Investors care about risk, but can't cope with volatility

Ehm, Christian ; Kaufmann, Christine ; Weber, Martin

Vorschau

PDF
SSRN-id1942440_WP179.pdf - Veröffentlichte Version
Download (421kB)

URL:	https://ub-madoc.bib.uni-mannheim.de/31452
Weitere URL:	http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1942440
URN:	urn:nbn:de:bsz:180-madoc-314529
Dokumenttyp:	Arbeitspapier
Erscheinungsjahr:	2011
Titel einer Zeitschrift oder einer Reihe:	Working Paper / Lehrstuhl für Finanzierung, Universität Mannheim
Band/Volume:	179
Ort der Veröffentlichung:	Mannheim
Sprache der Veröffentlichung:	Englisch
Einrichtung:	Fakultät für Betriebswirtschaftslehre > ABWL u. Finanzwirtschaft, insbes. Bankbetriebslehre (Weber 1993-2017)
MADOC-Schriftenreihe:	Lehrstuhl für ABWL, Finanzwirtschaft, insb. Bankbetriebslehre (Weber) > Working Papers
Fachgebiet:	330 Wirtschaft
Fachklassifikation:	JEL: G11,
Freie Schlagwörter (Englisch):	portfolio choice , portfolio selection , risk-taking , volatility , naive diversification , framing
Abstract:	Following the classical portfolio theory all an investor has to do for an optimal investment is to determine his risk attitude. This allows him to find his point on the capital market line by combining a risk-free asset with the market portfolio. We investigate the following research questions in an experimental set-up: Do private investors see a relationship between risk attitude and the amount invested risky at all and do they adjust their investments if provided with different risk levels of the risky asset? To answer these questions we ask subjects in a between subject design to allocate a certain amount between a risky and a risk-free asset. Risky assets differ between conditions, but can be transformed into each other by combining them with the risk-free asset. We find that mainly investors risk attitude, but also their risk perception, and the investment horizon are strong predictors for risk taking. Indeed, investors do not appear to be naïve, but they do something sensitive. Nevertheless, we observe a strong framing effect: investors choose almost the same allocation to the risky asset independently of changes in its risk-return profile thus ending up with significantly different volatilities. Feedback does not mitigate the framing effect. The effect is somewhat smaller for investors with a high financial literacy. Overall, people seem to use two mental accounts, one for the risk-free and one for the risky investment with the risk attitude determining the percentage allocation to the risky asset and not the chosen portfolio volatility.