Robo Advisers and Mutual Fund Stickiness
SSRN Electronic Journal
2019
- 4Citations
- 2,249Usage
- 22Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
We study the value added of automated financial management (AFM) services along two dimensions: diversification and account size flexibility. First, using a company-specific experiment with matched AFM and traditional portfolios, we find AFM portfolios are significantly better diversified. Underdiversified investors are more likely to set up an AFM account, with a 1 standard deviation increase in underdiversification raising the probability of doing so 3 percentage points. Next, we study account size flexibility using an exogenous reduction in minimum account size. The reduction led to a net increase in total deposit inflows and disproportionately raised new account formation by less-wealthy investors.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2872134; http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2872134; https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2872134; https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2872134; https://ssrn.com/abstract=2872134; https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3132371; https://ssrn.com/abstract=3132371
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know