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.
我今天想聊聊存錢 但不是今天,是明天 我將要聊聊為明天儲存更多錢 有一個計劃 是來自芝加哥大學理查德泰勒和我一起 大概15年前設計的 這個計劃,從某種程度來說, 是行為經濟學的一個例子 也就是- 我們如何真正利用行為經濟學 於是你會問,甚麼是行為經濟學? 讓我們來思考我們平時是怎樣理財的 我們從房貸說起 最近我們常看到這個話題 至少在美國是如此 很多人買 在他們支付能力範圍之內最大的房子 事實上比可支付範圍還要稍大一些 最後他們付不起房貸 於是他們開始埋怨銀行 說銀行是貸款給他們的壞人
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.
我們再想想 我們怎樣管理風險- 舉個例子,投資股票市場 兩年前,三年前,大約四年前 市場運行得很好 當然那時候我們都是投機者 接著股票市場蕭條衰敗 我們會想,“噢 這些損失,在情感上 他們確實感覺很不同 和股市行情上漲時 我們對損失的感覺不一樣” 所以在風險投機上 我們似乎也做的不太好
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.
你們有多少人用iPhone? 有人麼?非常好 我打賭這裡擁有iPhone的人中的大多數 都給你的iPhone買保險了 你通過加買的質保暗中給手機買了保險 如果你丟失了你的iPhone 你會怎麼辦呢? 你們中多少人有小孩? 有人有嗎? 手再擧著不要放 如果你有購買生命保險的話 我看到很多手放下去了 我會預測 如果你是一個典型的代表 你們中的很多人 為你的iPhone買了保險卻沒有為你的生命買保險 即便你已經有了小孩 在買保險的方面我們做得也不是很好
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.
美國家庭平均每戶 一年要在樂透上 花費1,000美元 我知道這聽起來很瘋狂 你們中有多少人一年會花1,000美金買樂透? 沒有人 那麽這告訴我們有些不在這個房間裡的人 買樂透超過了一千美金 所以最終平均才會等於一千美金 特別是有些低收入戶 一年在樂透上花費了超過一千美金 於是這告訴我們甚麼? 我們在理財上做得也不是很好
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.
行為經濟學實際上 是心理學和經濟學的一個綜合 讓我們瞭解 為甚麼人們在金錢問題上會犯錯 我可以站在這裡 用我剩下的12分鐘53秒 把我們理財用的各種方法 當作笑話講給各位聼 到最後你會問,“我們怎樣幫助人們?” 所以我今天真正想關注的是 我們如何理解 人們在金錢問題上犯的錯誤 以及怎樣把行為性挑戰 轉化為行為性的解決方案? 我今天要談的 是為明天節省更多
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.
我要討論的 是存錢這個問題 在屏幕上 有具有代表性的 100個美國人 我們來看看他們的儲蓄習慣 第一件需要注意的事情是 他們中一半的人 都沒有參加 401(k)退休福利計劃 存錢對他們來説很不容易 他們不能把錢從他們的支票 押到進入401(k)計劃裏 他們一看到錢就花 一摸到錢就花 那麼剩下的一半人呢? 一些人傾向於不存款 他們只是太懶了 他們從沒有登入過一個複雜一點的網站 點擊17下加入401(k)計劃 當他們決定他們要去投資的時候 在他們的52個選擇裡 他們從未聽說過基金 他們覺得太複雜了於是就沒加入 最終有多少人向該計劃存款? 只有三分之一的美國人 三分之二都不存款
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.
他們存得夠多嗎? 除去那些 說自己存的太少的人 十分之一的人 覺得自己存款夠了 十分之九 有的不能徹底執行401(k)計劃存到退休金 所以決定不存或是下不了決定 有的則是存得太少 對於那些存款太多的人 我們覺得也有一些問題 我們來看這裡 有一個人- 其實我們要把他切成一半 因為小於百分之一 差不多只有百分之零點五的美國人 認為他們存得夠多了
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.
我們對此能做甚麼呢? 以下就是我真正想要關注的 我們必須先明白 為甚麼人們不去存款 接著我們才能 把行為性挑戰 轉化為行為性解決方案 並看看這會有多大效果 所以接下來讓我稍微轉移一下話題 因爲我們必須要認清問題 我們面對的挑戰,行為性挑戰 去找出阻止人們存錢的原因 我要轉移到下一個話題,來談談香蕉和巧克力
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.
假設下一周我們有另一場非常棒的TED活動 休息期間 將會有零食供應 你可以選擇香蕉或是巧克力 你們中有多少人覺得你會在 下週假想的晚會中選擇香蕉? 誰會選擇香蕉? 不錯 我科學地預測一下 百分之七十四的人會選擇香蕉 這至少是一個權威的科學研究預測的 接著我們倒數日子 最後來看看人們最後到底吃了些甚麼 一個禮拜之後 那些認為 他們會吃香蕉的人 最終都選擇了巧克力
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.
自制力 在未來來説並不是一個問題 當巧克力離我們很近的時候 自制力就會有問題了 這種瞬間的喜悅 和我們時間以及儲蓄有甚麼關聯? 或者就像一些經濟學家所講的,現在狀態的偏見 我們想著如何儲蓄,我們知道我們應該存錢 我們知道明年我們會做,但是今天就讓我們花錢吧 聖誕節要來了 我們最好給我們認識的人買很多禮物 所以“現在狀態的偏見” 導致我們考慮儲蓄 最後卻把錢花掉了
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.
讓我現在來講 另一個關於儲蓄的行為性障礙 這和慣性有關 再一次,小小地轉移話題 到器官捐獻上 有一份很完美的研究比較了不同國家之間的情況 我們來看兩個相似的國家 德國和奧地利 在德國 如果你想要捐贈你的器官- 上帝會禁止一些非常壞的事情 發生在你的身上 當你拿到你的駕照或是一個ID卡 勾選一個小方格 “我願意捐贈我的器官” 不太多人願意勾選小方格 這要花費力氣,你需要想 百分之十二的人會去勾選 在鄰國奧地利 有點相同而又有點不同 有甚麼不同? 嗯,你還是可以選擇的 你會選 是否希望捐贈器官 但當你得到你的駕照 你要勾選一個方格 “如果你不想要捐贈你的器官” 基本上沒有人勾這項 這太費力氣了 只有百分之一的人勾選,剩下的人甚麼都沒做 放著不做是通常會發生的行為 沒幾個人勾選方格
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.
拯救生命 和捐贈器官之間 有什麽關聯? 在德國,百分之十二的人勾選這個格子 於是只有百分之十二的人成為器官捐贈者 導致了巨大的器官短缺 當你需要時上帝會禁止 在奧地利,沒有人勾選這個方格 於是,百分之九十九的人 都是器官捐贈者 慣性,缺乏行動 原始狀態會是什麽 如果人們甚麼都不做? 如果他們一直拖延,如果他們不勾選方格? 這是非常有效的 我們即將講到 如果人們覺得難以應付或害怕 去加入401(k)計劃 我們是讓他們自動加入計劃 還是就放任不管? 在太多的計劃之中 如果人們甚麼都不做 如果他們不勾選方格 意味著他們並沒有在儲存退休金 當然勾選方格需要付出努力
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.
以上我們談了幾項行為性挑戰 在談解決方案之前我們還要再講一個例子 是關於猴子和蘋果的例子 不不不,這是一個真實的研究 這和行為經濟學有很大關係 一群猴子得到一個蘋果,他們很開心 另外一群猴子得到兩個蘋果,其中一個被拿走了 他們仍然有一個蘋果 不過他們非常生氣 “你為甚麼拿走我們的蘋果?” 這就叫做對於失去的厭惡感 我們憎恨失去東西 即使這並不意味著很高風險 你不會喜歡去自動提款機提款時 提出100美金以後 發現你丟失了其中一張20元的鈔票 即使這沒什麽大不了 但這卻很令人痛苦 用這20美金本來可以吃一頓午餐 所以關於失去厭惡感的想法 同樣也會發生在儲蓄上 因為人,在精神上 和情緒上直覺地認為 存錢儲蓄是一種失去 因為爲了存錢我必須減少我的支出
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.
所以當我們講到 各式各樣的行為性挑戰 最終都和儲蓄有關 不管你是想到瞬間的滿足 巧克力對香蕉 現在就去存錢是很痛苦的 相比之下 即刻花錢是更快樂的 我們談到慣性和器官捐贈 還有勾選方格 如果人麼需要勾選很多的方格 來加入401(k)計劃 他們將會一直拖延下去 最終不參加 最後,我們談到了對於失去的厭惡感 猴子和蘋果的故事 如果一個人心中認為 對於退休金的儲存是一種失去 他們將不會去做
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.
所以這些是我們眼前的挑戰 理查泰勒和我 都一直為一件事著迷- 將傳統的行為經濟學 升級成為行為經濟學加強版 行為經濟學2.0 或者行動行為經濟學- 把挑戰轉化為解決方案 最後我們得出了一個非常簡單的解決方案 叫做存得更多,不是今天,是明天 那麽我們認為 應該如何解決這個挑戰? 如果你想到 香蕉和巧克力的問題 我們想我們下一周要吃香蕉 我們想明年我們要存更多 明天再存更多 邀請職員 明年存更多- 在未來的某個時候 當我們能想像到我們自己 吃香蕉 在社區裡做更多的志願者工作 作更多的練習和在這個星球上做對的事情
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.
現在我們也談論了勾選方格 和採取行動的困難性 明天存更多 讓選擇變得容易 一切變成全自動 一旦你告訴我你未來想要存得更多 譬如說每年一月 你都要自動存更多 那麽將會直接從薪水匯到到你的401(k)計劃裏 在你看到錢之前,在你能碰到錢之前 在你感到短暫的滿足感之前 問題已經被處理掉了 但是對於猴子和厭惡失去的問題 我們該怎麽處理呢? 下一個一月到來了 人們感覺如果他們存得更多 他們花費將變得更少,於是他們將感到痛苦 好吧,或許應該說不限於一月份 或許我們要在人們賺更多錢的時候 來存得更多 這樣一來,當他們賺得更多,酬金升高時 他們將不會覺得支出被削減了 從他們多賺的錢裏面 拿一部分回家 來使花費得更多- 再把多賺得錢的另一部份 投入401(k)計劃中
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.
所以這個計劃 非常得簡單 但我們將要看到的 是非常非常有利的結果 在1998年 理查德和我 第一次讓計劃生效 在中西部得一些中小型企業 那些為支付賬單 搞得焦頭爛額的藍領員工們 不斷告訴我們 他們無法存得更多 今日存更多並不是一個選擇 我們邀請他們 在每次薪水調高的時候 加把存進百分之三以上 結果就在這裡 我們看到三年半的實踐中 四次的調薪 那些過去無法存款的人們 存了他們酬金中的百分之三 三年半之後 竟然存了4倍之多 幾乎達到百分之十四
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.
這是鞋子和單車 和表格上的東西 因為我不想直接 憑空說數字 說真正,大家來想想這個結果 存到四倍之多的存款 這是生活方式中的 一個巨大差別 人們將有能力償還了 這是真實的 這不僅僅是一張白紙上的數字 當存百分之三時 人們可能因此有了一雙很好的運動鞋 只能走路 因為他們買不起其他東西 而當他們存了百分之十四之後 他們或許可以有能力支付很好的裙子或是鞋子 能夠走到車裡開車 這是一個巨大的不同 直到如今,大約百分之60的大企業 都有在落實類似的項目 這已經成為了退休金保護計劃中的一部分 而泰勒和我 已經成為這個項目的一分子 來創造不同
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.
讓我們來最後 用兩個非常重要的信息來作結論 一個是行為經濟學 是很有用的 這只是一個例子 第二條信息是 還有很多需要去落實 這真的只是冰山一角 如果你想到人們和房貸 還有買了房子卻無力償還貸款 我們應該想想這個項目 如果你想到人們採取太多冒險行為 卻不了解他們在冒多大的風險 或是多小的風險 我們應該想想這個項目 如果你想到人們每年花費一千美金 去買樂透券 我們應該想到這個項目 在新加坡 實際記錄中 平均每戶 每年會花費4000美金購買樂透 我們該做的還很多 很多需要解決的 還有在退休金領域裏 這涉及到人們在退休後 怎樣理財
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.
最後一個問題: 你們中有多少人 覺得你們在計劃退休之後的事情 覺得你自己在退休之後 有一個很實際的理財計劃? 當你要領取社保福利的時候 你期待著那一種生活方式 一個月將要支付多少元 最終你將不會透支? 有多少人認為自己在未來的後退休計劃中 有一個很務實的計劃? 一,二,三,四 只有小於百分之三的人會這麽做 雖然在座的都是聰明人 行為經濟學是一條長路 有很多的機會 能讓它變得一次一次再一次的有用
Thank you.
謝謝
(Applause)
(掌聲)