Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Journal of Business Economics
Erschienen in: Journal of Business Economics 2/2015

01.02.2015 | Original Paper

Key investor documents and their consequences on investor behavior

verfasst von: Torsten Walther

Erschienen in: Journal of Business Economics | Ausgabe 2/2015

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This paper is motivated by the regulatory step of the European Union to introduce a new information disclosure document called Key Investor Documents (KID). With the help of an online experiment, this paper examines the effectiveness of these documents concerning the regulatory framework’s goal to present potential investors the information in a way they can understand. In addition, we examine the impact of these documents on investors’ diversification behavior. We find that investment funds’ KIDs are perceived as being more informative, comprehensible, and helpful than their respective Prospectuses. Still, many investors do not understand the information provided in these KIDs. We show that KIDs lower the probability of information overload and, as a consequence, the probability of diversifying in a naïve manner. We argue that this effect is not necessarily beneficial for retail investors since it might lead to stock picking behavior and unutilized chances of diversifying the portfolio.
Vorheriger Artikel Does it really hurt? Consumer reactions to content sponsorships in daily newspapers
Nächster Artikel The downside of looking for team players in job advertisements

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Journal of Business Economics

From January 2013, the Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft (ZfB) is published in English under the title Journal of Business Economics (JBE). The Journal of Business Economics (JBE) aims at encouraging theoretical and applied research in the field of business economics and business administration, promoting the exchange of ideas between science and practice.

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
Both Benartzi and Thaler (2001) and Simonson (1990) call this behavior a heuristic.
 
2
These documents can be regarded as the German implementation of “Key Investor Documents” for investment products besides investment funds.
 
3
Results between online and laboratory experiments might differ. However, there is a lot of evidence that participants’ reactions, in particular on a response scale, differ only slightly (see, e.g., Krantz et al. 1997; Krantz and Dalal 2000; McGraw et al. 2000). The impact of possible multiple submissions (see, e.g., Reips 2002) is reduced by prohibiting multiple participations using the same IP address.
 
4
This procedure is in line with the two-fund separation theorem. The theorem suggests a separation of the decision which share is invested in risky assets and the decision on the allocation between different risky assets.
 
5
Charness et al. (2013) provide a review of merits and weaknesses of different mechanisms for risk elicitation.
 
6
See Druckman and Kam (2011) for a discussion of experimental studies with student subjects.
 
7
As a robustness check, we excluded subjects that belong to the lowest quartile with respect to the time spent on the allocation decision. The conclusions do not change.
 
8
As these two variables are highly correlated (pairwise correlation 0.80), we redid all our multivariate analyses with a variable that combines both scales. The results are not affected.
 
9
Unless otherwise stated, t tests are applied to test the difference between different groups. There are some crucial assumptions underlying this test. However, de Winter and Dodou (2010) show that a t test performs as well as non-parametric procedures (e.g., Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon) when dealing with Likert scales. Besides that, t tests are more convenient and widespread (see, e.g., Sachse et al. 2012; Wang et al. 2011).
 
10
Values smaller or equal to four are taken into account.
 
11
Note, however, that according to the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, the hypothesis of equality of distributions cannot be rejected.
 
12
Note that the treatment effect KID is still significant at the 1 %-level if all variables are integrated in a single regression model (not reported).
 
13
Note that the average allocation of about 45 % into the risk-free asset is smaller than the one observed in the experiment with two risky assets. This outcome is in line with Benartzi and Thaler (2001) who find an increase in the allocation into equity as the number of funds offered increases. As in the basic experiment, the share invested in the risky assets is highly correlated with the subjects’ willingness to take financial risk (0.52, p < 0.01).
 
14
Based on the e-mail address (which we received from more than 90 % of the participants) nine subjects had also participated in the basic experiment. Excluding these participants does not influence our conclusions.
 
Literatur
Agnew JR, Szykman LR (2005) Asset allocation and information overload: the influence of information display, asset choice, and investor experience. J Behav Fin 6(2):57–70CrossRef
Barber BM, Odean T (2008) All that glitters: the effect of attention and news on the buying behavior of individual and institutional investors. Rev Financ Stud 21(2):785–818. doi:10.​1093/​rfs/​hhm079 CrossRef
Beshears J, Choi JJ, Laibson D, Madrian BC (2011) How does simplified disclosure affect individuals’ mutual fund choices? In: Wise DA (ed) Explorations in the economics of aging. University of Chicago Press, London, pp 75–95CrossRef
Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3):297–334CrossRef
De Winter JC, Dodou D (2010) Five-point Likert items: t test versus Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon. Pract Assess Res Eval 15(11):1–16
DeMiguel V, Garlappi L, Uppal R (2009) Optimal versus naive diversification: how inefficient is the 1/N portfolio strategy? Rev Financ Stud 22(5):1915–1953. doi:10.​1093/​rfs/​hhm075 CrossRef
Dhar R, Zhu N (2006) Up close and personal: investor sophistication and the disposition effect. Man Sci 52(5):726–740CrossRef
Dohmen T, Falk A, Huffman D, Sunde U, Schupp J, Wagner GG (2011) Individual risk attitudes: measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. J Eur Econ Assoc 9(3):522–550CrossRef
Dorn D, Huberman G (2005) Talk and action: what individual investors say and what they do. Rev Financ 9(4):437–481CrossRef
Dorn D, Huberman G (2010) Preferred risk habitat of individual investors. J Financ Econ 97(1):155–173CrossRef
Druckman JN, Kam CD (2011) Students as experimental participants. In: Druckman JN, Green DP, Kuklinski JH, Lupia A (eds) Cambridge handbook of experimental political science. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 41–57CrossRef
Duchin R, Levy H (2009) Markowitz versus the Talmudic portfolio diversification strategies. J Portf Manage 35(2):71–74CrossRef
Eppler MJ, Mengis J (2004) The concept of information overload: a review of literature from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines. Inf Soc 20(5):325–344. doi:10.​1080/​0197224049050797​4 CrossRef
Habschick M, Gaedeke O, Lausberg E, Eibisch M, Evers J, Weber M, Nöth M, Kaufmann C (2012) Evaluation von Produktinformationsblättern für Geldanlageprodukte. Studie im Auftrag der Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung für das Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz
Hilgert MA, Hogarth JM, Beverly SG (2003) Household financial management: the connection between knowledge and behavior. Fed Reserv Bull 89:309–322
Jobson JD, Korkie B (1980) Estimation for Markowitz efficient portfolios. J Am Stat Assoc 75(371):544–554CrossRef
Kapteyn A, Teppa F (2011) Subjective measures of risk aversion, fixed costs, and portfolio choice. J Econ Psychol 32(4):564–580CrossRef
Kozup J, Howlett E, Pagano M (2008) The effects of summary information on consumer perceptions of mutual fund characteristics. J Cons Aff 42(1):37–59CrossRef
Krantz JH, Dalal R (2000) Validity of Web-based psychological research. In: Birnbaum M (ed) Psychological experiments on the Internet. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 35–60CrossRef
Krantz JH, Ballard J, Scher J (1997) Comparing the results of laboratory and World-Wide Web samples on the determinants of female attractiveness. Behav Res Methods 29(2):264–269CrossRef
Lusardi A, Mitchell OS (2007) Baby boomer retirement security: the roles of planning, financial literacy, and housing wealth. J Monet Econ 54(1):205–224CrossRef
Malhotra NK (1984) Reflections on the information overload paradigm in consumer decision making. J Cons Res 10(4):436–440CrossRef
Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York
Reips UD (2002) Standards for Internet-based experimenting. Exp Psychol (formerly Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie) 49(4):243–256
Scheibehenne B, Greifeneder R, Todd PM (2010) Can there ever be too many options? A meta-analytic review of choice overload. J Cons Res 37(3):409–425CrossRef
van Rooij MCJ, Lusardi A, Alessie RJM (2011a) Financial literacy and stock market participation. J Financ Econ 101(2):449–472CrossRef
Venti SF (2011) Comment on “How does simplified disclosure affect individuals’ mutual fund choices?”. In: Wise DA (ed) Explorations in the economics of aging. University of Chicago Press, London, pp 96–98
Wang M, Keller C, Siegrist M (2011) The less you know, the more you are afraid of—a survey on risk perceptions of investment products. J Behav Fin 12(1):9–19CrossRef
West S, Leonard-Chambers V (2006) Understanding investor preferences for mutual fund information. Investment Company Institute, Washington D.C.
Metadaten
Titel
Key investor documents and their consequences on investor behavior
verfasst von
Torsten Walther
Publikationsdatum
01.02.2015
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Journal of Business Economics / Ausgabe 2/2015
Print ISSN: 0044-2372
Elektronische ISSN: 1861-8928
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-014-0724-6

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise