Low Standards, GloballyYou might well feel that being able to answer these questions constitutes a pretty low standard for financial literacy – the ability of a consumer to make financial decisions in their own best interests – but these findings have been replicated across other developed nations. An OECD study in 2005 showed that people acting dumb when it comes to money is a truly globalised phenomenon across Europe, Australia and Japan in addition to America. Still, it’s nice to know we all have something in common apart from global warming.
Anyway, unsurprisingly, it seems that those people who can’t calculate compound interest very well are far less likely to save enough to retire on being apt to spend any money they can get their hands on as quickly as possible on nice, shiny new things. They’re also less likely to invest any money in the stockmarket which, of course, may not be a bad thing: if you’re too dumb to figure out the real cost of your new TV you’re probably not going to be very smart at stock picking. Frankly, it’s a wonder they can figure out how to use the remote.
So Educate Them?One solution to this, you might think, is to provide financial education. From a government perspective this might have a couple of beneficial effects. Firstly future pensioners would save properly and be less of a burden, so that the legislators would have more money to pay themselves gold-plated, index-linked retirement benefits. Secondly, it would obviate the need to enact laws to make financial institutions behave themselves, which is difficult when they’re likely to be your next employer, such is the revolving door between governments and the money men. Unfortunately the evidence suggests that not only are we not very good at doing our investment sums but also we’re not very good at learning about doing our investment sums either.
Some decent research shows that basic education is a determinant of financial literacy.
Van Rooij, Lusardi and Alessie (2007) carried out a complex study of these issues in the Netherlands. In amongst a wide set of findings, many of which are seriously thought provoking – including the possibility that the higher levels of stockmarket investments in older age groups is a facet of the fact that richer people tend to live longer – they show that an economics education in under 16’s, but not after, is predictive of higher levels of financial literacy and greater investment in stocks.
Lab RatsThe evidence from various studies on whether targeted financial education on adults improves financial literacy is, at best, inconclusive. As
Mandel (2009) reports:
“In four of the surveys [from 2000 to 2008], including the 2008 survey, students who took a full semester course in money management or personal finance actually had slightly lower mean financial literacy scores than all students. “
Which is depressing, even if it’s not definitive.
There is one type of training that does seem to improve the situation – the so-called stockmarket game in which students actively participate in their learning approach. This produces a 6 to 8% improvement. Researchers seem to be puzzled by why this might be the case but there’s plenty of psychological research around that shows how active involvement in learning situations improves student ability to use the training afterwards.
Regardless, the stockmarket game success turns out to be a pyrrhic victory because the successful students then go on to save
less than their peers. The (unsubstantiated) hypothesis is that they learn that they can make up for failing to save by taking additional risks on the markets. Which is of course, what happens when you treat people like lab rats – they figure out how to get the cheese for as little effort as possible: proponents of ‘Nudge’ techniques beware.
The Epistemological PuzzleThere is another possible answer to some of the puzzles in this area related to epistemology – the study of knowledge. Psychologists generally make a distinction between two types of ‘knowing’. There’s ‘knowing about’ things: so we know that Washington is the capital of the USA and that 2 + 2= 4. However, there’s also ‘knowing how to’ do things – such as how to operate a word processor or how to calculate compound interest.
Mandel’s research suggests that the most financially literate college students are not economics or business graduates who ‘know about’ financial matters but engineers and scientists who ‘know how’ to solve problems. Which suggests you’d be better off taking financial advice from the guy who designed your tax return software rather than the one that filled it in for you.
The Dangerous Trap of Financial EducationThe research also notes that, although financial
literacy doesn’t seem to be improved by education, financial
behaviour – in terms of saving, for instance – is. Which, of course, may actually make things worse: financially illiterate but savings oriented consumers are the perfect fodder for the next Ponzi scheme merchant, a dangerous trap if there ever was one.
Broadly speaking, then, financial education appears to only have a marginal effect on people’s financial capability, although it does seem to promote more efforts to prepare for the future. This being the case, however, it’s unlikely that we can rely on better training to improve the global problems with financial literacy. With less and less government retirement provision and less and less generous company pension schemes (not to mention ever decreasing job security) this is no longer a looming problem.
It’s already loomed, and we’ve now got to figure out how to deal with it.
Related Articles:
Don’t Lose Money in the Stupid Corner,
Get An Emotional Margin of Safety,
Disclosure Won’t Stop a Conflicted Advisor,
Retirees, Procrastinate At Your Peril