Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Accounting and Finance Division, Stirling Management School, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, Scotland, UK
Department of Finance, Bentley University, Waltham, MA, USA
Monash University, Department of Banking and Finance, Cauleld, VIC 3145, Australia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 22 October 2014
Received in revised form 10 March 2015
Accepted 13 May 2015
Available online 24 May 2015
JEL classication:
G10
G11
G12
a b s t r a c t
We study the relationship between stock market return expectations and risk aversion of individuals and test
whether the joint effects arising from the interaction of these two variables affect investment decisions. Using
data from the Dutch National Bank Household Survey, we nd that higher risk aversion is associated with
lower stock market expectations. We identify signicant and negative effects on the probability that individuals
invest in stocks arising from the interaction between stock market expectations and risk aversion. These effects
are in addition to a signicant and positive impact from stock market return expectations as well as a signicant
and negative effect from risk aversion separately. However, once individuals participate in the stock market, their
stock market expectations alone remain signicant in determining their portfolio allocation decisions.
2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Portfolio allocation
Stock market expectation
Risk aversion
Individual investor
1. Introduction
There is a consensus amongst economists that virtually all households should have some investment in common stocks. However, the
reality is different. Looking at cross-country data, Guiso, Haliassos, and
Jappelli (2003) nd that the percentage of households investing in the
stock market ranges from 15% to 25% in the Netherlands, Italy, France,
and Germany to about 50% for the U.S. and Sweden. These results persist
after controlling for differences in household wealth, income, age, and
education. A large number of studies try to explain this stock market
participation puzzle and have come up with different explanations.
Dominitz and Manski (2007) and Hurd, Van Rooij, and Winter (2011)
The authors thank David Ashton, Chris Browning, Alan Goodacre, Wenguang Lin, Jared
Linna, Alper Odabasioglu, Thomas Post, Su Hyundai Shin, and participants at the Scottish
BAFA conference in Glasgow, the Fifth Economics, Psychology and Policy workshop at
the Stirling Behavioural Science Centre, the 2013 Conference of the Academy of Financial
Services in Chicago, the 2013 AIDEA Annual Meeting in Lecce (Italy), and the 2014 FMA
Meeting in Nashville for their helpful comments and suggestions. Special thanks go to
an anonymous referee and to the editor, Brian Lucey, for their most helpful comments.
Part of the research for this paper was completed when Chris Veld and Yulia VeldMerkoulova were visiting the University of Tampa in Florida. The hospitality of Marcus
Ingram during that visit is greatly appreciated. Chris Veld and Yulia Veld-Merkoulova
thank the Carnegie Trust for Universities of Scotland for nancial support during that trip.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 99034080.
E-mail addresses: boram.lee@stir.ac.uk (B. Lee), lrosenthal@bentley.edu (L. Rosenthal),
Chris.Veld@monash.edu (C. Veld), Yulia.Veld-Merkoulova@monash.edu
(Y. Veld-Merkoulova).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2015.05.011
1057-5219/ 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
the stock market expectations of Dutch households is a signicant inuence on their stock ownership. They argue that those households with
expectations of higher future returns are more likely to own stocks,
and those with expectations as to higher volatility in returns are less
likely to do so.
Dominitz and Manski (2007) nd that many investors are not as
convinced as are economists about the existence of an equity premium,
as they observe that nearly two-thirds of U.S. households believe that
the probability of positive nominal equity returns is less than 50%.
Assuming that all individuals face the same risk-free rate and perceive
the same level of uncertainty as to equity returns, Dominitz and
Manski (2007) argue that the subjective probability of perceived positive nominal returns on equity determines the probability of equity
holding.
Barsky, Juster, Kimball, and Shapiro (1997), Donkers and Van Soest
(1999), and Kapteyn and Teppa (2011) argue that different types of individuals are characterised by varying levels of risk aversion related to
their background and wealth characteristics. Subsequently, Hurd et al.
(2011) address individuals' risk aversion as an inuential factor on
stock market expectations. However, they nd that risk aversion has
only a limited effect on both individuals' expected stock market returns
and volatility, and on their stockholding decisions. Thus, they conclude
that stock market expectations of individuals alone explain the stock
holding puzzle adequately, without a need to invoke very high levels
of risk aversion.
Adopting different measures for both stock market returns expectations and the risk aversion of individuals from those used by Hurd et al.
(2011), we disentangle the effect of risk aversion from that of individuals' expectations.
As previously argued by Barsky et al. (1997), Donkers and Van Soest
(1999), and Kapteyn and Teppa (2011), there are systematic variations
in individual's risk aversion levels that determine their portfolio allocation decisions. It is crucial to identify whether the effect of stock market
expectations on portfolio allocation decisions is the same for individuals
with varying levels of risk aversion.
In this study, we account for the negative effect of risk aversion on the
stock market return expectations of individual investors. Furthermore, we
investigate the interactions between stock market expectations and risk
aversion on the portfolio allocation decisions of individuals. In order to
disentangle the effect of risk aversion from that of individuals' stock market expectations, we rst consider whether individuals' stock market expectations depend on their risk aversion. Second, we investigate whether
individuals' stock market expectations and their risk aversion jointly determine their stock market participation decisions. Third, we test whether
the expectations and risk aversion of stock market investors jointly determine their portfolio allocation decisions, i.e. the proportion of risky nancial assets held in their nancial portfolios.
We obtain both individuals' stock market expectations and risk
aversion levels from the Dutch National Bank Household Survey
(DHS) over the period 20042006. We measure individuals' stock
market expectations by a question that elicits their expectations as
to stock price changes 1 year ahead on the basis of point forecasts
in a similar fashion to Vissing-Jrgensen (2003). Our risk aversion
measure is obtained from three questions evaluating individuals'
risk preferences in terms of investment strategy. We use the approach suggested by Kapteyn and Teppa (2011) to obtain the risk
aversion measure of individuals by applying factor analysis to survey
responses. Our analysis is based on detailed information on individuals' nancial, demographical, and behavioural characteristics available from the covariate-rich DHS.
In accounting for the effect of individuals' stock market expectations
on their stock market participation decisions, the expectations variable
gives rise to a clear endogeneity issue, given that individuals' expectations are also affected by their stock ownership status. In order to
account for the issue of causality, we apply instrumental variables (IV)
estimations.
123
124
Fig. 1. Historical performance of the Amsterdam Stock Market Index. This gure presents the historical performance of the AEX and MSCI World Total Return (RI) Indices from 2001 to
2009, which spans 3 years before and after our survey period. The vertical lines indicate the timing of the response from the individuals to the stock market expectation question in
the Dutch National Bank Household Survey (DHS) each year.
125
Table 1
Sample selection process and data overview.
This table presents a sample selection process in our dataset for each year. We merge the stock price expectations survey question with general information from the household,
assets and liabilities, and economic and psychological concepts datasets of the Dutch National Bank Household Survey (DHS).
Sample selection process (total number of observations)
Panel A. Sample selection process
Number of individuals' contacted
Participants in Stock Market Expectations Question
I don't know responses
Stock market expectations question
Sample selecting process from merging with
General information on the household questions
Assets and liabilities questions
Economic and psychological concepts questions
Total number of observations
2004
2005
2006
Total
2015
1547
(77%)
204
(13%)
1343
2056
1522
(74%)
163
(11%)
1359
1779
1248
(70%)
175
(14%)
1073
5850
4317
(74%)
542
(13%)
3775
1343
1186
1062
1062
1359
1136
1029
1029
1073
944
865
865
3775
3266
2956
2956
We present background characteristics of our sample measured for each year. Values of individuals' total nancial assets are presented in Euros. We also present percentages of
stock investors in the sample and the share of risky assets in nancial portfolio held by investors.
Variables
Panel B. Background characteristics
Gender
Marital status
Age groups
Female
Married
35 and less
From 36 to 50
From 51 to 65
65 and over
With college degree
Regular employment
Self-employed
Retired
Unemployed
Others
Owner
25%
50%
75%
Investors
25%
50%
75%
Education
Employment
House owner
Financial assets (percentile)
2004
2005
2006
Total
0.363
0.769
0.184
0.320
0.319
0.177
0.497
0.562
0.043
0.199
0.123
0.073
0.754
4,643
16,533
41,325
0.339
13.36%
33.84%
56.92%
0.374
0.755
0.197
0.290
0.346
0.196
0.477
0.538
0.041
0.216
0.129
0.076
0.740
4,089
17,280
47,185
0.344
10.52%
29.17%
59.06%
0.331
0.768
0.160
0.252
0.390
0.199
0.476
0.513
0.047
0.245
0.117
0.077
0.751
3,989
16,500
52,859
0.347
13.06%
36.67%
63.83%
0.360
0.764
0.181
0.279
0.349
0.190
0.484
0.540
0.044
0.218
0.123
0.075
0.748
4,285
16,662
45,954
0.343
12.23%
32.89%
60.97%
Following Dominitz and Manski (2007), we also account for individuals' perceptions as to the existence of an equity premium, in addition
to the magnitude of their expectations. From the distribution of individuals' responses, we observe that only about fty per cent of individuals
expect a premium for holding stocks. The percentages of respondents
who expect positive stock returns over the years 2004, 2005, and
2006 are 53%, 43%, and 60%, respectively (untabulated).
To test whether there is a signicant shift to more optimistic views
in 2006, we undertake a binomial probability test. Our test result
conrms that the probability of positive expectations in 2006 is signicantly higher than in 2004 (at the 1%-level). The percentage of positive
expectations in 2005 is signicantly lower than in any other year (at the
Table 2
Stock market returns expectations question and results.
This table presents the results of individuals' expectations for the stock market returns over 20042006. We report results separately for investors and non-investors. Each year's responses
are 99% winsorised. t Values for the mean differences and Z-scores from Wilcoxon rank-sum (MannWhitney) test for the median differences between investors and noninvestors
responses are reported in the last two columns. *** denotes statistical signicance at the 1%-level, ** denotes statistical signicance at the 5%-level, and * denotes statistical signicance
at the10%-level.
We use the expected changes in magnitude part of the question: How do you expect the worldwide stock prices to move over the next two years - will stock prices increase, decrease or remain
about the same? How many percentage points do you expect them to increase or decrease per year?
All Individuals
Investors
Non-Investors
Mean
Median
Mean
Median
SD
Min
Max
Mean
Median
SD
Min
Max
Mean
Median
SD
Min
Max
t-Stat
Z-score
2004
2005
2006
Total
3.82%
2.35%
3.94%
3.34%
2%
0%
3%
2%
7.61%
6.22%
6.09%
6.76%
-25%
-25%
-20%
-25%
40%
30%
30%
40%
1062
1029
865
2956
6.00%
3.64%
5.51%
5.03%
5%
2%
5%
5%
7.88%
5.91%
5.40%
6.62%
-25%
-30%
-10%
-25%
40%
30%
30%
40%
359
354
300
1013
2.71%
1.67%
3.10%
2.46%
0%
0%
2%
0%
7.21%
6.27%
6.28%
6.65%
-25%
-25%
-20%
-25%
40%
30%
30%
40%
703
675
565
1942
6.62***
4.96***
5.89***
9.98***
8.33***
6.05***
7.07***
12.22***
126
Table 3
Risk aversion measure and principal component analysis (PCA).
This table presents descriptive statistics from the responses and factor analysis results. From our entire 2956 observations over 3 years, we create a factor based on principal component
analysis (PCA). Individuals indicate on a scale from 1 to 7 to what extent they agree with the following statements, where 1 indicates totally disagree and 7 indicates totally agree.
Risk preference questions
Mean
Median
SD
Communalities
I think it is more important to have safe investments and guaranteed returns than
to take a risk to have a chance to get the highest possible returns.
I would never consider investments in shares because I nd this too risky.
I want to be certain that my investments are safe.
5.20
1.59
0.660
0.812
4.25
5.47
4
6
2.02
1.27
0.468
0.656
0.684
0.810
2005). The risk aversion factor variable has a mean of zero and a
variance of one, exhibiting a correlation of greater than 68% with
the responses for each question.
In order to test whether the risk aversion factor captures heterogeneity among individuals, we run a cross-sectional pooled linear regression by estimating the following equation:
RAi;t x0i;t z0t i;t
The dependent variable, RAi,t, denotes an individual i's risk aver is a vector of demographical and
sion factor value at time t. x i,t
nancial characteristics measured for each year t including gender,
marital status, age group, education level, employment status,
house ownership status, and nancial assets. zt is a vector of year
indicator variables. The standard errors are clustered by individuals and are robust to heteroskedasticity. The results are reported
in Table 4.
Table 4 starts with the full model (1). In addition, due to high
multicollinearity between age group and employment status,7 we
present models (2) and (3) that exclude each categorical variable.
Our results in Table 4 support the previous research ndings of
Barsky et al. (1997) and Kapteyn and Teppa (2011) to the effect
that individuals have heterogeneous risk preferences. Females and
older individuals are much more risk averse than males and younger
individuals. Self-employed individuals are less risk averse, while
retired individuals are more risk averse than those in regular
employment. Individuals with higher nancial assets are less risk
averse, conrming a signicant wealth effect. Overall, our risk aversion measure captures signicant heterogeneity reecting individuals' demographical and nancial backgrounds.
Although Hoffmann, Post, and Pennings (2013) nd that individuals'
risk tolerances and perceptions uctuate over time as do their stock
market expectations, we do not observe a signicant year effect, indicating that the risk aversion of individuals during the survey period
remains relatively stable. The relation between the risk aversion factor
of individuals and their stock market return expectations is signicantly
negative with a Pearson correlation coefcient of 8.69% (signicant at
the 1%-level).
3.3. Other factors
We identify other factors that inuence both individuals' stock
market expectations and portfolio allocation decisions. In Appendix
A, we present both survey questions and mean values for these categorical dummy variables. In responding to the DHS, individuals are
requested to indicate how knowledgeable they consider themselves
to be with regard to nancial matters. Van Rooij, Lusardi, and Alessie
7
From the full model (1) at Table 4, we obtain a mean Variance Ination Factor (VIF) of
1.61, and the highest VIF value of 3.56 is from 65 b Age, one of the age group categories.
Although these values are much lower than the rule of the thumb value of 10 for severe
multicollinearity (OBrien, 2007), there is a signicant relationship between age group
and employment status according to Pearson Chi-squared tests (these results are available
on request from the authors). Thus, we exclude these variables in turn from regressions
(2) and (3) to make sure that the collinearity of these variables does not affect the size
of coefcients and the signicance levels of other variables.
127
Table 4
Heterogeneity in individuals' risk aversion.
We present OLS regression results from 2956 observations from 1587 individuals. The standard errors are clustered by each individual and robust to heteroskedasticity. *** denotes
statistical signicance at the 1%-level, ** denotes statistical signicance at the 5%-level, and * denotes statistical signicance at the 10%-level.
Risk aversion
Female
Married
36 Age 50
51 Age 65
65 b Age
Education (1 = high)
Self-employed
Retired
Unemployed
Other occupations
House owners
Financial assets (ln)
Year 2005
Year 2006
Constant
F-statistic
R-square
(1)
(2)
(3)
Coef.
Coef.
Coef.
0.331***
0.000
0.013
0.204***
0.288***
0.051
0.216**
0.140
0.061
0.197*
0.082
0.023*
0.009
0.039
0.077
7.293***
0.050
(6.14)
(0.00)
(0.19)
(2.83)
(2.82)
(1.05)
(2.35)
(1.63)
(0.73)
(1.78)
(1.32)
(1.70)
(0.27)
(1.08)
(0.56)
0.321***
0.015
0.009
0.214***
0.415***
0.048
(6.29)
(0.25)
(0.14)
(3.04)
(5.35)
(0.98)
0.326***
0.004
(6.06)
(0.07)
0.095
0.024*
0.009
0.038
0.093
8.054***
0.044
(1.54)
(1.84)
(0.28)
(1.06)
(0.68)
0.076
0.227**
0.321***
0.121
0.103
0.085
0.011
0.014
0.028
0.099
8.372***
0.044
(1.56)
(2.46)
(5.25)
(1.49)
(0.95)
(1.37)
(0.89)
(0.44)
(0.77)
(0.72)
reects the popular nancial advice they receive, arguing that many individuals make investment decisions which lack rigorous consideration,
being based on impulse or on random tips from acquaintances.
4. Empirical results
4.1. Risk aversion on stock market expectations
In order to test whether individuals' stock market expectations are
affected negatively by risk aversion, we develop the following equation:
Exi;t RAi;t x0i;t y0i;t z0t i;t :
Table 5
Heterogeneity in stock market returns expectations.
We present OLS regression results from 2956 observations from 1587 individuals. The dependent variable is stock market return expectations. The standard errors are clustered by each
individual and robust to heteroskedasticity. *** denotes statistical signicance at the 1%-level, ** denotes statistical signicance at the 5%-level, and * denotes statistical signicance at the
10%-level.
Stock market expectations (%)
Risk aversion
Female
Married
36 Age 50
51 Age 65
65 b Age
Education (1 = high)
Self-employed
Retired
Unemployed
Other occupations
House owners
Financial assets (ln)
Knowledge level (more or less)
Knowledge level (high)
Advice (media)
Advice (professional advisor)
Advice (others)
Year 2005
Year 2006
Constant
F-statistic
R-square
(1)
(2)
(3)
Coef.
Coef.
Coef.
0.309*
1.639***
0.137
0.007
0.515
1.104*
0.528*
0.744
0.078
0.286
0.359
0.598
0.251***
1.256***
1.734***
0.769**
1.023***
1.173*
1.377***
0.158
0.372
9.97
0.064
(1.82)
(4.88)
(0.38)
(0.02)
(1.13)
(1.84)
(1.73)
(0.92)
(0.17)
(0.49)
(0.56)
(1.49)
(2.86)
(3.04)
(3.60)
(2.10)
(2.69)
(1.82)
(5.31)
(0.56)
(0.36)
0.309*
1.571***
0.172
0.028
0.595
1.231**
0.519*
(1.84)
(5.22)
(0.48)
(0.06)
(1.34)
(2.57)
(1.73)
0.331**
1.630***
0.170
(1.97)
(4.81)
(0.47)
0.588
0.265***
1.248***
1.749***
0.751**
1.033***
1.159*
1.377***
0.163
0.464
12.201
0.063
(1.46)
(3.03)
(3.00)
(3.64)
(2.06)
(2.72)
(1.80)
(5.31)
(0.58)
(0.46)
0.594**
0.751
0.795**
0.078
0.632
0.602
0.219**
1.274***
1.772***
0.667*
0.971**
1.065*
1.395***
0.132
0.265
11.318
0.063
(1.98)
(0.93)
(2.41)
(0.14)
(1.02)
(1.51)
(2.55)
(3.07)
(3.68)
(1.85)
(2.57)
(1.68)
(5.39)
(0.47)
(0.26)
128
Table 6
Stock market participation and portfolio allocation decisions.
We present the second-stages of IV estimates with GMM estimators. In GMM (1), the dependent variable takes a value of 1 if individuals own any risky nancial assets; otherwise, it takes a
value of 0. In GMM (2), the dependent variable is investors' share of risky nancial assets relative to their total nancial assets. Our standard errors are clustered by individuals and robust to
heteroskedasticity. *** denotes statistical signicance at the 1%-level, ** denotes statistical signicance at the 5%-level, and * denotes statistical signicance at the 10%-level.
GMM (1)
GMM (2)
Risky nancial assets
Coef.
(3.73)
(3.00)
(2.26)
(1.10)
(0.62)
(3.09)
(1.00)
(1.81)
(2.97)
(3.65)
(0.27)
(1.74)
(2.67)
(2.38)
(13.80)
(0.32)
(1.62)
(0.97)
(1.35)
(0.10)
(2.93)
(0.88)
(12.16)
0.461
2640
1426
0.000
0.717
0.000
0.265
0.033***
0.057
0.010
0.052
0.076**
0.022
0.001
0.152**
0.012
0.338***
0.013
0.060
0.016
0.043
0.020*
0.112**
0.128**
0.087*
0.036
0.039
0.049*
0.024
0.516***
(3.21)
(1.30)
(1.19)
(1.39)
(2.37)
(0.49)
(0.03)
(2.43)
(0.44)
(7.73)
(0.32)
(1.08)
(0.26)
(1.26)
(1.76)
(2.10)
(2.36)
(1.91)
(0.79)
(0.56)
(1.79)
(1.14)
(4.12)
0.589
1004
523
0.000
0.718
0.007
0.418
that individuals' stock market expectations in year 2005 are signicantly lower than in year 2004, but not in year 2006, as discussed previously.
Overall, we conclude that individuals' stock market return expectations are heterogeneous, and this heterogeneity is determined signicantly by their varying levels of risk aversion. These expectations also
reect signicant effects arising from other control variables including
demographical, nancial, and behavioural factors in the model as well
as changes in their expectations over time.
4.2. Stock market participation
The stock market expectations of individuals are inuenced by the
closeness with which they follow the market and their awareness of
and familiarity with market history. Stock market returns expectations
of those individuals who have no experience in the stock market investing
may be based on mere speculation, reecting poor quality information
and lack of condence. Additionally, the proportion of equity held by
investors in their nancial portfolios may also affect their stock market
return expectations. Furthermore, stock market expectations are likely
to be correlated with other unobserved variables inuencing stock market participation and stock holding, including factors such as personally
experiencing economic uctuations (Malmendier & Nagel, 2011), individuals' information sets which reect their preceding stock market
expectations (Arrondel, Calvo-Pardo, & Tas, 2012), and varying levels of
cognitive capacity (Christelis, Jappelli, & Padula, 2010), which we are
unable to identify due to data availability.
Since we recognise the problem of endogeneity, we apply instrumental variable (IV) estimations, including additional variables as instruments to investigate the combined effect of stock
market expectations and risk aversion on individuals' stock market
participation decisions and on investors' portfolio allocation decisions, respectively. The rst instrument we consider is individuals'
expectations as to their own nancial situation a year ahead and, in
particular, whether it will improve, stay the same or deteriorate.
According to Vissing-Jrgensen (2003), individuals' expectations
reect their own situation. Thus, individuals may form stock market
expectations related to their expectations as to their own nancial
situations. The second instrument that we consider is individuals' investment horizons. Specically, we look at whether an individual's
most important time-horizon with regard to planning expenditures
and savings is a couple of months, the next year, the next couple
of years, or more than 5 years. Differing investment horizons can
lead to individuals holding distinctive attitudes towards different
assets (Veld-Merkoulova, 2011), which in turn inuence stock market expectations.
In terms of our model, consideration of stock market expectations
as an endogenous variable implies that the related interaction term
with risk aversion is also endogenous. Thus, we control for two endogenous variables in our model. To account for the endogenous interaction term, we include additional instruments created by
multiplying the risk aversion factor variable by our two categorical
dummy instruments.8
We develop instrumental variable (IV) estimates applying the
Generalised Methods of Moments (GMM) to control for unknown
forms of heteroskedasticity within our linear regression models to
produce efcient and consistent estimations as proposed by
Hansen (1982)9 based on the following equation:
Si;t Exi;t RAi;t Exi;t RAi;t x0i;t y0i;t z0t i;t :
129
Table 7
Robustness checks.
We extend the GMM (1) models with an additional control variable for the health status.
The dependent variable takes value of 1 if individuals own any risky nancial assets;
otherwise, it takes value of 0. For simplicity, we only report results of the second-stage
from the IV estimates and only those coefcients which are of interest. Our standard errors
are clustered by individuals and robust to heteroskedasticity. *** denotes statistical significance at the 1%-level, ** denotes statistical signicance at the 5%-level, and * denotes
statistical signicance at the 10%-level.
Stock market participation
GMM(1)
Coef.
0.026***
(3.27)
0.067*** (3.63)
0.013** (2.29)
0.051*
0.051
(1.79)
(141)
0.494
2511
1361
0.000
0.411
0.000
0.176
stock market expectations on their stock market participation decisions is signicant and positive, i.e. individuals who expect higher
stock returns are more likely to own stocks (at the 1%-level). The
effect of individuals' risk aversion on their stock market participation
decisions is also signicant, but negative, so that those who are more
risk averse are less likely to participate in the stock market compared
to those who are less risk averse (at the 1%-level). With regard to the
interaction between stock market expectations and risk aversion, we
observe a negative and signicant coefcient (at the 5%-level). This
result means that high risk aversion moderates the positive effect
of expectations on stock market participation. In general, the coefcients and signicance levels of the other control variables are consistent with previous research ndings identifying stockholders'
characteristics. For example, as shown in the GMM (1) model, individuals with higher education are more likely to invest in stocks (at
the 1%-level); this result is in line with the ndings of Grinblatt,
Keloharju, and Linnainmaa (2011) on the positive effects of IQ and
negative effects of having only vocational education on stock market
participation in Finland.
In the GMM (2) model reported in Table 6, we observe a signicant positive inuence of investors' stock market expectations on
the proportion of risky assets held in their nancial portfolios,
while risk aversion and the interactions between stock market
expectations and risk aversion are no longer signicant. In other
words, once individuals participate in the stock market, risk aversion
ceases to play a role. However, the proportion allocated to risky
assets in investors' nancial portfolios is signicantly determined
by their expectations of stock returns. Holding all other variables
constant, a one percentage point increase in their expectations
increases the proportion of risky nancial assets held in investors'
nancial portfolios by 3.3%. Our results support Vissing-Jrgensen
(2003), who nds that investors with higher stock market return
expectations hold a higher proportion of equity in their portfolios.
We conrm the validity of our model and of the instrumental variables by conducting the Kleibergen-Paap test for underidentication
(Kleibergen & Paap, 2006) and computing Hansen's J-statistic (Hansen,
1982) as an overidentication test for the presence of heteroskedasticity
(Hayashi, 2000; pp. 227228, 407, 417). The reported Kleibergen-Paap
rk LM statistics for cluster-robust standard errors rejects the null hypotheses that any of the endogenous variables is underidentied. Failing to
reject the joint null hypothesis of the Hansen's J-statistics means that
130
instruments are orthogonal, i.e. uncorrelated with the error term, and correctly excluded from the estimated equation, also supports the validity of
instruments (Baum, Schaffer, & Stillman, 2010).
Following Baum et al. (2010), we further conduct an endogeneity
test on the two endogenous variables under the null hypothesis that
these variables can actually be treated as exogenous. The test rejects
the null hypothesis, conrming that we deal with these variables
correctly in treating them as endogenous. Moreover, by applying IV
estimates we obtain consistent coefcients. Furthermore, we use the
C-statistic (Hayashi, 2000) to test for the orthogonality condition of
the risk aversion variable. As reported in Table 6, the tests conrm its orthogonality condition, as they all fail to reject the null hypothesis.
Survey Questions
Control Variables
Financial Knowledge Level
How knowledgeable do
you consider yourself
with respect to nancial
matters?
Source of Financial Advice
What is your most
important source of
advice when you have to
make important nancial
decisions for the
household?
Instruments
Denition
2004
2005
2006
Total
Not
0.140 0.142 0.131 0.138 2956
knowledgeable
More or less
0.584 0.591 0.590 0.588
Knowledgeable 0.276 0.267 0.280 0.274
Parents,
friends, etc.
The media
Professional
advisers
Others
Denition
2004
2005
2006
Total
Improve
Stay the same
Deteriorate
Next couple of
months
Next year
Next couple of
years
More than 5
years
Better
About the
same
Worse
References
Alessie, R. J. M., Hochguertel, S., & Van Soest, A. (2004). Ownership of stocks and mutual
funds: A panel data analysis. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86, 783796.
Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics. Princeton University
Press.
Arrondel, L., Calvo-Pardo, H., and Tas, D., 2012. Subjective return expectations, information and stock market participation: Evidence from France. Unpublished Working
Paper, University of Southampton.
Barsky, R., Juster, F., Kimball, M., & Shapiro, M. (1997). Preference parameters and behavioural heterogeneity: An experimental approach in the health and retirement study.
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 537579.
Baum, C. F. (2006). An introduction to modern econometrics using Stata. Stata Press.
Baum, C. F., Schaffer, M. E., & Stillman, S. (2003). Instrumental variables and GMM:
Estimation and testing. Stata Journal, 3, 131.
Baum, C. F., Schaffer, M. E., & Stillman, S. (2010). ivreg2: Stata module for extended instrumental variables/2SLS, GMM and AC/HAC, LIML and k-class regression. http://ideas.
repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s425401.html.
Bonaparte, Y., Korniotis, G. M., & Kumar, A. (2014). Income hedging and portfolio
decisions. Journal of Financial Economics, 113, 300324.
Canner, N., Mankiw, N. G., & Weil, D. N. (1997). An asset allocation puzzle. American
Economic Review, 87, 181191.
Christelis, D., Jappelli, T., & Padula, M. (2010). Cognitive abilities and portfolio choice.
European Economic Review, 54, 1838.
De Bondt, W. F. M. (1993). Betting on trends: Intuitive forecasts of nancial risk and
return. International Journal of Forecasting, 9, 355371.
De Bondt, W. F. M. (1998). A portrait of the individual investor. European Economic
Review, 42, 831844.
131
Dimmock, S. G., & Kouwenberg, R. (2010). Loss-aversion and household portfolio choice.
Journal of Empirical Finance, 17, 441459.
Dominitz, J., & Manski, C. F. (2007). Expected equity returns and portfolio choice:
Evidence from the health and retirement study. Journal of the European Economic
Association, 5, 369379.
Donkers, B., & Van Soest, A. (1999). Subjective measures of household preferences and
nancial decisions. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20, 613642.
Georgarakos, D., Haliassos, M., & Pasini, G. (2014). Household debt and social interactions.
Review of Financial Studies, 27, 14041433.
Graham, J. R., and Harvey, C. R., 2001. Expectations of equity risk premia, volatility and
asymmetry from a corporate nance perspective. Unpublished Working Paper,
Fuqua School of Business.
Grinblatt, M., Keloharju, M., & Linnainmaa, J. (2011). IQ and stock market participation.
The Journal of Finance, 66, 21212163.
Guiso, L., Haliassos, M., & Jappelli, T. (2003). Household stockholding in Europe: Where do
we stand and where do we go? Economic Policy, 18, 133170.
Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2008). Trusting the stock market. The Journal of
Finance, 63, 25572600.
Hansen, L. P. (1982). Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators. Econometrica, 50, 10291054.
Hayashi, F. (2000). Econometrics. Princeton University Press.
Hoffmann, A. O. I., Post, T., & Pennings, J. M. E. (2013). Individual investor perceptions and
behaviour during the nancial crisis. Journal of Banking and Finance, 37, 6074.
Hong, H., & Stein, J. C. (2007). Disagreement and the stock market. Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 21, 109128.
Hurd, M. (2009). Subjective probabilities in household surveys. Annual Review of
Economics, 1, 543564.
Hurd, M., Van Rooij, M., & Winter, J. (2011). Stock market expectations of Dutch households. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 26, 416436.
Ito, T. (1990). Foreign exchange rate expectations: Micro survey data. American Economic
Review, 80, 434449.
Jolliffe, I. (2005). Principal component analysis. Encyclopaedia of statistics in behavioural
science. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Kaplanski, G., Levy, H., Veld, C., & Veld-Merkoulova, Y. V. (2015). Do happy people make
optimistic investors? Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 50, 145168.
Kapteyn, A., & Teppa, F. (2011). Subjective measures of risk aversion, xed costs, and
portfolio choice. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32, 564580.
Kimball, M. S., Sahm, C. R., & Shapiro, M. D. (2007). Imputing risk tolerance from survey
responses. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103, 10281038.
Kleibergen, F., & Paap, R. (2006). Generalized reduced rank tests using the singular value
decomposition. Journal of Econometrics, 133, 97126.
Malmendier, U., & Nagel, S. (2011). Depression babies: Do macroeconomic experiences
affect risk-taking? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126, 373416.
O'Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance ination factors.
Quality & Quantity, 41, 673690.
Rosen, H., & Wu, S. (2004). Portfolio choice and health status. Journal of Financial
Economics, 72, 457484.
Shiller, R. J. (1990). Speculative prices and popular models. Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 4, 5565 (4, 55-65).
Van Rooij, M., Lusardi, A., & Alessie, R. (2011). Financial literacy and stock market participation. Journal of Financial Economics, 101, 449472.
Van Rooij, M., Lusardi, A., & Alessie, R. (2012). Financial literacy, retirement planning, and
household wealth. Economic Journal, 122, 449478.
Veld-Merkoulova, Y. (2011). Investment horizon and portfolio choice of private investors.
International Review of Financial Analysis, 20, 6875.
Vissing-Jrgensen, A. (2003). Perspectives on behavioural nance: Does irrationality disappear with wealth? Evidence from expectations and actions.
NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 18, 139194.
Wooldridge, J. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press.