Towards Understanding Life Cycle Saving Of Boundedly Rational Agents: A Model With Feasibility Goals - Replaced by CentER Discussion Paper 2010-138

This paper develops a new life cycle model that aims to describe the savings and asset allocation decisions of boundedly rational agents. The paper’s main theoretical contribution is the provision of a simple, tractable and parsimonious framework within which agents make forward looking decisions in the absence of full contingent planning. Instead, agents pursue two simple so-called feasibility goals. The paper uses this framework to shed light on important empirical patterns of asset allocation that are puzzling from the point of view of existing models.Behavioral economics;bounded rationality;equity shares;feasibility goals;life cycle saving;stock market participation

A Simple Bounded-Rationality Life Cycle Model

Life cycle saving decisions belong to the most complex financial decisions that we are faced with in our life. Psychologists have found that when making complex decisions people use short-cuts in the form of minimum requirements for particular attribute categories of choice options. This paper presents a new simple life cycle model where agents do invoke such minimum requirements. The model is highly tractable and parsimonious. Calibrations show that it allows us to better understand important data on saving and asset allocation. It is shown that the model is much better able to explain these data than standard workhorse models even when generously controlling for subtle differences in the “degrees of freedom” between the new and existing models.Asset allocation;behavioral economics;bounded rationality;life cycle saving;noncompensatory decision making;threshold goals

Imperfect Information, Democracy, and Populism

The modern world is complex and difficult to understand for voters, who may hold beliefs that are at variance with reality. Politicians face incentives to pander to voters' beliefs to get reelected. We analyze the welfare effects of this pandering and show that it entails both costs and benefits. Moreover, we explore optimal constitutional design in the presence of imperfect information about how the world works. We compare indirect democracy to direct democracy and to delegation of policy making to independent agents. We find that indirect democracy is often welfare maximizing.Imperfect information;beliefs;democracy;populism;accountabil- ity;experts

What is an Adequate Standard of Living During Retirement?

Many economists and policy-makers argue that households do not save enough to maintain an adequate standard of living during retirement. However, there is no consensus on the answer to the underlying question what this standard should be, despite the fact that it is crucial for the design of saving incentives and pension reforms. We address this question with a survey, individually tailored to each respondent’s financial situation, conducted both in the U.S. and the Netherlands. Key findings are that adequate levels of retirement spending exceed 70 percent of working life spending, and minimum acceptable replacement rates depend strongly on income.Life cycle preferences;pension reform;replacement rates;retirement saving

How Real People Make Long-Term Decisions: The Case of Retirement Preparation

A canonical but untested assumption in economics is that choices are determined only by preferences and budget constraints, but not by how people approach decision making. In particular, it is believed that people behave “as if they optimized”, even if they do not engage in any formal planning. We test this empirically in the domain of retirement saving using a specifically designed survey. We find that people who rely on a rule of thumb indeed behave like literal planners/optimizers. However, people without any systematic approach save substantially less. We discuss the implications of this finding.Decision process;planning;rule of thumb;retirement saving;household finance

The Role of Desicion Making Processes in the Correlation between Wealth and Health

There are many pathways explaining the relationship between socioeconomic status and health; one possibility is that some normally unobservable characteristic causes people to invest both in their financial well-being and their health. Here we consider the possibility that the decision making processes are similar across domains and that the steps individuals take to make decisions can help to explain the correlation in outcomes across domains. We focus particularly on retirement savings decisions and decisions in the health domain. Choices in both domains have long-term consequences and therefore require foresight and the ability to process complex information. Our results suggest that up to 44% of the correlation between wealth and health is due to the processes that people use to make these choices.Health;Wealth;Decision Making

The Miracle of Compound Interest: Does our Intuition Fail?

When it comes to estimating the benefits of long-term savings, many people rely on their intuition. Focusing on the domain of retirement savings, we use a randomized experiment to explore people’s intuition about how money accumulates over time. We ask half of our sample to estimate future consumption given savings (the forward perspective). The other half of the sample is asked to estimate savings given future consumption (the backward perspective). From an economic point of view, both subsamples are asked identical questions. However, we discover a large “direction bias”: the perceived benefits of long-term savings are substantially higher when individuals adopt a backward perspective. Our findings have important impli- cations for economic modeling, in general, and for structuring advice and financial literacy programs, in particular.Behavioral economics;financial intuition;financial literacy;com- pound interest;retirement saving

How Real People Make Long-Term Decisions:The Case of Retirement Preparation

A canonical but untested assumption in economics is that choices are determined only by preferences and budget constraints, but not by how people approach decision making. In particular, it is believed that people behave “as if they optimized”, even if they do not engage in any formal planning. We test this empirically in the domain of retirement saving using a specifically designed survey. We find that people who rely on a rule of thumb indeed behave like literal planners/optimizers. However, people without any systematic approach save substantially less. We discuss the implications of this finding.