农户选择土地产权抵押贷款融资意愿研究——基于多元有序Logistic模型

选取2017年甘肃陇南四个村镇162个样本农户的相关调研数据,运用多元有序Logistic模型对农户土地产权抵押贷款融资意愿进行实证分析。结果显示：由于收入水平和抗风险能力原因,风险认知因素有负向影响;政策环境和融资评价虽然对农户有着正向影响,但农户普遍认为当地存在资金来源单一和利率较高的现象,并且信息传递存在障碍;服务认知在一定程度上负向影响农户意愿;社会保险、社会关系、家庭情况和对象特征影响不显著。     

金融素养能提高农民住房财产权抵押贷款需求吗？——基于政策激励视角的实证研究

本文依据四川省和重庆市共计708个试点地与非试点地调查问卷的农户调研数据,阐释了金融素养影响农民农房抵押贷款需求的机理,然后通过对受不同程度的政策激励影响的地区分组,即试点地区和非试点地区,并利用Probit回归检验不同强度的政策激励对金融素养引致农房抵押贷款的参与意愿的变化,得到以下结论:第一,全样本中农户对于农房抵押贷款接受度为28%,其中试点地区农户接受度高于平均水平5%;第二,金融素养对于农民农房抵押贷款需求有显著的正向影响,并且该影响会因为有较强的政策激励而得到提高,同时发现农户分化、实际耕地面积、风险偏好等因素会显著影响农户的需求。在此基础上提出多方合作推进金融知识宣传等政策建议。     

林权抵押贷款对农户融资偏好的影响研究述评

本文以农户融资为研究视角,从农户融资偏好出发,对农户融资偏好和农户林权抵押贷款相关文献进行了综述。通过对现有农户融资偏好顺序、农户融资偏好影响因素和林权抵押贷款的模式、存在问题及对策、意愿及其影响因素等相关研究的归纳总结,以期为相关研究提供理论指导及可能提供新的研究视角。     

情绪投资组合模型及其实证分析——基于前景理论

投资者情绪对其决策有直接的影响,投资者的风险厌恶系数与其已有的投资业绩有关。本文在假设投资者风险厌恶且其风险厌恶系数受其损益情绪影响的条件下,以投资者损益情绪效用最大化为决策目标,建立基于投资者损益情绪的投资组合模型,有效地刻画出投资者的损益情绪对投资组合决策的影响。采用上证市场的行业指数进行实证分析,并与Markowitz模型进行对比,结果表明,情绪投资组合模型的组合效果更好。     

政策激励视角下金融素养对农民农房抵押贷款需求的影响研究

论文依据四川省和重庆市共计708份试点地与非试点地的农户调研数据,阐释了金融素养影响农民农房抵押贷款需求的机理,然后通过对受不同程度政策激励影响的地区分组,即试点地区和非试点地区,并利用Probit回归检验不同强度的政策激励对金融素养引致农房抵押贷款的参与意愿的变化。得到以下结论:第一,全样本中农户对于农房抵押贷款接受度为28%,其中试点地区农户接受度高于平均水平五个百分点。第二,金融素养对于农民农房抵押贷款需求有显著的正向影响,并且该影响会因为有较强的政策激励而得到提高。第三,农户分化、实际耕地面积、风险偏好等因素会显著影响农户的需求。同时还使用工具变量进行内生性检验和分地区稳健性检验,均支持基准回归结果,在此基础上提出多方合作推进金融知识宣传等政策建议。     

情绪投资组合模型及其实证分析--基于前景理论

投资者情绪对其决策有直接的影响,投资者的风险厌恶系数与其已有的投资业绩有关。本文在假设投资者风险厌恶且其风险厌恶系数受其损益情绪影响的条件下,以投资者损益情绪效用最大化为决策目标,建立基于投资者损益情绪的投资组合模型,有效地刻画出投资者的损益情绪对投资组合决策的影响。采用上证市场的行业指数进行实证分析,并与Markowitz模型进行对比,结果表明,情绪投资组合模型的组合效果更好。     

农村宅基地使用权抵押贷款:农户借贷意愿及影响因素北大核心

发展宅基地使用权抵押贷款,是缓解农村融资需求与资金供给矛盾、繁荣农村金融市场的重要途径。本文以河南省562户农村家庭问卷调查数据为研究样本,运用Logistic回归模型,对农户以宅基地使用权为抵押进行借贷的意愿及其影响因素进行实证分析。研究结果表明:户主为男性、户主年龄较低、非农收入占比较高、有信贷经历的农户,其借贷意愿较强;承包经营耕地面积、资金需求满足程度、贷款期限对农户借贷意愿有正向影响,宅基地使用权流转难度、贷款申请难度、宅基地在养老保障中的重要性、利率水平对农户借贷意愿有负向影响。推动宅基地使用权抵押贷款业务发展,要从需求端和供给端着手,一方面激发农户借贷意愿,另一方面完善信贷配套制度;还要稳妥推进城乡社会保障均等化,为宅基地使用权所承载的过多社会职能"松绑"。     

风险态度与居民财富——来自中国微观调查的新探究

随着资本市场的快速发展,在风险资产回报率剧烈波动的现实背景下,考察居民风险态度关于财富的函数形式对于研究家庭资产配置和相关市场政策的福利影响有重要的意义。本文使用代表性家庭调查数据,首次通过构建绝对和相对风险态度的指标,系统分析了我国居民风险偏好与财富之间的关系。研究表明,居民的绝对风险厌恶系数是财富的减函数,相对风险厌恶系数是财富的增函数,从而拒绝了常用于经济学模型假设的常绝对风险厌恶(CARA)和常相对风险厌恶(CRRA)偏好。进一步,我们发现背景风险可能是财富对风险态度的作用渠道之一,财富的变化改变了投资者面对的背景风险水平,继而改变其风险厌恶程度和对风险金融资产的投资。这意味着平抑经济过度波动等控制背景风险的政策将有助于提高居民金融市场参与的积极性。     

关系强度、社会互动与农民购买商业养老保险意愿——基于修订的S-O-R模型

基于信息-认知-意愿理论模型对农民投资商业养老保险决策行为意愿进行研究,信息方面考虑农民间小世界网络结构特性的关系强度和社会互动,认知方面考虑感知风险、感知价值和信任,意愿方面考虑保险购买决策中行为意愿。研究表明关系强度对购买意愿有显著的影响,如果信息由强关系来源提供,农民往往对商业养老保险产品信息的感知风险要低一些,感知价值和信任程度要高一些,从而影响农民购买商业养老保险的意愿。社会互动对农民购买商业养老保险意愿的影响不显著,但是社会互动却对农民的感知风险、感知价值产生影响。感知风险、感知价值和信任显著影响了农民的购买意愿。     

CEO风险偏好、财务困境与企业违规

CEO作为企业战略决策的首席执行官,其自身的认知基础、风险偏好等个人特质会通过影响组织决策与战略布局进而影响企业行为.为此,基于高层梯队理论和舞弊三角理论,以2010-2018年沪深A股上市企业为研究样本,实证检验C EO风险偏好、财务困境与企业违规倾向的关系.结果表明:由风险偏好型C EO任职的企业违规倾向更高,企业财务困境对主效应具有调节作用.     

Fertility policy and stock market participation: Evidence from the universal two-child policy in China

The Universal Two-Child Policy (UTCP) was implemented in 2016 to mitigate China's aging society. Based on the China Household Finance Survey in 2015 and 2017, this paper applies a difference-in-difference (DID) model to investigate the UTCP's impact on households' stock market participation behavior. The results show that the UTCP has a negative impact on stock market participation, which reduces households' stock market participation ratio as well as stock allocation in their financial portfolios. This decline is caused by the change in the risk preference of households. Furthermore, the impact of UTCP is more pronounced for households that are more risk averse, households that live in first- and second-tier cities, households that live in central and eastern China and households that have already had one child. Overall, this study provides new insights into the impact of China's UTCP on households' economic behavior and their decisions regarding financial market participation.     

Myopic loss aversion and stock investments: An empirical study of private investors

Myopic loss aversion was suggested by Benartzi and Thaler (1995) as an explanation for the equity premium puzzle. Its main prediction is that loss averse investors, who evaluate their investment performance too frequently and therefore often observe small losses on their stock portfolios, would invest too little in equity. We investigate the link between myopic loss aversion and actual investment decisions of individual investors, using survey data. Our results are consistent with the predictions of Benartzi and Thaler. Higher myopic loss aversion is associated with lower stock investment as a share of total assets. Investors tend to evaluate their stock portfolio performance too often, which contributes to the prevalence of myopic loss aversion. The effect of myopia is most apparent when investors both evaluate their portfolios frequently and trade stocks regularly.     

Participation in Micro Life Insurance and the Use of Other Financial Services in Ghana

This article investigates households’ decisions to take up micro life insurance and to use other financial services. It estimates a multivariate probit model based on Ghanaian household survey data. The results suggest a mutually reinforcing relationship between the use of insurance and the use of other formal financial services. Risk‐averse households and households who consider themselves more exposed to risk than others are found to be less likely to participate in insurance. This suggests that insurance is considered to be risky. There is indicative evidence for adverse selection and a life‐cycle effect in the uptake of insurance.     

Does operating risk affect portfolio risk? Evidence from insurers' securities holding

This study empirically examines, in the setting of insurance companies, the hypothesis that investors facing more operating risk may behave as if they were more risk averse in investment decisions. Specifically, we study how operating risk from underwriting insurance policies affects insurers' risk taking behavior in their portfolio investments. We find that insurers with higher volatilities in underwriting incomes and cash flows are more conservative in their financial investment risk taking – they have lower credit risk exposure in their bond investments, as well as lower portfolio weights on risky bonds and equities. Further, insurers' portfolio risk exposure is sensitive to the risk of permanent underwriting income shocks but insensitive to the risk of transitory shocks. Transitory operating risk, however, is significantly related to portfolio risk when insurers face tight financing constraints. Our findings suggest a substitutive effect of operating risk on investment decisions by financial institutions.     

The Impact of Affective Reactions on Risky Decision Making in Accounting Contexts

In this study we examine whether managers' affective reactions influence their risk–taking tendencies in capital budgeting decisions. Prior research on risky decision making indicates that decision makers are often risk averse when choosing among alternatives that yield potential gains, and risk taking when the alternatives yield losses. The results reported here indicate that negative or positive affective reactions can change this commonly found risky behavior. Managers were generally risk avoiding (taking) for gains (losses) in the absence of affective reactions, as predicted by prospect theory. However, when affect was present, they tended to reject investment alternatives that elicited negative affect and accept alternatives that elicited positive affect, resulting in risk taking (avoiding) in gain (loss) contexts. The results also indicate that affective reactions can influence managers to choose alternatives with lower economic value, suggesting that managers consider both financial data and affective reactions when evaluating the utility of a decision alternative. These findings point to the importance of considering affective reactions when attempting to understand and predict risky decision making in accounting contexts.     

An empirical analysis of differences in Black and White asset and liability combinations☆

This study analyzes data from the 1992 Survey of Consumer Finances and finds significant differences in asset and liability combinations between Black and White households. In addition, White households are identified as having significantly greater net worth and financial assets relative to Black households. We are unable to show that the net worth of Black households is constrained by barriers in financial markets. Our study investigates how this difference in net worth could engender different financing decisions. We find that Black households are significantly more risk averse in their choice of assets. Further, we find that Black households typically pay higher rates for several types of credit instruments, even though they self identify as conducting significantly more extensive searches in the financial markets. JEL classification: D10; D31; J15     

Hedging labor income risk

We use a detailed panel data set of Swedish households to investigate the relation between their labor income risk and financial investment decisions. In particular, we relate changes in wage volatility to changes in the portfolio holdings for households that switched industries between 1999 and 2002. We find that households do adjust their portfolio holdings when switching jobs, which is consistent with the idea that households hedge their human capital risk in the stock market. The results are statistically and economically significant. A household going from an industry with low wage volatility to one with high volatility ceteris paribus decreases its portfolio share of risky assets by up to 35%, or $15,575.     

Risk Attitude and Housing Wealth Effect

This paper examines whether the housing wealth effect—the consumption change induced by house price appreciation is dependent upon households’ attitudes toward risk. A simple theoretical model is introduced to highlight a negative relationship between the wealth effect and risk aversion. The paper empirically tests for this negative relationship, using data from the U.S. Consumer Expenditure Survey. The investigation involves two steps. In the first step, we make use of households’ demographics and their risky and liquid asset holdings to estimate risk aversion. The Heckman correction model is applied to address the issue of limited stock market participation. For the second step, we construct pseudo panel data through grouping households by their birth years and their predicted values of risk aversion, and then, we estimate the responses of households’ consumption changes to house price fluctuations by risk-attitude group. Consistent with the prediction of the theoretical model, the estimation results suggest a significant negative relationship between the housing wealth effect and households’ risk attitudes. Households, who are less risk averse, experience greater consumption changes in response to house price appreciation.     

From boom ‘til bust: How loss aversion affects asset prices

This article studies the impact of heterogeneous loss averse investors on asset prices. In very good states loss averse investors become gradually less risk averse as wealth rises above their reference point, pushing up equity prices. When wealth drops below the reference point the investors become risk seeking and demand for stocks increases drastically, eventually leading to a forced sell-off and stock market bust in bad states. Heterogeneity in reference points and initial wealth of the loss averse investors does not change the salient features of the equilibrium price process, such as a relatively high equity premium, high volatility and counter-cyclical changes in the equity premium.     

Investment,Idiosyncratic Risk,and Ownership

High‐powered incentives may induce higher managerial effort, but they also expose managers to idiosyncratic risk. If managers are risk averse, they might underinvest when firm‐specific uncertainty increases, leading to suboptimal investment decisions from the perspective of well‐diversified shareholders. We empirically document that, when idiosyncratic risk rises, firm investment falls, and more so when managers own a larger fraction of the firm. This negative effect of managerial risk aversion on investment is mitigated if executives are compensated with options rather than with shares or if institutional investors form a large part of the shareholder base.