Multi-Asset

Traditional vs. BehavioralFinance

Traditional vs. BehavioralFinance ArXiv ID: ssrn-1596888 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract The traditional finance researcher sees financial settings populated not by the error-prone and emotional Homo sapiens, but by the awesome Homo economicus. The Keywords: Homo economicus, behavioral finance, rational expectations, financial modeling, psychology, Multi-Asset Complexity vs Empirical Score Math Complexity: 1.0/10 Empirical Rigor: 1.0/10 Quadrant: Philosophers Why: The paper is a conceptual discussion comparing traditional vs. behavioral finance paradigms without presenting mathematical models or empirical backtesting data. flowchart TD A["Research Question: Traditional vs. Behavioral Finance"] --> B{"Methodology"} B --> C["Key Input: Homo Economicus"] B --> D["Key Input: Homo Sapiens"] C --> E["Computational Model: Rational Expectations"] D --> F["Computational Model: Psychology & Emotions"] E --> G["Outcome: Efficient Markets"] F --> H["Outcome: Multi-Asset Anomalies"]

The Psychology of Risk: The BehavioralFinancePerspective

The Psychology of Risk: The BehavioralFinancePerspective ArXiv ID: ssrn-1155822 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract Since the mid-1970s, hundreds of academic studies have been conducted in risk perception-oriented research within the social sciences (e.g., nonfinancial areas) Keywords: Risk Perception, Social Sciences, Behavioral Economics, Heuristics, Multi-Asset Complexity vs Empirical Score Math Complexity: 1.0/10 Empirical Rigor: 0.5/10 Quadrant: Philosophers Why: The paper is a theoretical literature review that synthesizes existing behavioral finance concepts without introducing new mathematical models or conducting empirical backtests. flowchart TD A["Research Question How do heuristics influence risk perception in financial decisions?"] --> B["Methodology Literature Review & Empirical Analysis"] B --> C["Data Inputs Multi-Asset Market Data & Social Science Risk Studies"] C --> D["Computational Process Behavioral Modeling & Heuristic Simulation"] D --> E["Key Findings Cognitive biases distort risk assessment across asset classes"] E --> F["Outcomes Enhanced Behavioral Finance Framework for Multi-Asset Investment"]

Against Financial Literacy Education

Against Financial Literacy Education ArXiv ID: ssrn-1105384 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract The dominant model of regulation in the United States for consumer credit, insurance, and investment products is disclosure and unfettered choice. As these pro Keywords: Regulatory Policy, Consumer Protection, Disclosure Regulation, Behavioral Finance, Multi-Asset Complexity vs Empirical Score Math Complexity: 0.0/10 Empirical Rigor: 2.0/10 Quadrant: Philosophers Why: The paper is a legal and policy analysis arguing against financial literacy education, with no mathematical formulas or statistical modeling. Its empirical rigor is low as it relies on conceptual arguments and literature review rather than original data analysis or backtesting. flowchart TD A["Research Question: Is financial literacy education effective for consumer protection?"] --> B B["Key Methodology: Analysis of regulatory policy & behavioral finance literature"] --> C C["Data Inputs: Disclosure regulations, multi-asset product markets, consumer choice data"] --> D D["Computational Process: Causal inference & counterfactual analysis"] --> E E["Key Findings: Disclosure-based regulation insufficient; literacy education may misrepresent risk"] --> F["Outcomes: Policy recommendation against mandatory financial literacy education"]

A Literature Review of Risk Perception Studies in BehavioralFinance: The Emerging Issues

A Literature Review of Risk Perception Studies in BehavioralFinance: The Emerging Issues ArXiv ID: ssrn-988342 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract This is a PDF file of ‘A Literature Review of Risk Perception Studies in Behavioral Finance: The Emerging Issues’ slides from a presentation at the 25th Annual Keywords: risk perception, behavioral finance, literature review, Multi-Asset Complexity vs Empirical Score Math Complexity: 1.0/10 Empirical Rigor: 2.0/10 Quadrant: Philosophers Why: The paper is a literature review of risk perception studies, focusing on qualitative descriptions and conceptual frameworks from social sciences rather than advanced mathematical modeling or empirical backtesting. It relies on survey summaries and theoretical discussions, lacking implementation-heavy data analysis or code. flowchart TD A["Research Goal Literature Review of Risk Perception in Behavioral Finance"] --> B{"Methodology"} B --> C["Data Input Existing Academic Papers & Studies"] C --> D["Computational Process Classification & Thematic Analysis"] D --> E["Key Findings Multi-Asset Risk Perception Emerging Issues"] E --> F["Outcome Consolidated Framework for Future Research"]