财务建议和自由裁量权限制

S. Davies
{"title":"财务建议和自由裁量权限制","authors":"S. Davies","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2430938","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Biased recommendations from financial advisors often lead to suboptimal portfolios and unnecessary fees. The compensation contracts used in practice lack high-powered incentive alignment and are incapable of mitigating conflicts of interest. However, all is not lost; individuals can attenuate the agency cost by limiting their advisors' choices via discretion limits. In this paper, I characterize optimal discretion limits. I show that discretion limits resolve much of the agency conflict and that the mechanism is robust. The analysis provides novel recommendations for policy and practice.","PeriodicalId":252294,"journal":{"name":"Household Financial Planning eJournal","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Financial Advice and Discretion Limits\",\"authors\":\"S. Davies\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2430938\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Biased recommendations from financial advisors often lead to suboptimal portfolios and unnecessary fees. The compensation contracts used in practice lack high-powered incentive alignment and are incapable of mitigating conflicts of interest. However, all is not lost; individuals can attenuate the agency cost by limiting their advisors' choices via discretion limits. In this paper, I characterize optimal discretion limits. I show that discretion limits resolve much of the agency conflict and that the mechanism is robust. The analysis provides novel recommendations for policy and practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":252294,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Household Financial Planning eJournal\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Household Financial Planning eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2430938\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Household Financial Planning eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2430938","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

财务顾问有偏见的建议往往会导致不理想的投资组合和不必要的费用。实践中使用的薪酬契约缺乏强有力的激励一致性,无法缓解利益冲突。然而,并不是所有的都输了;个人可以通过自由裁量权限制顾问的选择来降低代理成本。在本文中,我描述了最优自由裁量权限制。我表明,自由裁量权限制解决了大部分机构冲突,而且该机制是健全的。该分析为政策和实践提供了新颖的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Financial Advice and Discretion Limits
Biased recommendations from financial advisors often lead to suboptimal portfolios and unnecessary fees. The compensation contracts used in practice lack high-powered incentive alignment and are incapable of mitigating conflicts of interest. However, all is not lost; individuals can attenuate the agency cost by limiting their advisors' choices via discretion limits. In this paper, I characterize optimal discretion limits. I show that discretion limits resolve much of the agency conflict and that the mechanism is robust. The analysis provides novel recommendations for policy and practice.
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