Cited by 383Financial Markets and Investment StrategiesFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement AnalysisDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Is Unbiased Financial Advice to Retail Investors Sufficient? Answers from a Large Field Study

Open access
Bhattacharya, Utpal, Hackethal, Andreas, Kaesler, Simon, Loos, Benjamin, Meyer, Steffen·2012·Review of Financial Studies

Abstract

Working with one of the largest brokerages in Germany, we record what happens when unbiased investment advice is offered to a random set of roughly 8,000 of the brokerage’s several hundred thousand active retail customers. We find that investors who most need the financial advice are least likely to obtain it. The investors who do obtain the advice (about 5%), however, hardly follow the advice, and so do not improve their portfolio efficiency much. Overall, our results imply that the mere availability of unbiased financial advice is a necessary but not sufficient condition for benefiting retail investors.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/rfs/hhr127

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Bhattacharya et al. (2012) find that customers of a German online broker who opted to obtain financial advice in a field study were among the most financially literate clients.

    “Bhattacharya et al. (2012) find that those customers of a German online broker who opted to obtain financial advice in a field study were among the most financially literate clients”

    From Financial literacy, financial advice, and financial behavior (2017) · cites this paper as Bhattacharya et al. (2012)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bhattacharya, U., Hackethal, A., Kaesler, S., Loos, B., & Meyer, S.
Venue
Review of Financial Studies
Published
2012-01-12
Volume
25
Issue
4
Pages
975-1032
ISSN
  • 0893-9454 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-7368
OpenAlex
W3124510896
Cited by
383
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 26
FWCI
53.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Review of Financial Studies (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion)
  • Rare & Special e-Zone (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Finance › Financial Markets and Investment Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Financial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
retail investors, investment advice, portfolio efficiency, brokerage, behavioral finance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review