财务算术、净值、财务管理技能客户特征基础上的财务风险承受能力[文献翻译]

编号：时间：2021年x月x日书山有路勤为径，学海无涯苦作舟页码：第11页 共11页原文：Financial Numeracy, Net Worth, and Financial Management Skills: Client Characteristics That Differ Based on Financial Risk ToleranceIntroductionThe personal financial planning literature over the past two decades, particularly papers published in the academic press, has increasingly focused on the exploration of the role demographic, socioeconomic, and psychosocial factors play in impacting individuals appetite for risk. There is an obvious reason for this interest in risk tolerance and resulting risk-taking activities on the part of consumers. As Roszkowski and Davey pointed out, “Assessment of risk tolerance is now generally recognized as a prerequisite to the development of a sound financial plan.” As such, it is important for financial advisors to have a defensible understanding of the factors associated with a current or potential clients tolerance for risk. According to Grable, “financial risk tolerance is defined as the maximum amount of uncertainty that someone is willing to accept when making a financial decision.” Additionally, the concept can be viewed as a persons “willingness or unwillingness to undertake a nonguaranteed course of action.” Finke and Huston stated, “People are rationally willing to take risks because they expect the additional utility derived from the positive outcome will, on average, outweigh the reduced utility from a negative outcome. In personal finance, willingness to take risk involves accepting an increased probability or degree of potential loss.” From a financial advisors perspective this simply means that clients ought to be willing to take on additional levels of investment risk in order to increase potential returns, which, if the returns are actually realized, should increase the clients level of satisfaction and happiness. For example, Finke and Huston demonstrated in their study that a willingness to take financial risk was associated with a significantly higher net worth and that, for persons over the age of 65, risk tolerance was among the strongest predictors of a higher net worth. The link between financial risk tolerance and wealth acumination, as suggested above, is relatively well-known in the practitioner and academic communities. More recently, the associations among risk tolerance, financial numeracy, and financial management skills, the latter concepts both being individual psychosocial factors, have garnered attention at the highest policy levels. It appears that across the spectrum of interests, policy makers, financial services practitioners, and researchers are looking for more evidence to help consumers make better financial decisions. Financial numeracy may provide a link to such evidence. The term financial numeracy is relatively new. Championed by Huhmann and McQuitty, financial numeracy is defined as “proficiency in processing, understanding, acquiring, and using financial information and concepts based on a consumers capacity and prior knowledge in this area.” Huhmann and McQuitty proposed a model of financial numeracy in an attempt to close the gap in the literature that shows an extremely limited amount of research by scholars to develop consensus definitions of related concepts, such as financial literacy, financial education, financial knowledge, or financial capability. In a sense, it appears that what some have called financial capability and financial literacy appear to be migrating and morphing into this new, broader construct known as financial numeracy. Huhmann and McQuitty argued that factors such as financial information-processing capacity, knowledge, and experience combine to allow individuals to navigate the complex financial marketplace. While related to cognitive ability and financial knowledge, the concept is as much a subjective evaluation of ones own financial processing ability as it is an objective measure of intelligence. It has been hypothesized in the literature that “financial savviness”, or what is referred to in this study as including both financial numeracy and financial management skill, plays a key role in the accumulation and preservation of wealth, especially during bear markets. For example, financial knowledge, as a generalized aspect of financial numeracy, is known to be positively associated with both risk tolerance and wealth accumulation, as is a persons proficiency in making financial decisions based on training and experiencei.e. financial management skill. It is not surprising then that households that exhibit relatively high risk tolerance, financial numeracy, and financial management skills might also display signs of wealth accumulation that exceeds that of households with low tolerances for risk and low levels of financial knowledge and management skills. The purpose of this study was to test the extent to which there are differences in financial risk tolerance based on a linear combination of financial numeracy, net worth, and financial management skills, while controlling for age. Specifically, measures of financial numeracy, net worth, and financial management skills are introduced and tested. As will be shown, these three measures appear to provide a useful insight into the subjective attitudes of clients. It is possible that these measures could be included in an advisors data gathering materials and assist the advisor in the process of educating clients to achieve their financial objectives. Measure of financial risk toleranceFinancial risk tolerance was measured with a single item called the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) risk question. The SCF risk question has been used as a measure of financial risk tolerance by the Federal Reserve Board for over two decades, and tests using the question have been published every year in a wide variety of contexts. Which of the statements on this page comes closest to the amount of financial risk that you are willing to take when you save or make investments?1. Take substantial financial risk expecting to earn substantial returns.2. Take above-average financial risks expecting to earn above-average returns.3. Take average financial risks expecting to earn average returns.4. Not willing to take any financial rise The validity and reliability of the question has been reported in the literature. Research conducted by Grable and Lytton showed that the item provides researchers and practitioners with a reasonable level of face validity. The question seems to be a particularly effective measure of investment risk tolerance. Consider the following insight from Yao and Hanna: “The SCF risk-tolerance measure may be a useful indicator of intentions in investing, and may be superior to measures of risk tolerance based on actual portfolio allocation, since many households have no investment assets.” So , while the risk question may not provide a comprehensive view of a persons overall tolerance for financial risk, the question is generally thought to do a reasonable job of helping researchers and practitioners evaluate tolerance for investment risks. In this study, the risk question was employed as a categorical predictor containing and defining multiple levels of risk. Respondents to this question classified themselves according to one of the levels of risk. Responses were coded as follows: “Not willing to take any financial risks” = 1 ; “Take average financial risks expecting to earn average returns” = 2; “Take above average financial risks expecting to earn above-average returns” = 3; and “Take substantial financial risks expecting to earn substantial returns” = 4. Using the language of PASW, the risk question was entered into the model as the primary fixed factor. Descriptive statistics for the question are shown in Table 1.The effect of financial risk toleranceTable provides evidence to address the three research hypotheses of this study. For financial numeracy, after controlling for age, individuals who classified them- selves as not risk seeking (SCF = 1, = -1.80, p .01) scored lower in financial numeracy than individuals who self-classified as average, above-average, or substantially risk tolerant. In other respects, those willing to take average, above-average, and substantial financial risk exhibited similar financial numeracy scores. The Beta coefficient ( = -1.80) denotes that there was a negative relationship between risk tolerance and financial numeracy. Those who assessed themselves as having no risk tolerance scored, on average, 1.80 points lower in financial numeracy than individuals who assessed themselves as substantial risk takers. In terms of net worth, after controlling for age, no risk takers displayed the lowest levels of self-assessed net worth (SCF = 1, = -2.34, p .01). In this case, those with no tolerance for risk scored 2.34 points lower than substantial risk takers on the net worth scale. Across and between the other risk categories, the differences in net worth were insignificant and not different from each other. The results from the test of the financial management skills dependent variable, after controlling for age, were relatively consistent with the previous findings from this study. Individuals who classified themselves as risk avoiders categorized themselves as having the lowest satisfaction with their financial management skills (SCF = 1, = -1.24, p .05). As was the situation with financial numeracy and net worth, average, above-average, and substantial risk takers were not significantly different from one another, although it is worth noting that above average risk takers self-assessed at the highest financial management skill level. In terms of financial management skill satisfaction, non-risk takers scored 1.24 points lower than substantial risk takers on the satisfaction scale. Pair wise comparisons were used to confirm the findings. It was revealed that, in terms of financial numeracy, individuals who were not willing to take risk (M = 5.53) were substantially different from average risk takers (M = 6.545), above-average risk takers (M = 6.69), and substantial risk takers (M = 7.33). A similar pattern was noted in terms of net worth. Those not willing to take risk (M = 5.46) were substantially different from average risk takers (M = 7.491), above-average risk takers (M = 8.20), and substantial risk takers (M = 7.80). The same relationships were noted in terms of financial management skills. Respondents who indicated having no tolerance for financial risk reported the lowest financial management skills (M = 5.01) compared to average (M = 6.60), above-average (M = 6.81), and substantial (M = 6.25) risk takers.Parameter Estimates of Dependent VariablesDependentVariableParameterPartial EtaSquaredFinancialnumeracyAge0.0140.014None-1.799a0.038Average-0.7870.009Above average-0.6470.005SubstantialReferencegroupNet worthAge-0.040a0.061None-2.338a0.037Average-0.3050.001Above average0.4080.001SubstantialReferencegroupFinancialmanagementskillsAge0.022a0.029None-1.239b0.016Average0.3490.001Above average0.5600.003SubstantialReference groupa p.0.1b p.0.5Source:John E.Grable,Ronald A.Sages,2010.“Financial Numeracy, Net Worth, and Financial Management Skills:Client Characteristics That DifferBased on Financial Risk Tolerance” .Journal of Financial Service Professionals,Vol.64 Issue 6,pp.57-65.译文：财务算术、净值、财务管理技能:客户特征基础上的财务风险承受能力简介个人理财规划文献在过去的20年里，特别是学术报刊上发表的论文，越来越注重人口的作用，社会经济的探索，与社会心理因素对个人风险偏好的影响。针对此风险承受能力，探寻部分消费者对此风险产生明显反应的原因。柔则斯科和戴维指出，“现在人们普遍认识到风险性评估是财务计划健全发展的前提”。因此，理财顾问了解影响现有或潜在客户风险承受能力的因素很重要。据格雷布尔，“财务风险承受能力是在做财务决策时愿意最多支付的量的不确定性”。此外，这一概念可以定义 “愿意或不愿意采取无法保证的行动过程”。芬克和休斯顿说：“人们愿意承担合理的风险，因为他们期望从积极的方面获得更多的实效性，平均大于负面结果降低的实效性。在个人理财，表现为愿意承担风险概率的增加或潜在损失的程度。”从财务顾问的角度，这仅仅意味着客户愿意对投资风险作出额外各种措施以提高潜在回报，而如果实现收益，则增加客户的满意度和幸福水平。例如，芬克和休斯顿在学习时表示，愿意承担财务风险的显著高于净资产，对于年满65岁的人来说，风险承受能力是其中一个高净资产的最强预测因子。上述建议是优秀从业者和闻名学术界论财务风险承受能力和财富的关系。最近，在风险承受能力财务计算能力、财务管技能，后者的概念都冠上个人心理因素，获得最高政策层面的关注。例如，没有这么多的金融服务公司提供规范机制了解消费者不断提高的金融市场，在2010年创造了个人理财保护局。一个备受争议的法案通过的主要论点是，在家庭决策层面缺乏审慎的财政，在普通人群中有部分人缺乏基本的财务知识和技能。看来，政策制定者、金融服务工作者、研究人员正在寻求更多证据，以帮助消费者作出更好的财务决策。财务算术可能提供证据间的联系。财务算术一词是相对较新。由翰马和么斯库尔倡导，财务算术的定义为“消费者在财务方面的能力和优先知识的基础上，加工、理解、熟练掌握和使用财务信息的概念” 。翰马和么斯库尔提出了财务算术模型，企图将学者们研究的极其有限发展的相关概念，如金融知识，金融教育，或财务能力，协商一致的定义。在某种意义上，财务能力和金融知识似乎蜕变成这种新的、更广泛的构建称为财务算术。翰马和么斯库尔认为，如金融信息处理能力、知识和经验因素相结合，让个人来操纵复杂的金融市场。认知能力和财务知识一样，主观评价自己的资金运作能力，是一种客观智力衡量。据推测，在文献“财务技能”是指在本研究中包括财务计算和财务管理技能，特别是在熊市场保存和积累财富中的重要作用。例如，金融知识，作为财务算术方面，是已知风险承受能力和财富积累的正相关关系。作财务决策时需要以财务管理技能为基础。这也难怪，表现出较高的风险承受能力财务计算能力和财务管理能力可能显示财富的积累，超过了与财务风险知识和财务管理技能水平低的家庭。本研究的目的是测试一定程度上的财务风险的财务计算能力、净资产和财务管理技能相结合的线性关系。具体来说，对金融计算能力、净资产和财务管理能力的措施进行介绍和测试。我们将会看到，这三项措施似乎对客户的主观态度有有益的见解。这是可能的，这些措施包括在搜集数据资料，并协助客户实现其财务目标的过程。讨论的结果提供了有关风险承受能力的措施，以及如何解释指导有关财务风险承受能力。衡量财务风险承受能力 财务风险承受能力是一个衡量消费者财务状况（SCF）风险问题的调查。在过去二十年中， 联邦储备局一直用现金流量表的风险问题来衡量财务风险承受度，测试使用的问题每年都出版了不同的上下文。以下哪个陈述贴切地描绘出财务风险程度，你是否愿意接受保留或投资?1、取实质性的财务风险期望赚取可观的回报。2、以平均水平的财务风险期望获得高于平均水平的回报。3、以平均财务风险期望赚取平均回报。4、不愿意采取任何财务对策。这个问题的有效性和可靠性已经在文献中报道。格雷布尔和利顿进行的研究表明， 该项目提供了研究人员和从业人员一个合理水平的表面效度。这个似乎是一个特别的投资风险容忍度的有效措施。考虑到姚和汉娜的以下见解：“消费者财务风险承受能力的措施可能是有用的投资意向指标，并可能优于实际投资组合配置为基础的风险承受能力措施，因为许多家庭没有资产投资。”因此，虽然风险问题也许不能提供一个人财务风险承受能力的全面整体的看法，但通常可以帮助研究人员和从业人员在投资风险评估工作上的合理性。在这项研究中，风险问题是一个明确界定的预测多种层次的风险。这个问题的受访者根据自己情况分类选择其中的风险水平。反应编码如下:“不愿意承担任何财务风险”= 1；“以平均财务风险期望赚取平均回报”= 2；“以高于平均水平的财务风险期望获得高于平均水平的回报”= 3；“采取实质性的财务风险期望获得实质性回报”= 4。风险问题是进入了主要固定因素模型。财务风险承受能力的影响表提供了证据，解决本研究的三个研究假设。控制年龄因素后，对于财务算术，个人自我风险偏好（消费者财务风险承受能力（SCF）= 1，= -1.80，p 0 . 01)得分低于个人平均财务算术，或个人归类为中等或者相当程度风险承受能力。在其他方面，那些愿意采取平均值，高于平均水平的，或实质性的财务风险期望赚取可观的回报。在贝塔系数（=-1.80）表示，风险承受能力与财务算术是负相关关系。这些评估为无风险承受能力自己得分，平均而言，在金融算术1.80百分点，低于个人评定为重大风险承担者。在净值方面，控制年龄因素后，无风险承受能力者显示最低层次的自我评估净资产（SCF= 1，=-2.34，p0.01）。在这种情况下，无风险承受能力者的得分为2.34分低于净资产风险接受者。在其他的风险类型之间的差异净值是无足轻重的，也是各不相同。控制年龄因素后，从财务管理技能测试因变量的结果，相对与以前的研究结果是一致的。风险逃避者的财务管理技能的满意度最低（SCF= 1，=-1.24，p=0.05）。对于财务计算能力和净值来说，平均值，高于平均值的，实质性的风险，他们彼此并没有显著不同的，尽管它值得注意的是一般水平以上的财务管理评估者的最高技术水平。两两比较是用来确认的结果。据透露，在财务上不愿意承担风险(M = 5.53)明显不同于平均风险接受者(M = 6.545)，中等风险接受者(M = 6.69)， 实质性的风险承担者(M = 7.33)。同样注意到，在净值方面的计算。那些不愿意承担风险(M = 5.46)明显不同于平均风险接受者(M = 7.491)，中等风险接受者(M = 8.2)者， 实质性的风险承担者(M = 7.80)。同样注意到，在财务管理技巧方面。受访者表示无财务风险承受能力(M = 5.01)相对于平均水平(M =6.60)，高于平均水平的(M = 6.81)，和实质性(M = 6.25)是最低的财务管理技能。因变量参数估计因变量参数部分埃塔平方财务算术年龄0.0140.014无-1.799a0.038平均数-0.7870.009平均以上-0.6470.005实质性参照组净值年龄-0.040a0.061无-2.338a0.037平均数-0.3050.001平均以上0.4080.001实质性参照组财务管理技能年龄0.022a0.029无-1.239b0.016平均数0.3490.001平均以上0.5600.003实质性参照组a p0.1b p0.5出处:约翰E.歌尔呗，罗纳德A.塞格，财务算术、净值、财务管理技能:客户特征基础上的财务风险承受能力，Journal of Financial Service Professionals，第64卷（6），2010：57-65.第 11 页 共 11 页