TY - JOUR
T1 - Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing
AU - Ranganathan, Kavitha
AU - Lejarraga, Tomás
N1 - Funding Information:
We are grateful to Nathan Berg, Stephen Brown and seminar participants of the winter school on bounded rationality 2019 for helpful comments. We thank Srinivasan R for research assistance. We acknowledge research support by the T A Pai Management Institute and generous support for Dr. Ranganathan’s Max Planck India Mobility Grant by the Max Planck Society . We also thank the Center for Adaptive Rationality at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development for hosting both authors of this work during a research visit.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2021/12
Y1 - 2021/12
N2 - Financial institutions across the globe are now required to measure how much risk their clients are willing to accept. Despite its importance, there is no consensus on how to assess risk attitudes in providing adequate and legally compliant financial services. The standard approaches have been challenged. Recently, financial regulators have begun to focus on the worst possible scenario: Retail investors should be inquired about how much loss they are willing and able to bear. We examine the satisficing method, a recent approach that brings the worst possible scenario to the center of the risk-preference assessment. This method involves asking participants to state the minimum returns they are willing to accept given a portfolio comprising a safe and a risky prospect. The stated minimum returns are a measure of risk preference. We observe that this measure correlates well with existing measures of risk preference, has high test–retest reliability while capturing high response variation, and predicts investments in stock or mutual funds.
AB - Financial institutions across the globe are now required to measure how much risk their clients are willing to accept. Despite its importance, there is no consensus on how to assess risk attitudes in providing adequate and legally compliant financial services. The standard approaches have been challenged. Recently, financial regulators have begun to focus on the worst possible scenario: Retail investors should be inquired about how much loss they are willing and able to bear. We examine the satisficing method, a recent approach that brings the worst possible scenario to the center of the risk-preference assessment. This method involves asking participants to state the minimum returns they are willing to accept given a portfolio comprising a safe and a risky prospect. The stated minimum returns are a measure of risk preference. We observe that this measure correlates well with existing measures of risk preference, has high test–retest reliability while capturing high response variation, and predicts investments in stock or mutual funds.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85114836041
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85114836041&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jbef.2021.100570
DO - 10.1016/j.jbef.2021.100570
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85114836041
SN - 2214-6350
VL - 32
JO - Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance
JF - Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance
M1 - 100570
ER -