Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/148071
Authors: 
Menkhoff, Lukas
Sakha, Sahra
Year of Publication: 
2016
Citation: 
[Journal:] DIW Economic Bulletin [ISSN:] 2192-7219 [Volume:] 6 [Year:] 2016 [Issue:] 40/42 [Pages:] 483-490
Abstract: 
In Germany and many other countries, financial advisors are required by law to assess their clients' risk preferences in order to help them make informed and appropriate investment decisions. Most institutions that provide financial advice-banks, for instance-carry out this assessment using just one type of risk measure. Financial advisors might ask clients to answer a question about their attitudes towards risk, for example, or to choose one option among several more or less risky alternatives. Our study finds, however, that employing only one type of risk measure may result in an inaccurate assessment of risk aversion- and if the underlying information is unreliable, the corresponding investment decision will also be flawed. Based on empirical data comprising an unusually broad set of seven different risk measures, we suggest a more robust risk assessment model that combines various methods. Since our results indicate that these multiple-item risk measures usually outperform single-item measures, we recommend combining two or even three items to obtain more reliable risk attitude profiles. A higher level of accuracy could in turn lead to better investment advice.
Subjects: 
risk attitude
risk measure
lab-in-the-field experimts
household survey
financial behavior
JEL: 
D8
C93
O12
Document Type: 
Article

Files in This Item:
File
Size
198.92 kB





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.