Skip to main content

Robo Economicus? The Impact of Behavioral Biases on Robo-Advisory

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Robo-Advisory

Abstract

Human investors are supposed to be rather emotional and prone to biases in their financial decision-making. By contrast, robots and algorithms have the reputation to be fully rational and therefore are very often considered as ideal investors. But since they are programmed by humans, the question arises how unbiased algorithms and robots really are. We analyze robo-advisors with respect to home bias, mental accounting, and overconfidence and find that the recommendation from robo-advice is not free from behavioral biases. After all, it seems that robo economicus is not as close to the model of Homo economicus as supposed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Translated from Grzanna (2018). A similar description can be found on Rixse (2018).

  2. 2.

    Translation from German to English by dict.leo.org.

  3. 3.

    Based on the assumption that the investment committee makes similar decisions in their ETF portfolio and the robo portfolio.

  4. 4.

    This specific example is taken from the German book by Stock and Goldberg (2013): Genial einfach entscheiden, Finanzbuch Verlag. The question, that is, the observation, goes back to Svenson (1981).

  5. 5.

    Vanguard: “When recommending, setting, and adjusting your asset allocation, we weigh shortfall risk—the possibility that a financial plan or Portfolio will fail to meet longer-term financial goals—against market risk.” Schwab: “[W]e have dedicated an entire team of Charles Schwab Investment Advisory (CSIA) experienced analysts to continually use state-of-the-art research and evolve our approach to creating asset allocations designed to improve outcomes for individual investors.” Wealthfront: “Wealthfront combines the judgment of its investment team with state of the art optimization tools to identify efficient portfolios.”

  6. 6.

    Vanguard Advisers, Inc. (2019, p.18): “When recommending, setting, and adjusting your asset allocation, we weigh shortfall risk—the possibility that a financial plan or Portfolio will fail to meet longer-term financial goals—against market risk.”

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Scholz .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Scholz, P., Grossmann, D., Goldberg, J. (2021). Robo Economicus? The Impact of Behavioral Biases on Robo-Advisory. In: Scholz, P. (eds) Robo-Advisory. Palgrave Studies in Financial Services Technology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40818-3_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40818-3_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-40817-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-40818-3

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics