退休储蓄中的委托、信任和违约:来自计划执行者和成员的观点

Adam Butt, M. Donald, F. Foster, S. Thorp, G. Warren
{"title":"退休储蓄中的委托、信任和违约:来自计划执行者和成员的观点","authors":"Adam Butt, M. Donald, F. Foster, S. Thorp, G. Warren","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2638998","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We combine survey data from retirement plan members with information from interviews with plan executives to get both perspectives on who accepts the default plan and default investment option and why. We use a natural experiment in default construction where a new regulatory framework required providers to have stipulated default settings in place by early 2014. We find that not all retirement savings plan members who default at the plan choice stage default at the investment choice stage, and vice versa. Only around one third of the sample say they defaulted twice. While some plan executives describe defaulting members as uninterested in their retirement savings, our results highlight that subjective lack of skill combined with trust in the managing agents are the prime motivations for defaulting, rather than low interest. Plan executives set a high risk exposure in default investment strategies to ensure high wealth growth, but defaulting respondents show a lower appetite for risk than active choosers. The heterogeneity and low skill of members make a case for smart defaults.","PeriodicalId":246130,"journal":{"name":"FIRN (Financial Research Network) Research Paper Series","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Delegation, Trust and Defaulting in Retirement Savings: Perspectives from Plan Executives and Members\",\"authors\":\"Adam Butt, M. Donald, F. Foster, S. Thorp, G. Warren\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2638998\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We combine survey data from retirement plan members with information from interviews with plan executives to get both perspectives on who accepts the default plan and default investment option and why. We use a natural experiment in default construction where a new regulatory framework required providers to have stipulated default settings in place by early 2014. We find that not all retirement savings plan members who default at the plan choice stage default at the investment choice stage, and vice versa. Only around one third of the sample say they defaulted twice. While some plan executives describe defaulting members as uninterested in their retirement savings, our results highlight that subjective lack of skill combined with trust in the managing agents are the prime motivations for defaulting, rather than low interest. Plan executives set a high risk exposure in default investment strategies to ensure high wealth growth, but defaulting respondents show a lower appetite for risk than active choosers. The heterogeneity and low skill of members make a case for smart defaults.\",\"PeriodicalId\":246130,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"FIRN (Financial Research Network) Research Paper Series\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"FIRN (Financial Research Network) Research Paper Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2638998\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"FIRN (Financial Research Network) Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2638998","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

我们将退休计划成员的调查数据与计划高管的访谈信息结合起来,从两个角度了解哪些人接受默认计划和默认投资选择,以及为什么接受默认投资选择。我们在违约构建中进行了自然实验,新的监管框架要求提供商在2014年初之前规定违约设置。我们发现,并非所有在计划选择阶段违约的退休储蓄计划成员都在投资选择阶段违约,反之亦然。只有大约三分之一的受访者表示他们违约了两次。虽然一些计划高管将违约成员描述为对他们的退休储蓄不感兴趣,但我们的研究结果强调,主观缺乏技能以及对管理代理人的信任是违约的主要动机,而不是低利率。计划高管在默认的投资策略中设置了高风险敞口,以确保财富的高增长,但默认的受访者对风险的偏好低于积极选择者。成员的异质性和低技能为智能默认提供了理由。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Delegation, Trust and Defaulting in Retirement Savings: Perspectives from Plan Executives and Members
We combine survey data from retirement plan members with information from interviews with plan executives to get both perspectives on who accepts the default plan and default investment option and why. We use a natural experiment in default construction where a new regulatory framework required providers to have stipulated default settings in place by early 2014. We find that not all retirement savings plan members who default at the plan choice stage default at the investment choice stage, and vice versa. Only around one third of the sample say they defaulted twice. While some plan executives describe defaulting members as uninterested in their retirement savings, our results highlight that subjective lack of skill combined with trust in the managing agents are the prime motivations for defaulting, rather than low interest. Plan executives set a high risk exposure in default investment strategies to ensure high wealth growth, but defaulting respondents show a lower appetite for risk than active choosers. The heterogeneity and low skill of members make a case for smart defaults.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信