Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 267

HILDA Survey: Cuffelinks readers smart, perhaps too smart

We had a great response to the challenge to take the HILDA financial literacy survey to see how readers of Cuffelinks compared with the broader Australian population. About 2,200 readers have so far taken part, and the survey is still open if you haven’t attempted it already (which you should do before reading further!).

Cuffelinks readers scored an average of 4.8 out of 5, compared with HILDA’s average of 3.9. At the date of this article, 84% of Cuffelinks respondents scored 5 out 5 (high level of financial literacy), compared to 42.5% for the original survey.

Based on the many comments posted on last week’s article, it seems that the financial nous of Cuffelinks readers caused some to read too much into the questions, drawing in other factors that changed their interpretation. The key to success was to keep it simple and assume that all other factors remained equal (or at least, inconsequential).

The five questions respectively covered: numeracy, inflation, portfolio diversification, risk versus return, and money illusion. Here’s what we have learned from this exercise.

Q1 – Numeracy

Asked how much money you would have after one year if your $100 in the bank earned 2% interest per year. The simple (and correct) answer was $102.

While the question stipulated no fees, no additional deposits, and no withdrawals, it was silent on the frequency of interest payments and the effects of compounding. Our readers are definitely aware of these additional concepts, but they take the question from simple numeracy to compound interest calculations!

Even so, 99% of Cuffelinks readers were not so easily side-tracked.

Q2 – Inflation

When your savings are earning 1% in interest while inflation is tracking at 2%, in 12 months, you’ll have 1% more in cash to pay for goods that have inflated in price by 2%, so you’d be able to buy less than you would today.

We had 99% of readers pick that returns would not keep up with the increase in the cost of living.

Q3 – Portfolio diversification

Q3 wanted to know if investing in just one company was safer than investing in a number of different companies. Anyone who remembered the phrase ‘don’t put all your eggs in one basket’ cracked this question, which included (again) 99% of Cuffelinks readers.

Q4 – Risk versus return

This one asked if investments with high returns were likely to be higher risk. The key word being ‘likely’. Investors should demand higher returns for higher risk, otherwise, why would the riskier investment appeal to anyone?

This question tripped a few extra people, with 97% answering correctly.

Q5 – Money illusion

The final question was the most controversial among the comments. It asked if you’d be able to buy more, less or the same as today if, in 2020, your income had doubled and the cost of everything you buy had also doubled?

Assumptions that clouded a clear response included income tax (bracket creep), pre-tax or after-tax dollars, whether savings would double too, effect on disposable income, and not spending all income.

Sticking to the basic understanding of money illusion, the correct answer was ‘the same’ and 89% of Cuffelinks readers got the point.

A selection of comments

  • 5 is a tricky one – do we consider bracket creep?
  • Tend to agree. If everything doubles, then the amount you save doubles (even if it is only a very small proportion of the total) and hence you will be able to buy more in 2010.
  • I suspect you will find that the majority of respondents from Cuffelinks will only score 80% on the quiz as we would all assume that in a progressive taxation system, double income does not equate to double disposable income.
  • #5 is a ridiculous question, really. There seems to be an inherent assumption that right now you spend every cent you earn on “buying things” and that there’s no such thing as tax, or progressive tax brackets – if your income doubles then your disposable income, which you “buy things” with certainly doesn’t – but I doubt you’re expected to think of that. Also the scenario of the price of “everything you buy” and your income both doubling in three years is completely unrealistic.
  • I scored 100% because I only considered the calculations required to answer the questions.
  • Personally I found each of the 5 questions open to interpretation.
  • I answered question 5 based on the rate of tax being higher for the doubled income, and subsequently was marked incorrect. The question would probably be better written to specify that
  • For all we know Q5 was deliberately included to gauge understanding of our tax system, which would have been a great idea !
  • It seems many Cuffelinks readers are just too smart for their own good (and perhaps that of their clients).
  • Lesson 1: KISS!
  • It is great to see so many Cuffelinks members forming an opinion. What is better is people involved in testing their financial literature skills. Keep the surveys coming !
  • I got all five right and would consider myself as highly financially literate. Just read and answered the questions on their merit. My engineering background I expect. No second guessing.
  • These questions are so basic as to be laughable. The results say a lot about the apathetic state of affairs with approaching retirees in the importance of self-educating themselves about their retirement planning. No wonder unscrupulous financial advisers see this market segment as an easy target!
  • The designated answer to 5 is wrong. Assuming that your income in greater than your expenditure, there is an increase in the unexpended income.
  • I disagree agree with the answer to Q4 – higher returns does not always create higher risk. The higher returns works the opposite way = more assets over time
  • Got all 5 right. I knew studying investing and economics was good for something!!!
  • I thought it was a joke at first almost looking for the trick in the questions
  • I refer to your questionaire which I responded to achieving 4/5 failing on question 5.My answer was MORE the reason being “ most peoples expenditure would not be the total of their income thus having some in reserve but then again how much if any is saved”.I am just being pedantic and thought the question may have had a sting in the tail.Out smarted myself. Thank you for testing my brain.
  • I consider myself not all that sharp, but I scored 100%, I just answered the question. I have a mate who I would consider far more financially literate than me and he scored not so well. Simply because he wanted to interpret the questions via an incredibly complex set of variable parameters.
  • As far as I can see things, the keep it simple approach has worked for me, diversify, manage cash and one retires early with sufficient funds to have a good life.
  • I formed the opinion that the questions were basic maths nothing more nothing less
  • With double income, even allowing for taxation implications, I would expect my disposable income would be greater than expenses at double the original cost.
  • Based upon the majority of feedback alone, I would suggest the cuffelink readers are smarter, in seeing beyond the simplicity of the questions, but too smart to realise that the question were not designed for their genius, but to seek to ascertain the general level of basic financial literacy, which quite sadly is at a low level.
  • These exchanges illustrate the problems that reasonably financially literate people have with financial conversations – even starting with very simple questions. This underscores the vital role of trusted and competent planners in guiding people towards mutually agreed decisions.
  • Planners also need better common ground to build relationships with their clients. A simple dialogue based on time (a key variable which we all understand) is likely to be much more effective than one which is initially financially based.

Leisa Bell is Assistant Editor at Cuffelinks.

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates

Strategy

$1 billion and counting: how consultants maximise fees

Despite cutbacks in public service staff, we are spending over a billion dollars a year with five consulting firms. There is little public scrutiny on the value for money. How do consultants decide what to charge?

Investment strategies

Two strong themes and companies that will benefit

There are reason to believe inflation will stay under control, and although we may see a slowing in the global economy, two companies will benefit from the themes of 'Stable Compounders' and 'Structural Winners'.

Financial planning

Reducing the $5,300 upfront cost of financial advice

Many financial advisers have left the industry because it costs more to produce advice than is charged as an up-front fee. Advisers are valued by those who use them while the unadvised don’t see the need to pay.

Investment strategies

Slowing global trade not the threat investors fear

Investors ask whether global supply chains were stretched too far and too complex, and following COVID, is globalisation dead? New research suggests the impact on investment returns will not be as great as feared.

Strategy

Many people misunderstand what life expectancy means

Life expectancy numbers are often interpreted as the likely maximum age of a person but that is incorrect. Here are three reasons why the odds are in favor of people outliving life expectancy estimates.

Investment strategies

Wealth doesn’t equal wisdom for 'sophisticated' investors

'Sophisticated investors' can be offered securities without the usual disclosure requirements given to everyday investors, but far more people now qualify than was ever intended. Many are far from sophisticated.

Investment strategies

Is the golden era for active fund managers ending?

Most active fund managers are the beneficiaries of a confluence of favourable events. As future strong returns look challenging, passive is rising and new investors do their own thing, a golden age may be closing.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.