Stephen G. Dimmock

Bio: Stephen G. Dimmock is an academic researcher from National University of Singapore. The author has contributed to research in topics: Portfolio & Ambiguity aversion. The author has an hindex of 23, co-authored 59 publications receiving 1562 citations. Previous affiliations of Stephen G. Dimmock include Michigan State University & Nanyang Technological University.

Loss-Aversion and Household Portfolio Choice

Abstract: In this paper we empirically test if loss-aversion affects household participation in equity markets, household allocations to equity, and household allocations between mutual funds and individual stocks. Using household survey data, we obtain direct measures of each surveyed household’s loss-aversion coefficient from questions involving hypothetical payoffs. We find that higher loss-aversion is associated with a lower probability of participation. We also find that higher loss-aversion reduces the probability of direct stockholding by significantly more than the probability of owning mutual funds. After controlling for sample selection we do not find a relationship between loss-aversion and portfolio allocations to equity.

How University Endowments Respond to Financial Market Shocks: Evidence and Implications

Abstract: Endowment payouts have become an increasingly important component of universities' revenues in recent decades We study how universities respond to financial shocks to endowments and thus shed light on a number of existing models of endowment behavior Endowments actively reduce payouts relative to their stated payout policies following negative, but not positive, shocks This asymmetric behavior is consistent with "endowment hoarding," especially among endowments whose current value is close to the benchmark value at the start of the university president's tenure We also document the effect of negative endowment shocks on university operations, such as personnel cuts

Ambiguity Attitudes in a Large Representative Sample

Abstract: Using a theorem showing that matching probabilities of ambiguous events can capture ambiguity attitudes, we introduce a tractable method for measuring ambiguity attitudes and apply it in a large representative sample. In addition to ambiguity aversion, we confirm an ambiguity component recently found in laboratory studies: a-insensitivity, the tendency to treat subjective likelihoods as 50-50, thus overweighting extreme events. Our ambiguity measurements are associated with real economic decisions; specifically, a-insensitivity is negatively related to stock market participation. Ambiguity aversion is also negatively related to stock market participation, but only for subjects who perceive stock returns as highly ambiguous.

Predicting Fraud by Investment Managers

Abstract: We test the predictability of investment fraud using a panel of mandatory disclosures filed with the SEC. We find that disclosures related to past regulatory and legal violations, conflicts of interest, and monitoring have significant power to predict fraud. Avoiding the 5% of firms with the highest ex ante predicted fraud risk would allow an investor to avoid 29% of fraud cases and over 40% of the total dollar losses from fraud. We find no evidence that investors receive compensation for fraud risk through superior performance or lower fees. We examine the barriers to implementing fraud prediction models and suggest changes to the SEC's data access policies that could benefit investors.

Trusting the stock market

Abstract: We study the effect that a general lack of trust can have on stock market participation. In deciding whether to buy stocks, investors factor in the risk of being cheated. The perception of this risk is a function of the objective characteristics of the stocks and the subjective characteristics of the investor. Less trusting individuals are less likely to buy stock and, conditional on buying stock, they will buy less. In Dutch and Italian micro data, as well as in cross-country data, we find evidence consistent with lack of trust being an important factor in explaining the limited participation puzzle. THE DECISION TO INVEST IN stocks requires not only an assessment of the risk‐ return trade-off given the existing data, but also an act of faith (trust) that the data in our possession are reliable and that the overall system is fair. Episodes like the collapse of Enron may change not only the distribution of expected payoffs, but also the fundamental trust in the system that delivers those payoffs. Most of us will not enter a three-card game played on the street, even after observing a lot of rounds (and thus getting an estimate of the “true” distribution of payoffs). The reason is that we do not trust the fairness of the game (and the person playing it). In this paper, we claim that for many people, especially people unfamiliar with finance, the stock market is not intrinsically different from the three-card game. They need to have trust in the fairness of the game and in the reliability of the numbers to invest in it. We focus on trust to explain differences in stock market participation across individuals and across countries. We define trust as the subjective probability individuals attribute to the possibility of being cheated. This subjective probability is partly based on objective

Financial Literacy, Financial Education, and Downstream Financial Behaviors

Abstract: Policy makers have embraced financial education as a necessary antidote to the increasing complexity of consumers' financial decisions over the last generation. We conduct a meta-analysis of the relationship of financial literacy and of financial education to financial behaviors in 168 papers covering 201 prior studies. We find that interventions to improve financial literacy explain only 0.1% of the variance in financial behaviors studied, with weaker effects in low-income samples. Like other education, financial education decays over time; even large interventions with many hours of instruction have negligible effects on behavior 20 months or more from the time of intervention. Correlational studies that measure financial literacy find stronger associations with financial behaviors. We conduct three empirical studies, and we find that the partial effects of financial literacy diminish dramatically when one controls for psychological traits that have been omitted in prior research or when one uses an instrument for financial literacy to control for omitted variables. Financial education as studied to date has serious limitations that have been masked by the apparently larger effects in correlational studies. We envisage a reduced role for financial education that is not elaborated or acted upon soon afterward. We suggest a real but narrower role for “just-in-time” financial education tied to specific behaviors it intends to help. We conclude with a discussion of the characteristics of behaviors that might affect the policy maker's mix of financial education, choice architecture, and regulation as tools to help consumer financial behavior. This paper was accepted by Uri Gneezy, behavioral economics.

Financial Literacy, Financial Education and Downstream Financial Behaviors (full paper and web appendix)

Abstract: Policy makers have embraced financial education as a necessary antidote to the increasing complexity of consumers’ financial decisions over the last generation. We conduct a meta-analysis of the relationship of financial literacy and of financial education to financial behaviors in 168 papers covering 201 prior studies. We find that interventions to improve financial literacy explain only 0.1% of the variance in financial behaviors studied, with weaker effects in low-income samples. Like other education, financial education decays over time; even large interventions with many hours of instruction have negligible effects on behavior 20 months or more from the time of intervention. Correlational studies that measure financial literacy find stronger associations with financial behaviors. We conduct three empirical studies and we find that the partial effects of financial literacy diminish dramatically when one controls for psychological traits that have been omitted in prior research or when one uses an instrument for financial literacy to control for omitted variables. Financial education as studied to date has serious limitations that have been masked by the apparently larger effects in correlational studies. We envisage a reduced role for financial education that is not elaborated or acted upon soon afterward. We suggest a real but narrower role for “just in time” financial education tied to specific behaviors it intends to help. We conclude with a discussion of the characteristics of behaviors that might affect the policy maker’s mix of financial education, choice architecture, and regulation as tools to help consumer financial behavior.

Thirty Years of Prospect Theory in Economics: A Review and Assessment

Abstract: Prospect theory, first described in a 1979 paper by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, is widely viewed as the best available description of how people evaluate risk in experimental settings. While the theory contains many remarkable insights, it has proven challenging to apply these insights in economic settings, and it is only recently that there has been real progress in doing so. In this paper, after first reviewing prospect theory and the difficulties inherent in applying it, I discuss some of this recent work. It is too early to declare this research effort an unqualified success. But the rapid progress of the last decade makes me optimistic that at least some of the insights of prospect theory will eventually find a permanent and significant place in mainstream economic analysis.