How Your Personality Can Affect Your Portfolio
Neuroticism and openness, in particular, are closely linked to investors’ willingness to buy stocks
3 min
Can certain personality traits explain investors’ risk tolerance and investment decisions?
A forthcoming paper suggests it might. Specifically, the authors found that two personality traits—neuroticism and openness—significantly affect how investors perceive the economy, financial markets and their likelihood to buy stocks or stock funds, with those who are less neurotic and more open tending to have a higher allocation to equities.
While the authors primarily studied investors in the U.S., they also identified similar patterns among investors in Germany, Australia and China.
The Wall Street Journal spoke with two of the paper’s co-authors, Hongjun Yan, a professor of finance at DePaul University’s Driehaus College of Business, and Cameron Peng, an assistant professor of finance at the London School of Economics, about their findings. Zhengyang Jiang, an associate professor of finance at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, is the paper’s other co-author.
Here are edited excerpts of the conversation.
WSJ: How can psychology theories help to explain investor behaviour?
YAN: Investors often have very different portfolios. Traditionally, economists focus on risk aversion and market expectations, but in this paper we argue that well-known personality traits—extroversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness and neuroticism—provide a new dimension to explain investors’ choices.
In the Winnie-the-Pooh stories, Tigger is always excited and optimistic while Eeyore is always down and pessimistic. You might expect their investment portfolios to look very different and reflect their overall outlook.
WSJ:How did you study this topic?
PENG: We collaborated with the American Association of Individual Investors, administering a survey to over 3,000 of its members. We collected information on their personality traits, market expectations, and investment decisions. The AAII sample is predominantly wealthy, white, older men. And when they make investment decisions, they are usually quite big, involving hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. Their actions can have a real impact on the market.
WSJ:What did you find?
YAN: We found that neuroticism and openness are correlated with investors’ beliefs about the market and their likelihood to buy equities. We were surprised that agreeableness wasn’t important when it comes to investment beliefs or decisions since other researchers have found that agreeableness tends to be correlated with other economic outcomes, like success in negotiating wages.
WSJ: How does neuroticism affect investors’ decisions?
YAN: Someone who is more neurotic has a very different outlook than someone who is not in terms of stock-market expectation. For example, an investor ranking in the middle of the [neurotic] scale might expect an annual stock-market premium of about 6%. But investors at the top of the scale are likely to only expect a 4% stock-market premium, while investors at the bottom of the neuroticism scale are likely to expect an 8% stock-market premium.
PENG: Neuroticism also affected how respondents invested their money in their actual accounts. More neurotic investors were less likely to own equities. Very neurotic investors invested about 56% of their portfolio in equities, while investors who weren’t neurotic invested about 64% of their portfolio in equities.
WSJ:How does openness affect investors’ decisions?
PENG: Investors ranking high for openness were more likely to entertain the possibility of extreme events, like a market crash or a run—really any scenario when the market goes up or down by more than 20%.
Investors who were very open were somewhat more likely to take risks by buying equities. Specifically, investors who were the most open were 3 percentage points more likely to own more equities than investors who weren’t. They had about 62% of their portfolio in equities, while investors who were less open had about 59% of their portfolio in equities.
WSJ: What did you find when you looked at data from other countries?
YAN: We find that neuroticism and openness affect market perceptions and decisions fairly consistently across different data sets. That’s quite remarkable considering the culture and investing environment in each country is very different.
WSJ:What are the study’s implications?
YAN: Personality traits may shape investors’ decisions in ways that many economists have yet to seriously consider. Our research, for instance, also suggests more extroverted and more neurotic investors’ investment choices could be highly influenced by social interactions, or what their friends or colleagues are doing. That insight goes beyond economists’ traditional framework, which focuses on risk tolerance and market expectations, and could help researchers better explain investor behaviour.
PENG: Large asset-management firms or financial planners could spend time getting to know their clients’ personalities and use those insights when they make investment recommendations. Maybe they could encourage investors who tend to be neurotic to be a little less pessimistic.
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
Chris Dixon, a partner who led the charge, says he has a ‘very long-term horizon’
Americans now think they need at least $1.25 million for retirement, a 20% increase from a year ago, according to a survey by Northwestern Mutual
Competitive pressure and creativity have made Chinese-designed and -built electric cars formidable competitors
4 min
China rocked the auto world twice this year. First, its electric vehicles stunned Western rivals at the Shanghai auto show with their quality, features and price. Then came reports that in the first quarter of 2023 it dethroned Japan as the world’s largest auto exporter.
How is China in contention to lead the world’s most lucrative and prestigious consumer goods market, one long dominated by American, European, Japanese and South Korean nameplates? The answer is a unique combination of industrial policy, protectionism and homegrown competitive dynamism. Western policy makers and business leaders are better prepared for the first two than the third.
Start with industrial policy—the use of government resources to help favoured sectors. China has practiced industrial policy for decades. While it’s finding increased favour even in the U.S., the concept remains controversial. Governments have a poor record of identifying winning technologies and often end up subsidising inferior and wasteful capacity, including in China.
But in the case of EVs, Chinese industrial policy had a couple of things going for it. First, governments around the world saw climate change as an enduring threat that would require decade-long interventions to transition away from fossil fuels. China bet correctly that in transportation, the transition would favour electric vehicles.
In 2009, China started handing out generous subsidies to buyers of EVs. Public procurement of taxis and buses was targeted to electric vehicles, rechargers were subsidised, and provincial governments stumped up capital for lithium mining and refining for EV batteries. In 2020 NIO, at the time an aspiring challenger to Tesla, avoided bankruptcy thanks to a government-led bailout.
While industrial policy guaranteed a demand for EVs, protectionism ensured those EVs would be made in China, by Chinese companies. To qualify for subsidies, cars had to be domestically made, although foreign brands did qualify. They also had to have batteries made by Chinese companies, giving Chinese national champions like Contemporary Amperex Technology and BYD an advantage over then-market leaders from Japan and South Korea.
To sell in China, foreign automakers had to abide by conditions intended to upgrade the local industry’s skills. State-owned Guangzhou Automobile Group developed the manufacturing know-how necessary to become a player in EVs thanks to joint ventures with Toyota and Honda, said Gregor Sebastian, an analyst at Germany’s Mercator Institute for China Studies.
Despite all that government support, sales of EVs remained weak until 2019, when China let Tesla open a wholly owned factory in Shanghai. “It took this catalyst…to boost interest and increase the level of competitiveness of the local Chinese makers,” said Tu Le, managing director of Sino Auto Insights, a research service specialising in the Chinese auto industry.
Back in 2011 Pony Ma, the founder of Tencent, explained what set Chinese capitalism apart from its American counterpart. “In America, when you bring an idea to market you usually have several months before competition pops up, allowing you to capture significant market share,” he said, according to Fast Company, a technology magazine. “In China, you can have hundreds of competitors within the first hours of going live. Ideas are not important in China—execution is.”
Thanks to that competition and focus on execution, the EV industry went from a niche industrial-policy project to a sprawling ecosystem of predominantly private companies. Much of this happened below the Western radar while China was cut off from the world because of Covid-19 restrictions.
When Western auto executives flew in for April’s Shanghai auto show, “they saw a sea of green plates, a sea of Chinese brands,” said Le, referring to the green license plates assigned to clean-energy vehicles in China. “They hear the sounds of the door closing, sit inside and look at the quality of the materials, the fabric or the plastic on the console, that’s the other holy s— moment—they’ve caught up to us.”
Manufacturers of gasoline cars are product-oriented, whereas EV manufacturers, like tech companies, are user-oriented, Le said. Chinese EVs feature at least two, often three, display screens, one suitable for watching movies from the back seat, multiple lidars (laser-based sensors) for driver assistance, and even a microphone for karaoke (quickly copied by Tesla). Meanwhile, Chinese suppliers such as CATL have gone from laggard to leader.
Chinese dominance of EVs isn’t preordained. The low barriers to entry exploited by Chinese brands also open the door to future non-Chinese competitors. Nor does China’s success in EVs necessarily translate to other sectors where industrial policy matters less and creativity, privacy and deeply woven technological capability—such as software, cloud computing and semiconductors—matter more.
Still, the threat to Western auto market share posed by Chinese EVs is one for which Western policy makers have no obvious answer. “You can shut off your own market and to a certain extent that will shield production for your domestic needs,” said Sebastian. “The question really is, what are you going to do for the global south, countries that are still very happily trading with China?”
Western companies themselves are likely to respond by deepening their presence in China—not to sell cars, but for proximity to the most sophisticated customers and suppliers. Jörg Wuttke, the past president of the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China, calls China a “fitness centre.” Even as conditions there become steadily more difficult, Western multinationals “have to be there. It keeps you fit.”
Chris Dixon, a partner who led the charge, says he has a ‘very long-term horizon’
Americans now think they need at least $1.25 million for retirement, a 20% increase from a year ago, according to a survey by Northwestern Mutual
