The Different Faces of Familiarity Bias

The Different Faces of Familiarity Bias


Time to Read: 5 Min

Vicki Bogan

Millions of Americans own stock in their employer through various employee stock ownership plans and 401(k) plans.1 While there can be discounted prices and specific tax benefits to buying employer stock, many investors hold way too much of it. There are estimates that five million Americans have more than 60 percent of their retirement savings in company stock, over 2 million Americans hold 40–60 percent of their retirement savings in company stock, and more than 3 million Americans hold 20–40 percent of their retirement savings in company stock.2

Certainly, investors hear alarming investment nightmare stories about people who held a large proportion of their personal wealth in their employer’s stock and lost everything.3 4 While your client may think, “I know this company because I work here,” that thinking can get them into trouble — think WorldCom and Lehman Brothers. These two firms, in particular, encouraged employees to hold company stock inside and outside of their retirement accounts. Beyond the risks of having a large a mount of one’s portfolio in a single stock, holding a high amount of employer stock means both their “day job” and their financial fortunes are tied to only one company. If something happens to the firm, your clients could lose their jobs and a large percentage of their financial wealth at the same time. That is a very risky investment strategy.

Familiarity bias is the tendency for individuals to be more comfortable with what’s familiar, dislike ambiguity, and look for ways to avoid the unknown.

So why do investors continue to do just that, despite the horror stories we hear when a firm like Lehman Brothers gets into trouble? The short answer is something called familiarity bias. Familiarity bias is the tendency for individuals to be more comfortable with what’s familiar, dislike ambiguity, and look for ways to avoid the unknown. There are several types of familiarity biases, some of which can influence your clients’ investment preferences and some of which can affect you and how you may manage your clients’ portfolios. Every financial advisor understands the need for, and benefits of, portfolio diversification. Familiarity biases can have a significant negative effect on portfolio diversification.

Despite the risks, employees often invest a significant portion of wealth in employer stock because their employer is a company that is very familiar to them. There is a belief that working at a company gives them certain informational advantages. However, that company perspective generally does not translate into higher portfolio returns, nor does it compensate for the risk of limited diversification. This type of familiarity bias also can be manifested as a general “local” investing bias. You probably have clients who prefer to invest in the stock of companies that are in their local area or state. Again, they are favoring local market companies because they feel that they have informational advantages about them, as they’re more familiar with them — when that is not necessarily the case (Huberman, 2001).

Familiarity Biases and Advisors

Unfortunately, clients are not the only ones who can be influenced by familiarity biases. As advisors, various types of familiarity biases can affect you, too. Researchers Coval & Moskowitz (1999) show that U.S. investment managers also have a strong preference for locally headquartered firms. Additionally, home bias can influence advisors. Home bias is the propensity to favor domestic financial investments over international ones. While there is a rich academic literature that documents the benefits of international diversification (e.g., DeSantis & Gerard, 1997), home bias is very persistent ( Ahearne et al., 2004; French & Poterba, 1991). This bias strongly influences portfolio manager investment decisions, even when greater diversification outside of domestic markets might yield greater return and lessen risk.

The reason these biases cause problems is that they limit portfolio diversification. While certain familiarity biases are more likely to affect your clients’ investment preferences, other familiarity biases can influence you as an advisor. Some familiarity biases cause clients to invest too heavily in a particular security, while other types of familiarity biases can cause investors to avoid certain types of securities. Your job is to be aware of these influences when trying to diversify a client’s portfolio appropriately.

Key Takeaways

  • There are several types of familiarity biases – some that are more likely to affect your client and some that can also influence you, the advisor.
  • While certain familiarity biases can cause clients to invest too heavily in a particular security, other types of familiarity biases can cause investors to avoid certain securities.
  • Familiarity biases can be an enemy to portfolio diversification.
  • Be aware that these influences exist, and do not let them interfere with the appropriate diversification strategies for your client portfolios.

1https://www.nceo.org/articles/statistical-profile-employee-ownership

2Mitchell, Olivia S. and Utkus, Stephen P. (2003). “The Role of Company Stock in Defined Contribution Plans.” in The Pension Challenge: Risk Transfers and Retirement Income Security. Mitchell, Olivia S. and Kent Smetters (eds.) Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

3Woolley, Suzanne. (October 13, 2016). “Wells Fargo Is Your Last Warning: Check Your 401(k)” Bloomberg.com

4Lieber, Ron. (March 20, 2015). “A Scary Movie: Filling Your 401(k) with Company Stock” nytimes.com

Ahearne, Alan, William Grieve, and Francis Warnock. (2004). “Information Costs and Home Bias: An Analysis of U.S. Holding of Foreign Equities.” Journal of International Economics 62, 313–336.

Coval, Joshua D. and Tobias J. Moskowitz. (1999). “Home Bias at Home: Local Equity Preference in Domestic Portfolios.” Journal of Finance 54 (6), 2045-2073.

De Santis, Giorgio, and Bruno Gerard. (1997). “International Asset Pricing and Portfolio Diversification with Time-Varying Risk.” Journal of Finance 52, 1881–1912.

French, Kenneth, and James Poterba. (1991). “International Diversification and International Equity Markets.” American Economic Review 81, 222–226.

Huberman, G. (2001). “Familiarity Breeds Investment.” Review of Financial Studies 14 (3), 659 - 680.

Dr. Vicki Bogan

Professor and Director of the Institute for Behavioral and Household Finance (IBHF) at Cornell University

The mission of the IBHF is research and education in the areas of behavioral finance and household finance with the goal of better understanding and modeling financial behavior.

View all articles by Vicki »


The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author, who is not affiliated with Hartford Funds. The information contained herein should not be construed as investment advice or a recommendation of any product or service nor should it be relied upon to, replace the advice of an investor’s own professional legal, tax and financial advisors. Hartford Funds Distributors, LLC.

 

Receive human-centric insights by email:

Hartford Funds is not responsible for, and does not validate, any information, opinions, assertions, or statements expressed within these articles, or the identity or credentials of the individuals communicating through the site. Some of the articles may contain links to information created and maintained by other, unaffiliated organizations and individuals. Hartford Funds does not control, cannot guarantee, and is not responsible for the completeness, accuracy, timeliness, or the continued availability or existence of this outside information or the information presented herein. This material is intended for use by financial professionals or in conjunction with the advice of a financial professional.

Check the background of this firm/individual on FINRA's BrokerCheck.

121131

The material on this site is for informational and educational purposes only. The material should not be considered tax or legal advice and is not to be relied on as a forecast. The material is also not a recommendation or advice regarding any particular security, strategy or product. Hartford Funds does not represent that any products or strategies discussed are suitable for any particular investor so investors should seek their own professional advice before investing. Content is current as of the publication date or date indicated, and may be superseded by subsequent market and economic conditions.


All investments are subject to risk, including the possible loss of principal. Investors should carefully consider a fund’s investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. This and other important information is contained in the mutual fund or ETF prospectus and summary prospectus (if available), which can be obtained from a financial professional and should be read carefully before investing.



Hartford Funds refers to Hartford Funds Management Group, Inc., and its subsidiaries, including the mutual funds' and active ETFs' investment manager, Hartford Funds Management Company, LLC (HFMC), the mutual funds' distributor, Hartford Funds Distributors, LLC (HFD), Member FINRA/SIPC as well as Lattice Strategies LLC (Lattice), a wholly owned subsidiary of HFMC, which serves as the investment adviser to strategic beta exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Certain funds are sub-advised by Wellington Management Company LLP or Schroder Investment Management North America Inc. Schroder Investment Management North America Ltd. serves as a secondary sub-adviser to certain funds. All ETFs are distributed by ALPS Distributors, Inc. (ALPS). Hartford Funds is not affiliated with any fund sub-adviser or ALPS. The funds and other products referred to on this Site may be offered and sold only to persons in the United States and its territories.

© Copyright 2017 Hartford Funds Management Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Not FDIC Insured | No Bank Guarantee | May Lose Value