Article

Do Behavioral Biases Vary across Individuals? Evidence from Individual Level 401(k) Data

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis (Impact Factor: 1.77). 01/2006; 41(04):939-962. DOI: 10.1017/S0022109000002702
Source: RePEc

ABSTRACT This paper investigates whether some individuals are prone to behavioral biases in their 401(k) investments. Using demographic data and allocation information for over 73,000 employees, I examine two allocation biases and a participation bias. The findings suggest that higher salaried employees tend to make significantly better choices. Participants who earn $100, 000 hold 12. 7% less in company stock, are 3% less likely to follow the framing 1/n heuristic, and are 37.7% more likely to participate than those earning $46, 000. Women make better choices in two of the three cases and I find evidence of mental accounting.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
62 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: For a long list of investment “biases,” including lack of diversification, excessive trading, and the disposition effect, we find that genetic differences explain up to 45% of the remaining variation across individual investors, after controlling for observable individual characteristics. The evidence is consistent with a view that investment biases are manifestations of innate and evolutionary ancient features of human behavior. We find that work experience with finance reduces genetic predispositions to investment biases. Finally, we find that even genetically identical investors, who grew up in the same family environment, often differ substantially in their investment behaviors due to individual-specific experiences or events.
    Journal of Financial Economics 01/2014; · 3.72 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Optimism and fear are central determinants of individual investors’ trading and risk-taking behavior, but what makes investors optimistic or afraid? Using a unique combination of brokerage records and matching monthly survey measurements, we examine how investors update their optimism (return expectations) and fear (risk tolerance and risk perceptions) in response to individual return and risk experiences. Past returns positively impact return expectations and risk tolerance, and negatively impact risk perceptions. Realized risk, however, does not impact optimism and fear. Investors’ lack of awareness of realized risk is related to the complexity of standard risk measures, sophistication, and the salience of return signals.
    02/2013;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper assesses the level of sophistication evident in investment choices of a large sample of individuals drawn from three Australian retirement savings funds. Available US and UK evidence is somewhat mixed on both the measures that should be used when measuring the sophistication as well as its prevalence. This paper investigates naive diversification heuristics using Australian member level investment choice data over a six year period, 2001 to 2006. Results suggest a strong preference for using a small number of options in investment choices. There is little evidence to support the 'pure' 1/n heuristic (Benartzi and Thaler, 2001). However when multiple options are selected, one-third are classified as conditional 1/n (Huberman and Jiang, 2006). The proportion of choices classified as conditional 1/n is strongly related to the number of options used in the choice. The possible consequence of menu framing on asset class allocation is investigated and does not support an influence of menu on effective allocations, at least in terms of equity exposure.
    02/2013;

Full-text

View
1 Download
Available from