Literature DB >> 32189814

Which Early Withdrawal Penalty Attracts the Most Deposits to a Commitment Savings Account?

John Beshears1, James J Choi2, Christopher Harris3, David Laibson1, Brigitte C Madrian4, Jung Sakong5.   

Abstract

Previous research has shown that some people voluntarily use commitment contracts that restrict their own choice sets. We study how people divide money between two accounts: a liquid account that permits unrestricted withdrawals and a commitment account that is randomly assigned in a between-subject design to have either a 10% early withdrawal penalty, or a 20% early withdrawal penalty, or not to allow early withdrawals at all (i.e., an infinite penalty). When the liquid account and the commitment account pay the same interest rate, higher early-withdrawal penalties attract more commitment account deposits. This pattern is predicted by the hypothesis that some participants are partially- or fully-sophisticated present-biased agents. Such agents perceive that higher penalties generate greater scope for commitment by disincentivizing (penalized) early withdrawals. The experiment also shows that when the commitment account pays a higher interest rate than the liquid account, the positive empirical slope relating penalties and commitment deposits is flattened, suggesting that naïve present-biased agents or agents with standard exponential discounting are also in our sample. Across all of our experimental treatments, higher early withdrawal penalties on the commitment account sometimes increase and never reduce allocations to the commitment account.

Entities:  

Keywords:  401(k); IRA; commitment; contract design; defined contribution retirement plan; flexibility; naiveté; present bias; quasi-hyperbolic discounting; savings; sophistication

Year:  2020        PMID: 32189814      PMCID: PMC7079766          DOI: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104144

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Public Econ        ISSN: 0047-2727


  7 in total

1.  Holding the Hunger Games Hostage at the Gym: An Evaluation of Temptation Bundling.

Authors:  Katherine L Milkman; Julia A Minson; Kevin G M Volpp
Journal:  Manage Sci       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.883

2.  Optimal Mandates and The Welfare Cost of Asymmetric Information: Evidence from The U.K. Annuity Market.

Authors:  Liran Einav; Amy Finkelstein; Paul Schrimpf
Journal:  Econometrica       Date:  2010-05-01       Impact factor: 5.844

3.  Why Don’t the Poor Save More? Evidence from Health Savings Experiments.

Authors:  Pascaline Dupas; Jonathan Robinson
Journal:  Am Econ Rev       Date:  2013-06

4.  Procrastination, deadlines, and performance: self-control by precommitment.

Authors:  Dan Ariely; Klaus Wertenbroch
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2002-05

5.  Reason-based choice.

Authors:  E Shafir; I Simonson; A Tversky
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  1993 Oct-Nov

6.  Medical decision making in situations that offer multiple alternatives.

Authors:  D A Redelmeier; E Shafir
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-01-25       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Liquidity in Retirement Savings Systems: An International Comparison.

Authors:  John Beshears; James J Choi; Joshua Hurwitz; David Laibson; Brigitte C Madrian
Journal:  Am Econ Rev       Date:  2015-05
  7 in total
  1 in total

1.  Nudging: Progress to date and future directions.

Authors:  John Beshears; Harry Kosowsky
Journal:  Organ Behav Hum Decis Process       Date:  2020-12-10
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.