The Factors Affecting the Household Portfolio Choices in Turkey

Öz

Savings are an important component of macroeconomic growth, and household savings have a significant share in total savings. The way of household savings evaluates consist of choices made from different saving tools. Although theoretically, the choice between financial instruments expected to be rationally preferred by-products that will generate the highest utility to households, savings are mostly shaped by socio-economic factors such as habits, education, and culture. Therefore, this study aims to determine which financial tools households choose for their saving and the socio-economic factors that affect this decision. The portfolio choice of households is analyzed by using a multinomial logit model through Household Budget Survey data for 2018. As a result of the analysis, the most important demographic characteristics that affect portfolio choice are marital status, attitude to risk, and education level, respectively. It is estimated that risk-taker household heads are 8.8 times more likely to prefer stocks and 2.2 times more likely to prefer bonds and bills.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Household Portfolio Choice
• Attitude to Risk
• Demographics
• Multinominal Logit

Türkiye’de Hanehalkı Portföy Tercihine Etki Eden Faktörler

Öz

Tasarruflar makroekonomik büyümenin önemli bileşeni iken, hanehalkı tasarrufları toplam tasarruflar içerisinde önemli bir paya sahiptir. Hanehalklarının tasarruf değerlendirme şekilleri ise farklı tasarruf araçları içerisinden yapılan seçimlerden oluşmaktadır. Teorik olarak finansal araçlar arasındaki seçimin rasyonel olarak en çok fayda getirecek ürünlerin tercihi yönünde olması beklense de hanehalklarının tasarruflarını değerlendirme şekilleri aslında daha çok alışkanlıklar, eğitim, kültür gibi sosyo ekonomik koşullar tarafından şekillenmektedir. Bu nedenle, bu çalışma, hanehalklarının tasarruflarını hangi finansal araçlar üzerinden değerlendirdiği ve portföy tercihlerine etki eden sosyoekonomik faktörlerin tespit edilmesini amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda hanehalklarının portföy seçimi Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu 2018 Hanehalkı Bütçe Anketi Yatay-Kesit verileri yardımıyla multinominal logit modeli kullanılarak analiz edilmektedir. Analiz sonucunda portföy seçimine etki eden en önemli demografik özelliklerin sırasıyla medeni durum, riske karşı tutum ve eğitim seviyesi olduğudur. Risk sever hanehalkı reisinin hisse senedini tercih etme olasılığı 8.8 kat daha fazla iken, tahvil ve bono tercih etme olasılığı 2.2 kat daha fazla olduğu tahmin edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Hanehalkı Portföy Tercihi
• Riske Karşı Tutum
• Demografi
• Multinominal Logit

Kaynakça

1. Ameriks, J., ve Zeldes, S. P. (2004). How Do Household Portfolio Shares Vary with Age. Working Paper, Columbia University.
2. Aryeetey, E. (2004). Household Asset Choice Among the Rural Poor in Ghana. Institute of Statistical, Social and Economic Research, University of Ghana.
3. Atella, V., Brunetti, M., ve Maestas, N. (2012). Household Portfolio Choices, Health Status and Health Care Systems: A Cross-Country Analysis Based on SHARE. Journal of Banking & Finance, 36(5), 1320-1335.
4. Bertocchi, G., Brunetti, M., ve Torricelli, C. (2011). Marriage and Other Risky Assets: A Portfolio Approach. Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(11), 2902-2915.
5. Berkowitz, M. K., ve Qiu, J. (2006). A Further Look at Household Portfolio Choice and Health Status. Journal of Banking & Finance, 30(4), 1201-1217.
6. Bressan, S., Pace, N., ve Pelizzon, L. (2014). Health Status and Portfolio Choice: Is Their Relationship Economically Relevant?. International Review of Financial Analysis, 32, 109-122.
7. Calvet, L. E., Campbell, J. Y., ve Sodini, P. (2009). Measuring the Financial Sophistication of Households. American Economic Review, 99(2), 393-98.
8. Campbell, J. Y. (2006). Household Finance. The Journal of Finance, 61(4), 1553-1604.

9. Cheng, S., ve J. S. Long. (2007). Testing for IIA in The Multinomial Logit Model. Sociological Methods and Research, 35, 583 600.
10. Disney, R., ve Gathergood, J. (2013). Financial Literacy and Consumer Credit Portfolios. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(7), 2246-2254.
11. Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., ve Wagner, G. G. (2011). Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. Journal of the european economic association, 9(3), 522-550.
12. Elton, E. J., ve Gruber, M. J. (1997). Modern Portfolio Theory, 1950 to Date. Journal of Banking & Finance, 21(11-12), 1743-1759.
13. Frijns, B., Koellen, E., ve Lehnert, T. (2008). On the Determinants of Portfolio Choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 66(2), 373-386.
14. Fry, T. R. L., ve M. N. Harris. (1996). A Monte Carlo Study of Tests for The Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives Property. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 30: 19-30.
15. Fry, T. R. L., ve M. N. Harris. (1998) Testing for Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives: Some Empirical Results. Sociological Methods and Research, 26, 401-423.
16. Goetzmann, W. N., ve Kumar, A. (2008). Equity Portfolio Diversification. Review of Finance, 12(3), 433-463.
17. Halko, M. L., Kaustia, M., ve Alanko, E. (2012). The gender effect in risky asset holdings. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 83(1), 66-81.
18. Hausman, J., ve Mcfadden, D. (1984). Specification Tests for The Multinomial Logit Model. Econometrica, 52(5), 1219-1240.
19. İpek, E. (2020) The Costs of Disability in Turkey. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 41, 229–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-019-09642-2.
20. Kaustia, M., Conlin, A., ve Luotonen, N. (2019). What Drives the Heterogeneity in Portfolio Choice? The Role of Istitutional, Traditional, and Behavioral Factors. Working Paper https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2845963
21. Kyritsis, Ioannis ve Papachristou, George A., (2004). Do Risk-Averse Lottery Players Become Risk-Seeking Lottery Winners? Collected Papers in Honor of Maria Delivanis, Thessaloniki , https://ssrn.com/abstract=2225897
22. Li, J., Li, Q., ve Wei, X. (2020). Financial Literacy, Household Portfolio Choice and Investment Return. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 62, 101370.
23. Long, J. S., ve Freese, J. (2014). Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata. Stata Press, College Station, Texas.
24. Love, D. A., ve Smith, P. A. (2010). Does Health Affect Portfolio Choice?. Health Economics, 19(12), 1441-1460.
25. Markowitz, H. (1952). Portfolio Selection, The Journal of Finance. 7(1),77-91
26. Markowitz, H. (1991). Foundations of Portfolio Theory. The Journal of Finance, 46(2), 469-477.
27. Michielsen, T., Mocking, R., ve Van Veldhuizen, S. (2016). Home Ownership and Household Portfolio Choice (No. 5705). Cesifo Working Paper.
28. Öksüz Narinç, N., Küçükönder, H. (2020). Hanehalkı Tasarruf Tercihlerinin Ardışık Logit Modelle Belirlenmesi: Türkiye Örneği, İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12 (2), 1554-1572.
29. Rosen, H. S., ve Wu, S. (2004). Portfolio Choice and Health Status. Journal of Financial Economics, 72(3), 457-484.
30. Small, K. A., & Hsiao, C. (1985). Multinomial Logit Specification Tests. International Economic Review, 26(3), 619-627.
31. Temel Nalın, H. (2013). Determinants of Household Saving and Portfolio Choice Behaviour in Turkey. Acta Oeconomica, 63(3), 309-331.
32. Tobin, J. (1958). Liquidity Preference as Behavior Towards Risk. The Review of Economic Studies, 25(2), 65-86.
33. TÜİK (2018), Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu Hanehalkı Bütçe Anketi verileri .
34. Van Rooij, M., Lusardi, A., ve Alessie, R. (2011). Financial Literacy and Stock Market Participation. Journal of Financial Economics, 101(2), 449-472.
35. Von Gaudecker, H. M. (2015). How Does Household Portfolio Diversification Vary with Financial Literacy and Financial Advice?. The Journal of Finance, 70(2), 489-507.