Person:

Egan, Mark

We use a revealed-preference approach to estimate investor expectations of stock market returns. Using data on demand for index funds that follow the S&P 500, we develop and estimate a model of investor choice to flexibly recover the time-varying distribution of expected future returns across investors. Our analysis is facilitated by the prevalence of leveraged funds that track the same underlying asset: by choosing between higher and lower leverage, investors trade off higher return against less risk. Our estimates indicate that investor expectations are heterogeneous, extrapolative, and persistent. Following a downturn, investors become more pessimistic on average, but there is also an increase in disagreement among participating investors due to the presence of contrarian investors.>

Households in the United States often rely on financial advisers for investment and savings decisions, yet there is a widespread perception that many advisers are dishonest. This distrust is not unwarranted: approximately one in fifteen advisers has a history of serious misconduct, with this rate rising to one in six in certain regions and firms. We explore the economic foundations of the financial advisory industry and demonstrate how heterogeneity in household financial sophistication and conflicts of interest allow poor financial advice to persist. Using data on the universe of financial advisers and the Survey of Consumer Finances, we document who uses financial advisers and the prevalence of misconduct in the industry. Our findings suggest that a lack of financial sophistication is a key friction, making enhanced disclosure a potentially effective policy response. Supporting this, we show through a difference-in-differences approach that "naming and shaming" firms with high misconduct rates was associated with a 10 percent reduction in misconduct.

We examine gender differences in misconduct punishment in the financial advisory industry. We find evidence of a “gender punishment gap”: following an incident of misconduct, female advisers are 20% more likely to lose their jobs and 30% less likely to find new jobs relative to male advisers. Females face harsher outcomes despite engaging in misconduct that is 20% less costly and having a substantially lower propensity towards repeat offenses. The gender punishment gap in hiring and firing dissipates at firms with a greater percentage of female managers at the firm or local branch level. The gender punishment gap is not driven by gender differences in occupation (type of job, firm, market, or financial products handled), productivity, misconduct, or recidivism. We extend our analysis to explore the differential treatment of ethnic minority men and find similar patterns of “in-group” tolerance. Our evidence is inconsistent with a simple Bayesian model with profit maximizing firms and suggests instead that managers are more forgiving of missteps among members of their own gender/ethnic group.

We examine the variable annuity market to study conflicts of interest and the effect of fiduciary duty in brokerage markets. Insurers typically pay brokers higher commissions for selling more expensive annuities. Our results indicate that sales are four times as sensitive to brokers’ interests as to investors’. To limit conflicts of interest, the Department of Labor proposed a rule in 2016 holding brokers to a fiduciary standard. We find that after the proposal, sales of high-expense products fell by 52% as sales became more sensitive to expenses. Based on our structural estimates, investor welfare improved overall. Authors have furnished an Internet Appendix, which is available on the Oxford University Press Web site next to the link to the final published paper online.