14/3/2016: Inheritance-Rich Social Disasters?

Using microdata from the Household Finance and Consumption Survey (HFCS), a recent research paper from the ECB examined “the role of inheritance, income and welfare state policies in explaining differences in household net wealth within and between euro area countries.”

Top of the line findings:

1) “About one third of the households in the 13 European countries we study report having received an inheritance, and these households have considerably higher net wealth than those which did not inherit.” Which is sort of material: in a democracy 1/3 of voters making their decisions based on inherited wealth can and (I would argue) does impose a cost on those who do not stand (do not expect) to inherit wealth. Examples of such mis-allocations? Take Ireland, where everything - from retirement to housing markets to childcare provision to education hours is predicated on transfers of income and / or wealth within the family. While those who stand to gain through this system cope well, those who stand to not gain through this familial wealth and income transfers system, stand to lose. Guess who the latter are? Of course: the poor (or those from the poor background, even if they are higher earners today) and the foreign-born.

2) “Regression analyses on households' relative wealth position show that, on average, having received an inheritance lifts a household by about 14 net wealth percentiles. At the same time, each additional percentile in the income distribution is associated with about 0.4 net wealth percentiles. These results are consistent across countries.” Which, in basic terms means that you have to work 2.5 times harder to achieve the same impact as inheritance for every point increase in inherited wealth. Merit, you say? Of course not: daddy’s money vastly outperforms, as far as financial returns go, own education, effort, aptitude etc… Though, of course, here’s a pesky bit: for all those pursuing equality and other nice social objectives, higher income taxes, of course, make it even less feasible for income (work) to catch up with inherited wealth. Which might explain why well-heeled (and often inept) folks of Dublin South are so much in favour of the ideas of raising income taxes, but are not exactly enthused about hiking inheritance taxes.

3) “Multilevel cross-country regressions show that the degree of welfare state spending across countries is negatively correlated with household net wealth.” Which, basically, says the utterly unsurprising: wealthy households don’t rely on social welfare. Doh, you’d say. But not quite. The “findings suggest that social services provided by the state are substitutes for private wealth accumulation and partly explain observed differences in levels of household net wealth across European countries. In particular, the effect of substitution relative to net wealth decreases with growing wealth levels. This implies that an increase in welfare state spending goes along with an increase -- rather than a decrease -- of observed wealth inequality.”

In other words, inheritance induces higher inequality in wealth. It compounds this effect by allocating inheritance without any sense of merit and at an indirect (policy) cost to those households that are not standing to inherit wealth. Which means that more inheritance-based is the given society, more wealth inequality you will get in it, and less merit in wealth allocation will result. Which, in turn implies you gonna pay for this with higher taxes (everyone will, except, of course, the really wealthy).

Next time you driving through, say Monkstown, check them out: the *daddy’s money* wandering around… they cost you, in tax, in higher charges for policy-related services, and in merit-less society.


Full paper here: Fessler, Pirmin and Schuerz, Martin, Private Wealth Across European Countries: The Role of Income, Inheritance and the Welfare State (September 22, 2015). ECB Working Paper No. 1847: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2664150

Economics 13/02/2010: On benefits of marriage to investment

Feeling marital around the Valentine's Day? Well, how about investing in some stocks?

A paper just published in The Review of Financial Studies (2010, 23(1) pages 385-432) titled: “The Effect of Marital Status and Children on Savings and Portfolio Choice" by David A. Love (not kidding there) looked at the impact of marital status on optimal decisions about saving, life insurance, and asset allocation. It turns out, quite predictably I must add, that changes in marital-status and the number of children can have “important effects on optimal household decisions”:

• Widowhood induces sharp reductions in the portfolio shares in stock, and the impact is largest for women and individuals with children.
• Divorce causes men and women to reallocate their portfolios in different directions; men choose much riskier allocations, while women opt for safer ones.
• Children play a fundamental role in the optimal portfolio decisions. Men with children, for example, increase their shares in response to divorce by less than half as much as men without children.

Obviously, this might have something to do with the fall-off in disposable income and wealth, induced by a divorce when long-term child payments are involved. “…Imagine that a couple with two children living at home gets a divorce. Depending on the legal assignment of custody, the mandated level of child support, anticipated earnings, and the division of household wealth, the ratio of wealth to the present value of future income for each spouse will almost surely differ from the level previously observed in marriage. …this ratio is key to understanding optimal asset allocation because it summarizes, at least in part, the exposure of future consumption possibilities to fluctuations in financial markets.”

In addition to wealth-to-income ratio, divorce and portfolio choice are linked through changes in financial background risk as “the former spouses move from living on a combined income to each relying on a potentially more volatile single stream. …Uninsurable background risk, arising, for example, from labor income, business income, and housing, can have a quantitatively large impact on optimal portfolio decisions.”

A final way that the divorce might influence optimal portfolio choice is through its effect on savings “as the former spouses update their desired consumption of housing, food, transportation, and childcare.” Divorcees from a single car household buy a new car. They also increase childcare expenditure in most cases, unless large divorce settlements induce one parent exit from the labour force. Food consumption expenditure and volume rise, as all other consumption of both durables and non-durables.

Contrast the economic implications of divorce for the two-child couple with those of a childless couple. Members of the childless couple will still experience a change in wealth and income in the event of a divorce, “but there will be no additional shock to resources due to child support, college expenses, or differences in scale economies related to the assignment of custody. Given this differential impact on resources, it is reasonable to expect that the childless couple will respond differently to divorce in terms of saving and portfolio choice. In addition, children may also alter households' responses to widowhood. For example, depending on the strength of the bequest motive, surviving spouses with children will tend to have larger amounts of wealth relative to income compared to those without children, leaving them more exposed to market risk.”

All of these conjectures are supported by evidence, but there are some surprises in findings as well: “We find that households with children tend to accumulate substantially less wealth during the working years but that their slower rates of drawdown in retirement leave them with more savings toward the tail end of life.” Does marriage really mean life-long prudence?

“This trajectory of wealth accumulation is mirrored, in part, by the evolution of portfolio shares. Earlier in the life cycle, households with children hold riskier portfolio shares (by about 10 percentage points) than households without children, but the relationship reverses in retirement.” So no, risk aversion is lower for married couples probably because their dual incomes act as hedges against single income volatility.

Instead – it is bequest motive that drives them to become more conservative in older age. “…a riskier allocation for these younger households is optimal because their consumption streams are less dependent on the performance of financial markets. In retirement, however, children provide an incentive to maintain wealth for bequests, and the resulting increase in the wealth-to-income ratio makes households increasingly sensitive to stock market volatility.”

Hmmm, this brings us to taxes, then. A rise in inheritance tax during the wealth accumulation period of household life cycle implies a reduced incentive to save for bequest. This, should then result in lower risk aversion for older age households. And that, in turn, will lead to greater volatility of investment and also to higher cost of borrowing by the sovereigns. How so? Because if older households become less risk averse, their share of government bonds in total investment portfolio will drop. This means lower demand for bonds and higher yields on new issuance. Cost of sovereign borrowing goes up and the benefits of higher taxes to Government revenues are cancelled out, at least in part.

Imagine that – some say there is no such thing as Laffer Curve… not even at 100% marginal tax rate?