I'm going to talk today about saving more, but not today, tomorrow. I'm going to talk about Save More Tomorrow. It's a program that Richard Thaler from the University of Chicago and I devised maybe 15 years ago. The program, in a sense, is an example of behavioral finance on steroids -- how we could really use behavioral finance. Now you might ask, what is behavioral finance? So let's think about how we manage our money. Let's start with mortgages. It's kind of a recent topic, at least in the U.S. A lot of people buy the biggest house they can afford, and actually slightly bigger than that. And then they foreclose. And then they blame the banks for being the bad guys who gave them the mortgages.
Danas ću pričati o tome kako štedeti više, ali ne danas, sutra. Pričaću o "Uštedite više sutra". Reč je o programu koji smo Ričard Taler, sa Univerziteta u Čikagu, i ja osmislili pre nekih 15 godina. Program je, na neki način, primer bihejviorističkih finansija na steroidima -- kako zaista iskoristiti bihejviorističke finansije. Možda ćete se zapitati, šta su bihejviorističke finansije? Zato razmislimo kako upravljamo svojim novcem. Počnimo od hipoteka. To je prilično bliska tema, barem u SAD. Mnogi ljudi kupuju najveću kuću koju mogu da priušte, pa čak i malo veću od toga. I potom moraju da ponište ugovor. A onda krive banke, kao zlikovce koji su im dali te hipoteke.
Let's also think about how we manage risks -- for example, investing in the stock market. Two years ago, three years ago, about four years ago, markets did well. We were risk takers, of course. Then market stocks seize and we're like, "Wow. These losses, they feel, emotionally, they feel very different from what we actually thought about it when markets were going up." So we're probably not doing a great job when it comes to risk taking.
Takođe, razmislimo o tome kako upravljamo rizicima -- na primer, investiranje na berzi. Pre dve, tri, četri godine, tržišta su dobro funkcionisala Bili smo hazarderi, naravno. Potom su akcije prestale da rastu, a mi smo mislili: "Oho. Ovi gubici, emotivno, deluju veoma različito od onoga kako smo mislili o tome kada je berza bila uspešna." Znači da najverovatnije ne obavljamo odličan posao kada je preuzimanje rizika u pitanju.
How many of you have iPhones? Anyone? Wonderful. I would bet many more of you insure your iPhone -- you're implicitly buying insurance by having an extended warranty. What if you lose your iPhone? What if you do this? How many of you have kids? Anyone? Keep your hands up if you have sufficient life insurance. I see a lot of hands coming down. I would predict, if you're a representative sample, that many more of you insure your iPhones than your lives, even when you have kids. We're not doing that well when it comes to insurance.
Koliko od vas ima iPhone? Bilo ko? Divno. Kladio bih se da mnogo više vas osigurava vaš iPhone -- implicitno kupujete osiguranje time što imate produženu garanciju. Šta ako izgubite svoj iPhone? Šta ako vam se to desi? Koliko vas ima decu? Bilo ko? Držite ruke gore ako imate zadovoljavajuće životno osiguranje. Vidim mnogo ruku koje se spuštaju. Predvideo bih, ukoliko ste reprezentativni uzorak, da mnogo više vas osigurava svoj iPhone nego svoj život, čak iako imate decu. Ne ide nam baš najbolje kada je u pitanju osiguranje.
The average American household spends 1,000 dollars a year on lotteries. And I know it sounds crazy. How many of you spend a thousand dollars a year on lotteries? No one. So that tells us that the people not in this room are spending more than a thousand to get the average to a thousand. Low-income people spend a lot more than a thousand on lotteries. So where does it take us? We're not doing a great job managing money.
Prosečno američko domaćinstvo troši 1 000 dolara godišnje na lutriju. Znam da to zvuči suludo. Koliko vas godišnje troši hiljadu dolara na lutriju? Niko. To nam govori da ljudi koji nisu u ovoj prostoriji troše više od hiljadu kako bi podigli prosek do hiljadu. Ljudi sa niskim primanjima troše mnogo više od hiljadu na lutriju. Kuda nas to vodi? Ne obavljamo dobar posao upravljanja novcem.
Behavioral finance is really a combination of psychology and economics, trying to understand the money mistakes people make. And I can keep standing here for the 12 minutes and 53 seconds that I have left and make fun of all sorts of ways we manage money, and at the end you're going to ask, "How can we help people?" And that's what I really want to focus on today. How do we take an understanding of the money mistakes people make, and then turning the behavioral challenges into behavioral solutions? And what I'm going to talk about today is Save More Tomorrow.
Bihejviorističke finansije su kombinacija psihologije i ekonomije, koja pokušava da shvati novčane greške koje ljudi čine. Mogu ostati ovde tokom 12 minuta i 53 sekunde koliko mi je preostalo i ismevati silne načine kojima upravljamo novcem, na kraju ćete pitati: "Kako možemo pomoći ljudima?" Na to želim da se usredsredim danas. Kako uzeti razumevanje novčanih grešaka koje ljudi čine, i potom promeniti bihejviorističke izazove u bihejvioristička rešenja? Danas ću govoriti o "Uštedeti više sutra".
I want to address the issue of savings. We have on the screen a representative sample of 100 Americans. And we're going to look at their saving behavior. First thing to notice is, half of them do not even have access to a 401(k) plan. They cannot make savings easy. They cannot have money go away from their paycheck into a 401(k) plan before they see it, before they can touch it. What about the remaining half of the people? Some of them elect not to save. They're just too lazy. They never get around to logging into a complicated website and doing 17 clicks to join the 401(k) plan. And then they have to decide how they're going to invest in their 52 choices, and they never heard about what is a money market fund. And they get overwhelmed and the just don't join. How many people end up saving to a 401(k) plan? One third of Americans. Two thirds are not saving now.
Želim da pričam o štednji. Na ekranu imamo reprezentativni uzorak od 100 Amerikanaca. Razmotrićemo njihove načine štednje. Prvo što se primećuje, je da polovina njih uopšte nema pristup penzijskom fondu. Ne mogu s lakoćom štedeti. Nemaju mogućnost da im novac od plate ide u penzijski fond pre nego što ga vide, pre nego što ga uzmu u ruke. Šta je sa preostalom polovinom? Neki od njih biraju da ne štede. Jednostavno su suviše lenji. Nikada se ne potrude da se prijave na komplikovan vebsajt i učine 17 klikova za pristup penzionom fondu. A potom moraju odlučiti kako će investirati u svoja 52 izbora, a nikada nisu čuli za fondove tržišta novca. Osete se nemoćnima pa se ne priključe. Koliko ljudi na kraju štedi sa penzionim fondom? Jedna trećina Amerikanaca. Dve trećine ne štedi trenutno.
Are they saving enough? Take out those who say they save too little. One out of 10 are saving enough. Nine out of 10 either cannot save through their 401(k) plan, decide not to save -- or don't decide -- or save too little. We think we have a problem of people saving too much. Let's look at that. We have one person -- well, actually we're going to slice him in half because it's less than one percent. Roughly half a percent of Americans feel that they save too much.
Da li dovoljno štede? Izbacite one koji kažu da premalo štede. Jedan u 10 štedi dovoljno. Devet od 10 ili ne mogu štedeti putem penzionog fonda, odluče da ne štede -- ili ne odluče -- ili štede premalo. Mislimo da imamo problem prevelike štednje. Hajde da to razmotrimo. Imamo osobu -- zapravo ćemo tu osobu prepoloviti jer predstavlja manje od 1 procenta. Grubo, pola procenta Amerkinaca smatra da štedi previše.
What are we going to do about it? That's what I really want to focus on. We have to understand why people are not saving, and then we can hopefully flip the behavioral challenges into behavioral solutions, and then see how powerful it might be. So let me divert for a second as we're going to identify the problems, the challenges, the behavioral challenges, that prevent people from saving. I'm going to divert and talk about bananas and chocolate.
Šta ćemo uraditi po tom pitanju? Zapravo na to se želim fokusirati. Moramo razumeti zašto ljudi ne štede, kako bismo možda mogli pretvoriti bihejviorističke izazove u bihejvioristička rešenja i videti koliko moćna mogu biti. Dozvolite da skrenem s teme na kratko dok budemo identifikovali probleme, izazove, bihejviorističke izazove, koji sprečavaju ljude da štede. Skrenuću tako što ću pričati o bananama i čokoladi.
Suppose we had another wonderful TED event next week. And during the break there would be a snack and you could choose bananas or chocolate. How many of you think you would like to have bananas during this hypothetical TED event next week? Who would go for bananas? Wonderful. I predict scientifically 74 percent of you will go for bananas. Well that's at least what one wonderful study predicted. And then count down the days and see what people ended up eating. The same people that imagined themselves eating the bananas ended up eating chocolates a week later.
Pretpostavimo da imamo još jedan TED događaj sledeće nedelje. I tokom pauze ima zakuska i možete da birate banane ili čokoladu. Koliko vas misli da bi volelo da pojede banane tokom ovog hipotetičkog TED događaja? Ko bi uzeo banane? Divno. Naučno mogu predvideti da će 74% vas odabrati banane. Uostalom to je predvidela jedna divna studija. Potom odbrojavamo dane i vidimo šta su ljudi stvarno pojeli. Isti ljudi koji su sebe videli kako jedu banane na kraju su jeli čokolade sedmicu kasnije.
Self-control is not a problem in the future. It's only a problem now when the chocolate is next to us. What does it have to do with time and savings, this issue of immediate gratification? Or as some economists call it, present bias. We think about saving. We know we should be saving. We know we'll do it next year, but today let us go and spend. Christmas is coming, we might as well buy a lot of gifts for everyone we know. So this issue of present bias causes us to think about saving, but end up spending.
Samokontrola nije problem u budućnosti. Ona je samo problem sada kada je čokolada pored nas. Kakve veze sa vremenom i štednjom ima ovaj problem trenutnog zadovoljavanja? Ili kako to neki ekonomisti nazivaju, sadašnja pristrasnost. Mislimo o štednji. Znamo da bi trebalo da štedimo. Znamo da ćemo štedeti sledeće godine, ali danas trošimo. Božić je na vidiku, što ne bismo kupili gomilu poklona za svakoga koga poznajemo. Ovaj problem trenutne pristrasnosti nas tera da mislimo o štednji, dok na kraju ipak sve potrošimo.
Let me now talk about another behavioral obstacle to saving having to do with inertia. But again, a little diversion to the topic of organ donation. Wonderful study comparing different countries. We're going to look at two similar countries, Germany and Austria. And in Germany, if you would like to donate your organs -- God forbid something really bad happens to you -- when you get your driving license or an I.D., you check the box saying, "I would like to donate my organs." Not many people like checking boxes. It takes effort. You need to think. Twelve percent do. Austria, a neighboring country, slightly similar, slightly different. What's the difference? Well, you still have choice. You will decide whether you want to donate your organs or not. But when you get your driving license, you check the box if you do not want to donate your organ. Nobody checks boxes. That's kind of too much effort. One percent check the box. The rest do nothing. Doing nothing is very common. Not many people check boxes.
Sada ću govoriti o još jednoj bihejvioristčkoj prepreci štednji koja ima veze sa inertnošću. Ali opet, mala digresija na temu doniranja organa. Divna studija koja poredi različite države. Uporedićemo dve slične države, Nemačku i Austriju. U Nemačkoj, ako želite da donirate svoje organe -- sačuvaj bože da vam se nešto jako loše desi -- pri dobijanju vozačke dozvole ili lične karte, štriklirate kvadratić koji kaže: "Želim da doniram svoje organe." Malo njih voli da štriklira kvadratiće. Potreban je trud. Morate da mislite. Dvanaest posto to čini. Austrija, susedna država, pomalo slična, pomalo različita. U čemu je razlika? I dalje imate izbor. Vi odlučujete da li želite da donirate svoje organe. Ali pri dobijanju vozačke dozvole, štriklirate kvadratić ukoliko ne želite da donirate organe. Niko ne štriklira kvadratiće. To je nekako previše truda. Jedan posto štriklira. Ostali ne urade ništa. Nečinjenje je veoma uobičajeno. Malo ljudi štriklira kvadrate.
What are the implications to saving lives and having organs available? In Germany, 12 percent check the box. Twelve percent are organ donors. Huge shortage of organs, God forbid, if you need one. In Austria, again, nobody checks the box. Therefore, 99 percent of people are organ donors. Inertia, lack of action. What is the default setting if people do nothing, if they keep procrastinating, if they don't check the boxes? Very powerful. We're going to talk about what happens if people are overwhelmed and scared to make their 401(k) choices. Are we going to make them automatically join the plan, or are they going to be left out? In too many 401(k) plans, if people do nothing, it means they're not saving for retirement, if they don't check the box. And checking the box takes effort.
Kakve su implikacije po spasavanje života i imanje organa na raspolaganju? U Nemačkoj, 12 posto štriklira kvadrate. Dvanaest posto su donatori organa. Veliki nedostatak organa, sačuvaj bože da vam jedan zatreba. U Austriji, niko ne štriklira kvadrat. Stoga, 99 posto ljudi su donatori organa. Inercija, nedostatak radnje. Šta je standardna podešenost ukoliko ljudi ne čine ništa, ukoliko odugovlače, ukoliko ne štrikliraju kvadratiće? Veoma moćno. Govorićemo o tome šta dešava kada su ljudi preplavljeni i uplašeni pravljenjem svojih penzionih izbora. Da li ih automatski naterati da se priključe fondovima ili ih izostaviti? U većini penzionih fondova, ukoliko ljudi ništa ne rade, znači da ne štede za penziju, ukoliko ne štrikliraju kvadrat. A štrikliranje zahteva trud.
So we've chatted about a couple of behavioral challenges. One more before we flip the challenges into solutions, having to do with monkeys and apples. No, no, no, this is a real study and it's got a lot to do with behavioral economics. One group of monkeys gets an apple, they're pretty happy. The other group gets two apples, one is taken away. They still have an apple left. They're really mad. Why have you taken our apple? This is the notion of loss aversion. We hate losing stuff, even if it doesn't mean a lot of risk. You would hate to go to the ATM, take out 100 dollars and notice that you lost one of those $20 bills. It's very painful, even though it doesn't mean anything. Those 20 dollars might have been a quick lunch. So this notion of loss aversion kicks in when it comes to savings too, because people, mentally and emotionally and intuitively frame savings as a loss because I have to cut my spending.
Pričali smo o par bihejviorističkih izazova. Još jedan izazov pre nego što izazove pretvorimo u rešenja, ima veze sa majmunima i jabukama. Ne, ne, ne, ovo je stvarno istraživanje i ima puno veze sa bihejviorističkom ekonomijom. Jedna grupa majmuna dobije jabuku, prilično su srećni. Druga grupa dobije dve jabuke, jedna im se oduzima. I dalje imaju jednu jabuku. Jako su besni. Zašto ste nam uzeli jabuku? Ovo je pojam averzije prema gubitku. Mrzimo da gubimo stvari, čak i kad to ne podrazumeva mnogo rizika. Mrzeli biste da odete do bankomata, izvadite 100 dolara i shvatite da ste izgubili jednu novčanicu od 20 dolara. To je veoma bolno, iako ništa ne znači. Tih 20 dolara su mogli biti ručak s nogu. Pojam averzije prema gubitku proradi i kada je reč o štednji, jer ljudi, mentalno emotivno i intuitivno smatraju štednju gubitkom jer moraju da smanje potrošnju.
So we talked about all sorts of behavioral challenges having to do with savings eventually. Whether you think about immediate gratification, and the chocolates versus bananas, it's just painful to save now. It's a lot more fun to spend now. We talked about inertia and organ donations and checking the box. If people have to check a lot of boxes to join a 401(k) plan, they're going to keep procrastinating and not join. And last, we talked about loss aversion, and the monkeys and the apples. If people frame mentally saving for retirement as a loss, they're not going to be saving for retirement.
Pričali smo o raznim vrstama bihejviorističkih izazova koji na kraju imaju veze sa štednjom. Mislili vi o trenutnom zadovoljenju ili čokoladi protiv banana, jednostavno je suviše bolno štedeti sada. Mnogo je zabavnije trošiti sada. Pričali smo o inertnosti i donaciji organa i štrikliranju kvadrata. Ako ljudi moraju štriklirati mnogo kvadrata pri pridruživanju penzionom fondu, nastaviće da odugovlače i neće se pridružiti. Na kraju, pričali smo o averziji prema gubitku, i majmunima i jabukama. Ako ljudi mentalno smatraju štednju za penziju gubitkom, neće štedeti za penziju.
So we've got these challenges, and what Richard Thaler and I were always fascinated by -- take behavioral finance, make it behavioral finance on steroids or behavioral finance 2.0 or behavioral finance in action -- flip the challenges into solutions. And we came up with an embarrassingly simple solution called Save More, not today, Tomorrow. How is it going to solve the challenges we chatted about? If you think about the problem of bananas versus chocolates, we think we're going to eat bananas next week. We think we're going to save more next year. Save More Tomorrow invites employees to save more maybe next year -- sometime in the future when we can imagine ourselves eating bananas, volunteering more in the community, exercising more and doing all the right things on the planet.
Stoga imamo ove izazove, i čime smo Ričard Teler i ja uvek bili fascinirani -- uzmite bihejviorističke finansije, načinite ih bihejviorističkim finansijama na steroidima ili bihejviorsitičkim finansijama 2.0 ili bihejviorističkim finansijama u akciji -- i okrenite izazove u rešenja. Našli smo sramno jednostavno rešenje nazvano "Štedite više, ne danas, sutra". Kako će to razrešiti izazove o kojima smo govorili? Ako razmislite o problemu banana protiv čokolade, mislimo da ćemo jesti banane sledeće nedelje. Mislimo da ćemo više štedeti sledeće godine. "Uštedite više sutra" poziva zaposlene da štede više možda sledeće godine -- u nekom trenutku u budućnosti kada mogu sebe zamisliti kako jedu banane, pomažu više u zajednici, vežbaju više i rade sve one prave stvari na planeti.
Now we also talked about checking the box and the difficulty of taking action. Save More Tomorrow makes it easy. It's an autopilot. Once you tell me you would like to save more in the future, let's say every January you're going to be saving more automatically and it's going to go away from your paycheck to the 401(k) plan before you see it, before you touch it, before you get the issue of immediate gratification. But what are we going to do about the monkeys and loss aversion? Next January comes and people might feel that if they save more, they have to spend less, and that's painful. Well, maybe it shouldn't be just January. Maybe we should make people save more when they make more money. That way, when they make more money, when they get a pay raise, they don't have to cut their spending. They take a little bit of the increase in the paycheck home and spend more -- take a little bit of the increase and put it in a 401(k) plan.
Takođe, pričali smo o štrikliranju kvadrata i težini preduzimanja akcije. "Uštedite više sutra" to čini lakim. Kao autopilot. Kada mi jednom kažete da biste želeli štedeti više u budućnosti, recimo svakog januara, automatski ćete više štedeti i novac će biti skinut sa vaše plate za vaš penzioni fond pre nego što ga vidite, pre nego što ga uzmete u ruke, pre nego što budete imali problem trenutnog zadovoljenja. Šta da radimo u vezi s majmunima i averzijom prema gubitku? Dolaskom sledećeg januara, ljudi mogu smatrati da ako više uštede, moraju manje da potroše, a to je bolno. Možda onda ne bi trebao biti samo januar. Možda bi trebalo da teramo ljude da štede više kada zarade više novca. Tako, kada zarade više novca, kada dobiju povišicu, ne moraju smanjiti svoju potrošnju. Ponesu malo povišice kući i potroše više -- uzmu malo povišice i stave u svoj penzioni fond.
So that is the program, embarrassingly simple, but as we're going to see, extremely powerful. We first implemented it, Richard Thaler and I, back in 1998. Mid-sized company in the Midwest, blue collar employees struggling to pay their bills repeatedly told us they cannot save more right away. Saving more today is not an option. We invited them to save three percentage points more every time they get a pay raise. And here are the results. We're seeing here a three and a half-year period, four pay raises, people who were struggling to save, were saving three percent of their paycheck, three and a half years later saving almost four times as much, almost 14 percent.
To je program, sramotno jednostavan, ali kao što ćemo videti, izuzetno moćan. Prvi put smo ga sproveli u delo, Ričard Teler i ja, još 1998. Kompanija srednje veličine na Srednjem zapadu, zaposleni "plavih kragni" koji se muče da plaćaju račune, su nam više puta rekli kako ne mogu štedeti više u datom trenutku. Štedeti više danas nije bila mogućnost. Pozvali smo ih da štede tri procenta više svaki put kada dobiju povišicu. A ovo su rezultati. Gledamo period od tri ipo godine, četiri povišice, ljude koji su se borili da bi uštedeli, koji su štedeli tri posto svoje plate, tri i po godine kasnije štede skoro četiri puta toliko, skoro 14 posto.
And there's shoes and bicycles and things on this chart because I don't want to just throw numbers in a vacuum. I want, really, to think about the fact that saving four times more is a huge difference in terms of the lifestyle that people will be able to afford. It's real. It's not just numbers on a piece of paper. Whereas with saving three percent, people might have to add nice sneakers so they can walk, because they won't be able to afford anything else, when they save 14 percent they might be able to maybe have nice dress shoes to walk to the car to drive. This is a real difference. By now, about 60 percent of the large companies actually have programs like this in place. It's been part of the Pension Protection Act. And needless to say that Thaler and I have been blessed to be part of this program and make a difference.
Ima cipela i bicikala i drugih stvari na ovom grafiku jer ne želim da vas samo gađam brojkama u vakuumu. Želim da razmislimo o činjenici da je štedeti čitiri puta više ogromna razlika po pitanju stila života koji će ti ljudi moći sebi da priušte. To je stvarno. To nisu samo brojke na parčetu papira. Dok bi pri štednji od tri procenta, možda mogli da priušte lepe patike za šetnju, jer ne bi mogli sebi priuštiti ništa drugo, kada štede 14 posto možda mogu da kupe lepe cipele uz haljinu da odšetaju do automobila koji voze. Ovo je stvarna razlika. Do sada, oko 60 posto velikih kompanija je usvojilo ovakve programe. Postalo je deo Zakona o zaštiti penzija. Ne mora se ni reći da smo Teler i ja bili blagosloveni što smo deo ovog programa i pravimo razliku pomažući drugima.
Let me wrap with two key messages. One is behavioral finance is extremely powerful. This is just one example. Message two is there's still a lot to do. This is really the tip of the iceberg. If you think about people and mortgages and buying houses and then not being able to pay for it, we need to think about that. If you're thinking about people taking too much risk and not understanding how much risk they're taking or taking too little risk, we need to think about that. If you think about people spending a thousand dollars a year on lottery tickets, we need to think about that. The average actually, the record is in Singapore. The average household spends $4,000 a year on lottery tickets. We've got a lot to do, a lot to solve, also in the retirement area when it comes to what people do with their money after retirement.
Završiću sa dve ključne poruke. Jedna je da su bihejviorističke finansije izuzetno snažne. Ovo je samo jedan primer. Druga poruka je da ima još mnogo da se uradi. Ovo je samo vrh ledenog brega. Mislite o ljudima i hipotekama i kupovini kuće koju potom ne možete otplatiti, o tome moramo razmišljati. Mislite o ljudima koji preuzimaju previše rizika i ne shvatajući koliko rizika preuzimaju ili rizikuju premalo, i o tome moramo razmišljati. Mislite o ljudima koji troše hiljade dolara godišnje na lutrijske lozove, i o tome moramo razmišljati. Najviši prosek, je zapravo u Singapuru. Presečno domaćinstvo troši 4 000 dolara godišnje na lutrijske lozove. Imamo mnogo posla, mnogo problema, takođe u oblasti penzija kada je u pitanju šta ljudi rade sa svojim novcem nakon penzionisanja.
One last question: How many of you feel comfortable that as you're planning for retirement you have a really solid plan when you're going to retire, when you're going to claim Social Security benefits, what lifestyle to expect, how much to spend every month so you're not going to run out of money? How many of you feel you have a solid plan for the future when it comes to post-retirement decisions. One, two, three, four. Less than three percent of a very sophisticated audience. Behavioral finance has a long way. There's a lot of opportunities to make it powerful again and again and again.
Poslednje ptanje: koliko vas je zadovoljno i misli da prilikom planiranja ima solidan plan za period nakon penzionisanja, kada budete zahtevali beneficije socijalnog osiguranja, kakav stil života možete očekivati, koliko možete trošiti svakog meseca kako ne biste ostali bez novca? Koliko vas smatra da ima dobar plan za budućnost kada su u pitanju odluke za period nakon penzionisanja? Jedan, dva, tri, četiri. Manje od tri posto veoma sofisticirane publike. Bihejviorističke finansije imaju da pređu dug put. Ima mnogo prilika da ih učinimo snažnim, iznova i iznova i iznova.
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)