Refine
Document Type
- Article (5)
- Part of Periodical (2)
- Working Paper (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (8)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (8)
Keywords
- Household Finance (2)
- Investor Protection (2)
- Private Investment (2)
- Consumer financial protection (1)
- Financial advice (1)
- Household finance (1)
- Individual investor (1)
- Inducements (1)
- financial risk-taking (1)
- fintech (1)
Smart(phone) investing? A within investor-time analysis of new technologies and trading behavior
(2021)
Using transaction-level data from two German banks, we study the effects of smartphones on investor behavior. Comparing trades by the same investor in the same month across different platforms, we find that smartphones increase purchasing of riskier and lottery-type assets and chasing past returns. After the adoption of smartphones, investors do not substitute trades across platforms and buy also riskier, lottery-type, and hot investments on other platforms. Using smartphones to trade specific assets or during specific hours contributes to explain our results. Digital nudges and the device screen size do not mechanically drive our results. Smartphone effects are not transitory.
RECENTLY, PASSIVE ETFS AND INDEX FUNDS HAVE BECOME POPULAR AMONG INDIVIDUAL INVESTORS. IN OUR STUDY, WE INVESTIGATE WHETHER INDIVIDUAL INVESTORS BENEFIT FROM USING THEM. WITH DATA FROM ONE OF THE LARGEST BROKERAGES IN GERMANY, WE FIND THAT INDIVIDUAL INVESTORS WORSEN THEIR PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE AFTER USING THESE PRODUCTS IN COMPARISON TO NON-USERS. SINCE THESE SECURITIES MAKE MARKET TIMING EASIER, FURTHER ANALYSIS REVEALS THAT THE DECREASE IN USERS’ PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE IS PRIMARILY DUE TO BAD MARKET TIMING.
THIS STUDY INVESTIGATES WHAT HAPPENS WHEN RETAIL CUSTOMERS ARE OFFERED FREE AND UNBIASED ADVICE. USING A LARGE FIELD EXPERIMENT IT SHOWS THAT THOSE WHO ACCEPT THE OFFER (5%) ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE MALE, OLDER, WEALTHIER, MORE EXPERIENCED AND MORE FINANCIALLY SOPHISTICATED. HOWEVER, EVEN THOUGH THE ADVICE WOULD HAVE HELPED, IT ACTUALLY LARGELY FAILED TO HELP BECAUSE THE CUSTOMERS DID NOT LISTEN TO IT. OVERALL, OUR RESULTS SUGGEST THAT THE MERE AVAILABILITY OF UNBIASED FINANCIAL ADVICE IS A NECESSARY BUT NOT SUFFICIENT CONDITION FOR BENEFITING RETAIL CUSTOMERS.
WE DECOMPOSE INDIVIDUAL INVESTORS’ PORTFOLIO RETURNS INTO PASSIVE BENCHMARK RETURNS, ACTIVE SECURITY SELECTION RETURNS, AND ACTIVE MARKET TIMING RETURNS. FOR THE AVERAGE INVESTOR IN OUR SAMPLE, PASSIVE BENCHMARK RETURNS EXPLAIN SOME 40% OF VARIATION IN LONGITUDINAL PORTFOLIO RETURNS, SECURITY SELECTION EXPLAINS AN ADDITIONAL 50%, AND MARKET TIMING PLAYS ONLY A MINOR ROLE. THIS STANDS IN STARK CONTRAST TO EARLIER RESULTS ON INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS WHERE PASSIVE BENCHMARK RETURNS (REFLECTING DIFFERENT ASSET ALLOCATION STRATEGIES) EXPLAIN OVER 90%. THE PREDOMINANCE OF SECURITY SELECTION COMES AT A COST FOR INDIVIDUAL INVESTORS: INVESTORS FROM THE HIGHEST QUINTILE IN TERMS OF SECURITY SELECTION ACTIVITY UNDERPERFORM THEIR PEERS FROM THE LOWEST QUINTILE BY MORE THAN 10 PERCENTAGE POINTS PER YEAR. TRANSACTION COSTS EXPLAIN ONLY PART OF THIS UNDERPERFORMANCE. THE LESS INVESTORS DIVERSIFY, THE WORSE THEY DO.
Using a field study at a German brokerage, we investigate advised individual investors’ behavior and outcomes after self-selecting into a flat-fee scheme (percentage of portfolio value) for mutual funds. In a difference-in-differences setting, we compare 699 switchers to propensity-score-matched advisory clients who remained in the commission-based scheme. Switchers increase their portfolio values, improve portfolio diversification, and increase their portfolio performance. They also demand more financial advice and follow more advisor recommendations. We argue that switchers attribute a higher quality to the unchanged advisory services.