1 / 19

LINKING PSYCHOMETRIC RISK TOLERANCE WITH CHOICE BEHAVIOUR

LINKING PSYCHOMETRIC RISK TOLERANCE WITH CHOICE BEHAVIOUR. Peter Brooks, Greg B. Davies and Daniel P. Egan. FUR Conference – July 2008. Presentation Aims. To introduce the Barclays Wealth Risk Tolerance Scale To introduce the effects of an exponential utility function on asset allocation

saima
Download Presentation

LINKING PSYCHOMETRIC RISK TOLERANCE WITH CHOICE BEHAVIOUR

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. LINKING PSYCHOMETRIC RISK TOLERANCE WITH CHOICE BEHAVIOUR Peter Brooks, Greg B. Davies and Daniel P. Egan FUR Conference – July 2008

  2. Presentation Aims • To introduce the Barclays Wealth Risk Tolerance Scale • To introduce the effects of an exponential utility function on asset allocation • To describe an experiment that provides a link between risk tolerance scores and risk parameters. • Are different risk profiles characterised by different risk/utility parameters in choices?

  3. Pre-experiment Analysis Overview • Examine risk and utility measures using simulated portfolios involving equities and bonds • Mix the simulated portfolios with different proportions of cash • Holding cash is assumed to be a riskless alternative • Calculate the optimal portfolio for different values of the risk parameter

  4. Example Utility Measure 5 Year Bond/Equity Mixes Low values of  imply risk tolerant behaviour – Optimal portfolio is 100% equities Higher values of  imply risk averse behaviour – Optimal portfolio is now a mix of equities and bonds Expected Utility 

  5. Optimal Portfolio Mixes with Cash 5 Year Investment Horizon • We have modelled a range of values of the risk parameter for 5 year returns • For low  – optimal portfolio is 100% Equities • For  between 0.08 and 0.16, the optimal portfolio is a mix of equities and bonds • For  greater than 0.17, the optimal asset allocation includes cash. Cash Asset Allocation % Bonds Equities 

  6. Pre-experiment Analysis Overview 2 • The analysis suggests that the optimal portfolio is sensitive to the value of a risk parameter. • Assuming utility maximisation individual choices between portfolios make it possible to calibrate a risk parameter. • Choices constrain a risk parameter to a range of values where the portfolio would be preferred by a utility maximising individual. • Analysing a number of choices makes it possible to find a “best” value of the risk parameter for each individual.

  7. Barclays Wealth Risk Tolerance Scale • 8 question psychometric questionnaire • Responses given on a 5-point Likert scale • Produces a score between 8 and 40 • Higher scores signal higher risk tolerance • Scores bucketed into 5 risk profiles from low up to high.

  8. Experiment Aims • To test various risk measures and utility functions using actual choices • To estimate risk/utility parameters for individual respondents. • To provide a link between the risk tolerance scores and risk parameters. • Are different risk profiles characterised by different risk/utility parameters in choices?

  9. Experimental Design • Create stylised distributions of the final values of an investment. • It is difficult to use distributions based upon real data. Increases in volatility cause the tails of the distribution to become long. • Long tailed distributions are difficult to display accurately to survey respondents. • Take log-normal distribution and set the mean and standard deviation. • Generate 120 equally spaced observations across the distribution. • Round each of these observations to the nearest integer. • Plot the frequency table of the observations to create the distributions for the experiment.

  10. Experimental Design • Expected utility is increasing in the mean of the distribution. • Expected utility is decreasing in the “risk” of the distribution. • Create a preference order between two distributions by compensating for an increase in “risk” by increasing the mean. • The most risk averse will prefer lower mean and lower “risk” distributions. • The least risk averse will prefer higher mean and higher “risk” distributions.

  11. Example Distribution • Mean = £103,000

  12. Example Distribution 2 • Mean = £105,000

  13. Distribution Comparisons – Example Using Exponential Risk Measures Mean = 103 Mean = 102 Mean = 104 Expected Utility Mean = 105 Mean = 106 Utility Parameter ()

  14. Distribution Comparisons – Example Using Exponential Risk Measures Mean = 104 Expected Utility Mean = 103 Mean = 102 Mean = 105 Mean = 106 Utility Parameter ()

  15. Distribution Comparisons – Example Using Exponential Risk Measures Mean = 103 Mean = 102 Expected Utility Mean = 104 Mean = 105 Mean = 106 Utility Parameter ()

  16. Participants recruited through iPoints Participants paid in iPoints All participants reported either gross annual income above £50k or investable wealth above £100k Delivered through a non-branded external website Respondents had participated in previous surveys but had not participated within the past 6 months Over-sampling of the extreme risk profiles 6 section experiment Demographics Psychometric Risk Tolerance Training stage 9 Pairwise choice tasks between distributions Filler Task – maze 9 Pairwise choice tasks between distributions Experiment Procedures

  17. Experimental Results • 108 Participants completed all parts of the survey • 1 participant removed for inconsistent responses • Over-sampling of the end points successful • Individuals in higher risk profiles tend to choose higher variance distributions more often • Use MLE to estimate the utility risk parameter for individuals - grouped by risk tolerance score

  18. MLE Fit Results

  19. Conclusions and Extensions • Our psychometric risk tolerance measure is consistent with risky choice • There is potential for a behavioural calibration of a risk measure for portfolio optimisation • Separate work on whether utility measures are better than variance, VaR or CVaR as risk measures for portfolio optimisation • Geographical calibration exercise – current ongoing work

More Related