I am happy to post on my blog a comment by Nan Morrison, President and CEO of the Council for Economic Education, on the article "Greater Fools" published in the New Yorker.
James Surowieki’s financial page piece “Greater Fools” unfortunately quite accurately diagnoses the depths of America’s struggle with financial literacy and its costs to society. And without significant changes, our children may face an even worse fate than their parents. Nellie Mae reports that on average, incoming freshmen now bring an average of $1,585 in credit card debt to college.
Yet despite the extent of this problem, according to a CEE / State Farm survey, only 21 states require an economics course to be taken in K-12, and only 13 states require a course in personal finance. Even fewer require testing of these concepts. But requirements need trained teachers, and to make matters worse, as a society, we are not preparing teachers to deliver this vital content with confidence. In a recent survey by the National Endowment for Financial Education (NEFE), less than 20 percent of teachers reported feeling competent to teach basic personal finance topics. Furthermore, even many teachers of high school economics have taken two or fewer semesters of economics in college.
In our eyes, the real question is “How, as a society, can we improve our economic and financial literacy and what benefits might we see in future generations as a result?” Our answer at the Council for Economic Education (CEE) – equip and enable teachers to educate our children in basic personal finance and economic concepts in school from kindergarten through 12th grade. Why? Good habits are built early, just like brushing your teeth.
America is about economic opportunity – our kids need to be financially fit and economically literate to grasp that opportunity. As consumers, investors, entrepreneurs, and voters we all make decisions that involve finance and economics every day. If every parent, school and state, made economic and financial education a priority in schools from K-12, perhaps more Americans would be able to ensure their financial well being in a changing and complex world. Improving our collective economic and financial literacy is vital to our economic growth, job creation, and prosperity. Many in government, education, and financial services, across our nation support those goals, as they are good business and good citizenship well as essential ingredients in a stable financial system.
Nan J. Morrison
President & CEO, Council for Economic Education
Senin, 19 Juli 2010
Jumat, 16 Juli 2010
Greater Fools
James Surowiecki’s recent column in The New Yorker magazine discussed the dangers of financial illiteracy in America. It is great that such a prominent and widely read magazine has featured a piece on the issue of financial illiteracy. I do not know about you, but I love The New Yorker: not only is it great reading, but it makes me dream of all the things I could do if I were living in New York! In this blog, I want to write in more detail about something that I discussed with James Surowiecki and which he reported in his column.
Of the changes that we have witnessed in the financial markets in recent decades, we have seen not only an increased complexity in financial products but also an increased reliance on the expertise (or lack thereof) of consumers. For example, individuals have been bombarded with credit card offers. One could easily sign up for a sizeable collection of credit cards and, in so doing, borrow a large amount of money. While some consumers have been targeted more than others, many are receiving printed checks in the mail. These types of offers make it very easy to borrow; and it is the individual who has to be savvy about how to use the credit cards and checks that come in the mail; the offers will keep coming, and the amount one can borrow will keep increasing, irrespective of how much one can afford.
Subprime mortgages have worked in much the same way. While banks and mortgage lenders would normally do background work in order to assess how much to lend their potential borrowers, subprime mortgages were available to almost anyone who wanted a mortgage, regardless of their ability to afford the loan they were taking on and without much or any look to proper documentation. For some, the offer came in the mail together with the credit card offer!
In other words, we have opened the doors and made credit available to a much larger number of individuals than was the case several decades ago. Moreover, while not infinite, the amount people can borrow is very large. And perhaps most importantly, it is often up to the consumers to decide what and when it is enough.
This is why financial literacy is so important and why, in my view, developments in financial markets should be accompanied with initiatives to provide the knowledge required to make good use of any such developments. One cannot trumpet how great it is to be able to buy a house at age 25 if young workers do not even know what interest compounding means. Similarly, dispensing credit cards to people who have little understanding of how fees work can be counterproductive at best and catastrophic at worst.
I have a similar view toward assets. Some have been lamenting the high proportion of unbanked individuals, in particular among certain segments of the population. I believe financial access is incredibly important, but we cannot simply give everyone a checking account and think we have improved people’s lives! Not knowing how to use a checking account to prevent overdraft fees and returned checks can quickly turn the benefits of this simple asset into a nightmare.
As we pass new legislation about financial reforms, we should keep in mind the many advantages that advanced financial markets can bring to the economy but also be mindful that without financial knowledge, people now have a much greater opportunity not only to increase wealth, but also to destroy it. As I have argued in many previous blogs, it is not enough to regulate supply, we also have to think about demand and how to empower consumers with the knowledge necessary to make proper financial decisions. We should not be talking only about banks, we should also be talking about the borrowers!
On a side note, James Surowiecki’s column was published on July 5, which also happens to be my birthday. Without knowing it, Surowiecki provided me with a very nice birthday gift by writing so proficiently about a topic I care so much about. Only a trip to New York would have made it better!
Read James Surowiecki’s column here: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2010/07/05/100705ta_talk_surowiecki
Of the changes that we have witnessed in the financial markets in recent decades, we have seen not only an increased complexity in financial products but also an increased reliance on the expertise (or lack thereof) of consumers. For example, individuals have been bombarded with credit card offers. One could easily sign up for a sizeable collection of credit cards and, in so doing, borrow a large amount of money. While some consumers have been targeted more than others, many are receiving printed checks in the mail. These types of offers make it very easy to borrow; and it is the individual who has to be savvy about how to use the credit cards and checks that come in the mail; the offers will keep coming, and the amount one can borrow will keep increasing, irrespective of how much one can afford.
Subprime mortgages have worked in much the same way. While banks and mortgage lenders would normally do background work in order to assess how much to lend their potential borrowers, subprime mortgages were available to almost anyone who wanted a mortgage, regardless of their ability to afford the loan they were taking on and without much or any look to proper documentation. For some, the offer came in the mail together with the credit card offer!
In other words, we have opened the doors and made credit available to a much larger number of individuals than was the case several decades ago. Moreover, while not infinite, the amount people can borrow is very large. And perhaps most importantly, it is often up to the consumers to decide what and when it is enough.
This is why financial literacy is so important and why, in my view, developments in financial markets should be accompanied with initiatives to provide the knowledge required to make good use of any such developments. One cannot trumpet how great it is to be able to buy a house at age 25 if young workers do not even know what interest compounding means. Similarly, dispensing credit cards to people who have little understanding of how fees work can be counterproductive at best and catastrophic at worst.
I have a similar view toward assets. Some have been lamenting the high proportion of unbanked individuals, in particular among certain segments of the population. I believe financial access is incredibly important, but we cannot simply give everyone a checking account and think we have improved people’s lives! Not knowing how to use a checking account to prevent overdraft fees and returned checks can quickly turn the benefits of this simple asset into a nightmare.
As we pass new legislation about financial reforms, we should keep in mind the many advantages that advanced financial markets can bring to the economy but also be mindful that without financial knowledge, people now have a much greater opportunity not only to increase wealth, but also to destroy it. As I have argued in many previous blogs, it is not enough to regulate supply, we also have to think about demand and how to empower consumers with the knowledge necessary to make proper financial decisions. We should not be talking only about banks, we should also be talking about the borrowers!
On a side note, James Surowiecki’s column was published on July 5, which also happens to be my birthday. Without knowing it, Surowiecki provided me with a very nice birthday gift by writing so proficiently about a topic I care so much about. Only a trip to New York would have made it better!
Read James Surowiecki’s column here: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2010/07/05/100705ta_talk_surowiecki
Rabu, 07 Juli 2010
Financial Literacy Among the Young
I want to write this time about financial literacy among young people. Olivia Mitchell, from the Wharton School; Vilsa Curto, from the Education Innovation Laboratory at Harvard; and I have just published a paper in the Journal of Consumer Affairs that describes the results from the responses to three questions that we added to the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth in 2007-2008. Respondents to this survey are 23-28 years old.
These young consumers must confront complicated financial decisions in today’s demanding financial environment, and financial mistakes made early in life can be costly. Young people often find themselves carrying large amounts of student loan or credit card debt, and such early entanglements can hinder their ability to accumulate wealth or to choose their desired job. To examine how well equipped young people are to make financial decisions, we assessed knowledge of basic concepts: the ability to do a 2% calculation and the understanding of how inflation and risk diversification work.
We have three major findings:
1. Financial literacy is low among young adults. Only 27% of people age 23-28 can answer three basic questions about interest rates, inflation, and risk diversification.
2. There are large gender differences in financial literacy. Young women know much less than do young men about basic financial concepts. In another survey, we found large gender gaps in financial literacy among older respondents (51 and older), and this recent work tells us that these differences hold when we look at young people.
3. Financial literacy is influenced by parents. Those who are financially literate are more likely to have college-educated parents (in particular, college-educated mothers) and to have parents who had stocks and retirement savings when these young adults were growing up (when they were 12 to 17 years old).
I want to stress the third finding: family background is found to have a strong impact on financial literacy. A college-educated male whose parents had stocks and retirement savings when he was a teenager was about 45 percentage points more likely to know about risk diversification than a female with less than a high school education whose parents did not own retirement or risky assets. In other words, financial knowledge appears to be much higher for those who grow up with parents who are financially sophisticated.
This research is consistent with the findings from the Financial Capability Survey, the results of which were released last December by Secretary Geithner together with Secretary Duncan. http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/tg446.htm. That survey also documents very low levels of financial knowledge, particularly among the young.
These are unpleasant findings. We have put people in charge of many important financial decisions. People must decide how much to save for retirement and how to invest that savings, yet people do not appear to understand how to diversify risk; individuals are bombarded with credit card offers, yet we are learning that many people do not know how compound interest works, so cannot calculate how their debt will grow. Research has shown that financial illiteracy can be linked to problems with debt, lack of participation in the stock market, lack of retirement planning, and lower wealth accumulation. If we do not address financial illiteracy among young people and if we do not equip young people with the tools they need to make sound financial decisions, we may pay the cost down the road.
I am worried about the implications of these findings. If financial literacy is learned at home, many young people will begin their lives at a disadvantage, as not everybody comes from a college educated family or from a family that has stocks and retirement savings. In other words, inequality may start at the very beginning of the economic life if we do not offer everybody an opportunity to learn financial literacy outside of their homes. This is one reason why it is important that our schools incorporate financial literacy into their curricula.
In my work as a college professor, I am surrounded by young people. Last month, as we bid farewell to the Dartmouth class of 2010, I could not help but wonder whether we have provided all that is needed for these students to start on their journey into adulthood. Most of them will start a job, open a new bank account, rent an apartment, get more credit cards, pay down their student loans, donate to their college (ahem . . .), and pay taxes. Are they ready?
These young consumers must confront complicated financial decisions in today’s demanding financial environment, and financial mistakes made early in life can be costly. Young people often find themselves carrying large amounts of student loan or credit card debt, and such early entanglements can hinder their ability to accumulate wealth or to choose their desired job. To examine how well equipped young people are to make financial decisions, we assessed knowledge of basic concepts: the ability to do a 2% calculation and the understanding of how inflation and risk diversification work.
We have three major findings:
1. Financial literacy is low among young adults. Only 27% of people age 23-28 can answer three basic questions about interest rates, inflation, and risk diversification.
2. There are large gender differences in financial literacy. Young women know much less than do young men about basic financial concepts. In another survey, we found large gender gaps in financial literacy among older respondents (51 and older), and this recent work tells us that these differences hold when we look at young people.
3. Financial literacy is influenced by parents. Those who are financially literate are more likely to have college-educated parents (in particular, college-educated mothers) and to have parents who had stocks and retirement savings when these young adults were growing up (when they were 12 to 17 years old).
I want to stress the third finding: family background is found to have a strong impact on financial literacy. A college-educated male whose parents had stocks and retirement savings when he was a teenager was about 45 percentage points more likely to know about risk diversification than a female with less than a high school education whose parents did not own retirement or risky assets. In other words, financial knowledge appears to be much higher for those who grow up with parents who are financially sophisticated.
This research is consistent with the findings from the Financial Capability Survey, the results of which were released last December by Secretary Geithner together with Secretary Duncan. http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/tg446.htm. That survey also documents very low levels of financial knowledge, particularly among the young.
These are unpleasant findings. We have put people in charge of many important financial decisions. People must decide how much to save for retirement and how to invest that savings, yet people do not appear to understand how to diversify risk; individuals are bombarded with credit card offers, yet we are learning that many people do not know how compound interest works, so cannot calculate how their debt will grow. Research has shown that financial illiteracy can be linked to problems with debt, lack of participation in the stock market, lack of retirement planning, and lower wealth accumulation. If we do not address financial illiteracy among young people and if we do not equip young people with the tools they need to make sound financial decisions, we may pay the cost down the road.
I am worried about the implications of these findings. If financial literacy is learned at home, many young people will begin their lives at a disadvantage, as not everybody comes from a college educated family or from a family that has stocks and retirement savings. In other words, inequality may start at the very beginning of the economic life if we do not offer everybody an opportunity to learn financial literacy outside of their homes. This is one reason why it is important that our schools incorporate financial literacy into their curricula.
In my work as a college professor, I am surrounded by young people. Last month, as we bid farewell to the Dartmouth class of 2010, I could not help but wonder whether we have provided all that is needed for these students to start on their journey into adulthood. Most of them will start a job, open a new bank account, rent an apartment, get more credit cards, pay down their student loans, donate to their college (ahem . . .), and pay taxes. Are they ready?
Kamis, 01 Juli 2010
Proposals, Pizza Boxes, and Prilosec
I have not written for a while, but now—after a month and a half of grueling work—am able to turn attention to my blog, having just finalized the submission of a multi-project proposal for the second year of funding for the Financial Literacy Center.
Every year at around this time, we have to collect our best projects and ideas and submit them to our funder, Social Security. There are many valuable aspects of this process. First, it forces us to think hard about the many ongoing projects and the new ideas we have been compiling with input from our teams and then evaluate the most promising ones to submit for funding. It makes us think about the future and about the type of work we’d like to engage in over the next year.
Second, it forces us to be specific about what we want to pursue. This is the time when we need to transform ideas, conjectures, even dreams, into concrete plans that have to be described in detail, thinking not just about the outcomes we want but the manner in which we plan to achieve them.
Third, it gives us the opportunity to form new partnerships. Several of our proposed projects have become multi-disciplinary, with psychologists, linguists, and law scholars collaborating with economists. And co-authors from existing projects are brought in to add their experience and insight to newly proposed projects.
But for those of you who have never dealt or submitted a grant, let me tell you that despite all of the good that comes of it, the process is grueling and the work is massive. There are strict procedures to be followed, a vast amount of documentation to be provided, deadlines to be met, and, if more than one team is involved, a lot of people to coordinate. On a scale from 1 to 10 of the unpleasant things one might do, this is probably an 8, right up there with a root canal or training for the Tour de France after major surgery.
As the submission deadline approached last week, I looked dangerously like my students on the day of a final exam: my hair uncombed, coffee cups and empty pizza boxes piling up on my desk, mail unopened, and email clogging up my inbox. Staying late at my desk, I startled more than one security guard patrolling the building to shut off the lights late at night. And, of course, the sure indicator of a grueling grant submittal period: regular doses of Prilosec after week two of the process.
Truth be told, I have gotten much better at writing grants. My first grant submissions, which I wrote with no understanding that I was competing with the giants in my field, I have to say were not received with great enthusiasm. In some cases, my submission did not even merit consideration among the proposals to be funded; in others I received rejections complemented by letters from referees who had a lot of not very friendly things to say about my research ideas. The ones I have the fondest memories of are those in which I was told I was not quite there, and was invited to re-submit. I did that, adding another two or three weeks of work (and medication), and—bingo!—I was rejected after the resubmission!
Grants have became a part of my academic life, as I need support for big projects—to hire assistants, to pay for data, and to do empirical research. Not many institutions had the stomach to fund research on financial literacy when I started working on it many years ago, and I am very happy that Social Security has been a funder and a supporter of my work from the very beginning. I will probably be collecting Social Security benefits by the time I publish this work, so I can say that Social Security has been and will be a constant in my life.
But now the submission is over; I can go back to a healthy diet and to a normal intake of coffee. I will again think positively about the future. And I am very busy catching up on sleep.
Every year at around this time, we have to collect our best projects and ideas and submit them to our funder, Social Security. There are many valuable aspects of this process. First, it forces us to think hard about the many ongoing projects and the new ideas we have been compiling with input from our teams and then evaluate the most promising ones to submit for funding. It makes us think about the future and about the type of work we’d like to engage in over the next year.
Second, it forces us to be specific about what we want to pursue. This is the time when we need to transform ideas, conjectures, even dreams, into concrete plans that have to be described in detail, thinking not just about the outcomes we want but the manner in which we plan to achieve them.
Third, it gives us the opportunity to form new partnerships. Several of our proposed projects have become multi-disciplinary, with psychologists, linguists, and law scholars collaborating with economists. And co-authors from existing projects are brought in to add their experience and insight to newly proposed projects.
But for those of you who have never dealt or submitted a grant, let me tell you that despite all of the good that comes of it, the process is grueling and the work is massive. There are strict procedures to be followed, a vast amount of documentation to be provided, deadlines to be met, and, if more than one team is involved, a lot of people to coordinate. On a scale from 1 to 10 of the unpleasant things one might do, this is probably an 8, right up there with a root canal or training for the Tour de France after major surgery.
As the submission deadline approached last week, I looked dangerously like my students on the day of a final exam: my hair uncombed, coffee cups and empty pizza boxes piling up on my desk, mail unopened, and email clogging up my inbox. Staying late at my desk, I startled more than one security guard patrolling the building to shut off the lights late at night. And, of course, the sure indicator of a grueling grant submittal period: regular doses of Prilosec after week two of the process.
Truth be told, I have gotten much better at writing grants. My first grant submissions, which I wrote with no understanding that I was competing with the giants in my field, I have to say were not received with great enthusiasm. In some cases, my submission did not even merit consideration among the proposals to be funded; in others I received rejections complemented by letters from referees who had a lot of not very friendly things to say about my research ideas. The ones I have the fondest memories of are those in which I was told I was not quite there, and was invited to re-submit. I did that, adding another two or three weeks of work (and medication), and—bingo!—I was rejected after the resubmission!
Grants have became a part of my academic life, as I need support for big projects—to hire assistants, to pay for data, and to do empirical research. Not many institutions had the stomach to fund research on financial literacy when I started working on it many years ago, and I am very happy that Social Security has been a funder and a supporter of my work from the very beginning. I will probably be collecting Social Security benefits by the time I publish this work, so I can say that Social Security has been and will be a constant in my life.
But now the submission is over; I can go back to a healthy diet and to a normal intake of coffee. I will again think positively about the future. And I am very busy catching up on sleep.
Jumat, 28 Mei 2010
Improving Our Financial IQs: Why Managing Money Should Be a Lifetime Skill
At the Wharton conference that I described in my previous blog, I sat down with Michelle Greene for an interview with Knowledge@Wharton. The link to the interview is provided below, but in this blog I wanted to discuss a few topics that have come up many times in this and other discussions.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2496
In case you do not know Michelle, she is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Financial Education and Financial Access at the U.S. Treasury Department. The title may look long, and it is for a good reason: she heads the office at Treasury which is in charge of financial literacy and financial education. One of the issues that office has to deal with is that many Americans are unbanked or underbanked and do not participate in traditional financial markets, hence the attention to financial access in addition to financial literacy.
Many people have asked me why financial literacy is so low and why we appear to be getting worse in terms of financial knowledge. In my view, it is not the case that financial knowledge has worsened, rather that the world has changed. Individuals have been put in charge of decisions that were—in the past—the responsibility of employers or the government (such as determining how much to put aside for retirement and how to manage pension wealth). Individuals have to make these decisions while facing much more complex financial markets. For example, ETFs, REITS, and 403(b)s were not in vogue twenty years ago and yet, while the acronyms are not exactly appealing, they have become part of what an average worker has to deal with in their financial planning. In the past, a CFO with an MBA in finance was making decisions about how to allocate investments in order that the company be able to pay a pension to the firms' employees; now workers John and Jane Doe are in charge of making these decisions. This means that every single worker now has to spend time and effort in collecting information and searching for the best conditions.
Given these changes, it may be obvious why the office that Michelle Greene heads is so important: we need to equip people with the tools to make financial decisions and increase financial knowledge if we are asking them to be in charge of their financial well-being after retirement. But, it is not enough to put them in charge. These are difficult decisions—even for a CFO with adequate training—and we cannot expect the average worker to navigate the financial markets if he/she does not know the difference between a bond and a stock or what an annuity is.
As Michelle stated in the interview, if there is a silver lining to the financial crisis, it is that there is a renewed sense among people that they need to understand their own finances. They need to engage in better behaviors and think more about the future. The financial crisis has also taught us the cost of financial mistakes. While we have not yet witnessed what may happen if workers with defined contribution pensions accumulate too little for retirement or make bad decisions on how to draw down the money from their retirement accounts, we have seen that choosing the wrong mortgage can end with the sheriff at the door and the furniture for sale on the lawn.
Michelle also spoke of the importance of starting to learn and to save when young and the need for inserting financial education into our schools. In my view, this is critically important as people need to have a basis on which to build their financial knowledge. Schools cannot teach every concept that will be of importance for making financial decisions in the future. But they can make people appreciate the importance of financial knowledge and the need to build on it over time. I am often asked what we should teach in high school to improve financial knowledge and my short answer is that we should teach people to be curious and to be interested in financial literacy. We do not teach literature expecting students to write the next War and Peace but rather to appreciate a good book. Similarly, we should teach financial literacy so that students appreciate the need to be informed before making financial decisions.
I want to end by saying that I am extremely proud of the work that Michelle is doing. Her work can and is having an impact on the lives of people, on the decisions that John and Jane Doe have to face—decisions that are part of a very different system than the one encountered by previous generations. There is a lot at stake here, and I hope that people will realize that inside the gray and imposing Treasury building alongside the White House, there is an office devoted to improving financial literacy and financial access.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2496
In case you do not know Michelle, she is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Financial Education and Financial Access at the U.S. Treasury Department. The title may look long, and it is for a good reason: she heads the office at Treasury which is in charge of financial literacy and financial education. One of the issues that office has to deal with is that many Americans are unbanked or underbanked and do not participate in traditional financial markets, hence the attention to financial access in addition to financial literacy.
Many people have asked me why financial literacy is so low and why we appear to be getting worse in terms of financial knowledge. In my view, it is not the case that financial knowledge has worsened, rather that the world has changed. Individuals have been put in charge of decisions that were—in the past—the responsibility of employers or the government (such as determining how much to put aside for retirement and how to manage pension wealth). Individuals have to make these decisions while facing much more complex financial markets. For example, ETFs, REITS, and 403(b)s were not in vogue twenty years ago and yet, while the acronyms are not exactly appealing, they have become part of what an average worker has to deal with in their financial planning. In the past, a CFO with an MBA in finance was making decisions about how to allocate investments in order that the company be able to pay a pension to the firms' employees; now workers John and Jane Doe are in charge of making these decisions. This means that every single worker now has to spend time and effort in collecting information and searching for the best conditions.
Given these changes, it may be obvious why the office that Michelle Greene heads is so important: we need to equip people with the tools to make financial decisions and increase financial knowledge if we are asking them to be in charge of their financial well-being after retirement. But, it is not enough to put them in charge. These are difficult decisions—even for a CFO with adequate training—and we cannot expect the average worker to navigate the financial markets if he/she does not know the difference between a bond and a stock or what an annuity is.
As Michelle stated in the interview, if there is a silver lining to the financial crisis, it is that there is a renewed sense among people that they need to understand their own finances. They need to engage in better behaviors and think more about the future. The financial crisis has also taught us the cost of financial mistakes. While we have not yet witnessed what may happen if workers with defined contribution pensions accumulate too little for retirement or make bad decisions on how to draw down the money from their retirement accounts, we have seen that choosing the wrong mortgage can end with the sheriff at the door and the furniture for sale on the lawn.
Michelle also spoke of the importance of starting to learn and to save when young and the need for inserting financial education into our schools. In my view, this is critically important as people need to have a basis on which to build their financial knowledge. Schools cannot teach every concept that will be of importance for making financial decisions in the future. But they can make people appreciate the importance of financial knowledge and the need to build on it over time. I am often asked what we should teach in high school to improve financial knowledge and my short answer is that we should teach people to be curious and to be interested in financial literacy. We do not teach literature expecting students to write the next War and Peace but rather to appreciate a good book. Similarly, we should teach financial literacy so that students appreciate the need to be informed before making financial decisions.
I want to end by saying that I am extremely proud of the work that Michelle is doing. Her work can and is having an impact on the lives of people, on the decisions that John and Jane Doe have to face—decisions that are part of a very different system than the one encountered by previous generations. There is a lot at stake here, and I hope that people will realize that inside the gray and imposing Treasury building alongside the White House, there is an office devoted to improving financial literacy and financial access.
Senin, 03 Mei 2010
Financial Literacy: Implications for Retirement Security and the Financial Marketplace
Olivia Mitchell and I organized a conference at Wharton last Thursday and Friday, April 29–30, titled “Financial Literacy: Implications for Retirement Security and the Financial Marketplace.” This seems a good way to end Financial Literacy Month and reflect on the importance and role of financial literacy.
There are 3 ingredients to a successful conference: (1) good people, (2) good papers, and (3) good food. We provided a good lunch and we had dinner, surrounded by Chinese art, in a large hall in the University of Pennsylvania museum. But the people and papers were more than good, and I left Philadelphia with a lot of ideas and projects I want to pursue.
Our keynote speaker, who opened the conference, was Michelle Greene, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Financial Education and Financial Access at the U.S. Treasury. She told the audience about the initiatives and the approach of the office she heads at the U.S. Treasury. Several things resonated with me. She stressed the importance of evidence-based policies and cited several studies, from the FINRA Financial Capability Survey to the FDIC Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households. She also stressed that the U.S. Treasury wants to put financial education where it works and where it is most needed. In my view, these criteria are not only critically important but also offer a way for research to make a real difference and to impact policy. She discussed the work that the Treasury is doing with state and local governments and with the private and nonprofit sectors. This is a reminder that while we need a national financial literacy policy, a lot of work is done at the local level, thus a grassroots approach when dealing with financial literacy is important. The U.S. Treasury is also coordinating the many federal agencies that are doing financial education programs. I was particularly pleased to know that the White House has joined the Financial Literacy and Education Commission and, in particular, that the White House Council on Women and Girls has become involved in financial literacy. As I have mentioned in many of my blogs, there is a real need to focus attention on women and girls and to address the existing gender gap in financial literacy. Michelle also mentioned that the website www.mymoney.gov has been revamped. This is the website to go to obtain financial information, and, again, I cannot stress enough the importance of having a trusted and independent source of information to rely on.
The papers that were presented at the conference spanned many topics. Some documented individuals’ financial mistakes. While the experience with subprime mortgages has made us acutely aware of the problem of financial errors, evidence about the use of credit cards and payday loans adds reasons to worry about the behavior of households who use high-cost methods of borrowing. Families have also started to borrow from their 401(k) plans, i.e., they are now borrowing from themselves and the money they have put away for retirement. And financial literacy seems to be a contributing factor: those with low levels of financial literacy are found to be more likely to borrow from themselves. Low literacy is also found to keep people from investing in the stock market. While one has to understand and be aware of the risks of investing in stocks, it is problematic to shy away from the stock market, particularly when investing for the long run. Moreover, when selecting a pension fund from a menu of possible offerings, those with low financial literacy are shown to rely more on the advice of employers, friends, and coworkers than on cost fundamentals. Those with low financial literacy are also more sensitive to how information is framed when interpreting the relative benefits of different investment choices. Given the choices that people have to make on their DC (defined contribution) pensions, these are worrisome findings.
Other papers documented other aspects of financial literacy. For example, when surveyed individuals are asked to rank their own financial knowledge, many give themselves high rankings, yet responses to a set of financial literacy quiz questions result in relatively low scores for many individuals. This type of overconfidence can negatively influence financial behavior.
Still other papers looked at the effectiveness of financial education initiatives provided by employers or by counseling agencies. Paraphrasing Michelle Greene’s message, we need these studies and rigorous evaluations of financial education programs to be able to allocate our resources to where they are needed, to where programs are proven to work!
The conference did not focus on the U.S. experience only. The retirement commissioner from New Zealand described some of the successful strategies that have been used to promote financial literacy among Kiwis (I mean the citizens of New Zealand, not those delicious fruits). The OECD has been a pioneer in promoting financial literacy and financial education programs and has worked on this topic since 2003. They have been not only a major force behind many important initiatives but are also working on promoting financial literacy in many emerging nations, from India to China to Latin America. Most importantly, they are serving as the coordinator of the activities that many countries are engaging in and serve as a clearinghouse for data and information. The World Bank has recently joined that effort and is devoting resources and expertise to promoting financial literacy among developing countries; in my view, an important and necessary effort.
In the closing panel, one representative of the Social Security Administration remarked that “he had not heard yet that financial literacy hurts.” I would very much agree that there are no obvious downsides to financial literacy.
We ended the conference with a quote that Michelle Greene had included in her presentation slides. She cited President Obama, who said, “If you work hard your whole life, you ought to have every opportunity to retire with dignity and financial security.” We hope that the government, academics, the financial community, and not-for-profit institutions will all work to make that opportunity possible.
There are 3 ingredients to a successful conference: (1) good people, (2) good papers, and (3) good food. We provided a good lunch and we had dinner, surrounded by Chinese art, in a large hall in the University of Pennsylvania museum. But the people and papers were more than good, and I left Philadelphia with a lot of ideas and projects I want to pursue.
Our keynote speaker, who opened the conference, was Michelle Greene, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Financial Education and Financial Access at the U.S. Treasury. She told the audience about the initiatives and the approach of the office she heads at the U.S. Treasury. Several things resonated with me. She stressed the importance of evidence-based policies and cited several studies, from the FINRA Financial Capability Survey to the FDIC Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households. She also stressed that the U.S. Treasury wants to put financial education where it works and where it is most needed. In my view, these criteria are not only critically important but also offer a way for research to make a real difference and to impact policy. She discussed the work that the Treasury is doing with state and local governments and with the private and nonprofit sectors. This is a reminder that while we need a national financial literacy policy, a lot of work is done at the local level, thus a grassroots approach when dealing with financial literacy is important. The U.S. Treasury is also coordinating the many federal agencies that are doing financial education programs. I was particularly pleased to know that the White House has joined the Financial Literacy and Education Commission and, in particular, that the White House Council on Women and Girls has become involved in financial literacy. As I have mentioned in many of my blogs, there is a real need to focus attention on women and girls and to address the existing gender gap in financial literacy. Michelle also mentioned that the website www.mymoney.gov has been revamped. This is the website to go to obtain financial information, and, again, I cannot stress enough the importance of having a trusted and independent source of information to rely on.
The papers that were presented at the conference spanned many topics. Some documented individuals’ financial mistakes. While the experience with subprime mortgages has made us acutely aware of the problem of financial errors, evidence about the use of credit cards and payday loans adds reasons to worry about the behavior of households who use high-cost methods of borrowing. Families have also started to borrow from their 401(k) plans, i.e., they are now borrowing from themselves and the money they have put away for retirement. And financial literacy seems to be a contributing factor: those with low levels of financial literacy are found to be more likely to borrow from themselves. Low literacy is also found to keep people from investing in the stock market. While one has to understand and be aware of the risks of investing in stocks, it is problematic to shy away from the stock market, particularly when investing for the long run. Moreover, when selecting a pension fund from a menu of possible offerings, those with low financial literacy are shown to rely more on the advice of employers, friends, and coworkers than on cost fundamentals. Those with low financial literacy are also more sensitive to how information is framed when interpreting the relative benefits of different investment choices. Given the choices that people have to make on their DC (defined contribution) pensions, these are worrisome findings.
Other papers documented other aspects of financial literacy. For example, when surveyed individuals are asked to rank their own financial knowledge, many give themselves high rankings, yet responses to a set of financial literacy quiz questions result in relatively low scores for many individuals. This type of overconfidence can negatively influence financial behavior.
Still other papers looked at the effectiveness of financial education initiatives provided by employers or by counseling agencies. Paraphrasing Michelle Greene’s message, we need these studies and rigorous evaluations of financial education programs to be able to allocate our resources to where they are needed, to where programs are proven to work!
The conference did not focus on the U.S. experience only. The retirement commissioner from New Zealand described some of the successful strategies that have been used to promote financial literacy among Kiwis (I mean the citizens of New Zealand, not those delicious fruits). The OECD has been a pioneer in promoting financial literacy and financial education programs and has worked on this topic since 2003. They have been not only a major force behind many important initiatives but are also working on promoting financial literacy in many emerging nations, from India to China to Latin America. Most importantly, they are serving as the coordinator of the activities that many countries are engaging in and serve as a clearinghouse for data and information. The World Bank has recently joined that effort and is devoting resources and expertise to promoting financial literacy among developing countries; in my view, an important and necessary effort.
In the closing panel, one representative of the Social Security Administration remarked that “he had not heard yet that financial literacy hurts.” I would very much agree that there are no obvious downsides to financial literacy.
We ended the conference with a quote that Michelle Greene had included in her presentation slides. She cited President Obama, who said, “If you work hard your whole life, you ought to have every opportunity to retire with dignity and financial security.” We hope that the government, academics, the financial community, and not-for-profit institutions will all work to make that opportunity possible.
Minggu, 25 April 2010
Fixes for the Financial System
Today's New York Times described the proposal of six academics for changing the financial system. Mine is one of them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/weekinreview/25chan.html?pagewanted=1&sq=They%20have%20got%20it:%20fixes%20for%20the%20financial%20system&st=cse&scp=1
Compound Interest 101
ANNAMARIA LUSARDI
A person borrows $100 at an annual interest rate of 20 percent. How long does it take that debt to double? About four years. What share of American adults can figure that out? About one in three, says Annamaria Lusardi, an economist at Dartmouth College.
Ms. Lusardi wants to add financial literacy to high school curriculums. A crisis sparked in part by the decisions of millions of Americans to take mortgage loans they could not afford has underscored her conviction that “lack of financial knowledge is alarmingly widespread.”
Only three states — Missouri, Tennessee and Utah — now require a course devoted to personal finance, according to the JumpStart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy, a nonprofit group. Another 18 states incorporate some lessons into other courses.
“Financial literacy is an essential piece of knowledge that every student should have,” Ms. Lusardi wrote recently on her blog. “Just as reading and writing became skills that enabled people to succeed in modern economies, today it is impossible to succeed without being able to ‘read and write’ financially.”
Let's hope that in this time of reforms some attention will be given to consumers and to financial literacy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/weekinreview/25chan.html?pagewanted=1&sq=They%20have%20got%20it:%20fixes%20for%20the%20financial%20system&st=cse&scp=1
Compound Interest 101
ANNAMARIA LUSARDI
A person borrows $100 at an annual interest rate of 20 percent. How long does it take that debt to double? About four years. What share of American adults can figure that out? About one in three, says Annamaria Lusardi, an economist at Dartmouth College.
Ms. Lusardi wants to add financial literacy to high school curriculums. A crisis sparked in part by the decisions of millions of Americans to take mortgage loans they could not afford has underscored her conviction that “lack of financial knowledge is alarmingly widespread.”
Only three states — Missouri, Tennessee and Utah — now require a course devoted to personal finance, according to the JumpStart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy, a nonprofit group. Another 18 states incorporate some lessons into other courses.
“Financial literacy is an essential piece of knowledge that every student should have,” Ms. Lusardi wrote recently on her blog. “Just as reading and writing became skills that enabled people to succeed in modern economies, today it is impossible to succeed without being able to ‘read and write’ financially.”
Let's hope that in this time of reforms some attention will be given to consumers and to financial literacy.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)