Quantitative, multiple regressional research on Financial Services, specifically, the emotional intelligence of Financial Planners/Advisors as the independent variable impacting the dependent variable, Client irrationality during a market shock.
This is modification not a complete rewrite.
Please use sources from 2018 or newer. And add something in chapter 1 background and in chapter 2 mentioning Richard Thaler as the father of behavioral economics (he received a Nobel prize for it)
Sources from 2018 or newer ONLY, please. Also please ONLY make changes in a different color text so I can easily find your work when I review it.
This order requires a review of the feedback from my dissertation committee and school to be incorporated into the document. Specifically, the survey questions used require academic sources to back them up. Changes for this are needed in Chapter 1 (Introduction chapter), we need to add something about how people react when markets crash to establish that it’s expected that market turmoil causes irrationality and that this research is merely looking into how the EQ of financial advisors impacts that tendency. A mention in the intro, a few sentences in the background section, a mention in the methodology section. In Chapter 2 (literature review), changes will be needed to explain the sources for the feedback / survey questions, specifically, using perception of what others might be thinking instead of obtaining answers from others directly. Restated, why can one person’s perception of another’s thoughts or emotions be used in lieu of having the thoughts of the subject themselves. Finally, in Chapter 3, the questions would be expanded upon to include some detail regarding perception and why it is okay to use Financial advisors’ perception of their clients thoughts versus asking the clients directly (which was not an option). Also, I do not have any sources from Thaler, he is the seminal source for behavioral finance. Regardless of date of source, I need something from him.
Next, this research is quantitative and survey based. The trial has been completed and the trial data is available. This data will be provided and need to be analyzed (possibly regression run against it) and recorded. I do not know if this means we will be starting chapter 4 or not. To be discussed.
Next in the dissertation document (Dissertation – Chapter 1-2-3 – 7-16-2022 – 4p.docx), there are feedback comments in the track changes panel on the side. Please review the document for comments and address.
In the “Feedback – 7-29-2022.zip” is a text file. Please open and read. This encapsulates changes needed. Please ask me questions if there are any!
The “Loveland Data Collection Strategy – 6-25-2022 – 315p.doc” file details how data is going to be collected. This is for extra detail into what I am doing. No edits here.
The “Loveland Survey – 7-23-2022 – 1230p.doc” file is a document of my survey and detail there. This will help when looking for sources for the questions, specifically questions 9 – 13. My big issue is that I do not review WHY these question are important, nor do I have literature backup as to why “perception” is used or valid – as the feedback talks about.
The Genos_EI_Concise_Self.pdf file is for scoring the Emotional Intelligence survey questions. While the “Palmer_et_al_2009_Genos_EI_A_Measure….pdf file” This is the detail behind the tool. Please note page 109 (or 7 of 15), the table. It talks about the sub-components of the instrument. Note the content on “Emotional Awareness of Others”
“Demonstrates an understanding of others’ feelings…” is what jumped out at me regarding perception. When it comes to finding sources for the “perception” issue, we can change the word “perception” or better define it through “understanding feelings in others” as defined by the EAO component of the GENOS EI Concise instrument per the pdf i attached and descriiption above
I have also completed collecting the 15 responses I need for the Trial run. I don’t know what happens next regarding the incorporation of the data, its analysis, and review of that data and getting it into the 3 existing chapters as they are…and / or starting chapter 4, if needed.
For the excel file, “Financial advisor influence on irrational client investment behaviors – 8-7-2022 – 414p.xls”, note:
Row 1 is the headers
The survey questions start in column F
Starting with columns I & J (Gender), you will see the actual response (verbiage selection) and the second column is the numeric equivalent for that respnose. So Male = 1, Female = 2 for example
This continues with column L/M (Degree) through column AF / AG (% of clients expressing irrationality)
You will want to UNHIDE columns AH – BQ
These are the GENOS EI Concise questions (31 of them)
Columns BS – BZ are the results, each row is the individual’s responses
Cell BS-2 through BY-2 are the abbreviations for the 7 sub-categories of the GENOS EI Concise inventory. More information on these sub-categories can be found in the Genos EI attachment and the Palmer et al 2009 attachment below (page 109 explains them, page 114 has the statistical data)
Cells BR-3 – BZ-4 are the Mean and STD for each of those 7 categories (and the total). I also have the 1st and 2nd sigma for total in BZ-5 and BZ-6
The 1st and 2nd sigma for EAO (col. BU) is in cells CB-9 & 10.
The numbers in row 3 (cells F-3 through AF-3 are just numbering of the questions, feel free to disregard)
Rows 5 & 6 are for assistance identifying the columns
rows 7 – 21 designate the individual responses
Focus is on the 3 questions in columns AB – AG.
it is these 3 questions that help determine irrationality of the client
The purpose of the entire dissertation is to see if the EQ scores result in lower scores from advisors in those 3 colums. For example: rows with column BZ which are greater than the mean, are the scores lower in those 3 questions.
At present, from the trial, it appears that only response # 14 (row 20) scored above the mean in total EQ, but note the answers to questions AD and AF are the lowest. This is their perception though
I made observations starting below row 23 at the AG column. Not sure if any of those are worth adding to the results of the trial.
i have not performed any of the regression. I was not sure if the regression was needed for the trial run
however, the regression equation would look like this:
Y = a + (B1*X) + Error
Y = irrationality, the numeric values for one of those last 3 questions in the survey file (read comments above on the data file – they are thorough). Perhaps regression can be run for each of the questions? And commentary made on the outcome for each? I am open to your perspective here.
B1 = the first coefficient would be total EQ score, again, read the comments above regarding the data file, this is in those comments. Also, in the comments within the data file, it is noted how the EQ – sub-category EAO, since it is related to “how well the respnodent understands emotions in others (ie perception), this could also be substituted for total EQ for this coefficient.
The regression is going to be strange with only 15 data points.
Last, the other questions. I asked those as they COULD be used in regression as additional Beta coefficient values. For example:
Yirr = a + (Beq*Xeq) + (Bage*Xage)+ (Bgender*Xgender) … + error
Where
Yirr = irrationlaity
Beq * Xeq = coefficient for emotional intelligence, from first equation
Bage * Xage = using financial advisor age values
Bgender * Xgender = using financial advisor gender values
This helps answer whether or not:
Advisor EQ + advisor age and gender makes a difference to curb client irrationality vs EQ alone.
