COVID-19大流行期间瑞典退休投资者的交易行为

IF 1.9 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE Review of Behavioral Finance Pub Date : 2022-03-28 DOI:10.1108/rbf-09-2021-0183
Johannes Hagen, Amedeus Malisa, Thomas Post
{"title":"COVID-19大流行期间瑞典退休投资者的交易行为","authors":"Johannes Hagen, Amedeus Malisa, Thomas Post","doi":"10.1108/rbf-09-2021-0183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeHow did investors in the Swedish Premium Pension System (PPS) react to the stock market shock ignited by the COVID-19 pandemic?Design/methodology/approachThe authors use fund-level data from the Swedish Pensions Agency on investment choices in the PPS. For each fund, the authors use monthly information on the number of investors and holdings' market value up to November 2020. The authors also use information on the total number of portfolio changes per day. For analyzing whether PPS investors reacted to the pandemic with claiming their pension, the authors use monthly data on the number of investors of a certain age group who initiate their public pension payment.FindingsTrades more than doubled, and shifted capital from equity funds to low risk interest funds. In economic terms, however, trading stayed at low levels–less than two percent of investors traded in March 2020 and there was no effect on pension withdrawals. The increased trading during the market tumult was disproportionately concentrated among investors in the top of the pension capital distribution.Research limitations/implicationsWith fund-level data, the authors cannot investigate what in particular made retirement investors stay calm in the midst of a severe market decline. Either, those investors have a long-term investment horizon as they save for their pension or particular features of the system's choice architecture induce inertia and discourage from trading. The sub-group analyses are more consistent with the explanation that PPS-induced inertia is responsible for the relatively small increase in trading activity, but future research could exploit individual level data to explore this in more detail.Practical implicationsThe often-criticized PPS choice architecture provided positive side effects in times of a severe market shock by shielding retail investors from committing trading mistakes when trying to outsmart the market.Originality/valueThe study complements previous evidence on the effects of COVID-19 on investor activity. The small response of PPS investors to COVID-19 is in line with earlier US findings on 401(k) accounts during the 2007 financial crisis (Tang et al., 2012) and industry reports about the COVID-19 period (see, e.g. Mitchell, 2020). The authors find no effects at all on public pension withdrawals in Sweden, while evidence from US 401(k) plans indicates a small share of workers taking COVID-related early withdrawals.","PeriodicalId":44559,"journal":{"name":"Review of Behavioral Finance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trading behavior of Swedish retirement investors during the COVID-19 pandemic\",\"authors\":\"Johannes Hagen, Amedeus Malisa, Thomas Post\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/rbf-09-2021-0183\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeHow did investors in the Swedish Premium Pension System (PPS) react to the stock market shock ignited by the COVID-19 pandemic?Design/methodology/approachThe authors use fund-level data from the Swedish Pensions Agency on investment choices in the PPS. For each fund, the authors use monthly information on the number of investors and holdings' market value up to November 2020. The authors also use information on the total number of portfolio changes per day. For analyzing whether PPS investors reacted to the pandemic with claiming their pension, the authors use monthly data on the number of investors of a certain age group who initiate their public pension payment.FindingsTrades more than doubled, and shifted capital from equity funds to low risk interest funds. In economic terms, however, trading stayed at low levels–less than two percent of investors traded in March 2020 and there was no effect on pension withdrawals. The increased trading during the market tumult was disproportionately concentrated among investors in the top of the pension capital distribution.Research limitations/implicationsWith fund-level data, the authors cannot investigate what in particular made retirement investors stay calm in the midst of a severe market decline. Either, those investors have a long-term investment horizon as they save for their pension or particular features of the system's choice architecture induce inertia and discourage from trading. The sub-group analyses are more consistent with the explanation that PPS-induced inertia is responsible for the relatively small increase in trading activity, but future research could exploit individual level data to explore this in more detail.Practical implicationsThe often-criticized PPS choice architecture provided positive side effects in times of a severe market shock by shielding retail investors from committing trading mistakes when trying to outsmart the market.Originality/valueThe study complements previous evidence on the effects of COVID-19 on investor activity. The small response of PPS investors to COVID-19 is in line with earlier US findings on 401(k) accounts during the 2007 financial crisis (Tang et al., 2012) and industry reports about the COVID-19 period (see, e.g. Mitchell, 2020). The authors find no effects at all on public pension withdrawals in Sweden, while evidence from US 401(k) plans indicates a small share of workers taking COVID-related early withdrawals.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44559,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Behavioral Finance\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-28\",\"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-09-2021-0183\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Behavioral Finance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/rbf-09-2021-0183","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

摘要

目的:瑞典保费养老金制度(PPS)的投资者如何应对COVID-19大流行引发的股市冲击?设计/方法/方法作者使用了瑞典养老金机构关于养老金投资选择的基金级数据。对于每个基金,作者使用了截至2020年11月的投资者数量和持股市值的月度信息。作者还使用了每天投资组合变化总数的信息。为了分析PPS投资者是否以领取养老金的方式应对疫情,作者使用了每月开始领取公共养老金的特定年龄段投资者人数的数据。投资翻了一倍多,并将资金从股票基金转移到低风险利率基金。然而,从经济角度来看,交易量保持在较低水平——2020年3月,只有不到2%的投资者进行了交易,而且对养老金提取没有影响。市场动荡期间增加的交易不成比例地集中在养老金资本分配顶端的投资者身上。研究局限/启示由于基金层面的数据,作者无法调查究竟是什么让退休投资者在市场严重下跌时保持冷静。要么,这些投资者有长期的投资眼光,因为他们在为养老金存钱,要么,该系统的选择架构的特定特征导致了惰性,阻碍了交易。子组分析更符合pps诱导的惯性导致交易活动相对较小增长的解释,但未来的研究可以利用个人层面的数据来更详细地探索这一点。实际意义经常受到批评的PPS选择架构在严重的市场冲击时期提供了积极的副作用,它保护散户投资者在试图超越市场时不会犯交易错误。该研究补充了之前关于COVID-19对投资者活动影响的证据。PPS投资者对COVID-19的反应不大,这与2007年金融危机期间美国对401(k)账户的调查结果(Tang等人,2012年)以及有关COVID-19期间的行业报告(如Mitchell, 2020年)一致。作者发现,瑞典的公共养老金提取没有任何影响,而美国401(k)计划的证据表明,一小部分工人采取了与新冠病毒相关的提前提取。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Trading behavior of Swedish retirement investors during the COVID-19 pandemic
PurposeHow did investors in the Swedish Premium Pension System (PPS) react to the stock market shock ignited by the COVID-19 pandemic?Design/methodology/approachThe authors use fund-level data from the Swedish Pensions Agency on investment choices in the PPS. For each fund, the authors use monthly information on the number of investors and holdings' market value up to November 2020. The authors also use information on the total number of portfolio changes per day. For analyzing whether PPS investors reacted to the pandemic with claiming their pension, the authors use monthly data on the number of investors of a certain age group who initiate their public pension payment.FindingsTrades more than doubled, and shifted capital from equity funds to low risk interest funds. In economic terms, however, trading stayed at low levels–less than two percent of investors traded in March 2020 and there was no effect on pension withdrawals. The increased trading during the market tumult was disproportionately concentrated among investors in the top of the pension capital distribution.Research limitations/implicationsWith fund-level data, the authors cannot investigate what in particular made retirement investors stay calm in the midst of a severe market decline. Either, those investors have a long-term investment horizon as they save for their pension or particular features of the system's choice architecture induce inertia and discourage from trading. The sub-group analyses are more consistent with the explanation that PPS-induced inertia is responsible for the relatively small increase in trading activity, but future research could exploit individual level data to explore this in more detail.Practical implicationsThe often-criticized PPS choice architecture provided positive side effects in times of a severe market shock by shielding retail investors from committing trading mistakes when trying to outsmart the market.Originality/valueThe study complements previous evidence on the effects of COVID-19 on investor activity. The small response of PPS investors to COVID-19 is in line with earlier US findings on 401(k) accounts during the 2007 financial crisis (Tang et al., 2012) and industry reports about the COVID-19 period (see, e.g. Mitchell, 2020). The authors find no effects at all on public pension withdrawals in Sweden, while evidence from US 401(k) plans indicates a small share of workers taking COVID-related early withdrawals.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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