1 / 17

Martin Weber University of Mannheim

Risk Taking. Martin Weber University of Mannheim. Motivation. Markets in Financial Instruments Directive - MiFID

enan
Download Presentation

Martin Weber University of Mannheim

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Risk Taking Martin Weber University of Mannheim

  2. Motivation • Markets in Financial Instruments Directive - MiFID • Investment firms need to make sure that an investment meets the investment objectives of the client in question and is suitable for him (MiFID, 2004/39) • What are investment objectives? • “…information on the length of time for which the client wishes to hold the investment, • his preferences regarding risk taking, • his risk profile • and the purposes of the investment.” (MiFID, 2006/73)

  3. Motivation Reasons to know more about your customer • Legal necessity • Marketing strategy • Fill out form and file • Fill out form and use for advisory • Fill out form online and use at discount brokers

  4. Motivation Elicitation of “preferences regarding risk taking” and “risk profiles” SOEP (2008) (Socio-Economic-Panel of the DIW) (approx. 22,000 individuals)

  5. Motivation Elicitation of “preferences regarding risk taking” and “risk profiles” SOEP (2004) (Socio-Economic-Panel of the DIW)

  6. Motivation Elicitation of “preferences regarding risk taking” and “risk profiles” Some German Bank (Private Wealth Management)

  7. Modeling Risk Taking ≙ (Perceived Return) – (Risk Attitude) (Risk Perception) Risk Taking (Investing) Risk Taking (Investing) = f ( Return, Risk) (see e.g Markowitz, JF, 1952) (see e.g Sarin/Weber, EJOR, 1993, Jia et al., MS, 1999 and E. Weber et al., 2004, JBDM)

  8. Modeling Risk Taking • How is this link affected by: • Different domains of risk taking? • Different ways of measuring risk attitudes? • Different ways of measuring perceived risk/return? • Subjects level of overconfidence? Analyze this link in a questionnaire study with 78 students (Nosic/Weber, How Risky Do I Invest: The Role of Risk Attitudes, Risk Perceptions and Overconfidence, 2008)

  9. Design: Risk Taking (Divide 10,000 Euros between a lottery and a risk free asset) Lottery 1 Risk taking Lottery 2 (State certainty equivalent) Risk taking (Divide 10,000 Euros between a lottery and a risk free asset  repeat for 5 different stocks) Stocks Risk taking

  10. Design: Risk Taking Lottery 1 Mean = 58.75% (Median = 60%) 75% of all subjects in range: (40% - 100%) Lottery 2 Mean = 4144.73 (Median = 4000) 83% of all subjects in range: (3000 - 5000) Stocks Mean Avg. stocks = 43.64% (Median Avg. stocks = 40%) 75% of all subjects in range: (28% - 100%)

  11. Design: Perceived Return Past return of each stock Historical Return State expected price for each stock (and transform this into return estimates) Expected Return (Stock)

  12. Design: Risk Attitude Subjective Risk Attitude 1 ≙ low willingness to take risk ….5 ≙ high willingness to take risk Mean = 2.59 (Median = 2.5) 91% of all subjects in range: (2 - 4) Risk Attitude (Lottery 2) (elicit certainty equivalent and transform it into risk aversion parameters  u(x) = xα) Mean = 0.86 (Median = 0.76) 83% of all subjects in range: (0.58 - 1)

  13. Design: Perceived Risk Past volatility of each stock Historical Volatility Risk perception • State risk perception on Likert scale • Lottery 1 (Mean = 4.1) • Lottery 2 (Mean = 7.11) • Each stock individually (Mean = 5.43) State upper/lower bound for each stock (and transform this into volatility estimates) Expected Volatility (Stock)

  14. Results: Correlation analyses Expected Volatility Historical Volatility First evidence for domain specificity Subjective risk attitude is better & more general predictor of risk taking behavior (Expected Return – Historical Return)

  15. Results: Disggregated regressions (clustered OLS) Risk taking (stocks) Subjective risk attitude vs. lotteries Domain specificity Subjective vs. objective risk/return More overconfident take more risk

  16. Conclusion Risk Attitude Lottery 2 Subjective Risk Attitude Risk Perceived Risk Perceived ≙ . - Taking Return Attitude Risk Expected Volatility Risk Per-ception Expected Return Historical Volatility Historical Return • Risk Taking is a function of risk and return! However: • Domain specificity is important • Subjective risk/return measures are better predictors than historical risk/return • Subjective risk attitudes are more adequate than lotteries • More overconfident  more risk taking

  17. Outlook • How to elicit risk attitudes • Single, subjective score • More complex psychometrically validated methods (self-assessments) • Computerized, graphical approaches (see e.g. Goldstein et al., Journal of Consumer Research, 2008 or the following tool) • How often to elicit determinants of risk taking? • Changes in perceived return • Changes in risk attitudes • Changes in perceived risk

More Related