As Easy as Pie: How Retirement Savers Use Prescribed Investment Disclosures

H. Bateman, L. Dobrescu, B. Newell, A. Ortmann, S. Thorp
{"title":"As Easy as Pie: How Retirement Savers Use Prescribed Investment Disclosures","authors":"H. Bateman, L. Dobrescu, B. Newell, A. Ortmann, S. Thorp","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2227801","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Using a laboratory experiment, we study how retirement plan members choose investment options using five information items prescribed by regulators. We found that asset allocation information for pre-mixed investment options – normally presented as a pie chart or a table – had the largest impact on choices. Participants preferred investment options with more, and more evenly weighted, asset class allocations. This novel application of a 1/n strategy differs significantly from the existing findings of naive diversification in ‘mix-it-yourself’ conditions where participants spread resources evenly across funds or categories. When asset allocation information was included, coefficients on return and risk information had unexpected signs, but when asset allocation was omitted, participants preferred options with high Sharpe ratios. We also demonstrate that none of the five prescribed information items was significant in explaining individual choices of more than 35% of participants. These findings highlight that information contained in prescribed investment disclosures might not be used in the manner intended by the regulator. The results raise important methodological questions about the way ‘user-friendly’ information prescribed by regulators is validated before being legislated.","PeriodicalId":23435,"journal":{"name":"UNSW Business School Research Paper Series","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"28","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"UNSW Business School Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2227801","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 28

Abstract

Using a laboratory experiment, we study how retirement plan members choose investment options using five information items prescribed by regulators. We found that asset allocation information for pre-mixed investment options – normally presented as a pie chart or a table – had the largest impact on choices. Participants preferred investment options with more, and more evenly weighted, asset class allocations. This novel application of a 1/n strategy differs significantly from the existing findings of naive diversification in ‘mix-it-yourself’ conditions where participants spread resources evenly across funds or categories. When asset allocation information was included, coefficients on return and risk information had unexpected signs, but when asset allocation was omitted, participants preferred options with high Sharpe ratios. We also demonstrate that none of the five prescribed information items was significant in explaining individual choices of more than 35% of participants. These findings highlight that information contained in prescribed investment disclosures might not be used in the manner intended by the regulator. The results raise important methodological questions about the way ‘user-friendly’ information prescribed by regulators is validated before being legislated.
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
简单如馅饼:退休储蓄者如何使用规定的投资披露
本文采用实验室实验的方法,研究了退休计划成员如何根据监管机构规定的五项信息进行投资选择。我们发现,预混合投资选项的资产配置信息——通常以饼状图或表格的形式呈现——对选择的影响最大。参与者更喜欢资产类别分配更多、权重更均匀的投资选择。这种1/n策略的新应用与现有的“自己混合”(mix-it-yourself)条件下的幼稚多样化研究结果有很大不同,在这种情况下,参与者将资源平均分配到不同的基金或类别中。当包含资产配置信息时,收益和风险信息的系数出现了意想不到的迹象,而当忽略资产配置时,参与者更倾向于高夏普比率的选项。我们还证明,在解释超过35%的参与者的个人选择时,五个规定的信息项目中没有一个是显著的。这些发现突出表明,规定的投资披露中包含的信息可能没有按照监管机构预期的方式使用。研究结果提出了重要的方法论问题,即监管机构规定的“用户友好”信息在立法之前是如何得到验证的。
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
Women in Accounting: A Historical Review of Obstacles and Drivers on a Patriarchal and Classist Path A Practical Guide to Weak Instruments Nature of Anti-Competitive Agreement Law in India: A Brief Review The Effect of Investor Credit Supply on Housing Prices Emerging Market & Mobile Technology Usage: Evaluating intention to use Mobile Banking in India
×
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