To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
3 results ✕ Clear filters

The diversification and welfare effects of robo-advising

Journal of Financial Economics 2024 157, 103869
We study the diversification and welfare effects of a large US robo-advisor on the portfolios of previously self-directed investors and document five facts. First, robo-advice reshapes portfolios by increasing indexing and reducing home bias, number of assets held, and fees. Second, these portfolio changes contribute to higher Sharpe ratios. Third, those who benefit most from robo-advice are investors who did not have high exposure to equities or indexing and had poorer diversification levels. Fourth, robo-advice decreases the time investors dedicate to managing their investments. Fifth, those investors who benefit most are more likely to join the service and not quit it.

Goal Setting and Saving in the FinTech Era

Journal of Finance 2024 79(3), 1931-1976
We study the effectiveness of saving goals in increasing individuals' savings using data from a Fintech app. Using a difference‐in‐differences identification strategy that randomly assigns users into a group of beta testers who can set goals and a group of users who cannot, we find that setting goals increases individuals' savings rate. The increased savings within the app do not reduce savings outside the app. Moreover, goal setting helps those individuals previously identified as having the lowest propensity to save. Matching App user survey responses to their behavior highlights the relative merits of monitoring and concreteness channels in explaining our findings.

Crowdsourcing peer information to change spending behavior

Journal of Financial Economics 2024 157, 103858
We isolate the information channel of peer effects in consumption in a setting that excludes a role for common shocks or social pressure—a spending panel paired with crowdsourced information about anonymous “peers” elicited at different times. Consumers converge to peers’ spending, and more so when peer signals are more informative. Convergence is asymmetric: within 12 months of information provision, overspenders close 17% and underspenders 5% of their gap relative to peers. We exploit the quasi-random assignment to peer groups in an instrumental-variable strategy and implement an experiment for external validity. Our results are consistent with information-based theories of overconsumption.