Behavioral economists have found that several cognitive biases

Question

Behavioral economists have found that several cognitive biases can influence financial investment decisions.

The  home bias  is investors’ tendency to choose a large proportion of investment products from their home nations—even though it is nearly always more financially rational to diversify and invest globally. The home bias is a type of  familiarity bias , an irrational preference for the familiar.

The  status quo bias  leads investors to retain current investments out of inertia when it would be rational to change those investments. This bias also leads investors to passively accept any investment chosen for them by default rather than make an active choice.

The  availability bias  makes investors focus unduly on more recent and prominent information. When stock values have been rising or falling rapidly, investors often irrationally assume the change will continue and invest accordingly.

The  overconfidence bias  applies to investors who feel irrationally optimistic that, regardless of what they know to be the statistical norm, their own investments will outperform that norm.In 2000, Sweden changed its social security system, in which taxpayers make mandatory payments to save for their living expenses after retirement. Previously, the government had placed all social security payments in a single fund, and individual taxpayers could not choose how their payments were invested. But the new system allowed each taxpayer to craft an individual investment portfolio from a vast array of different options. A default investment strategy involving diverse investment products worldwide was provided for taxpayers who made no active choice. However, a governmental advertising campaign encouraged taxpayers to make their own choices, so most did. Reports available to taxpayers showed that Swedish stock prices had been rising rapidly, and as a result a large proportion of taxpayers invested heavily in Swedish stocks. But soon those stock prices fell dramatically. Overall, after three years, taxpayers who made active choices would have fared far better if they had stuck with the default strategy.

rkhanka · Accepted Answer

Why did the home bias not contribute? Are they not talking about Swedes investing in Swedish stocks?

captain0612 · Answer

It is clearly mentioned in the second tab in last few sentences.

Cause  
Reports suggested => Stock prices of swedish stocks increased
  Effect  
Large proportion of tax payers invested in these stocks as a result

What factor or thinking led to this behaviour? (question asked)
  Reasoning:  
These tax payers invested because of the increase in the stock prices (changes in stock prices) and not primarily because of home familiarity. Hence, availability bias.

chetan2u · Answer

A default investment strategy involving diverse investment products worldwide was provided for taxpayers who made no active choice. 
However, a governmental advertising campaign encouraged taxpayers to make their own choices, so most did. 
Reports available to taxpayers showed that Swedish stock prices had been rising rapidly, and as a result a large proportion of taxpayers invested heavily in Swedish stocks. But soon those stock prices fell dramatically. Overall, after three years, taxpayers who made active choices would have fared far better if they had stuck with the default strategy.

The Case study:

Swedish tax payers were encouraged by advertisement campaign to go for active choices.  The government at home influenced the approach but does not speak of Home bias

Deciding to go for active choices, the tax payers further got influenced by the 'Reports' available to them that showed that Swedish stock prices had been rising rapidly, and as a result a large proportion of taxpayers invested heavily in Swedish stocks.  Here, the tax payers have been influenced by the recent phenomenon that was happening. This is nothing but 'Availability bias' 
 The availability bias makes investors focus unduly on more recent and prominent information. When stock values have been rising or falling rapidly, investors often irrationally assume the change will continue and invest accordingly.

Finally, we are told that the taxpayers would have been better off with default choice available to them.
 Clearly they were not swayed by the default bias, which is status quo bias. 
 The status quo bias leads investors to retain current investments out of inertia when it would be rational to change those investments. This bias also leads investors to passively accept any investment chosen for them by default rather than make an active choice.

Let us look at the options
Home bias -  Did not contribute significantly/indeterminate 
Availability bias -  Did contribute significantly 
Status quo bias -  Did not contribute significantly/indeterminate

PK1 · Answer

chetan2u 
While the question asks for contribute significantly vis a vis did not contribute significantly, few options are hard to remove . Would you guide how did you conclude with confidence here?

Homebias:The home bias is investors’ tendency to choose a  large proportion of investment products from their home nations —even though it is nearly always more financially rational to diversify and invest globally. The home bias is a type of familiarity bias, an irrational preference for the familiar.

Case Study:Reports available to taxpayers showed that Swedish stock prices had been rising rapidly, and as a result  a large proportion of taxpayers invested heavily in Swedish stocks

Given large proportion was invested in home stock, cant we say home bias contributed as significantly as availability bias. There is no question on availability bias as it is straightforward.

Vishwal · Answer

It would have been rational to change the investment type as it was giving less returns. However, citizens stuck with their initial decision 
 for 03 years to invest in Swedish stocks. It complies with Status Quo Bias. 
Where am I going wrong?

D3N0 · Answer

3rd Q:   Which of the following, if true, would most strongly  suggest that a familiarity bias influenced the initial active investment choices of most taxpayers  in the Swedish social security system in the first few years after the system changed?

Option D)  All taxpayers who invested primarily in Swedish stocks fared far worse, on average than those who invested in a representative selection of global stocks.
This option doesn't tell us that most taxpayers chose SWED stocks. IT just says that those who chose SWED stocks were at far worse then those who went global.

E is right because it shows that even when there were 2 similar growth choices for performance, most people chose SWED stocks over global.

D3N0 · Answer

2nd Question: 
Select Yes if, based on the information provided, the Swedish government’s taking that action (it is talking about the actions in the option) when the new social security system began would likely have produced higher social-security portfolio values by 2003, on average, for Swedish taxpayers. For each other action, select No

Basically all we need to check here is IF that action was taken, would it have helped the stock price of the SWED stocks (mentioned in the report)

a) Aggressively stimulating the national economy and thus increasing Swedish stock prices for several years.  Yes  -- 
 Why? -->  Because the report showed the SWED stocks' rising performance if govt have focused on the national economy and thus increasing Swed Stock prices then in coming years portfolio value would have increased with the further increase in the stock price

b) Eliminating taxpayers’ ability to concentrate their investments in stocks from any one country:  Yes , 
 Why? -->  In this case, the portfolio would have been diversified thus improving Also the Para in the second tab says " Overall, after three years, taxpayers who made active choices would have fared far better if they had stuck with the default strategy, which was diversify global stocks

c) Downplaying reports of rapidly rising stocks and highlighting a diverse array of stable stocks:  Yes , 
 Why? -->  The Para in the second tab says " Overall, after three years, taxpayers who made active choices would have fared far better if they had stuck with the default strategy, which was diversify global stocks. Also stable stocks would have been better than the SWED stocks

vangoghskindle · Answer

ID 700162

Question 2

1. Aggressively stimulating the national economy and thus increasing Swedish stock prices for several years

Impact: A stronger national economy would likely boost Swedish stock prices for a sustained period. Since many taxpayers invested heavily in Swedish stocks (due to home bias and availability bias), this action would have improved the returns on their concentrated portfolios.
 Verdict: Yes.
 Rising Swedish stock prices would directly benefit taxpayers, given their bias toward Swedish investments.

2. Eliminating taxpayers’ ability to concentrate their investments in stocks from any one country

Impact: Restricting excessive concentration in Swedish stocks would encourage diversification, which aligns with the performance of the globally diversified default portfolio that outperformed active choices. By preventing home bias, this action ensures taxpayers reap the benefits of diversified investments.
 Verdict: Yes.
 Eliminating the ability to concentrate investments fosters diversification, which historically led to better outcomes.

3. Downplaying reports of rapidly rising stocks and highlighting a diverse array of stable stocks

Impact: This addresses availability bias, which caused taxpayers to focus on recent rapid rises in Swedish stock prices. By emphasizing stability and diversification, taxpayers would be less likely to chase recent trends and more likely to stick with the globally diversified portfolio.
 Verdict: Yes.
 Combating availability bias through balanced messaging promotes rational investment decisions, leading to higher portfolio values.

Final Answer:

Aggressively stimulating the national economy → Yes
 Eliminating taxpayers’ ability to concentrate → Yes
 Downplaying reports of rising stocks → Yes

All three actions would likely have improved portfolio values by 2003.

chloe1111 · Answer

Hi, Can i ask for Qn3, why is B not the answer? i was debating between B or E but ultimately chose B due to the words 'out of inertia'. E also seemed right but i thought B was more strongly suggestive of the familiarity bias... If anyone could help explain that would be greatly appreciated!

jcrafer · Answer

I'm not an expert but I have realized that generally in GMAT and specifically in DI is very important to read the questions carefully " For each of the following cognitive biases, select   Contributed significantly   if the information provided clearly indicates it contributed significantly  to the investment decisions that led  to the outcome described in the final sentence of the case study. Otherwise, select  Did not contribute significantly/indeterminate ." 
 If the investors would've been influenced by the status bias they wouldn't have changed their default portafolio, but they did, so there is not Status Quo Bias influencing investors in the framework of the question.

Hope this helps.

jcrafer · Answer

Hi, if you review the fisrt tab with the bias concepts, you'll realize that B is the concept of the Status Quo Bias. So you can eliminate B.

Hope this helps!

Jessepinkman2727 · Answer

If the answer to option 2   of question 2 is "Yes" then home bias should be a contributing factor in question 1. These two answers contradict each other!!

KarishmaB · Answer

This is not correct. Taxpayers chose to invest in Sweden because its stocks were going up, not because they were only familiar with Swedish stocks. We have to select   Contributed significantly    if the information provided clearly indicates it contributed significantly to the investment decisions.

Given: Reports available to taxpayers showed that Swedish stock prices had been rising rapidly, and as a result a large proportion of taxpayers invested heavily in Swedish stocks

Hence availability bias was at play here, not Home bias.

In question 2, ha dated govt not allowed concentration in    stocks from any one country, they would not have    been    able to buy all Swedish stocks (which they did    because       of    availability bias) and hence the result would have  been  better.

Rahuljoshi20 · Answer

It is mentioned that " A default investment strategy involving diverse investment products worldwide was provided for taxpayers who made no active choice". Means if they had no home bias, they might have invested in Global products.

yugamjayant · Answer

Question 3 :

1. The default investment strategy included more investment products from Sweden than from any other country. -  Taxpayers choice is not a factor in the default investment startegy as it was estb by the govt. 
2. Most taxpayers who made initial active investment choices retained those same investments out of inertia even when it would have been rational to change them. -  Clear exmaple of Status quo bias, however Initially I attibuted it with familiarity bias as initial investments are going to be more familiar as well.  
3. Most taxpayers invested in a few Swedish stocks that were rising more rapidly than any other stocks available to taxpayers.  Case of availability bias  
4. All taxpayers who invested primarily in Swedish stocks fared far worse, on average, than those who invested in a representative selection of global stocks. -  this option is a hard to eliminate as we are able to establish that taxpayers stuck with Swed stocks even though it didn't make sence, but its a narrow choice, questions has asked to pick a choice what influenced most taxpayers  
5. Most taxpayers chose Swedish stocks over foreign stocks whose prices had been rising even more rapidly.  This choice ticks all boxes, its a broad choice and an clear case of home bias

Behavioral economists have found that several cognitive biases

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

Contributed Significantly	Did not contribute significantly/indeterminate
		Availability bias
		Home Bias
		Status Quo Bias

Yes	No
		Aggressively stimulating the national economy and thus increasing Swedish stock prices for several years
		Eliminating taxpayers’ ability to concentrate their investments in stocks from any one country
		Downplaying reports of rapidly rising stocks and highlighting a diverse array of stable stocks

	The default investment strategy included more investment products from Sweden than from any other country.
	Most taxpayers who made initial active investment choices retained those same investments out of inertia even when it would have been rational to change them.
	Most taxpayers invested in a few Swedish stocks that were rising more rapidly than any other stocks available to taxpayers.
	All taxpayers who invested primarily in Swedish stocks fared far worse, on average, than those who invested in a representative selection of global stocks.
	Most taxpayers chose Swedish stocks over foreign stocks whose prices had been rising even more rapidly.

GMAT Multi-Source Reasoning (MSR) Questions

Behavioral economists have found that several cognitive biases

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards