Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

Financial competence, risk presentation and retirement portfolio preferences*


Financial regulators are weighing up the effectiveness of different templates for communicating investment risk to retirement savers since welfare depends on comprehension of risk information. We compare nine standard risk presentations using a discrete choice experiment where subjects choose between three retirement accounts. Switching between graphical or textual presentations, or between formats that emphasize benchmarks rather than return ranges or values at risk, affects predicted choices more than large changes in underlying risk. Innumerate individuals are more susceptible to presentation, and those with weak basic financial literacy are insensitive to increasing risk levels, regardless of presentation. Presentation effects are moderated but not eliminated as financial literacy improves.

Hide All

We thank Olivia Mitchell, Jack Gray and participants at the 2011 Econometrics Society Australasian Meetings for helpful comments. The authors acknowledge financial support under Australian Research Council DP1093842, generous assistance with the development and implementation of the internet survey from Pure Profile and the staff of the Centre for the Study of Choice, University of Technology Sydney; and excellent research assistance from Frances Terlich, Edward Wei and Jagjeev Dosanjh. Part of this work was completed while Bateman visited the School of Finance and Economics at the University of Technology Sydney. The Chair of Finance and Superannuation, UTS (Thorp) receives support from the Sydney Financial Forum (Colonial First State Global Asset Management), the NSW Government, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA), the Industry Superannuation Network (ISN), and the Paul Woolley Centre for the Study of Capital Market Dysfunctionality, UTS.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

J. R. Agnew and L. R. Szykman (2005) Asset allocation and information overload: the influence of information display, asset choice and investor experience. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 6: 5790.

J. R. Agnew , L. R. Anderson , J. R. Gerlach and L. R. Szykman (2008) Who chooses annuities? an experimental investigation of the role of gender, framing and defaults. American Economic Review, 98(2): 418–22.

L. R. Anderson and J. M. Mellor (2009) Are risk preferences stable? comparing an experimental measure with a validated survey-based measure. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 39: 137160.

J. Banks and Z. Oldfield (2007) Understanding pensions: cognitive function, numerical ability, and retirement saving. Fiscal Studies, 28: 143170.

R. B. Barsky , F. T. Juster , M. S. Kimball and M. D. Shapiro (1997) Preference parameters and behavioral heterogeneity: an experimental approach in the health and retirement study. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2): 537579.

S. Benartzi and R. H. Thaler (1999) Risk aversion or myopia? choices in repeated gambles and retirement investments. Management Science, 45(3): 364381.

S. Benartzi and R. H. Thaler (2001) Naïve diversification strategies in defined contribution saving plans. American Economic Review, 91(1): 7997.

S. Benartzi and R. H. Thaler (2002) How much is investor autonomy worth? Journal of Finance, 57(4): 15931616.

J. Beshears , J. J. Choi , D. Laibson and B. C. Madrian (2009) The importance of default options for retirement saving outcomes: evidence from the United States. In J. R. Brown , J. Liebman and D. A. Wise (eds), Social Security Policy in a Changing Environment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 167195.

J. R. Brown , N. Liang and S. J. Weisbenner (2007) Individual account investment options and portfolio choice: Behavioral lessons from 410(k) plans. Journal of Public Economics, 91(10): 19922013.

J. R. Brown , J. R. Kling , S. Mullainathan and M. V. Wrobel (2008) Why don't people insure late life consumption? a framing explanation of the under-annuitization puzzle. American Economic Review, 98(2): 304309.

S. V. Burks , J. P. Carpenter , L. Goette and A. Rustichini (2009) Cognitive skills affect economic preferences, strategic behavior, and job attachment. Proceedings of the National Association of Sciences, 106(19): 77457750.

C. Dave , C. C. Eckel , C. A. Johnson and C. Rojas (2010) Eliciting risk preferences: when is simple better? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 41: 219243.

T. Dohmen , A. Falk , D. Huffman , U. Sunde , J. Schupp and G. G. Wagner (2011) Individual risk attitudes: measurement, determinants and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association 9(3); 522550.

D. G. Goldstein , E. J. Johnson and W. F. Sharpe (2008) Choosing outcomes versus choosing products: consumer-focused retirement investment advice. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 440456.

C. A. Holt and S. K. Laury (2002) Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92(5): 16441655.

D. Kahneman and A. Tversky (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2): 263291.

C. Kaufmann , M. Weber and E. Haisley (2013) The role of experience sampling and graphical displays on one's investment risk appetite. Management Science, 59(2): 323340.

I. P. Levin , S. L. Schneider and G. J. Gaeth (1998) All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2): 149188.

I. M. Lipkus (2007) Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Medical Decision Making, 27: 696713.

J. Maule and G. Villejoubert (2007) What lies beneath: reframing framing effects. Thinking and Reasoning, 13(1): 2544.

D. Revelt and K. Train (1998) Mixed logit with repeated choices: households’ choices of appliance efficiency level. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4): 647657.

E. Rubaltelli , S. Rubichi , L. Savadori , M. Tedeschi and R. Ferretti (2005) Numerical information format and investment decisions: implications for the disposition effect and status quo bias. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 6(1): 1926.

J. A. Schirillo and E. R. Stone (2005) The greater ability of graphical versus numerical displays to increase risk avoidance involves a common mechanism. Risk Analysis, 25(3): 555566.

A. Tversky and D. Kahneman (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481): 453458.

M. C. J. van Rooij , J. M. K. Clemens and H. M. Prast (2007) Risk-return preferences in the pension domain: are people able to choose? Journal of Public Economics, 91(3–4): 701722.

I. Vlaev , N. Chater and N. Stewart (2009) Dimensionality of risk perception: factors affecting consumer understanding and evaluation of financial risk. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 10(3): 158181.

E. U. Weber , N. Siebenmorgen and M. Weber (2005) Communicating asset risk: how name recognition and the format of historic volatility information affect risk perception and investment decisions. Risk Analysis, 25(3): 597609.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Pension Economics & Finance
  • ISSN: 1474-7472
  • EISSN: 1475-3022
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-pension-economics-and-finance
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 1
Total number of PDF views: 28 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 234 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 25th March 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.