capture investors’ risk characteristics and reflect all information gathered in the portfolio recommendations.","PeriodicalId":159074,"journal":{"name":"TRA VINH UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE; ISSN: 2815-6072; E-ISSN: 2815-6099","volume":"81 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"TRA VINH UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE; ISSN: 2815-6072; E-ISSN: 2815-6099","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35382/tvujs.13.3.2023.2428","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study was conducted to evaluate the risk assessment questionnaires of a sample of 30 robo-advisors from seven selected Asia Pacific economies. Using a descriptive research approach, the study initially classified the questions gathered from the robo-advisor risk assessment questionnaires into risk capacity and risk tolerance, and further divided them into 26 subcategories. Then a comparison of the number of questions in each robo-advisor’s questionnaire was followed, where the risk tolerance wa found to have a higher proportion of questions than risk capacity. Next, the comparison of the questions per subcategory for each sample economy was done and reported that questions on investment amount dominate the risk capacity category, while risk versus return preference prevails in the risk tolerance category. Lastly, an analysis of the correlation between the answer value and percentage of equity in the recommended portfolios of robo-advisors in each sample economy was performed. The findings revealed that most of the robo-advisors formulate their portfolio recommendations without utilizing all the parameters or questions in the risk assessment questionnaires. The key influences of robo-advisors’ portfolio recommendations were asset allocation choices of the investors, followed by the investors’ attitude towards risk and risk versus return preference. This paper enriches the literature on robo-advisors by evaluating the risk assessment questionnaires adopted in the Asia Pacific region. In terms of practical implications, the results highlight the deficiencies of the existing questionnaires and assert that they should be reviewed and redesigned to more accurately capture investors’ risk characteristics and reflect all information gathered in the portfolio recommendations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对部分亚太经济体机器人顾问风险评估问卷的评估
本研究对亚太地区七个经济体的 30 家机器人顾问公司的风险评估问卷进行了抽样评估。本研究采用描述性研究方法,首先将从机器人顾问风险评估问卷中收集到的问题分为风险能力和风险承受能力两类,并进一步分为 26 个子类别。然后,比较了每个机器人顾问问卷中的问题数量,发现风险承受能力的问题比例高于风险能力。接下来,对每个样本经济体的每个子类别的问题进行了比较,结果显示,投资金额问题在风险能力类别中占主导地位,而风险与收益偏好问题在风险承受能力类别中占主导地位。最后,对每个样本经济体的机器人顾问推荐投资组合中的答案值与股票比例之间的相关性进行了分析。研究结果表明,大多数机器人顾问在制定投资组合建议时并没有利用风险评估问卷中的所有参数或问题。影响机器人顾问投资组合建议的主要因素是投资者的资产配置选择,其次是投资者的风险态度和风险与收益偏好。本文通过评估亚太地区采用的风险评估问卷,丰富了有关机器人顾问的文献。就实际意义而言,研究结果强调了现有问卷的不足之处,并主张应对其进行审查和重新设计,以更准确地捕捉投资者的风险特征,并在投资组合建议中反映所收集的所有信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FLIPPED CLASSROOM MODEL APPLIED TO ADVANCED ENGLISH READING: A CASE STUDY OF ENGLISH MAJORS AT THAI BINH DUONG UNVERSITY, VIETNAM AN EVALUATION OF ROBO-ADVISOR RISK ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRES IN SELECTED ASIA PACIFIC ECONOMIES DESIGN AND EXPERIMENT TO DETERMINE OPERATING PARAMETERS FOR SUGARCANE PEELER ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLE OF CIRCULAR BRUSH POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS OF BIOACTIVE COMPONENTS FROM BROWN ALGAE ANALYZING GIT LOG IN AN CODE-QUALITY AWARE AUTOMATED PROGRAMMING ASSESSMENT SYSTEM: A CASE STUDY
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1