Can downside-risk measures help to explain the reluctance of households to invest in XTFs? An empirical study using the SHS-base

IF 1.9 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE Review of Behavioral Finance Pub Date : 2022-08-18 DOI:10.1108/rbf-08-2021-0158
Hans Philipp Wanger, A. Oehler
{"title":"Can downside-risk measures help to explain the reluctance of households to invest in XTFs? An empirical study using the SHS-base","authors":"Hans Philipp Wanger, A. Oehler","doi":"10.1108/rbf-08-2021-0158","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate whether downside-risk measures help to explain why households largely refrain from investing in Exchange Traded Funds that replicate broad and internationally diversified market indices, so-called XTFs, although studies frequently recommend to do so.Design/methodology/approachThe paper analyzes whether evaluating risk in terms of downside-risk measures which reflect households' interpretation of risk closer than the standard deviation (SD) of returns, yields less risk-return-enhancements, and thus, fewer incentives for households to invest in XTFs. Household portfolios are compiled by combining stylized portfolio compositions that involve multiple asset classes and German households' security holdings. The data set covers the period from January 2014 to December 2016 and includes 47,388 securities.FindingsThe results indicate that none of the downside-risk measures can help to explain the reluctance of households to invest in XTFs. On the flip side, the results show that all stylized household portfolios can enhance the risk-return position from employing XTFs, regardless of the underlying risk measure. This supports the advice to invest in XTFs and extends it upon households that evaluate risk in terms of downside-risk.Originality/valueTo the best of the authors' knowledge, this study is the first to investigate risk-return-enhancements from XTFs while simultaneously considering various downside-risk measures and multiple asset classes of household portfolios.","PeriodicalId":44559,"journal":{"name":"Review of Behavioral Finance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Behavioral Finance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/rbf-08-2021-0158","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate whether downside-risk measures help to explain why households largely refrain from investing in Exchange Traded Funds that replicate broad and internationally diversified market indices, so-called XTFs, although studies frequently recommend to do so.Design/methodology/approachThe paper analyzes whether evaluating risk in terms of downside-risk measures which reflect households' interpretation of risk closer than the standard deviation (SD) of returns, yields less risk-return-enhancements, and thus, fewer incentives for households to invest in XTFs. Household portfolios are compiled by combining stylized portfolio compositions that involve multiple asset classes and German households' security holdings. The data set covers the period from January 2014 to December 2016 and includes 47,388 securities.FindingsThe results indicate that none of the downside-risk measures can help to explain the reluctance of households to invest in XTFs. On the flip side, the results show that all stylized household portfolios can enhance the risk-return position from employing XTFs, regardless of the underlying risk measure. This supports the advice to invest in XTFs and extends it upon households that evaluate risk in terms of downside-risk.Originality/valueTo the best of the authors' knowledge, this study is the first to investigate risk-return-enhancements from XTFs while simultaneously considering various downside-risk measures and multiple asset classes of household portfolios.
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
下行风险指标能否帮助解释家庭不愿投资xtf的原因?基于shs基础的实证研究
本文的目的是调查下行风险指标是否有助于解释为什么家庭在很大程度上避免投资于复制广泛和国际多元化市场指数的交易所交易基金(xtf),尽管研究经常建议这样做。设计/方法/方法本文分析了从下行风险指标(反映家庭对风险的解释比回报的标准差(SD)更接近)来评估风险是否会产生更少的风险-回报增强,从而减少家庭投资xtf的激励。家庭投资组合是通过将涉及多个资产类别和德国家庭证券持有的风格化投资组合组合在一起编制的。数据集涵盖2014年1月至2016年12月期间,包括47,388只证券。研究结果表明,下行风险指标都不能解释家庭不愿投资xtf的原因。另一方面,结果表明,无论潜在的风险度量是什么,所有程式化的家庭投资组合都可以通过使用xtf来提高风险回报地位。这支持了投资xtf的建议,并将其扩展到根据下行风险评估风险的家庭。原创性/价值据作者所知,这项研究是第一个在考虑各种下行风险措施和家庭投资组合的多种资产类别的同时,调查xtf的风险回报增强。
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
Review of Behavioral Finance
Review of Behavioral Finance BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: Review of Behavioral Finance publishes high quality original peer-reviewed articles in the area of behavioural finance. The RBF focus is on Behavioural Finance but with a very broad lens looking at how the behavioural attributes of the decision makers influence the financial structure of a company, investors’ portfolios, and the functioning of financial markets. High quality empirical, experimental and/or theoretical research articles as well as well executed literature review articles are considered for publication in the journal.
期刊最新文献
Deciphering CEO disclosure tone inconsistency: a behavioural exploration Lottery stocks in Brazil: investigating risk premium and investor behavior Do executive facial trustworthiness have impact on IPO underpricing in the Indonesia stock exchange? Global reversal strategy: equilibrium of endogenous trading? Global reversal strategy: equilibrium of endogenous trading?
×
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