100 EKSİ YAŞ FENOMENİNİN GERÇEKLİĞİ: TÜRKİYE İNCELEMESİ

Abstract

Finansal piyasalarda yatırımcılar için en önemli konulardan biri kabul edilebilir risk düzeyidir. Literatürde portföy oluşturma ve risk düzeyi tespitine yönelik çok sayıda teori geliştirilmiş olsa da bireysel farklılıklar başta olmak üzere pek çok nedenle bireylerin riske tahammül düzeyleri tek bir kuramla tespit edilebilecek kadar kolay bir iş değildir. Zira finansal karar verme davranışı genetik, nöroloji, psikoloji gibi pek çok konuda araştırma sorusu olmaktadır ve sadece demografik özelliklerle finansal karar verme süreci açıklanamaz. Risk alma davranışında da durum benzer şekilde ele alınmalıdır. Bir başka ifadeyle kişinin riske tahammül seviyesi sadece demografik değişkenlerle açıklanamayacak kadar kompleks bir konudur. Hayat döngüsünü temel alan teorilerden en bilindik olanı ise 100 tam sayısından yatırımcının yaşının çıkartılması sonucu elde edilen rakamın, portföyde tutulabilecek riskli varlık sayısını göstereceği yönündeki teoridir. Bu çalışma sonucunda her ne kadar yaşın cari portföy değeri açısından farklılaşmaya yol açtığı tespit edilse de 100 eksi yatırımcı yaşı teorisinin geçerliliği sorgulanmış ve bu teoriyi destekleyici kanıtlara rastlanmamıştır.

Keywords

• Davranışsal Finans
• Yatırımcı Davranışı
• 100 Eksi Yaş Fenomeni

THE REALITY OF THE 100 MINUS AGE PHENOMENON: A TURKEY REVIEW

Abstract

One of the most important issues for investors in financial markets is the acceptable risk level. Although many theories have been developed in the literature for portfolio creation and risk level determination, it is not an easy task to determine the risk tolerance levels of individuals with a single theory for many reasons, especially individual differences. Because financial decision-making behavior is a research question in many subjects such as genetics, neurology, psychology, and the financial decision-making process cannot be explained by demographic characteristics alone. The situation in risk-taking behavior should be handled in a similar way. In other words, the risk tolerance level of a person is too complex to be explained by demographic variables alone. The most well-known of the theories based on the life cycle is the theory that the number obtained by subtracting the age of the investor from the whole number of 100 will show the number of risky assets that can be kept in the portfolio. As a result of this study, although it has been determined that age causes differentiation in terms of current portfolio value, the validity of the theory of 100 minus investor age has been questioned and no evidence supporting this theory has been found.

Keywords

• Behavioral Finance
• Investor Behavior
• 100 Minus Age Phenomena

References

1. Ashcroft, J. (2009). Defined-Contribution (DC) Arrangements in Anglo-Saxon Countries. OECD Working Papers on Insurance and Private Pensions, No. 35, OECD publishing, © OECD. doi:10.1787/224843410213
2. Bagliano, F. C., Fugazza, C., & Nicodano, G. (2010). Pension funds, life-cycle asset allocation and performance evaluation. Antolin et al. eds, 159.
3. Basu, A. K., & Drew, M. E. (2009). Portfolio Size Effect in Retirement Accounts: What Does It Imply for Lifecycle Asset Allocation Funds? The Journal of Portfolio Management, 35(3), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.3905/jpm.2009.35.3.061
4. Benzoni, L., Collin-Dufresne, P., & Goldstein, R. S. (2006). Portfolio Choice Over the Life-Cycle when the Stock and Labor Markets are Cointegrated. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.875984
5. Bodie, Z., & Treussard, J. (2007). Making Investment Choices as Simple as Possible, but Not Simpler. Financial Analysts Journal, 63(3), 42–47. https://doi.org/10.2469/faj.v63.n3.4689
6. Butler, K. C., & Domian, D. L. (1991). Risk, diversification, and the investment horizon. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 17(3), 41–47. https://doi.org/10.3905/jpm.1991.409334
7. Chetouane, M. (2010). Default options: Are the life cycle funds the solution?.
8. Cocco, J. F. (2001). Portfolio Choice in the Presence of Housing. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.258428

9. Hibbert, J., & Mowbray, P. (2002). Understanding investment policy choices for individual pension plans. Pensions: An International Journal, 8(1), 41–62. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.pm.5940214
10. Hickman, K., Hunter, H., Byrd, J., Beck, J., & Terpening, W. (2001). Life Cycle Investing, Holding Periods, and Risk. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 27(2), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.3905/jpm.2001.319796
11. https://www.vap.org.tr/yas-gruplari-bazinda-yatirimci-sayilari
12. Kaiser, L. (2016). Asset Allocation by Investment Professionals: Integration or Segmentation? SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2869984
13. Kim, June Dong., and Wang Yunjong (1996). Toward Liberalisation of International Direct Investment in Korea: Retrospects and Prospect. KIEP working paper, No 96-02, April, Korea Institute for International Economic Policy, Seoul.
14. Malkiel, B. G. (1996). A Random Walk Down Wall Street: The Time-Tested Strategy for Successful Investing. W. W. Norton & Company.
15. Minderhoud, I., Molenaar, R., & Ponds, E. (2011). The Impact of Human Capital on Life-Cycle Portfolio Choice: Evidence for the Netherlands. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1763196
16. Poterba, J. M., Samwick, A. A., Shleifer, A., & Shiller, R. J. (1995). Stock Ownership Patterns, Stock Market Fluctuations, and Consumption. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1995(2), 295. https://doi.org/10.2307/2534614
17. Shiller, R. J. (2006). Life-cycle personal accounts proposal for Social Security: An evaluation of President Bush’s proposal. Journal of Policy Modeling, 28(4), 427–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2005.10.010