This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

### Categories

### Publishers

Scribd Selects Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

P. 1

2 Household saving behavior, portfolio choice and children Evidence from the survey of consumer finances|Views: 98|Likes: 0

Published by Thanit Tuang Charanachitta

Published by: Thanit Tuang Charanachitta on Mar 12, 2011

Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

See more

See less

https://www.scribd.com/doc/50580373/2-Household-saving-behavior-portfolio-choice-and-children-Evidence-from-the-survey-of-consumer-finances

03/12/2011

text

original

- 2.1 Introduction
- 2.2 The Model
- 2.2.1 Theory
- 2.2.2 Empirical Model
- 2.3 Data
- 2.4 Estimation and Results
- 2.5 Conclusion
- 3.1 Introduction
- 3.2 The Relationship between Fertility and Saving
- 3.3 Data
- 3.4 Estimation and Results
- 3.5 Conclusion
- Saving for Children’s College Education
- 4.1 Introduction
- 4.2 A Model of Saving for College
- 4.3 Data
- 4.4 Empirical Speciﬁcation
- 4.5 Estimation and Results
- 4.6 Conclusion
- Appendices
- A.1 Estimating Marginal Tax Rates
- A.2 Deﬁnition of Variables
- A.3 Estimating Permanent Income
- B.1 Deﬁnition of Variables
- C.1 Deﬁnition of Variables
- Bibliography
- Vita

The Dissertation Committee for Tansel Yilmazer certiﬁes that this is the approved version of the following dissertation:

Household Saving Behavior, Portfolio Choice and Children: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances

Committee:

Daniel T. Slesnick, Supervisor Don Fullerton Maxwell B. Stinchcombe Peter J. Wilcoxen Jacqueline Angel

Household Saving Behavior, Portfolio Choice and Children: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances

by Tansel Yilmazer, B.S., M.A.

DISSERTATION Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulﬁllment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN December 2002

United States Code. MI 48106-1346 . ____________________________________________________________ ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road PO Box 1346 Ann Arbor.UMI Number: 3110711 ________________________________________________________ UMI Microform 3110711 Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17. All rights reserved.

Adam Winship. Steve Trejo. Finally. G¨rkem Celik. Mala Velamuri. Peter Wilcoxen and Jacqueline Angel for their valuable feedback and comments. for his support. I would like to thank my advisor. I would also like to thank my committee members Don Fullerton. o ¸ and Vivian Goldman-Leﬄer for their stimulating conversations and friendship. Matias Fontenla. I am indebted to my family for their love and believing in me over these years. in spite of the thousands of miles between us. Angela Lyons. I wish to thank Fikret for always being there for me. guidance and encouragement. Maxwell Stinchcombe. Anne Gorney. Daniel Slesnick.’ First. iv .Acknowledgments I am grateful to many people who shared the best and worst moments of ‘my dissertation years. patience. Special thanks go to Asli Kes. Anne Golla.

D. The ﬁrst chapter examines how the number of children living in the household aﬀects the way households allocate their wealth across diﬀerent assets. Ph.’ and (iii) to accumulate for anticipated future needs. 2002 Supervisor: Daniel T. The portfolio allocation of homeowners is compared to that of renters by taking into account the portfolio constraint imposed by the consumption demand for housing. this dissertation examines the relationship between having children and the motives of saving: (i) to hold assets because of the return they provide. Portfolio Choice and Children: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances Publication No. Slesnick Using the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF). The University of Texas at Austin. As a result of the portfolio constraint.Household Saving Behavior. Tansel Yilmazer. such as owner-occupied housing. (ii) to build up reserves as a precaution for a ‘rainy day. risky assets and interest-bearing accounts. v . The results show that the number of children increases the housing consumption of homeowners and the share of the portfolio allocated to owner-occupied housing. such as educational expenses.

savings for college increase with the age of the household head. Also.homeowners decrease the share of the portfolio invested in retirement assets as the number of children increases. The results show that parents save for college expenses of their children. income uncertainty has little eﬀect on household savings. Further. and after controlling for family size. vi . this chapter extends the empirical work on precautionary savings. The results show that households with higher income uncertainty are less likely to have a child. The results are consistent with the predictions the lifecycle theory of saving that households save in advance for expected expenses to smooth their consumption. the empirical model estimates the expected expenditures on children’s college education and investigates the eﬀect of expected college expenses on household savings. the second chapter investigates the relationship between household saving and fertility decisions. The third chapter examines the eﬀect of ﬁnancing children’s college education on household savings. having an additional child reduces savings of households with young heads and increases savings of those with older heads. Using the actual college expenditures reported in the 1983-86 SCF. Using a life-cycle model that incorporates precautionary motives for saving. By examining the implications of income uncertainty on the demand for children.

2. . .2 The Model . Estimation and Results . . . . . . . 2. on Household . . .5 The Eﬀect of Precautionary Motives Saving and Fertility Introduction . . . . . . . . .3 3. . . . . . . . . . . . The Relationship between Fertility and Saving . Chapter 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Empirical Model . . . . . . . . .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 3. . . . . . . . . . Introduction iv v ix xi 1 6 6 12 12 15 17 24 30 44 44 48 51 58 63 Chapter 2. . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . .5 Conclusion .2. 3. . . . .1 Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . .Table of Contents Acknowledgments Abstract List of Tables List of Figures Chapter 1. . . . .1 3. Do Children Aﬀect Household Portfolio Allocation? 2. . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii . . . . . . . .3 Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Estimation and Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . Appendix for Chapter A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 A Model of Saving for College 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.1 Deﬁnition of Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Bibliography Vita 113 121 viii . . A. . . . . . .4 Empirical Speciﬁcation .3 Data . . .3 Estimating Permanent Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. .5 Estimation and Results . . . . .Chapter 4. . . . .1 Estimating Marginal Tax Rates . . . .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 109 Appendix C. . .1 Deﬁnition of Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 104 . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . Appendix for Chapter 3 109 B. . . . . . . Saving for Children’s 4. . . . 73 73 80 83 86 88 93 103 Appendix A. . . . 105 .2 Deﬁnition of Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . 104 . . . . 106 Appendix B. Appendix for Chapter 4 111 C. . . . . . . . Appendices College . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . .

. . . . . .5 2. Mean Asset Shares.1 3. . . . . . . Results from Probit Estimation . . . . . . .List of Tables 2. Poisson Regression: Number of Children . . . Expenditure on Housing. . . . . .5 Descriptive Statistics by Year . . . . . . . Mean Asset Shares by Year . Descriptive Summary of Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998 . .7 3. . . Savings and College Expenses by the Number of College . . . . Saving Motives By the Number of Children . . 1998 . .8 4. . . . . . . . . Regressions of SAVE2 on Income Uncertainty with Endogenous Fertility Decision . .8 2. . . . . . .7 2. . . . . . . . . Results: Asset Shares and Housing Expenditure of Renters .11 3.1 2. . . .3 3. . . . .2 3.4 3. . . .2 2. . . . . The Eﬀect of a Change in the Fertility Decision on SAVE1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Income and Income Uncertainty by Age and Fertility Probit: Fertility Decision of Fecund Households .2 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 2. . . . . .4 4. . Mean Asset Shares. Children in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Renters: Continued . . . . Descriptive Statistics by Household Fertility Decision . 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 95 96 97 98 99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Savings. . . . Regressions of SAVE1 on Income Uncertainty with Endogenous Fertility Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 2. . . . . .3 4. . . . .6 2. . . 1998: Continued . . . . . . . .6 3. . . 1983 . . Results: Asset Shares and Housing Expenditure of Homeowners Homeowners: Continued . . . . . . Tobit Estimates of College Expenditure Equation ix . . .1 4. . . . . . . . . .10 2. . . . . . . Mean Income Uncertainty by Household Demographics . . . . . . . . Portfolio Shares for Assets by the Number of Children and Age Saving Motives by Age Groups.

. . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . 100 101 x . . .7 College Expenditures and Savings by the Number of Children in College . . . . . .6 4. . . . . . . Eﬀect of Anticipated College Expenses on Savings . . . . . . .

List of Figures

4.1

The Importance of Educational Expenses on Savings . . . . .

102

xi

Chapter 1 Introduction

Raising children is costly with their housing, educational and other expenses. To meet the costs of raising their children, parents use both current income and intertemporal transfers. Children living in the household, therefore, are likely to aﬀect the level of household savings, portfolio composition and the life-cycle proﬁle of savings. Using data from the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF), this dissertation examines the relationship between children and the motives of saving: (i) to hold assets because of the return they provide, (ii) to build up reserves as a precaution for a ‘rainy day,’ and (iii) to accumulate for anticipated future needs, such as educational expenses. Most U.S. households hold a large portion of their wealth in the form of owner-occupied housing. According to the 1995 SCF, 65 percent of households are homeowners, and the value of an average homeowner’s property is 60 percent of its total assets. Owner-occupied housing diﬀers from other types of wealth in its dual role as both a consumption good and an investment good. Since households cannot separate the level of consumption of housing services from investment in housing as an asset, the optimal level of owner-occupied housing may be higher than the optimal level for households only interested

1

in long run returns. The demand for housing services is likely to increase with the number of children living in the household. Therefore, the consumption constraint can be even more binding for households with children. Chapter 2 uses the 1989, 1992, 1995 and 1998 SCF to investigate how the number of children living in the household aﬀect the portfolio choice between housing and other assets. The portfolio allocation of homeowners is compared to that of renters by taking into account the portfolio constraint imposed by the consumption demand for housing. The empirical model also examines the eﬀect of children on the demand for housing services and homeownership decision. The results show that the number of children increases the housing consumption of homeowners as well as the share of the portfolio allocated to owner-occupied housing. As a result of the portfolio constraint, homeowners decrease the portfolio share of retirement assets as the number of children increases. Low levels of retirement savings of U.S. households have generated signiﬁcant concern in the last twenty years. The ﬁndings of Chapter 2 show that households with children decrease the portfolio share for retirement savings considerably while they increase the portfolio share for housing. If the return on housing is less than the return on retirement accounts, there is a hidden cost of children. Explaining the size of the portfolio eﬀect allows a better understanding of the cost of children. Also, changes in housing programs or tax deduction rules for mortgage interest payments inﬂuence the portfolio allocation of households with children considerably by increasing or decreasing the 2

The results of the empirical model in Chapter 3 show that households with higher income uncertainty are less likely to have a child at a point in time. Income uncertainty actually reduces savings of the households with low or very high wealth holdings and does not aﬀect the saving behavior of other households. Precautionary saving models predict that uncertainty about future income may cause households to reduce their current consumption in order to raise their stock of precautionary saving. This ﬁnding is consistent with the life-cycle theory of saving and consumption and shows that household composition is an important factor 3 . The ﬁndings. household saving show that saving rates are higher for married couples with no children and lower for those with children. this chapter extends the empirical work on precautionary saving.cost of homeownership. By examining the implications of uncertainty on the fertility decisions of households and incorporating fertility decisions as a motive for household saving behavior. Also. The 1983-89 panel of the SCF is used to examine the interaction of income uncertainty and changes in the number of children on the saving behavior of households at diﬀerent stages of the life cycle.S. The data on U. however. Chapter 3 investigates the relation between household saving and fertility decisions. Using a life cycle model that incorporates precautionary motives for saving. having an additional child decreases savings of households with young heads and increases savings of those with older heads. are not consistent with the predictions of the precautionary saving model that suggests agents faced with uncertainty about future income increase their savings.

savings for college education increases with the age of 4 . Second. families who save for college reduce their eligibility for ﬁnancial aid. Using the actual college expenditures reported in the 1983-86 SCF. Of those contributing to their children’s college costs in 1987. the quality-quantity model of fertility behavior assumes that parents have preferences both for the expenditure per child and the number of children. about 65 percent reported using some previous savings. 90 percent of dependent undergraduate’s parents contributed ﬁnancially to the costs of their children’s education.of life-cycle savings. The results show that parents save for college expenses of their children. Also. The college ﬁnancial aid system imposes an implicit tax on the savings of households that are potentially eligible for ﬁnancial assistance. an analysis of ﬁnancing college education and family size highlights an important aspect of the quality-quantity model. According to the 1996 National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey. Chapter 4 examines the eﬀect of ﬁnancing children’s college education on household savings. This chapter uses the amount of parental expenditure on children’s college education as a measure for child quality. Chapter 4 estimates the household’s expected expenditures on children’s college education and investigates the eﬀect of expected college expenses on household savings. parents contribute a signiﬁcant amount to their children’s college expenses. Understanding the eﬀect of ﬁnancing children’s college education on household saving behavior is important for at least three reasons. Given the rapidly rising cost of college tuition. First. Third.

5 .the household head. These results are consistent with the predictions of the life-cycle theory of saving and consumption that households save in advance for expected expenses to smooth their consumption.

1 Introduction Empirical studies of household portfolio composition have identiﬁed large diﬀerences in portfolio allocation choices of diﬀerent demographic groups. they may hold most of their ﬁnancial assets in riskless See Poterba and Samwick [46]. 1 6 . Chiteji and Staﬀord [13] for race. the literature has focused on the impact of demographic variables such as the eﬀect of age. risky assets. It is likely that children living in the household aﬀect the way a household allocates its wealth across diﬀerent assets such as owner-occupied housing. households with children may purchase more housing than households with no children or they may have a higher probability of owning a home. and interest-bearing accounts.Chapter 2 Do Children Aﬀect Household Portfolio Allocation? 2.1 The inﬂuence of children living in the household on the portfolio composition has not been yet discussed. and Sund`n and Surette [52] e for gender eﬀects. Conversely. For example. and Ioannides [34] for age eﬀect. So far. King and Leape [41]. Parents may choose to invest part of their household portfolio in stocks to meet the rising costs of a college education. Jianakoplas and Bernasek [35]. race and gender of the household head on the portfolio composition.

paying particular attention to the impact of children on the demand for housing services and homeownership decision. 7 . I focus on how the number and age of children living in the household aﬀect (i) the homeownership decision. Using data from the 1989. and (iii) the housing expenditure of homeowners and renters.S. Understanding the size of the impact of children on household portfolio allocation is intrinsically interesting. this chapter investigates the eﬀect of children on household portfolio composition. It has also important policy implications. households with children may decrease the portfolio share for other assets considerably while they increase the portfolio share for housing. households have generated signiﬁcant concern in the last twenty years.form to decrease their families’ exposure to risk. Low levels of retirement savings of U. (ii) the portfolio shares for housing and the other assets that homeowners and renters hold. 1995 and 1998 SCF. then changes in housing programs or tax deduction rules for mortgage interest payments inﬂuence their portfolio allocation by increasing or decreasing the cost of homeownership. 1992. If households with children allocate a larger share of their portfolio to owneroccupied housing. Speciﬁcally. Also. as the result of higher consumption demand for housing. The failure of households with children to invest suﬃcient assets in retirement accounts may lead to a lower retirement wealth. I analyze a model in which households decide on portfolio shares for diﬀerent assets jointly with the tenure choice (the decision of owning or renting) and the consumption demand for housing services.

and the value of an average homeowner’s property is 60 percent of its total assets. 1989. Wolﬀ [56] uses the 1983. 1992 1995 SCF. Owner-occupied housing diﬀers from other types of wealth in its dual role as both a consumption good and an investment good.2 In the presence of tax distortions and transaction costs. Exceptions are the theoretical model of Brueckner [7]. The optimal level of owner-occupied housing for households may be higher than the optimal level for households that are only interested in long run returns. and King and Leape [41] examine the 1960-62 Michigan Surveys of Consumer Finances. households cannot separate the level of consumption of housing services from investment in housing as an asset. the general equilibrium model of Berkovec and Fullerton [4] and the numerical analysis of Flavin and Yamashita [20]. According to the 1995 SCF. While the dual role of housing has been recognized. households hold a large portion of their wealth in the form of owner-occupied housing. 2 See Henderson and Ioannides [27] and Berkovec and Fullerton [4] 8 . Households with children are likely to have a higher demand for housing services and the consumption constraint can be even more binding.S. Explaining the size of the portfolio eﬀect allows a better understanding of the cost of children. Brueckner analyzes the behavior of homeowners. its impact on the portfolio choice between housing and other assets has not been discussed much. 65 percent of households are homeowners. and both report that owner-occupied housing accounts for about 30 percent of household assets. In his model.Most U. and the ownership of their principal residence determines the level of consumption of housing services.

This chapter extends the previous studies of portfolio choice by examining the eﬀect of both consumption and investment motives on the portfolio share for housing and other assets. households decide on tenure and quantity of housing taking both consumption and investment motives into account. Their results show that the portfolio constraint imposed by the consumption demand for housing causes a life-cycle pattern in the portfolio shares for stocks and bonds such that the ratio of stocks to net worth increases as the household head gets older. Their simulation concentrates on the eﬀect of taxes on the tenure choice and owner-occupied housing. The literature on housing demand has recognized the role of children on the tenure choice and the demand for housing services. Harun et al. the homeowner’s optimal portfolio is ineﬃcient in a mean-variance framework.an investment constraint requires that the quantity of housing owned is at least as large as the quantity of housing consumed. Flavin and Yamashita use numerical methods to calculate the mean-variance eﬃcient frontier.5 percent. [26] treat the presence of children in the household as endogenous and ﬁnd that a 10 percent increase in the probability of having a child raises the likelihood of homeownership by 2. Neither of these studies explicitly analyzes the determinants of the consumption demand for housing and the portfolio share for housing. For example. His model analyzes the resulting distortion of the eﬀect of this investment constraint on the portfolio choice of homeowners. Robst et al. In Berkovec and Fullerton. The results of his model show that when the constraint imposed by housing is binding. [36] show that 9 .

401(k)s. these variables do not aﬀect the housing demand of homeowners. the importance of the current and expected family size diﬀers between owners and renters: while renters demand more housing with an increase in family size and expectation of an additional child within the next nine months.an additional child increases the probability of owning a home by around 8 percent. Ihlanfeldt [33] reports housing demand estimates obtained separately from two samples-recent movers and nonmovers. little systematic treatment of children has appeared in the estimation of tenure choice and housing demand. marital status. Many studies have investigated the reasons that most households choose to hold incomplete portfolios. as noted in Goodman [24]. However. and race of the household head are shown to be signiﬁcant factors that reduce the level of information cost that would be suﬃcient to 10 . After controlling for the household size. Demographic characteristics such as age. Goodman and Kawai [25] ﬁnd that larger households prefer more housing. The information cost of monitoring and managing a portfolio is suggested as an important reason for holding riskless assets. The results of the previous studies show that dependent children have some impact on the demand for housing. U. households typically invest in only a few of the assets available in the economy. however. For example. Besides housing. Among recent movers. only 41 percent of households held stocks directly or indirectly in IRAs. deﬁned beneﬁt pensions and mutual funds. their results show that the presence of children in school has either an insigniﬁcant or a negative eﬀect on the demand for housing.S. according to the 1995 SCF.

For example. King and Leape [41] analyze a model in which investors choose to hold incomplete portfolios. Their ﬁndings show that age and marital status of the household head signiﬁcantly aﬀect the probability of asset ownership. Children living in the household have not been the focus of any study examining the portfolio choice of households. The results show that the number of children has a positive and signiﬁcant eﬀect 11 . Chiteji and Staﬀord [13] link independent young African-American adults back to their parents. and they estimate equations for both the probability of owning an asset and its demand conditional upon ownership. In the conditional demand equations. This chapter aims to do so by examining the eﬀect of the number and the age of children on household portfolio choice. the eﬀect of age and marital status appears to be signiﬁcant only for some of the assets. His results show that household characteristics such as age and education of the household head are signiﬁcant in explaining the probability of owning stocks. Their ﬁnding is that parents who held stocks are more likely to have children who hold stocks as young adults. The empirical model compares the portfolio allocation of homeowners to that of renters. Bertaut [5] uses the 1983-89 SCF to analyze the eﬀect of household characteristics on portfolio allocation. however.discourage households from investing in risky assets. taking into account the eﬀect of children on the consumption demand for housing. The theoretical model developed in the chapter shows how the portfolio constraint imposed by the consumption demand for housing aﬀects the portfolio shares for housing and other assets. Using the Panel Study of Income Dynamics.

Children living in the household also aﬀects the portfolio choice of renters. Section 2. homeowners decrease the portfolio share in retirement accounts while they increase the portfolio share in housing.2.on the probability of owning a home.3 describes the data set and the variables used in the empirical work. As a result of the portfolio constraint imposed by the housing demand of children. homeowners with all children older than age 13 invest a greater share of their portfolio in vehicles and other real estate and a smaller share of their portfolio in housing.1 The Model Theory This section examines the behavior of a consumer deciding whether to rent or own a home.2 2.4.5. and how much to allocate to other risky assets. 2. A summary of the ﬁndings and concluding remarks are presented in Section 2. Renters invest a smaller share of their portfolio in interest-bearing accounts with an increase in the number of children. The main conclusion of the chapter is that homeowners shift their resources from retirement accounts to housing with an increase in the number of children. Following Brueckner [7] and 12 .2 introduces the theoretical model and discusses the empirical speciﬁcation of the model. The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows. The consumer maximizes a multiperiod utility function. The number of children also increases the housing demand of homeowners. The estimation results are reported in Section 2. Controlling for the number of children and other variables. Section 2.

The j th asset earns a gross return of rj . . J. The ﬁrst period budget constraint is given by J c=w− p o hc h − j=0 aj . and consumption in future periods that depends on the random total return R from the investment portfolio. and δ is the discount factor. then she holds owner-occupied housing (h > 0) and is constrained to consume the same amount of owner-occupied housing in her portfolio (hc = h). The only source of uncertainty is assumed to be from returns on J + 1 assets and owner-occupied housing (h). hc ) + δE[V (R + y)]. E gives the expected utility. V is an indirect utility function. If the consumer purchases a house.. and owner-occupied housing earns rh . U gives the utility from the current consumption. j = 0. A consumer in this economy is assumed to obtain utility from the current consumption of a single nondurable good (c). 1. 1.2) 13 . J. j = 0. with a0 being the riskless asset.1) where y is future labor income.. (2. (2. The consumer’s objective function can be written as follows: U (c.Henderson and Ioannides [27]. so that aj ≥ 0. I assume that third and subsequent periods are buried in the indirect utility function given remaining wealth at the beginning of the second period. The dollar amount of asset j purchased is denoted aj .. Short selling is ruled out for all assets including housing. housing services (hc ). and h ≥ 0.. .

6) and the standard deviation J J K σ = (θhh h + 2 j=1 2 haj θhj + j=1 k=1 aj ak θjk )1/2 .4) where po r is the price of a unit of housing for renters. The total return of the J portfolio is given by R= j=0 rj aj . For homeowners. (2.J. the total portfolio return R is a normal random variable with the expected value J R = rh h + r0 a0 + j=1 r j aj (2.6) and (2... 2.where w is her initial wealth and po is the current price of a unit of housing. j = 1. (2. (2. J.3) If the consumer rents a house. j = 1.7) where θhh and θjj . h = 0 in equations (2. respectively. . 14 ..5) since h is equal to zero for renters.7).. For renters. the return on housing and the return on other assets are assumed to be normal variables with the expected values rh and rj . then the ﬁrst period budget constraint is given by J c = w − po hc − r j=0 aj . h The total return of the portfolio is given by J R = rh h + j=0 rj aj . In the model. and θjh is the covariance of returns between asset j and housing. θjk is the covariance of returns between asset j and k. are the variances of rh and rk . (2. .

. J. (2. j = 0. are chosen optimally with hc and σ held constant. j = 0. The consumer’s problem is to choose c∗ .2). 2.. j = c j 0. how much to spend on housing (Eh ). First.6) and (2.. (2. . 1.5). The empirical model described in the next section focuses on the interaction between these two stages of decision making.2 Empirical Model The joint determination of whether own a house (H=1) or not (H=0). 1.3). this problem can be solved in two stages.4). (2.7). c j (2.2.8) where φ(. (2. that maximize (2.) is the standard normal density function.Following Fama and Miller [21] and Brueckner [7].7) and decides to own or rent a house comparing the utilities in two outcomes. . J. I rewrite the objective function (2. h∗ . .. and to owner-occupied housing (sh ) is modeled as follows.8) subject to (2.1) subject to (2.6) and (2. For both homeowners and renters. hc ) + δ V (R + σz + y)φ(z)dz. (2. the asset levels aj ..9) where Xh is a vector of year dummies and characteristics that are associated 15 . and shares of wealth to allocate to each asset j (sj ). σ. In the ﬁrst stage. and the standard normal variable z as follows: U (c.. and a∗ .. that maximize (2.1) in terms of R. 1. The consumer also decides on c∗ . a household determines whether to own or rent a house: H = 1 if Xh β1 + ε1 > 0 = 0 otherwise. J. h∗ and a∗ . In the second stage. hc (and thus σ) is chosen optimally.

. βh .. and the error terms in equations (2. The two stage method described in Lee and Trost [42] is used to estimate the model.. log Eh = Xc βrc + εrc . where φ and Φ are probability density and cumulative distribution of the standard ˆ ˆ normal distribution. ..9) . εoc . the household decides on the share of portfolio allocated to each asset and housing. εh . . and also the housing expenditure: j = 0. J.. In the ﬁrst stage. Separate equations are speciﬁed for homeowners and renters.11) are assumed to have a joint normal distribution. and εrc are the error terms.with the probability of owning a house. εrj ..9) provides an estimate of β1 . j = 0. and ε1 is an error term. Second.. 1. β1 is a parameter vector.. j = 0. J.11). 1.. respectively.. I use ˆ ˆ φ(X β1 )/Φ(X β1 ). In the second stage. βoc and βrc are the parameter vectors to be estimated.10) for homeowners. φ(X β1 )/(1 − Φ(X β1 )) is used as a regressor for renters in estimating (2. 16 . log Eh = Xc βoc + εoc . βoj . as a regressor in estimating (2.11) where X and Xc are vectors of household characteristics and year dummies.10) (2. .. J sj = Xβoj + εoj sh = Xβh + εh If owner. . Similarly. j = 0. 1. βrj . a probit model of the tenure choice in equation (2. 1. J sj = Xβrj + εrj sh = 0 If renter.. (2.(2. and εoj .

the supplement consists of 866 out of 3.S.409 out of 4.143 households. 4) HOUSE is the market value of owner-occupied housing.309 households. and other deﬁned contribution plans. The SCF constructs sample weights to blend the supplements with the area-probability sample to get a more representative sample of the U. Each survey consists of a representative sample of the U. 401(k)s. The consumption demand for housing is computed for renters and homeowners as follows. income. 6) RESTATE includes the market value of seasonal residences and other property. in 1992. a triennial survey conducted by the Federal Reserve Board. call accounts. and demographic characteristics. saving accounts. cash value of life insurance. 3 17 .299. 1. and other assets like arts and precious metals.519 out of 4. and in 1998. 3) RETIRE includes IRAs. For owners.2. 1992.3 Total assets are grouped into six categories: 1) ACCOUNT includes all holdings of checking accounts.S.3 Data The data for this study are taken from the 1989. and mutual funds. certiﬁcates of deposit. all types of bonds. in 1995. 1. the cost of housing services depends on In the 1989 SCF.906.480 out of 3. money market deposit accounts. Keogh. and 7) OTHER includes trusts. 1995 and 1998 SCF. 1. population. The survey contains detailed information on household portfolios. population and a supplement of high-wealth households drawn from Internal Revenue Service ﬁle of high-income returns. 5) VEHICLE is the value of all the vehicles the household owns. Investments in businesses are not included in total assets because they generate an income that is diﬃcult to separate from earnings. 2) STOCK includes all assets held in stocks.

12). The inﬂation rate. households that neither rent nor own their homes are excluded for lack of information to cal18 . For renters. The housing expenditures (Eh ) of homeowners are then deﬁned as Eh = [(1 − τ )r + d + (1 − τ )τp − (ρ − π)]G − mτ.015 for each of the sample years. A few restrictions are imposed on the sample. I impute them using detailed account information on the sources of income and demographics for each household. is the annual inﬂation rate calculated using the CPI-U deﬂator. To calculate the housing expenditure by using equation (2. Since marginal tax rates are not reported in the SCF. the annual rental expenditure reported in the SCF is used as the consumption demand for housing. ρ. Following Henderson and Ioannides [28]. the interest rate (r). is assumed to be the interest rate on treasury bills.12) This formulation assumes that homeowners claim tax deductions for property taxes and mortgage interest payments. The interest rate. is the rate of increase in the median sale price of houses in that year. The calculation of marginal tax rates is described in Appendix A. I assume an annual rate of depreciation of d=0. (2.1. I make several assumptions.the gross value of the residence (G). r. First. Property tax rates and mortgage interest payments are reported in the SCF. π. and the rate of increase in house prices. maintenance and depreciation costs (d). the mortgage interest payment (m). the income tax rate (τ ). the rate of increase in the nominal price of housing (ρ) and the overall inﬂation rate (π). the property tax rate (τp ).

culate housing expenditure. 2. (ii) it owns both the mobile house and the site.6 However.2. Sample demographics show the age of the household head (AGE).1 percent weighted wealth holdings in each wave of the SCF are dropped.509. marital status (MARRIED) and gender (FEMALE) of the household head and the fraction of homeowners (HOMEOWN). both mean and median wealth (ASSET) have risen since 1992. 3. 116. 127. The variables are described in detail in Appendix A.773 and 3. 1992. I take the estimated earnings of the household head and the spouse at the age of 45 and an individual-speciﬁc eﬀect. 1992.1 percentile of the weighted wealth distribution in the 1989. a co-op or a townhouse association. 214. and 1998 SCF. respectively. households with the highest 0. 1995. As a proxy for permanent income.989 observations.900.5 The ﬁnal sample consists of 13. 3. 5 Of the remaining households. Table 2. 317 and 309 households were neither renters nor owners and were dropped from the sample. A household is assumed to be a renter if it rents all or part of the farm/ranch/apartment/house/mobile home in which it lives. 209 and 193 were in the 0. Therefore. The calculation of permanent income follows King and Dicks-Mireaux [40] and is described in Appendix A. The same pattern is true for permanent income (INCOME). 1995 and 1998. 4 19 . In 1989. respectively. or (iii) it owns part or all of the farm/ranch on which it lives on. 6 The SCF deﬁnes the head of the household to be the husband for all married households. respectively.807 households in 1989. 183.3. 1995 and 1998. The calculated expenditure of housing consumption (Eh ) A household is assumed to be a homeowner if (i) it owns the house/apartment that it lives in or owns it as a part of a condo. 1992. households with female heads are headed by single females. most of which have not changed much over time.4 Second.1 shows the summary statistics for all the variables used in the estimation. to avoid the inﬂuence of extreme outliers on the regression.

3 percent in 1989 to 11. the composition of households’ portfolios reveals the importance of housing as an asset.was higher for homeowners in 1992 than in other years due to the decline in house prices in that year.83 in 1989 to 0. The ﬁrst column shows the share of households in diﬀerent income. The portfolio share for ACCOUNT declined from 14. The second largest asset in the households’ portfolios is VEHICLE (18. HOUSE is the most important asset. This suggests that households have substituted ﬁnancial assets for nonﬁnancial assets. the share for RETIRE increases sharply. Assets in these accounts increased from 5. VEHICLE and RESTATE. The increases in ACCOUNT. STOCK and RETIRE in 1998 oﬀset the decline in HOUSE.75 in 1995 and stayed the same in 1998. Second.2 percent in 1998 due to an increase in the portfolio share for saving accounts.5 percent in 1998.3 presents housing expenditures of homeowners and renters in 1998. Table 2. As shown in Table 2. wealth and children (the number of children living in the household) groups.4 percent of total assets in 1998. representing 39. Table 2.7 percent of total assets in 1989 to 10. but it rose to 13. 20 . The percentage of households with all children older than age 13 (CHAGE13) has stayed the same since 1992. there is a steady growth in the portfolio share for STOCK and a steady decline in the portfolio share for RESTATE since 1989. First.2.6 percent in 1998). age. The average number of children (NCHILD) living in the household declined from 0.2 presents interesting changes in household portfolio structures over time.2 percent in 1995. followed by ACCOUNT.

Since the primary residence is the largest part of homeowners’ wealth. The percentage of households who are homeowners increases with income. The average housing expenditure is $7. accounting for 57. Among households with wealth below $250. The housing expenditures of renters and homeowners also increase with income. For homeowners.042 for homeowners and $6.0 percent). First. the expenditure on housing declines after the age of 65. VEHICLE is the most important asset held (41. Tables 2. respectively. there are marked diﬀerences in household portfolios of renters and owners. This is due to an increase in the value of residences and also to the tax deduction for property taxes and mortgage interest payments that decrease the opportunity cost of homeownership.000 and income below $50.4 shows the portfolio shares of assets that homeowners and renters hold.9 percent.5 percent of total assets) followed by ACCOUNT (26. reaching a peak among households with two children.000.030 for renters. and the number of children. age of the household head. The ﬁrst row of Table 2. however. VEHICLE is the third largest asset (7. For renters. it declines after age 50.8 percent of total assets) following 21 .The second column indicates the percentage of each of these groups that are homeowners. wealth and the number of children in the household. wealth. Average housing expenditures for homeowners and renters are presented.4 and 2. renters spend more on housing than owners. It also increases with the number of children. in the remaining two columns of the table.5 show the household portfolio composition in 1998 by household permanent income. For homeowners. wealth and the age of the household head. for renters.

Another noteworthy ﬁnding is that the portfolio shares for STOCK and RETIRE for both homeowners and renters rise with income. among homeowners that have wealth exceeding $1 million. For example.7 percent are homeowners.9 percent of their total assets in housing.6 percent of total assets in housing. Not surprisingly. The portfolio shares for other assets such as STOCK.3 and 2.000. Also.4. RETIRE and RESTATE are almost equal for renters and owners. For homeowners.000.4 also presents the life cycle patterns in household portfolios. of the households with income below $15. First.2 percent of total assets while housing accounted for only 22. as shown in Tables 2. but they hold only 42.RETIRE (10.6 percent. while the housing share of portfolio declines. Also. 86. the share of the portfolio allocated to RESTATE and for all households. portfolio composition of households with heads over the age of 65 diﬀers considerably from other age groups’ portfolios. we observe striking diﬀerences in the composition of portfolios by the level of wealth. the fraction of households who are homeowners increases. Several ﬁndings are worth noting. accumulation in STOCK relative to other assets increases over age 65.7 percent are homeowners holding 75. STOCK is the most important asset category with a share equal to 25.2 percent). Table 2. in contrast. For example. Of the households with income above $100. For higher levels of income. 42. the share of the portfolio allocated to STOCK rise at a rapid rate with wealth. the portfolio share for ACCOUNT almost doubles both for homeowners and renters over the age of 65 compared to 50-64 year old group. This suggests that households with heads over age 65 substitute 22 .

9 percent for households with 2 children. and 65. Table 2. wealth. The ﬁrst is their eﬀect on the choice of tenure. and age groups. The table indicates a strong relation between children and the share of portfolio allocated to housing. age and wealth are similar. Also. housing accounts for 56. the portfolio share for HOUSE declines with age among the households headed by persons below age 65.4 and 2.5 looks at the link between children and shares of assets in both renters’ and homeowners’ portfolios. and table 2. Finally.5 reveal striking diﬀerences in portfolio structures across income. the relative changes in portfolio shares of assets by income.3 percent for those with three or more children. For example. The results indicate that the number of children living in the household aﬀects the portfolio shares for assets and 23 . Second. Tables 2. While portfolio composition diﬀers considerably between renters and homeowners.liquid assets for nonﬁnancial assets. The portfolio share for owner-occupied housing increases with the number of children. and the second is their eﬀect on asset shares of portfolios conditional upon ownership. Table 2. Children are likely to aﬀect the portfolio structures in two ways. the presence of children increases the share of the portfolio allocated to vehicles.5 shows the portfolio shares by the number of children living in the household.3 investigates the eﬀect of children on the tenure choice.0 percent of the wealth for households with no children. 60. Homeowners invest a smaller share of their portfolio in interest-bearing accounts and stocks with an increase in the number of children. but it stays steady after age 65.

Previous research also indicates that a household’s marginal tax rate (MRT) has an eﬀect on its asset allocation decisions. Portfolio choice theory has shown the importance of age. Moreover.898 households. and the disturbance covariance matrix is singular. 24 . The other variables in X are chosen to be consistent with previous empirical studies. VEHICLE. and include ACCOUNT. HOUSE. RETIRE. The empirical model below investigates the eﬀect of children on both asset shares and homeownership decision. Thus. Of 13.7 I exclude those households from the sample and correct for sample selection. permanent income and wealth in determining the asset shares in household portfolios. Portfolio shares of the J + 1 assets and housing sum to one.4 Estimation and Results The resulting set of equations constitutes an endogenous switching model in the form of a multivariate regression model. 2. STOCK. Age and age-squared of the household head are included to capture a possible change in portfolio behavior related to the life cycle. OTHER.the probability that a household owns a home. Dummy variables indicating the number and the age of children living in the household are included in X. 100 in 1995. and 106 in 1998 had zero wealth holding. and RESTATE in the estimation of the model. the marital 7 93 households in 1989. Then I solve for the parameters of OTHER from the other equations. 111 in 1992. I drop one group of assets. 410 report zero wealth holding.

status and the gender of the household head and willingness to undertake risky investments (RISKY) may also aﬀect the household’s asset allocation. All variables that enter X are also included in Xc and Xh , with two exceptions. First, the marginal tax rate aﬀects the tenure choice and homeowners’ expenditure on housing since homeowners can claim tax deductions for mortgage interest payments and property taxes. However, the marginal tax rate is not expected to aﬀect the housing expenditure of renters. Thus, marginal tax rate is not included in Xc . Second, willingness to undertake risky investment does not enter Xc because it has an eﬀect on the tenure choice regarding the investment motive but not on the expenditures on rental housing. In addition, the vector Xh includes the race of the household head. Table 2.6 presents the estimates of the probit model of equation (2.9). The estimates of the homeownership equation are consistent with previous studies. As a household’s permanent income rises, the probability of homeownership increases. Age of the household head increases the probability of ownership until age 74. The coeﬃcients for WHITE and MARRIED are significant and positive, indicating that at the sample mean, households with white heads are 10.2 percent more likely to own than households with non-white heads, and those that are married are 26.1 percent more likely to own than those that are not. The coeﬃcients on the variables showing the number of children are positive and signiﬁcant. Households with one child are 6.3 percent, and those with two children are 10.8 percent, more likely to own relative to households with no children. The probability of owning starts to decrease 25

after the second child, household with three or more children are only 9.6 percent more likely to own relative to households with no child. The probability of being a homeowner also increases with the household’s marginal tax rate, suggesting that the tax-deductibility of property taxes and mortgage interest is more valuable at a higher marginal tax rate. Tables 2.7- 2.10 show the coeﬃcients and the standard errors for each of the seven asset equations and the housing expenditure equation for homeowners. Permanent income has signiﬁcant but small marginal eﬀects on the structure of homeowners’ portfolio. The share of the portfolio allocated to RETIRE, HOUSE and VEHICLE increase with income, while the share allocated to ACCOUNT, STOCK and RESTATE decreases with income. Higher levels of wealth are associated with higher shares in ACCOUNT, STOCK, RESTATE, OTHER, and lower shares in HOUSE and VEHICLE. The marginal eﬀect of wealth on the share allocated to STOCKS, HOUSE and RESTATE is large. A 10 percent increase in assets would increase the share of the average portfolio allocated to STOCK by 0.62 percentage point. A similar increase in assets would induce 1.25 percentage point decrease in HOUSE and 0.66 percentage point increase in RESTATE. Age is an important determinant of portfolio shares in a homeowner’s portfolio, and the results in Table 2.7 and 2.8 reveal a quadratic relationship in terms of age. Portfolio shares for RETIRE, HOUSE and RESTATE increase with age, reaching a peak at the age of 50, 63 and 50, respectively. Portfolio shares for ACCOUNT and STOCK, however, decrease with age until the age of 26

50 and 43, respectively. This relation between age and portfolio shares suggests that the structure of a household’s portfolio changes when the household head reaches middle age. For example, households headed by persons above the age of 45 start substituting liquid assets for nonﬁnancial assets such as HOUSE and RESTATE. The coeﬃcients on the number and age of children suggest that the presence of children plays a signiﬁcant role on the portfolio structure of homeowners’. Several results are of particular interest. First, relative to households with no children, households with one child have a 5.6 percent higher portfolio share of HOUSE, controlling for age and permanent income. Similarly, households with two and three or more children have 8.9 and 9.2 percent greater portfolio shares in HOUSE. Second, the portfolio shares for ACCOUNT, RETIRE, and VEHICLE decrease with an increase in the number of children. Controlling for the number of children, households with all the children older than age 13 hold a smaller portfolio share in HOUSE and a greater share in VEHICLE and RESTATE. Finally, homeowners that are willing to undertake risky investments hold a greater share of risky ﬁnancial assets, such as STOCKS and RETIRE, and a smaller share of less risky assets, such as ACCOUNT and HOUSE. All other things held constant, the portfolio shares allocated to ACCOUNT and RESTATE have declined in 1998. Households have substituted STOCK, RETIRE and VEHICLE for the other asset categories since 1995. An increase in the marginal tax rates leads to an increase in the portfolio share allocated 27

Selfselection occurred in households’ tenure choice. Compared to 1989.11) for renters. RESTATE and OTHER. the 1998 portfolio share for RETIRE is 5. homeownership would not have the same eﬀect on renters. For these assets. As renters have two or more children. STOCK.10 present the estimates of the equations (2.0 percent higher in renters’ portfolio. The eﬀect of children is less pronounced for renters than for homeowners. and a lower share for VEHICLE. The portfolio share for RETIRE increases with age until the age of 58. RETIRE and HOUSE for homeowners are all statistically signiﬁcant. should they choose to buy homes. while the portfolio share for ACCOUNT and STOCK decreases until the age 40 and 43. The quadratic relationship observed between the shares of assets in homeowners’ portfolio and the age of the head holds true for the ﬁnancial assets in a renter’s portfolio. More permanent income is associated with a higher share for ACCOUNT. The coeﬃcients on the selection terms in equations for ACCOUNT. Tables 2. The estimates of the Mills ratios for renters are signiﬁcantly diﬀerent from zero 28 . An increase in total assets leads to an increase in the share for STOCK. It leads to a decrease in the share allocated to ACCOUNT.10 report coeﬃcients of the selectivity variables.to HOUSE and VEHICLE. the share for ACCOUNT decreases. and the share for VEHICLE is signiﬁcantly higher for households with three or more children.9 and 2. respectively. Tables 2. renters have shifted toward RETIRE in their portfolio. for example. Since 1995.7-2. RESTATE and OTHER and a decrease in the share for ACCOUNT and VEHICLE. RETIRE and RESTATE.

On the other hand.10 present the estimates of the housing expenditure equation.8 and 2. By a typical household.for ACCOUNT. the expenditure on housing increases with the number of children. Homeowners with one child have 11. The age of the children in the household has no eﬀect on the housing expenditure of renters nor homeowners. there were no signiﬁcant diﬀerences in the average behavior of the two groups prior to home purchase. The housing expenditure of homeowners increases 8.9 percent higher housing expenditure than homeowners with no child. all of the children in the household are younger 29 . and RESTATE.3 percent with the second child. For homeowners.2 percent. the negative selectivity bias for renters’ implies the reverse: renters spend less on housing compared to average household of the sample had it chosen to rent. the signiﬁcance and the same sign of the selection terms indicate that self-selection occurred in a hierarchical sorting: the positive selectivity bias indicates that those who own a house spend less compared to average household had it chosen to own. but the number of children has no eﬀect on renters’ expenditure.11 presents the estimates of shares for assets that a typical homeowner holds. After the second child. Table 2. The last two columns in Tables 2. For both renters and owners. RETIRE. having more children increases the housing expenditures of homeowners by only 3. This implies that other than in regards to these three assets. I use the estimated coeﬃcients and the variables of the model to calculate the portfolio share for each asset by the number of children and the age of the household head. I mean a household headed by a white married.

690) and has a 15 percent marginal tax rate. and its importance in the portfolio increase with the number of children living in the household. 2. As mentioned above. and the share allocated to RETIRE becomes the second largest in the portfolio. VEHICLE is the second most important asset in the portfolio when the household head is 30 years old. Second. The portfolio shares of assets calculated in Table 2. more is invested in RETIRE. 1995 and 1998 SCF. Using a 30 .160) and permanent income ($46.than age 13. The chapter examines the impact of children on the homeownership decision and the constraint of consumption demand for owner-occupied housing. As the household head reaches middle age. One contribution of this chapter is to study the eﬀect of the portfolio constraint imposed by the consumption demand for housing on the portfolio shares in housing and other assets. children have two eﬀects on the portfolio structure of households. HOUSE is the most important asset. 1992. children change the demand for each asset. The number of children has a negative eﬀect on the portfolio share for RETIRE. conditional on the tenure choice.5 Conclusion Using the 1989. The household head is willing to take risky investments and holds mean wealth ($188. At all ages. First. an increase in the number of children increases the probability that a household owns a home.11 include both of these eﬀects. this chapter investigates how the number and the age of children living in the household inﬂuence the portfolio composition of households.

Considerable research has focused on whether U. The results show that the number of children living in the household has a signiﬁcant eﬀect on the tenure choice and on the housing demand of homeowners. This result suggests that. the chapter compares the determinants of portfolio allocation of homeowners to that of renters.S. Therefore. the consumption demand for housing is higher than the investment demand. Since households cannot separate the level of consumption of housing services from their investment in housing as an asset. One direction for further research is to include the liabilities and bor31 . An important implication of the ﬁndings of this chapter is that the constraint imposed by the consumption demand for housing decreases the share of portfolio allocated to retirement wealth as the number of children in a household increases. the policies that change the cost of housing and aﬀect ownership decision inﬂuence not only the portfolio share for owner-occupied housing but also the portfolio share for retirement assets. the portfolio share for ﬁnancial assets such as interest-bearing accounts and retirement accounts decreases. the ratio of retirement accounts to total assets in renters’ portfolios does not signiﬁcantly decrease with the number of children. However. households are saving enough for retirement. As homeowners have more children.switching regression model that takes into account the consumption demand for housing. the ratio of housing to total assets increases as the number of children increases. and the portfolio share for housing increases. for households with children.

32 . The impact of children on the portfolio share for housing may be an important determinant of household mortgage debt. Most households ﬁnance their home purchases with mortgage debt.rowing constraints of households into the model of portfolio choice.

968 46.61 3.807 0.773 0.55 3.319 50.14 0. permanent income and net worth.51 2.829 116.154 0.83 0.328 206.Table 2. Notes: 1) Tabulations are weighted using sample weights.50 3.97 48.65 0.80 0.131 5.695 47.900 0.9 0. The text deﬁnes total assets.27 0.985 6.65 0.664 6.151 203.28 0. 33 . All variables are deﬁned in Appendix A.8 0.815 258.158 0.58 0.97 Source: Survey of Consumer Finances.59 0.75 0.28 0.28 0.59 0.684 92.5 0.1: Descriptive Statistics by Year 1989 Income and Assets INCOME ASSETS (Mean) ASSETS (Median) MRT Eh Demographics AGE MARRIED FEMALE NCHILD CHAGE13 HOMEOWN RISKY Number of observations % with positive wealth 1992 1995 1998 47.191 92.12 0.054 49.12 0.11 0.660 12. 2) All dollar values are reported in 1998 dollars.64 0. 1989-1998.66 0.75 0.750 0.97 48.97 48.525 101.164 0.509 0.658 222.3 0.59 0.2.

057 0.186 0. and OTHER. STOCK.072 Source: Survey of Consumer Finances.043 0.132 0.112 0.130 0. VEHICLE.043 0. 1989-1998. 2) The text deﬁnes the assets called ACCOUNT.197 0. RETIRE. HOUSE. RESTATE.067 0.076 0.196 0.415 0.047 0.Table 2.410 0.076 0.059 0. 34 .208 0.072 0.2: Mean Asset Shares by Year 1989 Portfolio Shares ACCOUNT STOCK RETIRE HOUSE VEHICLE RESTATE OTHER 1992 1995 1998 0.143 0. Notes: 1) Tabulations are weighted using sample weights.068 0.105 0.094 0.053 0.059 0.050 0.432 0.394 0.

28 9.29 68.93 1.79 64.391 Source: Survey of Consumer Finances.587 95.400 5. Notes: 1) Tabulations are weighted using sample weights.90 12.081 $30-50K 29.931 6.489 32.475 5.08 22.46 72.26 21.030 Income Below $15K 10.645 61.748 Age Under 35 35-49 50-64 Above 65 Wealth Below $50K $50K-100K $100K-250K $250-1000K Above 1000K Children CHILD0 CHILD1 CHILD2 CHILD3 22.847 15. 2) HH represents all households.22 7.195 5.078 7.72 14.38 29. 1998 Eh 1998 dollars %HH %HO HO RR All households 100 66.378 $50-100K 29.002 6.42 78.49 36.69 4.24 86.496 6.024 6.55 6.555 93.72 3.50 51.065 7.081 6.22 64.677 6.803 8.456 11.54 5.46 14.89 6.843 9.90 19.3: Expenditure on Housing.866 4.486 95. 1998.883 Above $100K 8. HO represents homeowners and RR represents renters.04 5.69 3.741 7.546 80.29 4.09 64.40 34.042 6.12 80.183 7.43 9.35 42.Table 2.16 12.764 6.17 15.77 67.263 5.03 21. 35 .973 6.564 5.438 8.976 7.72 78.293 $15-30K 22.78 7.

413 0.022 0.093 $15-30K 0.162 0.042 $50K-100K 0.165 0.086 0.052 0 0.374 0.587 0.089 0.040 35-49 0.143 0.062 Above 65 0.256 0.004 0.694 0.068 0.212 0.072 0.049 0.088 0.054 $100K-250K 0.201 0.645 0.295 0.049 0.018 0.082 Above 1000K 0.091 0.031 0.048 50-64 0.066 $50-100K 0.389 0.453 0.541 0.090 $30-50K 0.750 0.490 0.112 0.073 $250-1000K 0.061 0.251 0.002 0.102 0.083 0.608 0.025 0.069 0.147 0.047 0.039 0 0.091 0.091 0.068 0 0.172 0.192 0.086 0.4: Mean Asset Shares.011 0.078 0.040 0.205 0.097 0.535 0.129 Wealth Below $50K 0.415 0.074 0.075 Age Under 35 0.090 0.049 0.015 0.021 0 0.181 0.007 0.489 0.135 0.122 0.055 0.359 0.287 0.056 0.061 0.157 0.183 0.109 36 All households Income Below $15K 0.041 0.101 0.047 0.047 0.238 0.033 0.027 0.065 0.080 0.436 RESTATE HO RR 0.579 0 0.151 0.111 0.730 0.080 0.046 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.270 0.028 0.166 0.559 0.221 0.149 0.127 0.111 0 0.019 0.158 0.137 0. 1998 ACCOUNT STOCK RETIRE HOUSE VEHICLE HO RR HO RR HO RR HO RR HO RR 0.043 0 0.071 0 0.Table 2.051 0.064 0.281 0.062 0.032 0.092 0.055 0.056 0.132 0.083 0.445 0.234 0.022 0.047 0.077 0.020 0.401 0.149 0.199 0.059 0.135 0.759 0.226 0. .050 0 0.190 0.454 0.107 0.010 0.252 0.087 0.062 Above $100K 0.075 continued on the next page.028 0.014 0 0.054 0.630 0.046 0.017 0.112 0.122 0.089 0.293 0.485 0.019 0.260 0.213 0.162 0.128 0.064 0.078 0.

038 0.085 0.062 0.195 0.577 0. RETIRE.Table 2.117 0.222 0.115 0.495 0.038 0.026 0.087 0.045 0.088 0. STOCK.288 0. and RESTATE. 1998.070 0.055 0. 2) All dollar values are reported in 1998 dollars.471 0.069 0.074 0.040 0.098 0. VEHICLE.032 0.609 0. 3) HO represents homeowners and RR represents renters.040 0.089 0.019 0.200 0.044 0.052 0.512 Children CHILD0 CHILD1 CHILD2 CHILD3 37 Source: Survey of Consumer Finances.102 0.044 0.061 0.098 0.048 0. HOUSE.049 0. The text deﬁnes the assets called ACCOUNT.5: Mean Asset Shares.087 0.122 0.653 0 0 0 0 0.110 0.560 0. 1998: Continued ACCOUNT STOCK RETIRE HOUSE VEHICLE HO RR HO RR HO RR HO RR HO RR RESTATE HO RR 0.373 0. Notes: 1) Tabulations are weighted using sample weights. .044 0.

041 * -0.052 0.063 0.096 0.193 0.000 MTR RISKY WHITE YEAR92 YEAR95 YEAR98 Notes: 1) ** indicates signiﬁcance at 1 percent level.404 0.044 ** 0.030 ** 0.004 ** 0.080 0.072 0.153 ** 0. 38 .Table 2.102 -0.579.000 0.049 ** 0.040 ** -0.261 0.040 -0.052 ** 0.005 ** 0.747 0.042 ** 0.053 0.174 0.304 0.108 0.287 0. and * indicates signiﬁcance at 5 percent level.2.050 CONSTANT AGE AGE2 /100 MARRIED FEMALE CHILD1 CHILD2 CHILD3 CHAGE13 INCOME/10.010 2.137 0.007 0.6: Results from Probit Estimation HOMEOWN Coeﬃcient Standard Errors Marginal Eﬀects -4.137 ** 0.030 0.210 0.014 -0.118 0.005 ** 0.034 ** 0.341 0. 2) Variables are deﬁned in Appendix A.046 0.029 -0.047 ** 0.085 0. The number of observations N=13.143 0.

001 0.005 0.024 0.004 0.003 -0.001 -0.010 0.112 0.013 0.018 ** MR:+ wealth -0.012 0.003 -0.010 0.003 ** YEAR92 -0.063 0.013 0.004 0.006 0.002 0.007 -0.005 0.006 L INCOME -0.026 0.024 0.059 0.007 0.067 0.001 0.005 -0.003 0.033 0.002 0.010 0.008 0.515 0.009 0.002 0.021 0.061 0.432 0.062 0.001 -0.010 ** * ** continued on the next page.011 0.001 -0.115 0.006 0.307 0.001 ** AGE2 /100 0.006 * CHILD2 -0.001 0.002 0.003 0.029 0.006 0.019 0.003 -0.007 0.125 0.007 0.023 0.054 RETIRE Coef SE -0.006 -0.002 -0.004 ** MR:home -0.021 0.004 -0.006 -0.003 ** YEAR95 -0.001 0.003 0.049 0.006 0.022 0.004 0.002 0.007 -0.009 0.000 0.018 ** RISKY -0.006 -0.007 -0.077 0.063 0.029 0.003 -0.009 0.001 ** MARRIED -0.011 -0.004 0.012 0.056 0.027 0.063 0.069 -0.031 * STOCK Coef SE -0.007 ** CHAGE13 -0.024 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.001 * MTR -0.016 0.008 0.089 0.010 0.020 0.398 0.002 -0.092 0.190 0.032 0.026 0.023 0. .016 0.010 0.009 0.027 0.198 0.013 0.002 0.005 -0.020 0.009 0.005 0.054 ** AGE -0.006 0.002 -0.056 0.013 0.004 0.027 0.008 0.005 0.003 0.039 VEHICLE Coef SE 0.006 ** FEMALE 0.021 0.003 ** YEAR98 -0.031 0.007 0.006 ** CHILD3 -0.007 0.006 -0.037 0.002 ** L ASSET 0.020 -0.006 0.049 HOUSE Coef SE 1.008 -0.004 0.021 0.006 -0.009 -0.020 -0.004 0.001 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.003 -0.008 0.7: Results: Asset Shares and Housing Expenditure of Homeowners ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 39 ** ** ** ** * * ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * ** ACCOUNT Coef SE CONSTANT 0.008 0.Table 2.007 -0.003 0.007 -0.003 -0.008 0.000 0.021 0.001 0.455 0.005 CHILD1 -0.087 0.006 0.002 -0.007 0.023 0.008 0.005 0.

002 -0.010 0.005 * YEAR95 0.025 MR: + wealth 0.002 ** MTR -0.005 ** MR:home -0.189 0.003 0.002 0.049 -0.021 0.008 ** CHILD3 -0.234 0.094 0.204 0.011 ** 0.008 CHILD2 -0.015 0.503 0.080 ** AGE 0.004 -0.005 -0.006 -0.202 0.018 -0.012 0.008 0.025 ** RISKY -0.116 0.005 YEAR98 -0. and * indicates signiﬁcance at 5 percent level.002.018 0.002 0.036 0.017 0.006 0. VEHICLE. STOCK.068 0.2.066 0.001 0.119 0. The number of observations N=10.025 0. RESTATE.008 0.015 0.584 0.019 0. and OTHER.004 0.005 -0.025 0.004 0.393 -0.000 0.120 ** ** ** ** ** RESTATE Coef SE CONSTANT -0.158 0.001 -0.001 0.007 * L INCOME -0.024 0.053 OTHER Coef SE -0. RETIRE.004 0.007 0.005 YEAR92 0.036 Notes: 1) ** indicates signiﬁcance at 1 percent level.009 FEMALE -0.009 ** CHILD1 -0.001 0.008 0.004 -0.181 0.Table 2.177 0.004 0.007 ** * * 1.002 0.008 CHAGE13 0.002 ** 2 AGE /100 -0.003 ** L ASSET 0.003 -0.004 0.025 0.001 ** MARRIED -0.220 0. All variables are deﬁned in Appendix A.001 0. .246 0.018 0.010 0.023 0.568 0.010 0.014 0.017 0.001 0. HOUSE.015 -0.017 0. MR represents Mills Ratio.005 -0.023 0.003 0.004 0.307 0.032 0.004 -0.004 -0.052 0.043 0.002 0. 2) The text deﬁnes the assets called ACCOUNT.8: Homeowners: Continued ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 40 log Eh Coef SE * -0.024 0.025 -0.

014 0.017 0.005 0.064 ** 0.000 0.070 0.002 0.010 0.018 0.017 0.019 ** CHILD3 -0.018 0.014 0.006 -0.017 0.009 0.002 ** -0.014 YEAR95 -0.000 0.019 0.023 0.173 AGE -0.015 0.037 RETIRE Coef SE ** -0.120 0.019 -0.015 0.103 -0.011 ** 0.002 0.089 0.038 0.034 0.002 ** 0.001 -0.011 0.243 0.021 0.054 0.027 0.068 0.005 0.010 0.011 0.003 0.032 0.014 ** 0.077 0.010 0.022 L INCOME 0.015 0.010 0.059 0.004 -0.021 ** CHAGE13 -0.033 0.061 0.026 -0.025 0.002 ** MARRIED -0.154 ** 0.038 * MR:+ wealth 0.024 0.006 0.048 -0.015 -0.001 0.013 0.039 STOCK Coef SE -0.001 0.016 0.007 0.001 0.023 0.015 -0.003 0.021 ** FEMALE 0.381 0.014 0.052 0.086 0.008 -0. .001 0.013 * CHILD1 -0.029 0.035 0.015 * YEAR98 0.053 ** continued on the next page.030 0.031 0.004 0.017 CHILD2 -0.008 0.012 YEAR92 -0.079 * RISKY 0.027 0.035 VEHICLE Coef SE 2.039 0.003 ** AGE2 /100 0.028 0.097 -0.285 0.109 0.005 0.014 MR:home -0.9: Results: Asset Shares and Housing Expenditure of Renters ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** 41 ACCOUNT Coef SE CONSTANT 0.079 0.019 0.019 0.243 -0.014 0.029 0.033 0.020 0.072 0.008 0.080 0.059 0.007 0.003 0.019 0.026 0.008 -0.793 0.204 0.319 0.014 ** L ASSET -0.026 -0.022 0.012 0.020 -0.001 0.004 0.019 0.Table 2.074 0.014 0.013 0.015 0.004 ** MTR 0.012 0.051 0.007 0.011 -0.050 0.130 0.

035 -0.022 0.020 0.365 -0. RESTATE.012 CHILD3 -0. 2) The text deﬁnes the assets called ACCOUNT.365 0.001 0.038 0.029 0.030 0. HOUSE.Table 2.018 0.001 0.061 0.005 0.011 -0.036 0.014 -0.285 -0.006 ** ** RESTATE Coef SE CONSTANT -0.038 ** Notes: 1) ** indicates signiﬁcance at 1 percent level and * indicates signiﬁcance at 5 percent level.110 0.083 0.580 0.035 0.073 ** 0.109 0.003 -0.042 0.033 ** MR: + wealth -0.016 0.045 0.010 * YEAR98 -0.014 0.012 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 * MARRIED 0.020 0.010 L INCOME 0.10: Renters: Continued ** ** 42 log Eh Coef SE 4.069 0.030 0.011 CHILD2 -0. MR represents Mills Ratio.005 0.030 0.009 * YEAR95 -0.024 MR: home 0.003 ** L ASSET -0.130 * AGE 0. .005 0.004 0.173 0.027 0.073 * ** ** ** OTHER Coef SE 0. STOCK.2.054 MTR -0.017 0.004 0.021 0.011 0.004 -0. RETIRE.030 0.022 0.033 -0.315 0.004 0. VEHICLE. and OTHER.067 0.000 0.014 -0.010 CHILD1 0.002 -0.017 0. The number of observations N=3.014 -0.102 0.118 0.002 2 AGE /100 -0. All variables are deﬁned in Appendix A.062 0.012 0.125 -0.003 -0.037 0.189 0.577.009 YEAR92 -0.004 0.010 0.002 0.011 0.007 0.005 ** -0.064 0.014 0.014 0.020 -0.044 0.015 FEMALE -0.038 0.008 RISKY 0.334 0.032 0.001 0.014 CHAGE13 -0.038 0.014 -0.020 0.017 0.

094 0.043 0.056 0.037 0.043 CHILD1 0.594 0.064 0.141 0. and RESTATE.122 0.626 0. HOUSE.038 0.044 0.070 0.047 0.058 0.064 0.047 0.036 0.552 0.086 0.048 0.590 0.090 0.111 0.099 0.114 0.058 0.038 0.053 0.088 0.023 0.049 0.093 0.089 0.095 0. VEHICLE.063 0.642 0. RETIRE.102 0.054 0.043 0.033 0.056 0.055 0.053 Notes: The text deﬁnes the assets called ACCOUNT.055 0.049 0.061 0.128 0.049 0.607 0.602 0.650 0. 43 .100 0.043 0.040 0.11: Portfolio Shares for Assets by the Number of Children and Age CHILD0 AGE=30 ACCOUNT STOCK RETIRE HOUSE VEHICLE RESTATE AGE=40 ACCOUNT STOCK RETIRE HOUSE VEHICLE RESTATE AGE=50 ACCOUNT STOCK RETIRE HOUSE VEHICLE RESTATE 0.079 0.Table 2. STOCK.047 0.577 0.030 CHILD2 CHILD3 0.044 0.057 0.112 0.103 0.132 0.617 0.534 0.611 0.096 0.036 0.101 0.105 0.120 0.

Deaton [15] and Browning and Lusardi [6] give a list of empirical puzzles.1 Precautionary saving models predict that uncertainty about future income may cause households to reduce their current consumption in order to raise their stock of precautionary saving. Dynan [18] and Starr-McCluer [50] ﬁnd lit1 2 See Zeldes [58]. [32] and Carroll [9]. Yet. Skinner [48]. the standard life-cycle model suggests that households smooth consumption and spread resources across periods of high and low income. Carroll [8] shows that this kind of consumption proﬁle is consistent with a precautionary saving model in which individuals face uncertainty about their future earnings. empirical work on the strength of precautionary saving has provided mixed evidence.2 For example. In many household-level data sets. tracking the ageearnings proﬁle. Hubbard et al.Chapter 3 The Eﬀect of Precautionary Motives on Household Saving and Fertility 3. however. consumption proﬁles over age are hump-shaped. 44 . these models are able to explain some of the empirical consumption puzzles. Kimball [39]. As an extension to the traditional life-cycle model.1 Introduction Many recent studies have recognized the role of precautionary motives on household saving behavior.

For example. Most of a household’s saving motives can be grouped into one of three categories: life-cycle motives. that is. precautionary motives. this chapter extends the empirical work on precautionary saving. [10] for the details. ﬁnding an appropriate instrument. and bequest motives. 3 45 . the bequest motive includes saving to leave assets to children. It seems reasonable that these motives are aﬀected by the presence of children. Browning and Lusardi [6] and Carroll et al. By examining the implications of uncertainty on the fertility decisions of households and incorporating fertility decisions into household saving decisions. and. See Browning and Lusardi [6] and Carroll et al. household income or the age of the head might aﬀect household saving and fertility simultaneously. ﬁnally. the precautionary motive includes saving to protect the well-being of children against income ﬂuctuations. whereas Carroll and Samwick [11]. Yet the causal eﬀect might go in the opposite direction.tle or no evidence for precautionary motive. fertility might be aﬀected by uncertainty or income ﬂuctuations. the life-cycle motive includes saving for children’s education. [12] and Lusardi [44] ﬁnd more support for the precautionary motive. Furthermore. [10] suggest that the mixed results might be due to the diﬃculties in empirically testing for precautionary saving. ignoring the eﬀect of uncertainty on household composition. This chapter takes account of the fact that children are endogenous along with the The problems include proxying certainty. given precautionary and other motives.3 One problem that has not been mentioned in the literature is that all of these empirical models try to explain the eﬀect of income uncertainty on household savings. and incorporating the restrictions of the theoretical model.

retirement. Most life-cycle fertility models incorporate some types of uncertainty.7 and 4. More than 32 percent reported that ‘rainy days’ were an important motivation for saving. When disaggregated into age groups. This suggests that the relative importance of saving for each motive depends highly on the composition and the life-cycle stage of the household. Table 3.1 presents the proportion of households citing the following motives -‘rainy’ days. Wolpin [57] estimates a dynamic stochastic model of fertility within 4 See Hotz et al. This chapter also addresses a neglected topic in the childbearing literature.3). The most frequently reported reason for saving was to increase resources for ‘rainy days’ such as unemployment and unexpected needs. The proportion of households citing saving for children’s educational expenses and home purchase were 5. the eﬀect of income uncertainty on fertility over the life-cycle. all of the four reasons reveal a hump shape: saving for ‘rainy days’ peaking in the 41-50 age group. The second most frequent reason was saving for retirement. with 18 percent. [30] for a survey of life-cycle fertility models. respectively. buying a home and education of childrenas the most important reasons for saving in the 1983 SCF (data come from the panel of 1983-89 SCF and is discussed at length in section 3. saving for retirement peaking between age 51 and 60. namely. 46 .saving behavior when estimating the eﬀect of children on savings.4 For example. saving for a home purchase peaking below age 31.1 percent. and saving for the education of children peaking between age 31-40.

the time path of the husband’s income. However. and transitory shocks to the wife’s wage. Dunn [17] ﬁnds consumers respond to increases in the unemployment risk by postponing purchases of a home or a vehicle. Yet the prediction of the precautionary view of savings is not validated: income uncertainty actually reduces savings of households with either high or low wealth holdings. I ﬁnd that households with higher income uncertainty are less likely to have a child.5 Hotz and Miller [31] integrate the life cycle fertility and labor supply. The ﬁnding is consistent with previous studies that found little or no eﬀect of precautionary motive on savings. Using the data from the panel of 1983-89 SCF. 6 Becker [1] suggests that children can be viewed as durable goods yielding psychic income to the parents. have speciﬁcally analyzed whether uncertainty about earnings is a signiﬁcant factor on the choice of whether or not to have a child. In a study that addresses whether unemployment risk is an important factor in the timing of the purchase decision of durable goods. even after controlling for the fact that saving is endogenous to the fertility behavior. however. and thus the variance of income does not appear in the decision function. None of these studies.6 This chapter examines whether income uncertainty is associated with lower fertility and higher savings. Thus. treating children as a durable good the demand for which is found to respond to increases in unemployment risk (like other durable goods in Dunn.) 5 47 . this chapter can be viewed as a combination of those two prior works. This chapter also examines whether having a child has an eﬀect on Wolpin [57] presents a model in which income is stochastic but his model also assumes that households have quadratic utility. and consider a number of uncertainties such as the outcome of the contraceptive eﬀort. and does not aﬀect savings of the rest of the population. there is evidence that income uncertainty has a direct eﬀect on fertility and family size.an environment where infant survival is uncertain.

household savings. The results show that having a child appears to reduce savings of households with young heads and to increase savings of those with middle-aged heads. The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows. Section 3.2 examines both the theoretical and the empirical model. Section 3.3 describes the data set and the variables used in the empirical work. The empirical results are reported in Section 3.4, and a summary of the ﬁndings with conclusions are provided in Section 3.5.

3.2

**The Relationship between Fertility and Saving
**

Households are assumed to maximize a lifetime utility function that is

additively separable over time. The utility of household i at age t depends on the number of children, Mit , and a composite consumption good, Cit :

T

U=

t=0

β t U (Mit , Cit )

(3.1)

where β is the discount factor and T is the time of death. The household faces two decisions at each period: whether to have a child, and how much to consume. If parents give birth to a child at age t, then ∆CHILDit = 1, and = 0 otherwise. The number of children at age t, Mit , is the sum of all births until age t. The household is able to borrow and lend across time periods at a real interest rate. Savings at age t, Sit , depend on the household income, the cost of consumption good, and the cost of children. The household income is assumed 48

to be stochastic. Thus the household faces uncertainty about future income. Depending on the utility function, income uncertainty can aﬀect the fertility and consumption decisions of the household. This utility maximization problem, in general, is intractable and does not deliver closed-form solutions without imposing structural assumptions concerning the utility function. This makes deriving testable implications impossible, even for a two-period model. The construction of the model, however, shows how fertility and saving decisions can be determined simultaneously. The lack of testable implications from the theoretical model allows me to examine a general form of saving and fertility behavior. For the empirical speciﬁcation, I assume that the level of savings of a household i at time t, (Sit ), is a linear function of the variability of the household’s income (Φit ), birth of

s a child (∆CHILDit ), and a set of observable variables (Xit ) that measure s the life-cycle stage of the household. The matrix Xit includes the number of

children living in the household, permanent and transitory income and other household demographics. Permanent income is deﬁned as the expected income for year t conditional on the demographics of the household, and transitory income is deﬁned as the diﬀerence between realized and expected income for year t. Savings of a household i at time t can be thus represented as:

s Sit = γ0 + Φit γ1 + ∆CHILDit γ2 + Xit γ3 + u1it

(3.2)

where γ0 , γ1 , γ2 and γ3 are the parameters to be estimated, and u1it is an error term representing unobservable variables. 49

The precautionary saving model predicts that saving is increased by a combination of a positive third derivative of the utility function and uncertainty about the future income. Therefore, a positive value for γ1 is implied by a utility function with a positive third derivative (as with constant absolute risk aversion (CARA) or constant relative risk aversion (CRRA) utility functions). For a quadratic utility function (for which the third derivative is zero), saving behavior does not respond to income variability, and in this case, γ1 should be zero. The life-cycle model suggests that a household that gives birth to a child at time t saves less (due to an increase in necessary consumption). Households with younger heads may save even less with an additional child because their current (expected) income is less than the annuity value of their lifetime income, and the diﬀerence between their income and expenditure is even greater. Such a model suggests γ2 should be negative, and the coeﬃcient of the interaction of ∆CHILDit with the age of the household head should be positive. The childbearing decision of a fecund household is speciﬁed as a function of Φit and a set of household speciﬁc variables that aﬀect the preferences

c for a child, Xit . A household is considered to be fecund if the wife is younger

than age 49 or if the head of the household is a female younger than age 49. The decision to have an additional child is represented as

c ∗ ∆CHILDit = η0 + Φit η1 + Xit η2 + u2it

(3.3)

50

as suggested by the precautionary saving model. then they should also reduce their ‘consumption’ of children. The model is estimated using a two- stage estimation procedure described in Maddala [45]. and η1 should be negative. First.3 Data The data set used for estimation is the 1983 and 1989 panel of the SCF. and u2it is an error term representing unobservable variables.where ∗ ∆CHILDit = 1 if ∆CHILDit > 0 = 0 otherwise. Maddala [45] shows that the resulting estimates of the coeﬃcients are consistent.3).2) by OLS for all of the sample after substituting γ2 for γ2 for the fecund population ˆ and 0 for the other households. The 1983 SCF interviewed a 51 . This data set contains detailed information on household assets. liabilities. This implies that households with higher income variability are less likely to have a child. 3. income and characteristics in 1983 and 1989. where η0 . Note that the model is identiﬁed even if u1it and u2it are not independent s c and Xit includes all the variables in Xit . If consumers react to increases in uncertainty by cutting down their consumption. η1 and η2 are parameters to be estimated. Then I estimate the equation (3. I restrict the sample to the fecund population and get an estimate γ2 of γ2 by using the ˆ probit ML method for the equation (3.

includes capital gains. substantial inconsistencies are observed between reported net investments in assets and measured changes in holdings. other real estate. Total assets is the sum of ﬁnancial assets and nonﬁnancial assets. However. balances outstanding on lines of credit and loans on consumer durables. Net worth (NWORTH) is the total value of household’s assets minus its total liabilities. An oversample of 438 high-income households came from this list in 1983. which will be called SAVE1. which makes it diﬃcult to distinguish between active and passive saving. This information could be used to exclude both realized and unrealized capital gains. mutual funds. Total liabilities include mortgage debt. Keogh accounts. credit card debt. money market deposit accounts. individual retirement accounts.7 Household saving is derived as a ﬁrst diﬀerence in net worth between 1983-89. a list sample was drawn from tax information provided by International Revenue Service. In addition to a standard multi-stage area probability sample. call accounts. and this amount is divided by six to get the annual household saving. The 1983 SCF consists of a dual sample. saving accounts. business equity. home equity. 103 households and 1. and 361 of them were reinterviewed in 1989. cash value of life insurance and the later includes residential property.sample of 4. automobile loans. See Kennickell and Starr-McCluer [37] for a general description of the 1983-89 panel. bonds. trusts. other loans for property. vehicles and other real assets like art and precious metals. The ﬁrst saving measure. stocks. 497 of them were reinterviewed in 1989. certiﬁcates of deposit and saving accounts). loans. where the ﬁrst includes liquid assets (checking assets. The 1989 SCF also asked households to report major changes in asset holdings since 1983. 7 52 .

2. household demographic variables and age-interaction terms. 822 were reinterviewed in 1986 using a shorter questionnaire. 9 The income measure includes both capital and non-capital income. 8 9 Income uncertainty at- Of the 4. To exclude the capital gains. education. All values are converted to 1989 dollars using the Consumer Price Index Research Series Using Current Methods(CPI-U-RS). dummies representing asset holdings in 1983. The ﬁrst measure assumes that households have knowledge about their future income and expect their income to change over time as household characteristics change. I regress log income on age. 1986. ‘In [the preceding calendar year] how much was the total income you (and your family living here) received from all sources. The precautionary saving model predicts that income risk regarding capital income might have a diﬀerent eﬀect 53 . I kept the value of the primary residence constant.8 Income values for 1982. To remove the predictable component of income growth. year dummies. 103 households in the 1983 SCF. and 1985 are drawn from the 1986 wave of SCF which was conducted with a large subset of 1983 respondents using a shorter questionnaire.The inconsistency seems to be lower for home purchases (Kennickell and StarrMcCluer [38]). 1984. Using the panel dimension of income observations in the data. 1987 and 1988 are drawn from the 1983-1989 panel. The income measure comes from the question. before taxes and other deductions were made?’ Income of the households for 1983. I adjusted SAVE1 as follows to obtain a measure called SAVE2: whenever a household did not buy or sell a house that was the family’s primary residence. I deﬁne two measures of income uncertainty.

11 Another income variability measure.11 This measure assumes households have no information to forecast future income aside from their current income. 10 Female labor supply decisions are correlated with household fertility decisions. Therefore. The mean of the reported income over the 1982-88 period (MEANINC) is also used as another measure of income. The empirical results hold true for this measure too. However. Dummies representing the amount of assets that households hold by 1983 are included in the regression to control for this eﬀect. Most studies use instrumental variables for the uncertainty proxy using information on occupation. variability measures like VLI and VRLI might be poor proxies for uncertainty. Not excluding such expected changes biases this VLI measure of uncertainty upward. 1986 and 1989. As pointed out in Lusardi [44] and Browning and Lusardi [6]. Unfortunately. In addition. which is not reported in this chapter.10 Household permanent income (PERINC) is deﬁned as the mean of predicted income over the seven year period. 54 . households probably expect their income to change over time and know when some of these changes will happen. I control for the employment status of the spouses and female heads in the earnings regression. However. is the coefﬁcient of variation of log income. VRLI may suﬀer from the same deﬁcit if income change is due to a factor that the household has information about but is not controlled for in the income regression. education and industry. while transitory income (TRANSINC) is the mean of residuals from the earnings equation. this information is only available for 1983. using instrumental variable estimators is not useful when the ﬁrst stage instruments are poor.tributed to each household is equal to the variance of residual log income (VRLI) for the 1982-88 period. The second measure of uncertainty is the variance of log income for the 1982-89 period (VLI). ﬁnding an appropriate instrument on household saving behavior than that of earnings.

The ﬁnal sample consists of 1. I use VRL and VRLI without an instrumental variable estimator. Therefore. divorce. I also exclude those households with net worth greater than $10 million in 1983 or 1989 or for whom the absolute value of the change in net worth per year is more than $600. See Kennickell and Starr-McCluer [37] for details.12 To calculate an accurate measure of income uncertainty. Of the remaining 1. The variable ∆CHILD indiThe cut-oﬀ net worth of $10 million and saving of $600. 000 is somewhat arbitrary.e.to exclude for identiﬁcation is problematic. separation or the death of either head or spouse are excluded.13 Table 3. In the panel 1983-89 SCF. 299 households out of 1.. All variables are described in detail in Appendix B.180 households. A household is only included in the analysis if it remained intact between 1983 and 1989 (i. 000.479 experienced a major change in family composition and were dropped from the sample. However. 13 The sample design in 1983 speciﬁcally excluded households with the heads under the age of 22.) This eliminates the income variability or net worth change caused by family separation or family creation.1. those households with more than three missing or non-positive income values are dropped. 12 55 . this exclusion or a similar one is necessary when working with means which are aﬀected by outliers. The sample selection criteria for the sample are as follows. 84 were dropped because of outlying net worth or saving values and 66 were dropped because of missing income values. 035 households with the heads between the age of 22 and 88 in 1983.2 illustrates the composition of the sample in detail. households that experienced a change in composition such as marriage.

2 provides the variable means by household fertility of the fecund households. I use a probit model and a dummy variable to indicate the fertility choice instead of using a count data model. which is $37. Among fecund households. Fecund households are headed by younger persons. have higher expected income and have a higher number of young (0-6 years old) children in 1983. 18.1 percent). respectively. comparisons across the two groups of households .179 less than the mean net worth of the rest of the fecund houseOnly 3. The average net worth for households with an additional child is $82.e. had less net worth in 1983.611 in 1983. Therefore.14 I refer to the households that had a child as households with an additional child. According to the SCF data. mostly married (89.0 percent had three.are plausible: households with an additional child are younger.6 percent of the fecund households had a child between 1983 and 1989. Most of the diﬀerences in net worth and saving between the two groups can be attributed to the fact that these two groups are at diﬀerent stages of their life cycles. but had higher income between 1983 and 1989. Columns (3) and (4) of Table 3. and saved more compared to the other households in the sample. i..with and without an additional child . ∆CHILD = 1 if the household experienced at least one birth of a child.3 percent had two children and 1.3 percent of the families experienced more than one birth during that time period-2. Columns (1) and (2) provide the variable means and standard deviations of all of the households in the sample and the fecund households. fecund households are faced with higher income uncertainty than the rest of the sample. 14 56 .cates the fertility of the household between 1983 and 1989. Also.

0 percent in 1983 to 72. The homeownership proportion among households with an additional child was 53.holds.132 versus 0. Households in the bottom 25 and top 10 percent of the SAVE2 distribution face higher income variability than the rest of sample. the increase is insigniﬁcant. The measures of income uncertainty by household characteristics are given in Table 3. 000. 462.8 percent in 1989. Uncertainty estimates are greater for households with mean income below $10. According to SAVE1 and SAVE2. they saved $11. When households are grouped by SAVE1. 690. when we compare the income uncertainty of the two groups. from 67.191). The homeownership proportion for the rest of the fecund sample is higher in 1983 but compared to the households with an additional child.7 percent in 1983 and rose to 77. The same argument is true for net worth and SAVE2: households in the bottom 25 and top 10 percent of the net worth distribution in 1983 have the highest income variability. The remarkable diﬀerence in the housing tenure choice of the two groups shows the link between the decisions of having a child and purchasing a house. 000 and above $60.3. 170 and $8. the bottom 25 percent of the distribution faces a lower income variability than the households in the 25-50 percent of 57 . On the other hand. respectively. 648 and $6. Also. This suggests that households at the tails of the income distribution face higher uncertainty. households with an additional child saved more than the rest of the fecund sample. while fecund households without an additional child saved $7. we observe that households who had a child are faced with lower income uncertainty (0.5 in 1989.

regardless of the uncertainty measure. the estimates of income uncertainty decrease as the number of children living in household in 1983 increases. and their permanent income is higher. income and income variability. 0 otherwise.4 represents household saving. Almost 36 percent of the households with heads below age 31 in 1983 had a child during the following six year period. regardless of how savings were measured. households with young and middle age heads that had a child face lower income variability.4 Estimation and Results Table 3.the SAVE1 distribution. versus 16 percent of the households with heads between age 31-40. for whom it reaches its highest value. Table 3. Households who had a child between 1983-89 are diﬀerent from other households in terms of their saving. The dependent variable is ∆CHILD = 1 if the household had a child between 1983-89. For other SAVE1 groups. When grouped according to the number of children. The right-hand variables include factors that are expected to aﬀect the demand for a child. 58 . Households that had a child save more. income uncertainty is lower except the top 10 percent of the distribution. and 1 percent among the age 40 and above group. Considering the income uncertainty.5 shows the results of the probit analysis of the fertility de- cision of the fecund sample. 3. Diﬀerence between the savings of households with and without an additional child increase as the age of the household head increases. income and income uncertainty by childbearing decisions and the age of the household head.

Evaluated at the sample mean values.5 and 0. column (3) uses VRLI and mean income. the probability of having another child declines with income variability (regardless of the measure) and the number of children in each age group living in the household.1 increase in VRLI and VRL decreases the probability of having a child by 0. The analysis in column (1) uses VRLI as the income uncertainty measure and permanent and transitory income as the income measures. The results in table 3. whereas older households with small children are more likely to experience another birth. number of young (YOUNGCH). A married household is 8 to 10 percent more 59 .namely. The probability of having another child is lower for a household that has a full-time working spouse or that is headed by a white person. column (2) uses VLI and mean income and ﬁnally. homeownership in 1983 (HOWN83). race of the household head (WHITE). a dummy indicating whether spouse works full time at paid employment in 1983 (SPFULLT). respectively. PERMINC and TRANSINC). The coeﬃcient of age is highly signiﬁcant and negative. a 0.5 show that other things being equal.6 percent. marital status (MARRIED). age (AGE). indicating that being one year older reduces the probability of having another child by 1 percent. number of adults living in the household (NADULT). The signs of the age interaction terms imply that older homeowners are less likely to have a child. a household income measure (MEANINC. middle (MIDDCH) and older (HIGHSCH) children in 1983 and the interaction terms for age (AGE83×HOWN83 and AGE×YOUNGCH). an income risk measure (VRLI and VLI).

6 and 3. Columns (1)-(3) in tables 3. income (PERMINC. in terms of the eﬀect of uncertainty. a dummy indicating having 1983 net worth in the top 10 percent and bottom 25 percent (NWORTH90 and NWORTH25). is included as a right-hand variable with other factors that might aﬀect the saving behavior. compared to households headed by an unmarried person. However.5. both permanent income and mean income in columns (1) and (2) are signiﬁcant. Estimates of the saving equations are presented in tables 3. a self-described expectation to leave a bequest (BEQUEST83). The predicted probability of having a child.likely to have another child. 60 . the probability of having a child seems to increase with income. age interaction terms (AGE×NCHILD and age×∆CHILD) and income uncertainty interaction terms (VRLI (VRL)×NWORTH25 and VRLI (VRL)×NWORTH90). The top 10 percent and bottom 25 percent net worth holdings in 1983 are included to address the saving behavior of the wealthy and the not wealthy. namely. the number of adults and children living in the household (NADULT and NCHILD). the change in the number of adults between 1983-1989 (∆NADULT). ∆CHILD.6 and 3. the behavior of the wealthy and the not wealthy are diﬀerent than the rest of the population. TRANSINC and MEANINC). age of the head (AGE). a measure of income uncertainty (VRLI and VRL). Finally.7 use the same income and uncertainty measures as columns (1)-(3) in table 3.7 for SAVE1 and SAVE2. Similarly. the income uncertainty interaction terms show whether or not . transitory income in column (1) has a negative eﬀect and mean income in column (3) is insigniﬁcant.

500 less than the rest of the population as a result of an increase in income uncertainty. which is 0.7 do not the support the idea that households save a higher fraction of transitory income. the results in Table 3. Changes in the number of adults between 1983 61 . Income uncertainty reduces savings of the households in the top 10 percent and bottom 25 percent of the wealth distribution and does not aﬀect the rest of the population. The results in Table 3. around $7.6 and Table 3. The estimated coeﬃcient of the propensity to save out of transitory income is 0. respectively. which is 0.The results for two measures of savings are quite similar (SAVE1 in Table 3.6 show that households in the top 10 percent of the wealth distribution and with VRLI of 0.7). For example.162. and it is signiﬁcantly lower than the estimated propensity to save out of permanent income.447. regardless of the measure.6 and SAVE 2 in Table 3.24 in column (1) of Table 3. evaluated at the sample average of VRLI. let us look at the eﬀect of the number of adults living in the household. Both SAVE1 and SAVE2 reduce with the number of adults living in the household.6.500 less than the rest of the population whereas households in the bottom 25 percent of the wealth distribution save $3. Saving also increases with income.132-$8. However.000 more than the rest of the sample. households in the top 10 percent of the wealth distribution save almost $11.162 save about $15.34. Before we examine the eﬀect of children on savings. Having 1983 net worth in the top 10 percent is associated with higher levels of SAVE1 and SAVE2 in all speciﬁcations.

Households with children save less when the household head is below age 35 and save more above that age.6 and 3. and the fertility decision is modeled as an endoge- 62 . the sample is restricted to only fecund households. age does not aﬀect the savings behavior of those without children. Also. The overall eﬀect of having an additional child on household savings depends on the age of the head: households with heads younger than age 29 save less compared to households with heads age 29 and older. When we control for permanent income as in column (1) of Tables 3. however being one year older and having an additional child increases savings. This chapter also estimates average savings of households who did not have a child between 1983-89 and compares it with what they would have saved if they had chosen to have a child. households expecting to leave a bequest save signiﬁcantly more (around $12. The same is true for the number of children living in the household. we observe that the eﬀects of the children and age interaction terms decrease but do not disappear.7. Controlling for the number of children already living in the household. do not aﬀect SAVE1 but appear to reduce SAVE2. This result highlights the importance of the interaction between household composition and the age of the household head. For this.555-$12. That is another impact of children on household savings. however. Having an additional child reduces savings.and 1989.796 more) than household that do not expect to leave a bequest.

297-4. The empirical results suggest that income uncertainty directly aﬀects the probability of having a child.5 Conclusion This chapter estimates the eﬀect of the precautionary motive on house- hold fertility and savings by relating income uncertainty to the changes in the number of children and household net worth. depends on the age of the household head. In estimating this eﬀect. average SAVE1 of the households that did not have a child is around $12.695-13. even after controlling for several demographic characteristics. however. Overall. Finally.nous switching model. I take into account the fact that fertility decisions are endogenous to household saving decisions.133 according to the results of the three regressions in Tables 3.8.066 less if they had chosen to have a child. implying that younger households save less whereas older 15 See Maddala [45] for the models with self-selectivity. This ﬁnding suggests that the overall eﬀect of children on household saving is negative. The results show that households would have saved around $2. 63 . changes in the number of children and children already living in the household reveal a signiﬁcant eﬀect on household savings. 3. Income uncertainty actually decreases savings of the households with high or low wealth holdings and does not aﬀect the saving behavior of the rest of the population.6.15 The results are given in Table 3. The direction of the response.

At the same time. Household composition is an important factor of life-cycle savings. 64 . the age eﬀect on savings disappears. the ﬁndings are not consistent with the predictions of the precautionary saving model that agents faced with uncertainty about future income increase their savings. After controlling for the number of children living in the household and the expectation of leaving a bequest. The main ﬁnding of this chapter is consistent with the life-cycle theory of saving and consumption.households save more with an increase in the number of children.

016 0.192 0.345 0.017 0. retirement.000 Source: Survey of Consumer Finances.206 0.047 0.111 0.000 0.122 0.047 0.289 0.041 Children 0.326 0.057 0.S.383 0. 1983 All By Age Below 31 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 70 and over Rainy Days Retirement Home 0.273 0. buying home and education of children respectively.230 0.004 0.323 0. Number of observations: 1035. Observations are weighted to reﬂect the U.010 0.1: Saving Motives by Age Groups.117 0.362 0.250 0. Notes: The table reports the proportion of households citing the selected motives as the most important reason for saving as ‘rainy days’.052 0. population as a whole.011 0.065 0. 1983-1989.176 0. 65 .Table 3.

460 0.135 0.7 0. The table reports means of the variables.334 0.001 0.672 0.2: Descriptive Statistics by Household Fertility Decision SAVE1 SAVE2 MEANINC PERMINC NWORTH AGE EDUC WHITE MARRIED NCHILD YOUNGCH MIDDCH HIGHSCH ∆CHILD NADULT BEQUEST HOWN83 HOWN89 VRLI VLI All HH 7699 6080 37668 36339 140628 45.424 0.9 0.407 0.725 0.456 0.191 0.891 0.189 38.437 0.845 0.197 ∆CHILD = 1 11170 8690 38852 41210 82611 30.490 0.725 0.791 1.132 0.624 0.537 0.747 0.289 0.246 0.780 0.180 0.120 0.516 2.112 2.372 0.297 0. All dollar values are in 1989 dollars.670 0.302 0.4 13.151 N 1035 509 422 87 Note: ∆CHILD=1 if the household had a child between 1983 and 1989 (0 otherwise).1 12.938 0.Table 3. Observations are weighted using the sample weights.4 0.055 0.092 2.186 2.795 0. All variables are described in Appendix B.788 0.169 Fecund HH ∆CHILD = 0 8282 7648 6868 6462 43109 44122 40171 39921 112861 119790 36.1 0.1. 66 .556 0.734 0.537 0.162 0.778 0.6 13.767 1.652 0.8 12.487 0.645 0.

0 0.1312 (0.1559 0.2210) (0.1056 0.2740) (0.2642) $30.265 25.056 25.2738) (0.725 25.3230) $127.2281 (0.169 (0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1027 0.5512) SAVE2 Below (-$739) 25.999 37.9087) NWORTH Below $10.2269) (0.057-30.0977 (0.265-52. All variables are deﬁned in Appendix B.518-314.2330 (0.125 25.7 0.10.492 15.3234 (0.2579) $7.0 0.4881) (0.000 14.000 12.1716 (0.3333) (0.2086) Above $314.3362 0.4472) (0.492 10.1996) (0.1527 (0.0 0.4780) $ 10.0 0.2713 (0.0902 (0. 67 .7517 25.9431) (0.2973) Note: Standard deviations are given in parentheses.5530) NCHILD No Children 55.489 25.126-24.0 0.2 0.078) 25.3279) SAVE1 Below (-$1.162 (0.0 0.078)-1.000-29.426) MEANINC Below $10.2117 (0.818 10.1912 0.3524) (0.0 0.2449) (0.232 25.1715 (0.7 0.1296 (0.6129) (-$739)-1.726.446 10.1855 (0.1284 (0.1095 0.5066) 1 Child 17.0 0.3: Mean Income Uncertainty by Household Demographics % HH VRLI All 100 0.2374 (0.5836) (0.446 15.6786) (0.1889 (0.5245) 0.2391 (0.2458) 0. VRLI is the variance of residual log income.2920 0.1330 0.1363 (0.4940) (0.Table 3.0988 (0.1462 (0.2274) (-$1.818 15.2657) Above $60.2 0.2825) (0.2171) 2 and more 27.0 0.2299 0.1194 (0.0 0.0998 0.2013 0.1803 0.0 0.1451 0.1707 (0.999 36.1436 0.6357) (0. and VLI is the variance of log income.2371) $1.233-12.1269 (0.3376) VLI 0.1.4092) (0.4232) $10.1088 (0.3334) $52.1794) Above $30.0 0.1184 0.1832 (0.490-7.1468 0.1808) (0.1479 (0. Observations are weighted using the sample weights (N=1305).6504) $10.0 0.000-59.2290 0.3980) Above $24.433) 0.2134 0.4963) 0.0 0.5537) $ 1.0 0.

2920 6. VRLI is the variance of residual log income.487 0. All variables are deﬁned in Appendix B.049 5.0841 56.2376 VLI 0.5 4.331 23.528 4.272 9.1727 3.390 52.1839 0.2261 Note: ∆CHILD=1 if household had a child between 1983-1989 (0 otherwise).769 0.0812 0.1774 0.422 0.1 4.Table 3.1369 0.1507 20.220 34.812 6.884 36.9 11.912 0. Income and Income Uncertainty by Age and Fertility AGE Below 31 ∆CHILD 0 1 31-40 0 1 41 and above 0 1 %HH SAVE1 SAVE2 PERMINC VLRI 12.5 24.636 27.4: Savings.8 10. and VLI is the variance of log income.3 8.628 0.899 0.3064 0.1408 0.1. 68 .619 3.257 43.477 40.

410 0.418 0.980 -0.565 1.060 -2.0541] -0.768 0.228 WHITE -0.175** 0.047 -0.998 -0.35 0.068 YOUNGCH -1.545 0.14 0.178** 0.006 TRANSINC/1000 -0.208** 0. .0577] (3) Coef StdE 1.331 HIGHSCH -0.134 0.0786] [-0.1297] [ 0.369 [-0.0787] [-0.2375] -2.203** (1) Coef StdE 1.063 0.0845] [-0.225** 0.132** 0.3338] [-0.368 -0. YAGE is YOUNGCH×AGE.564 HOWN83 2.131 0.953** 0.0001] [ 0.31 0.001* [ 0.001 MEANINC/1000 MARRIED 1.20 Pseudo R2 0.024** 0.0001] [ 0.1038] [-0.0675] -0.543 0.208** 0.019** 0.384** 0.077 0.749** -0. and HAGE is HOWN83×AGE.717* -0.0094] [-.073 SPFULLT -0.154** 0.019** 0.225** [-.886** 0.020** [-.001 1.0829] [-0.024** 0.714 NADULTS 0.627** 0.0099] [-.3340] [-0.448 0.020** -0.049 Likelihood -152.5: Probit: Fertility Decision of Fecund Households (2) Coef StdE 1.236 [-0.0920] 1.060 [-0.0550] [-0.001** 0.027** 0.0008] [-.021** -0.166** 0.130** 0.232 HAGE -0.130 0.0553] [-0. and * indicates signiﬁcance at 10 percent level.130** 0.063 0.024** Note: Coef reports coeﬃcients and StdE reports standard errors. ** indicates signiﬁcance at 5 percent level.0594] 69 CONSTANT AGE VLRI VLI PERMINC/1000 0.229 -0. Marginal eﬀects are given in the brackets.Table 3.047 [-0.1037] [-0.0612] [0.060 -160.420 YAGE 0.369 -0.175** 0.627** 0.566 [-0.1041] [-0.1040] [-0.062 -160.0844] [-0.357 0.366 -0.397 0.720* -0.844 MIDDCH -0.392** 0.001 1.0613] 0.409 0.623** 0.000 0.385** 0.389 0.31 0.0426] -0.186** [-.886** 0. Number of observations N=509.0625] -0.0095] [-.154** 0.000* 0.00 0.

Number of observations=1. and * indicates signiﬁcance at 10 percent level.22 -21218 5702 ** -63955 26900 ** -131 306 -131 305 -185235 83042 ** -186203 83131 ** 6412 2952 ** 6474 2950 ** CONSTANT VRLI VRL NWORTH25 NWORTH90 VRLI× NWORTH25 VRLI× NWORTH90 VLI× NWORHT25 VLI× NWORHT90 AGE ∆CHILD AGE ×∆CHILD PERMINC TRANSINC/1000 MEANINC/1000 NADULTS NCHILD AGE× NCHILD BEQUEST83 ∆ NADULT R2 255 53 ** -7132 3916 ** -24479 11818 ** 698 319 ** 12916 5780 ** -7860 5120 * .035. . ** indicates signiﬁcance at 5 percent level.22 257 53 -7244 3908 -24818 11791 707 319 12952 5786 -7845 5112 .6: Regressions of SAVE1 on Income Uncertainty with Endogenous Fertility Decision (1) Coef StdE 19212 19254 2250 2252 343 3520 26829 12463 ** -21824 6015 ** -71146 29321 ** 2180 2441 -500 3222 36903 11508 ** -464 3230 37290 11447 ** -22195 5914 ** -71517 28439 ** (2) Coef StdE 15228 19373 (3) Coef StdE 15240 19296 2258 2365 70 -208 294 -134139 93086 4256 3304 343 102 ** 240 59 ** -7554 3838 ** -22542 11934 * 646 320 ** 12654 5751 ** -7664 5177 .Table 3.22 ** ** ** ** ** Note: Coef reports coeﬃcients and StdE reports standard errors.

18 -19347 5780 ** -53719 26977 ** -161 306 -160 305 -175653 82756 ** -177076 82940 ** 6075 2966 ** 6149 2969 ** ** ** ** ** * CONSTANT VRLI VRL NWORTH25 NWORTH90 VRLI× NWORTH25 VRLI× NWORTH90 VLI× NWORTH25 VLI× NWORTH90 AGE ∆CHILD AGE×∆CHILD PERMINC/1000 TRANSINC/1000 MEANINC/1000 NADULT NCHILD AGE× NCHILD BEQUEST83 ∆NADULT R2 221 56 ** -8168 3935 ** -23842 11737 ** 679 320 ** 11712 5766 ** -10090 5329 * . .Table 3. Number of observations=1.18 Note: Coef reports coeﬃcients and StdE reports standard errors.7: Regressions of SAVE2 on Income Uncertainty with Endogenous Fertility Decision (1) Coef StdE 23200 19365 1501 2042 712 3511 24093 12070 ** -20171 6222 ** -61036 29489 ** 1583 142 32041 2137 3237 11432 ** 182 3244 32484 11382 ** -20204 6023 ** -60981 28519 ** (2) Coef StdE 17753 19528 (3) Coef StdE 17718 19448 1550 2091 71 -257 293 -126939 91894 3945 3267 292 100 ** 210 63 ** -8479 3843 ** -21818 11811 * 624 320 * 11545 5760 ** -9888 5374 .035. ** indicates signiﬁcance at 5 percent level. and * indicates signiﬁcance at 10 percent level.18 223 57 -8264 3929 -24089 11699 686 319 11736 5772 -10074 5321 .

8: The Eﬀect of a Change in the Fertility Decision on SAVE1 Fecund HH E(SAVE1|∆CHILD=0) E(SAVE1|∆CHILD=1) N (1) (2) (3) 13. 72 .672 8.375 422 422 422 Notes: E(SAVE1|∆CHILD=0) denotes average SAVE1 of the households that did not have a child between 1983-1989 and E(SAVE1|∆CHILD=1) denotes average SAVE1 of the households had they chosen to have a child.133 12.527 10.Table 3.154 10.695 12.

First. According to the 1996 National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey (NPSAS). and 80 percent reported using some current income. While the percentage was lower for those in the lower income group (income below $35. about 65 percent reported using some previous savings. and the average amount of their support was about $3.000).000) it was 98 percent (Presley and Clery [47]). According to the 1987 NPSAS. Understanding the eﬀect of ﬁnancing children’s college education on household saving behavior is important at least for three reasons.1 Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to analyze an important life-cycle saving motive: saving for children’s college education.Chapter 4 Saving for Children’s College Education 4. for those in the higher income group (income above $70. 65 percent of the parents contributed a positive amount to their children’s college costs as a gift. 90 percent of dependent undergraduate’s parents contributed to their children’s college costs. parents contribute a signiﬁcant amount to their children’s college costs. Of those contributing to their children’s college costs.900 (Choy and Henke [14]). Using the 1983-86 SCF. Gale and Scholz [23] estimate that the annual ﬂow of parental 73 .

441. However. The college ﬁnancial aid system imposes an implicit tax on the savings of households that are potentially eligible for ﬁnancial assistance. Using alternate but also plausible assumptions. According to their estimation. the results in Edlin [19] and Feldstein [22] depend on a variety of assumptions such as the number of children enrolled in college. anticipated college costs and the amount of aid that is received and so on. the ﬁnancial aid tax rate on capital income can be as high as 50 percent. Feldstein [22]. Gale and Scholz [23] convert the ﬂow of college support to a stock of wealth using steady-state assumptions. According to Edlin [19] and Feldstein [22]. To date. this chapter examines the eﬀect of anticipated educational expenses on household savings. which is 12 percent of the aggregate net worth in 1983. as shown in Long [43]. families who save for college reduce their eligibility for ﬁnancial aid. contributions to children’s education yield a wealth of $1. Long [43] ﬁnds that the eﬀect of the ﬁnancial aid tax on asset holdings is smaller than the eﬀect in the prior literature. Using the data on actual expenditures on children’s college education.contributions totaled about $35 billion. Dick and Edlin [16] use data on ﬁnancial aid awards to calculate a marginal tax rate and ﬁnd that families with children attending average-priced colleges face a ﬁnancial aid tax ranging from 2 percent to 16 percent.5 billion. Edlin [19]. Second. Dick and Edlin [16] and Long [43] have recently examined the adverse eﬀect of the means-tested student aid process on household asset accumulation. 74 . the focus has been on calculating the ﬁnancial aid tax and measuring its negative impact on household asset accumulation.

Behrman et al.Third. and test predictions of their model using the veterans sample of white male twins and the sample of their adult oﬀspring. they analyze the inﬂuence of size and ordinal position of siblings on the like- 75 . Speciﬁcally. child care and bequests have been used as the qualitative measure. with and without equal access to ﬁnancing for education. Tomes [53] empirically tests whether parental bequests of wealth and human capital investments represent substitute forms of parental transfer. The results of his model conﬁrm that investments in children’s human capital. Steelman and Powell [51] investigate the relationship between the structure of the sibling group and parental ﬁnancial support for children’s college education. Without unequal access to schooling. the quality-quantity model of fertility behavior assumes that parents have preferences both for the expenditure per child and the number of children. are negatively related to subsequent levels of inheritance. The analyses in Willis [55] and Becker and Lewis [2] show that parents with few children have substituted quality for quantity. The estimates in Tomes [53] conﬁrm the prediction of the quantity-quality model that bequests and children’s income are negatively related to family size. The estimates in Tomes [54] show that family size and children’s schooling are jointly determined. diﬀerent forms of parental expenditure such as children’s schooling. In the empirical investigation of this model. they ﬁnd an inverse relationship between family size and children’s schooling. [3] develop a model relating children’s schooling to family size. which are measured by children’s income and years of schooling. Using the National Longitudinal Survey of the High School Class of 1972.

1 Given the rapidly rising cost of college tuition. 2 See Browning and Lusardi [6] for a survey of the literature. Their ﬁndings also show that the importance of each saving motive depends on the age and the life-cycle stage of the household. Their results show that the number of siblings signiﬁcantly decreases both the likelihood and amount of parental contribution to children’s college education. using Japanese household data. education and so on.1 percent of gross saving. Steelman and Powell [51] argue that later-born children are more favored relative to earlier-born ones due to the family life cycle. ordinal position alters parental support in favor of later-born children. Parents have more resources when later-born children reach college age. 1 76 . saving for ‘rainy days’ and saving for bequests and inter vivos transfers. A number of studies have analyzed motives for saving such as saving for retirement. This chapter also uses the amount of parental expenditure on children’s college education as a measure of child quality.2 percent of gross saving. The results of their analysis show that retirement and precautionary motives account for 25. bequests. It would be of interest to investigate this eﬀect on the level of parental support using the information on household savings.lihood and amount of parental support.7 and 28. Moreover. The data set used in the chapter does not provide information on the ordinal position of the child attending college. respectively. an analysis of ﬁnancing college education and family size highlights an important aspect of the quality-quantity model. Saving for children’s education is the third most important saving motive after saving for retirement and ‘rainy days’ and accounts for 9. Horioka and Watanabe [29] analyze the amount of gross saving and dissaving for each of twelve motives including saving for retirement. emergencies.2 In addition.

5 percent of households list ‘rainy days’ as the most important reason for saving. taking vacations and so on. One exception is Souleles [49]. and buying durable household goods.3 percent list retirement and 5. While 35. The sample includes households with nonretired heads and spouses (The SCF and restrictions on the sample are discussed in Section 4. 77 . buying a home and other reasons as the most important reason for saving. income ﬂuctuations and bequests have motivated substantial research. Souleles [49] examines consumption of households as they pay for the college expenses of their children. medical and dental expenses.’ is the most cited reason.’ home purchase and children’s education. Using the Consumer Expenditure Survey. ‘rainy days’ (emergencies and unemployment). Table 4. saving for ‘rainy days.1 shows the percentage of households reporting that they cannot or do not save. The SCF contains a question that asks the household’s most important reason for saving.3 percent list education as the most important reason for saving.Although saving for retirement. 15. education of children. The last column of Table 4. His results show that households smooth their consumption into the academic year and do not cut their consumption in the 6-9 months before the academic year starts. the motive of saving for children’s education has not been much investigated.3). ‘rainy days. Other reasons for saving include saving for ordinary living expenses.1 shows the percentage of households in the 1983 survey citing retirement. The table provides the responses of the sample used in this chapter. His ﬁndings are consistent with the life-cycle theory of consumption and saving. Among the households saving for retirement.

a higher percentage of the households with one or two children report saving for children’s education than those with three or more children (8. An almost equal number of households with one or two children and with three or more children report saving for children’s education as the most important reason.4 percent in the top 25 percentile report saving for retirement. among households with 1 or 2 children. 24.’ retirement and other reasons show a systematic trend relative to the total number of children. while only 2. the percentage of households saving for retirement increases with wealth.7 percent of those in bottom 25 percentile of wealth distribution report saving for retirement. For example. As the number of children increases. Table 4.3 percent vs. The percentage of households in the 25-75 percentile of the wealth distribution citing ‘rainy days’ as the most important saving motive is higher than the percentage of households in the lower and higher wealth groups. Among the households in the bottom 25 percentile of the wealth distribution. Controlling for the number of children. the eﬀect of the number of children on the percentage of households reporting saving for children’s education disappears. and the percentage of households citing retirement as the most important reason increases. 5. This table shows that the number of 78 .8 percent). the percentage of households citing ‘rainy days’ and other reasons as the most important reason decreases.The percentage of households saving for ‘rainy days.1 also shows the percentage of households citing each saving motive by the number of children and net worth in 1983. Among the households in the higher wealth groups.

The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows. The results are consistent with the predictions of the Life-Cycle Theory of saving and consumption that households save in advance for children’s college expenditures. Further. We continue to observe this eﬀect even after controlling for the household wealth. Using the actual college expenses reported in the SCF. I introduce life-cycle savings into the quality and quantity model of fertility and derive predictions concerning the eﬀect of expected educational expenditures on household savings. and the amount of savings increases with the age of the household head. The data from the 1983-86 SCF is used to estimate two equations in which the dependent variables are household savings and educational expenses.children has a signiﬁcant eﬀect on saving motives. In this chapter. Section 4.000 more than it would had it not expected to have any college expenses. and they save in advance for these expenses. The results show that an increase in the number of children decreases the per child college expenditures paid by households by approximately by $317 in 1986 dollars. I also obtain predictions concerning the simultaneous determination of family size and college expenditures per child. the eﬀect of anticipated educational expenses on household savings are estimated. Other things constant.000 in children’s college expenses saves $8. households save for their children’s college expenditures. the empirical ﬁndings provide an answer to why saving is concentrated among wealthier households. a household with a 43 year old head expecting to have $2. Households with higher income and wealth expect to have higher educational expenses. Also.2 an79 .

2) (4. Section 4. a couple earns y1 . Parents choose ﬁrst-period consumption. Section 4.alyzes a model of the quality-quantity interaction of fertility with household savings. n) subject to c1 = y1 − A c2 = y2 + (1 + r)A − πen 80 (4.3 describes the 1983-86 SCF. In the second period. Section 4. For simplicity. Finally. 4. In the ﬁrst period.4 provides a framework for the empirical analysis of the interaction between savings and college expenditures.1) . c2 . second-period consumption. and the number of children to maximize U = U (c1 .3) (4. the return on accumulated assets (1 + r)A and second period wage income y2 are divided between consumption c2 and paying for children’s college education e.6. e.2 A Model of Saving for College This section considers a world in which individuals (parents) live for two periods. a summary and conclusions are presented in Section 4. and the family consumes together c1 and saves A to earn interest at the rate of r. chooses to have n children. investment to each child’s education. per capita college investment is assumed to be equal for all n children.5 estimates the determinants of college expenditures and uses these estimates to investigate the eﬀect of expected college expenditures on household savings.

The ﬁrst-order conditions are −U1 + (1 + r)U2 = 0 −πnU2 + Ue = 0 −πeU2 + Un = 0 (4. If the utility function is CES with equal elasticity of substitution between all arguments. 81 .7) where U1 and U2 are the marginal utility of consumption in the ﬁrst and second periods. This expression implies that an increase in educational expenses decreases the second-period consumption relative to ﬁrst-period consumption. Ue is the marginal utility of children’s education. e.8) where γ is the elasticity of substitution. y2 + (1 + r)A − πen (4. Since the right-hand side is a constant.6) (4. respectively. Substituting (4.where π is the price of education. n) (4.4) where the three choice variables are accumulated assets (A).5) (4. y2 + (1 + r)A − πen. which results in an increase in accumulated assets.5) can be written as follows: 1 y1 − A = (1 + r) γ−1 . equation (4. a decrease in second-period consumption is likely to decrease the ﬁrst-period consumption.3) into (4.2) and (4. and Un is the marginal utility of family size. educational expenses (e) and the number of children (n).1) yields the following unconstrained maximization problem: U = U (y1 − A.

3 The combination of a positive third derivative of the utility function and uncertainty about future income reduces consumption in the ﬁrst period. 3 82 . The empirical speciﬁcation of the model described below controls for precautionary saving while it estimates the eﬀect of educational expenses on household savings. In this case.7). Solving the consumer’s problem yields the following equation −U1 + (1 + r)E1 [U2 ] = 0 where E1 represents the expected marginal utility of consumption in the second period conditional on all information available in ﬁrst period. If the third derivative is positive. This condition shows that greater uncertainty is linked to greater saving in the ﬁrst period when the third derivative of the utility function is positive. E1 [U2 ] exceeds U2 [E1 ].To extend the analysis to account for uncertainty. let us assume that the second period wage income y2 is stochastic.6) and (4. When uncertainty about future income is assumed. household saving can be associated with two diﬀerent saving motives: saving for uncertainty about future income (precautionary saving) and saving for children’s education. This interdependence implies an inverse relationship between the number of children and educational expenses. The interaction of the quality and quantity dimensions of choice is reﬂected in the fact that the marginal costs of education and family size depend on the level of each other in equations (4. then U2 is a convex function.

4 The college expenditure variable (COLLEXP) captures the quality dimension associated with the expenditure per child. SAVE1.3 Data The empirical analysis uses data from the 1983-1986 SCF. the data does not diﬀerentiate between children away in college or living on their own and with former spouses. In 1986. Unfortunately. The ﬁrst measure. 4 83 . I use the number of children attending college and the number of years they attended to normalize college expenditures. liabilities. respondents were asked if they had any children attending college from 1983-85 and if they had any college expenses on the behalf of their children. The fertility variable (CHILD) is the number of children of either the respondent or spouse. 2. The respondents were also asked how many years of college their children completed from 1983-85. savings and other control variables. The variables used in the empirical analysis are classiﬁed into four groups: fertility. The college expenditure variable is the outlay of college education per child. The 1983 survey contains interviews from a random sample of 3. income and demographic characteristics. including those not living in the household. This variable includes children of previous marriages living with former spouses. college expenditure. Household savings are measured in two ways.824 households and a high-income supplement of 438 households. The SCF contains detailed information on household assets.822 of these households were reinterviewed. In 1986.4.

credit card debt. a second measure of savings (SAVE2) is used. educational expenditures and fertility decisions. certiﬁcates of deposit and saving accounts). Household permanent income (PERINC) is deﬁned as the predicted income in 1985 obtained from regressing the log of total income on age. Other controls include variables that aﬀect savings. mutual funds. I estimate household permanent and transitory income. Using the reported household income for 1982. where the ﬁrst includes liquid assets (checking assets. the value of the primary residence in 1983 is kept constant. other real estate. Transitory income (TRINC) Total assets is the sum of ﬁnancial assets and nonﬁnancial assets. Keogh accounts. These are age. gender of the household head and other household characteristics. business equity. home equity. Total liabilities include mortgage debt. gender and the educational level of the household head. 5 84 . other loans for property. saving accounts. cash value of life insurance and the later includes residential property. and whether or not the household head is willing to undertake risky investments). In order to exclude unrealized capital gains on the primary residence. balances outstanding on lines of credit and loans on consumer durables. automobile loans. and the demographic characteristics associated with tastes (urban residence. reasons for borrowing and saving. individual retirement accounts. education. Net worth (NWORTH) is the total value of household’s assets minus its total liabilities. loans. marital status.5 SAVE1 includes the realized and unrealized capital gains. trusts. stocks. call accounts. money market deposit accounts. vehicles and other real assets like art and precious metals. bonds. 1984 and 1985. and the educational level of the spouse. race. race. 1983.is the change in net worth between 1983 and 1986 divided by the number of years. Whenever a household did not buy or sell a house that was the family’s primary residence.

000 are excluded to avoid the diﬃculty of modeling the relationship between educational expenditures and savings. Table 4. For households with nonzero college expenditures.811. the typical household saves $5.296. Permanent and transitory incomes in 1985 are $25.005.2 presents summary statistics of the variables used.is the diﬀerence between reported income in 1985 and estimated permanent income. the average expenditure is $2.3 presents average household savings and college expenses by 85 . Estimating the relationship between savings and educational expenditures is complicated for families who experienced a major change in composition such as marriage and divorce. Households with retired household heads are assumed to be in the life-cycle stage of dissaving. The average household net worth in 1983 is $81. The head of the median household reports that it is all right to borrow money for educational expenses.690 households. The sample is restricted to families that did not change composition from 1983-86. households with family income above $100. The sample is also constrained to include only the households with nonretired household heads and their spouses if the head is married.1 gives a detailed deﬁnition of the variables used in the estimation of the model. it saves $4. Table 4.931 and $3. Appendix C.806 and according to second measure. According to the ﬁrst measure of savings. Also.575 in 1986 dollars. The average household in the sample is headed by a forty two year old married high school graduate and includes two children. These restrictions leave us with a sample containing 1. respectively.

The data show that households continue to save while children are in college. However.10) . As the number of children in college increases. However. Except the households in the bottom 25 percentile of the net worth distribution with two or more children attending college. household savings increase with the number of children in college. The data show that college expenses increase with net worth.3 also breaks down savings and college expenses by the number of children in college and net worth in 1983. Savings of households with children in college increase with net worth.the number of children attending college. 4. 25-75 percentile and top 25 percentile) spend less per child as the number of children attending college increases. the number of children in college is inversely related to the expenditure per child as predicted by the quantityquality model. college expenditures per child decreases. household savings increase with the number of children in college. Table 4. more than twice as much the households in the same wealth group with one child in college.077.4 Empirical Speciﬁcation The simultaneous relation between educational expenses (e∗ ) and house- hold savings (a) is speciﬁed as follows: e∗ = δ1 ni + x1i κ1 + u1i i ai = η2 e∗ + x2i κ2 + u2i i 86 (4.9) (4. Households in all three wealth groups (bottom 25 percentile. Households in the top 25 percentile of the wealth distribution with two or more children in college save on average $18.

The theoretical model derives predictions concerning the eﬀect of the completed lifetime fertility on the educational expenses. is obtained to estimate the expected educational expenses.where x1i and x2i are the vectors of exogenous variables. The expected completed family size is given by E[n] = exp(x3i κ3 + φi ) (4. u2i ) are assumed to be randomly drawn from a 2-variable distribution with E(ui ) = 0 and E(ui ui ) = . δ1 < 0. and φi is an age speciﬁc factor. The structural disturbances ui = (u1i .6 Information on educational expenses is available only if the household has a child attending college and if the household spends a positive amount The model is also estimated using the predicted number of children obtained from the Poisson model. the completed fertility. and κ1 and κ2 are the vectors of parameters to be estimated. κ3 is a vector of parameters. i. Another prediction of the model is that educational expenses increases household savings. i. n. 6 87 . The model predicts that an increase in the number of children decreases the anticipated and actual educational expenditure. the data on household fertility gives the number of children ever born to a household headed by a person of a certain age. η2 > 0.11) where x3i is a vector of demographic characteristics. However. Therefore. I use estimates of the parameters of a Poisson regression model to construct the completed fertility proﬁle when the household head is 55 years old. The empirical results hold true for this measure of fertility too.e.e.

households headed by high school and college graduates have fewer children than those headed by persons without a high school degree. The right-hand variables include household demographics expected to aﬀect the number of children: namely.4 contains estimates of the Poisson regression model of the fertility equation. 4. I estimate a Tobit model for the educational expenditures of the households with children attending college. a dummy indicating whether the spouse works for a full time job in 1983 (FSPOUSE). gender (FEMALE). 88 . An increase in the permanent income increases the number of children. However. Married households have more children. Estimates of the coeﬃcients in Table 4. Then e∗ is observed to be ei if e∗ > 0 and gi = 1.4 are consistent with previous studies. and a dummy indicating whether the household does not live in a SMSA area (NSMSA). age (AGE). Let gi = 1 indicate that the household has a child attending college. race (BLACK) and the education of the household head (HIGHSCH and COLLEG).5 Estimation and Results Table 4. gi = 0 indicate that none of the children are attending college. martial status (MARRIED). permanent income (PERINC).on ﬁnancing her education. First. I obtain expected i i educational expenses as follows. Then I use the estimates of those parameters to construct the proﬁle of anticipated educational expenses. and education of the spouse (HIGHSCHSP and COLLEGSP). Controlling for permanent income.

As predicted by the quantity-quality model. namely. and 252 reported contributing a positive amount to their children’s college expenses. The partial derivative of the expected college expenditure with respect to the number of children is calculated at the mean values of the estimated number of children (CHILD) and other explanatory 89 . age (AGE) and education (COLLEG) of the household head. I use the estimates of the regression to predict the completed household fertility when the household head is 55 years old (CHILD).9). the amount of college expenditure decreases with the number of children. a dummy indicating whether or not the household head believes it is all right to borrow money for college expenses of children (BEDUCAT) and dummies indicating the most important reason for saving (SRETIRE. households with spouses working full-time and with high school and college degrees have fewer children. SCHEDUC and SHOME). Table 4. -$187).03. 338 had a child attending college between 1983-86. Of the 1.690 households in the sample. Households with children attending college between 1983-86 are included in the estimation of the Tobit regression. The right-hand variables also include other factors that might aﬀect the college expenditures. and permanent and transitory income (PERINC and TRINC). The instrumental estimate of the coeﬃcient on the number of children is almost three times as large as the OLS estimate (-$459 vs. SEMERG.5 reports estimates of the equation (4. The average CHILD is 3.controlling for marital status. Columns 1 and 2 contain the results with CHILD and columns 3 and 4 contain the results with CHILD.

ˆ σ (4.6 presents actual and estimated college expenses by household net worth in 1983. respectively. The amount of contribution to children’s college education increases with wealth.789 per child.variables as follows: ˆ ˆ δ1 ∗ Φ((δ1 ni + x1i κ1 )/ˆ ). Estimated contributions of the households with children in college are very close to the actual expenses. ˆ Using the approximation. I use estimates of the Tobit model and the expected completed fertility. The average COLLEXP is $1.6 show SAVE1 and SAVE2 for households with 90 . Households with heads who believe that it is all right to borrow for educational expenses have higher expenditures. Households citing saving for children’s education as the most important reason for saving spend more than other households. Table 4. Φ is the standard normal cumuˆ ˆ lative distribution. and δ1 and κ1 are the estimates of δ1 and κ1 . the average contribution of the top 25 percentile is $3. The last two columns of Table 4.436. Households citing saving for retirement and buying a home as the most important reason for saving spend less on children’s education. While the average contribution of households in the bottom 25 percentile of wealth distribution is $1.5 show that increases in permanent and transitory income increase the level of expenditures for educational expenses.093 per child. CHILD.12) where σ is the estimate of the standard error. to calculate the expected college expenditures (COLLEXP ). an additional child results in a drop of $317 in expected college expenditures at the mean of values. Estimates in Table 4.

The estimates of SAVE1 and SAVE2 are very similar. the coeﬃcient of expected college expenditure (COLLEXP ) is negative and the coeﬃcient of age interaction term (AGE×COLLEXP ) is positive. In estimates of both equations. Households in the bottom 25 percentile of wealth distribution save signiﬁcantly less than those without children in college. and columns 3 and 4 contain the estimates for SAVE2.6 show that wealthier families contribute more to their children’s education and continue to save while their children are in college.3. indicating that an increase in expected college expenditure raises 91 . a dummy indicating whether or not the household had a windfall greater than $3. permanent and transitory incomes (PERINC and TRINC). and the number of children attending college between 1983-86 (NCHCOLL).and without children in college.000 between 1893-86. However. which are retirement and emergencies (SRETIRE and SEMERG). a dummy indicating whether the household head is willing to take risky investments (RISKY). Columns 1 and 2 contain the estimates for SAVE1. Explanatory variables include age (AGE). Similar to Table 4. nonurban residence (NSMSA) and dummies indicating household net worth in 1983 (NWORTH25 and NWORTH75). gender (FEMALE) of the household head. the data in Table 4. households with greater wealth save more if they have a child attending college.7 presents the eﬀect of expected college expenditures on household savings. Interestingly. Table 4. two other reasons for saving. households in top 25 percentile of the wealth distribution save almost ﬁve times more if they have a child in college.

By typical. saving for emergencies does not signiﬁcantly aﬀect savings. had it not expected to contribute a positive amount.savings after age 28. Also. households with heads who are willing to undertake risky investments save $7. household savings are calculated in ﬁve year intervals. Permanent income increases both SAVE1 and SAVE2.398 less than those in the middle of the wealth distribution . Figure 4.1 shows the eﬀect of the age of the household head on SAVE1. showing that households save approximately 39 percent of their transitory income.493 more and households in the top 25 percentile save $11. the ﬁgure ﬁrst calculates savings of a typical household expecting to contribute $2. households in the bottom 25 percentile of the wealth distribution save $2. For each age group. However.833 more than other households.000 to college expenses and compares it to what it would have saved. Unfortunately. the number of children attending college does not signiﬁcantly decrease household savings. This result does not necessarily mean that households are not saving for children’s college education. The eﬀect of transitory income on both measures of savings is positive and signiﬁcant. Finally. The saving behavior of a household with a child in the ﬁrst year of college in 1983 can be quite diﬀerent from a household with a child ﬁnishing up college in 1983. Using the estimates in Table 4. Households citing saving for retirement as the most important reason save more. I mean a household in the 25-75 percentile of the wealth distribution. the data does not have detailed information on the years that children were attending college between 1983 and 1986. Finally.7. citing a motive other than retirement or emergencies as the most 92 .

000 college expenses increase with age. This striking result is due to the assumption that this household is assumed not to cite saving for retirement as the most important reason. The eﬀect of expecting to contribute $2000 on household savings is $8.important saving motive.894. If we assume. If the household does not expect to contribute to children’s college expenses. 4. The results in Table 4. Saving motives change with age and household composition. I also obtain predictions 93 . The results show that savings of the household with an anticipated $2.7 show that the eﬀect of saving for retirement on household saving is positive and raises household savings by $4.6 Conclusion This chapter examines the eﬀect of saving for children’s college edu- cation on household savings. The household is assumed to have average permanent and transitory incomes for their age group.000 at the age of 43. the eﬀect of anticipated college expenses on savings is positive and signiﬁcant. This ﬁgure only shows that controlling for other factors. I introduce life-cycle savings into the quality and quantity model of fertility and derive predictions concerning the eﬀect of educational expenditures on household savings. headed by a male.000 between 1983-86. savings decline to zero at the age of 43. and it increases with the age of the household head. who is not willing to undertake risky investments and did not receive a windfall greater than $3. this will increase its saving by $4. for example.894. that this household starts saving for retirement when the household head is 43 years old.

and the change in net worth excluding the capital gains on primary residence. I analyze the eﬀect of educational expenditures on two diﬀerent measures of savings. The results are also consistent with the ﬁndings in Souleles [49]. the diﬀerence between savings of households with and without college expenses can be as high as $8. this present chapter examines the eﬀect of college expenditures over the life-cycle and ﬁnds that most of the saving done by wealthier households can be attributed to saving to ﬁnance their children’s college expenses. The model uses the expected expenditures and other control variables that aﬀect savings to estimate an equation of savings.concerning the simultaneous determination of family size and college expenditure per child. Using the actual college expenditures reported in the 1983-86 Survey of Consumer Finances. which show that despite large college expenses.000 at the age of 43. households smooth consumption into the academic year and do not cut consumption in the 6-9 months before the academic year starts. I estimate expected expenditures on children’s college education. By focusing on household savings. which are the change in net worth between 1983 and 1986. Other things constant. The main ﬁnding of this chapter is that households save in advance for children’s college expenditures. 94 . The amount of savings for college expenses increases with the age of the household head. The results are consistent with the predictions of the life-cycle theory of saving and consumption that households save in advance for expected expenses.

223 0.070 0.010 0.027 0.079 0.013 0.377 0.102 0.064 0.391 0.543 0.345 SEMERG SCHEDU 0.383 0.310 0.058 0.032 25-75p 75 to 100p Source: Survey of Consumer Finances.212 0.042 0.1: Saving Motives By the Number of Children SRETIRE 0.066 0.000 0.009 0.440 0. SRETIRE: saving for retirement.404 0.Table 4.043 0.082 0.351 0. 1983.244 0.057 0.369 0.087 0.042 0.000 0.341 0.060 0.455 0.049 0.029 0.023 0.’ SCHEDU: saving for the education of children.401 0. The number of observations N=1690.057 0.033 0.120 0.004 0.016 0.016 95 0.339 0.337 0.469 0.279 0.009 0.007 0. Notes: This table reports the proportion of households citing the selected motives as the most important reason for saving.074 0.043 0.380 NOSAVE 0.049 0.023 HH 0.037 NWORTH 0-25p 0 1-2 3 or more 0 1-2 3 or more 0 1-2 3 or more 0.053 SHOME 0. SHOME: saving to buy a home. SEMERGE: saving for ‘rainy days.355 0.341 0.330 0.115 0.397 0.381 0.053 0. .063 0.153 CHILD 0 1-2 3 or more 0.002 0.264 0.027 0.471 0.068 0.382 0.035 SOTHER 0.000 0. SOTHER: saving for other reasons and NOSAVE: cannot/does not save. Tabulations are weighted using the sample weights.278 0.083 0.021 0.

86 0.28 0.08 0.13 35397.75 TRINC 3296.28 RISKY 0.32 2817.45 Source: Survey of Consumer Finances.86 PERINC 25931. All variables are described in Appendix C. 1983-86.68 AGE 42. Notes: Tabulations are weighted using sample weights.43 14.17 0.36 SAVE1 5806.35 WINDF 0.53 0.47 SAVE2 4811.65 0.11 12491. Deviation CHILD 2.08 161860.37 NSMSA 0.13 0. All dollar values are reported in 1986 dollars. 96 .2: Descriptive Summary of Variables Variables Mean Std.32 15127.43 HIGHSCH 0.14 COLLEXP> 0 2005.48 BEDUCAT 0.33 MARRIED 0.43 COLLEG 0.24 0.1.50 BLACK 0.41 33402.Table 4.47 2. The number of observations N=1690.24 0.10 FEMALE 0.64 NWORTH 81575.

Tabulations are weighted using sample weights. 97 . 1983-86. All dollar values are reported in 1986 dollars. The number of observations N=1690.Table 4. Notes: NCHCOLL shows the number of children attending college between 1983-86.3: Savings and College Expenses by the Number of Children in College SAVE1 SAVE2 COLLEXP NCHCOLL 0 1 2 or more NWORTH 0-25p 5041 6661 12357 4206 5277 10317 0 2236 1657 0 1 2 or more 0 1 2 or more 0 1 2 or more 3762 4961 1829 5804 6032 7707 4870 7745 18077 3705 5005 1695 4348 5305 5695 4551 5312 15577 0 905 797 0 1882 951 0 2937 2355 25-75p 75-100p Source: Survey of Consumer Finances.

435 0.134 ** 0.038 0.032 0.022 0. and * indicates signiﬁcance at 10 percent level. Variables are described in Appendix C. 1983-86.038 0.389 0.Table 4.145 ** 0.106 0. 98 . Notes: ** indicates signiﬁcance at 5 percent level.717 0.48 0.090 ** -0.461 0. Error -1.293 Source: Survey of Consumer Finances.078 0.126 ** -0.062 ** 1.964 0.128 ** 0.43 -2971.062 ** 1690 2.1.408 0.004 ** -0.039 ** -0.930 0.4: Poisson Regression: Number of Children CONSTANT AGE FEMALE FSPOUSE HIGHSCH COLLEG BLACK MARRIED NONSMSA PERINC/1000 HIGHSCHSP COLLEGSP N OBS Mean of dependent variable Log L R2 Coeﬃcient Std.057 ** -0.097 ** 0.

1983-86.1 1063.7 ** 1391.0 9.4 1589. All variables are described in Appendix C.9 ** -4903.9 -45.7 1467. Error Coeﬃcient Std.5 18. Notes: ** indicates signiﬁcance at 5 percent level.9 ** 67.5: Tobit Estimates of College Expenditure Equation Coeﬃcient Std.5 472.70 Source: Survey of Consumer Finances.7 * 997.1 611.3 2444.1.6 133.9 ** -187.746 -2429.5 22.0 409.6 -407.4 23.0 0.Table 4.8 468.4 92.7 338 .8 473.8 ** -1103.9 557.3 134.8 232.2 88. Error -601. and * indicates signiﬁcance at 10 percent level.8 -372.6 -1124.5 -1335.2 2524.1 -4936.9 -458.1 72.0 ** 2905.1 550.6 1452.2 19.4 555.8 -7.4 10.81 CONSTANT AGE CHILD CHILD PERINC/1000 BEDUCAT SRETIRE SEMERG SCHEDUC SHOME COLLEG TRINC/1000 SIGMA N OBS Proportion of + observations Log L ** ** * ** ** * ** ** -2429.3 609.6 408.0 ** 72.9 2912.5 551. 99 .

CHCOLL=1 if the household has a child attending college between 1983-86 (0 otherwise).93 3093 COLLEXP 1278 1445 1614 1960 2219 3064 SAVE1 SAVE2 3800 3732 2802 2989 5570 4256 8864 6712 3731 3599 15904 12709 Source: Survey of Consumer Finances.02 0 7.65 0 1. 1983-86. Notes: Tabulations are weighted using sample weights.6: College Expenditures and Savings by the Number of Children in College NWORTH CHCOLL 0-25p 0 1 25-75p 0 1 75-100p 0 1 %HH COLLEXP 23.29 1436 44. The number of observations N=1690.Table 4. 100 .52 0 5. All dollar values are reported in 1986 dollars.59 2334 17.

.9 1728.2 ** -1284.0 382.2 5041.1 3139.3 2016.5 0.6 ** -9329.8 3199.8 761.4 ** 336.9 11080.0 7833.0 -790.8 .5 1325.8 2783.8 3349.3 ** 10.3 * 3028.4 2434.9 139.1 4.2 3422. 1983-86.0 2460.3 2954.3 ** 309.2 3.5 2493.8 163.1.8 382.107 SAVE2 Coeﬃcient Std.6 -315.0 -11398.8 -615.7 ** 0.4 2538.6 388.9 2474.6 1516.0 5607.1 2796.8 4. All variables are described in Appendix C. a Predicted value of the variable from Tobit regression of educational expenditures.6 407. Error ** 22327.2 1820.7: Eﬀect of Anticipated College Expenses on Savings ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** 101 CONSTANT AGE AGE2 PERINC/1000 TRINC/1000 a COLLEGEXP a AGE×COLLEGEXP SRETIRE SEMERG NWORTH25 NWORTH75 WINDF RISKY FEMALE NSMSA NCHCOLL R2 SAVE1 Coeﬃcient Std.5 2409.0 1642.5 .0 1271.Table 4.3 10.3 0.6 2026.1 * 4679. Error 22618.5 -1310.8 160.3 0.8 140.6 10944.8 ** 6820.2 -10. Notes: ** indicates signiﬁcance at 5 percent level.1 4894.3 416.084 Source: Survey of Consumer Finances.2 3. and * indicates signiﬁcance at 10 percent level.2 ** -9.3 -774.

736 − • • • | 23 −1. 791 − ? savings of a household with $2000 college expenses. • savings of a household with no college expenses. 068 − | 28 | 33 | 38 | 43 • | 48 | 53 Age • • −5.Figure 4.1: The Importance of Educational Expenses on Savings SAVE16 10. 045 − • 3. 102 .

Appendices 103 .

taxable interest. royalties. Components of income such as other gains and IRA distributions that are not reported in the SCF are set to zero. rents. and age of the household head and the spouse. alimony received. The SCF collects information on many components of total income. All married couples are assumed to ﬁle a joint return. including wage and salaries. In determining ﬁling status and personal exemptions.1 Estimating Marginal Tax Rates The marginal tax rate of each household is computed using the tax Form 1040 and the information on sources of income. dividends. state and local income taxes. The sum of household income from all sources gives the adjusted gross income (AGI).Appendix A Appendix for Chapter 2 A. The SCF does not contain information on some possible deductions such as medical expenses. Subtracting the standard deduction and exemptions from the AGI 104 . Thus. number of dependents. job expenses and moving expenses. I use the information on marital status. households are assumed to claim standard deductions instead of itemizing deductions. tax-exempt interest. business income and farm income.

The diﬀerence in total tax liabilities divided by 100 gives the marginal tax rate.once with AGI and then with AGI minus 100.yields the taxable income. =1 if two children are living in the household. I then apply the appropriate tax rate schedule to calculate the household’s tax liability. it is the opportunity cost of owning a house. See Appendix A.3. AGE MARRIED FEMALE NCHILD Age of the household head in years. Number of children younger than age 22 who live in the household. Marginal tax rate of the household. Consumption demand for housing. =1 if three or more children are living in the household. CHILD0 CHILD1 CHILD2 CHILD3 =1 if no children are living in the household. 105 .1. =1 if the household head is married.2 Name Deﬁnition of Variables Description Estimated earnings of the household head and spouse at the age of 45. A. =1 if only one child is living in the household. The marginal tax rate is computed by running this method twice . =1 if the household head is a single female. See Appendix A. For homeowners. INCOME ASSET MTR Eh Total assets of the household.

Observed earnings are assumed to diﬀer from permanent income in two ways. εpi is an unobservable variable measuring characteristics such as ability (εpi 2 has zero mean and variance of σs ). A. YEAR92 YEAR95 YEAR98 =1 if the household is included in the 1992 survey.CHAGE13 HOMEOWN WHITE RISKY =1 if the youngest child is older than age 13. =1 if the household head is white. and c(AGEi ) is a cohort eﬀect. earnings 106 . =1 if the household is included in the 1998 survey. =1 if the household is included in the 1995 survey.1) where Zi is a vector of observable characteristics. This measure is deﬁned as predicted earnings at the age of 45 plus an individual-speciﬁc eﬀect. =1 the household is a homeowner. βp is the parameter vector.3 Estimating Permanent Income The measure of permanent income is constructed using the method outlined in King and Dicks-Mireaux [40]. (A. and the second is transitory changes in earnings. The permanent income Y for individual i is deﬁned as Ln Yi = Zi βp + εpi − c(AGEi ). Thus. =1 if the household head reports that he is willing to take risky investments. The ﬁrst is due to the movements along the age-earnings proﬁle over the life cycle.

The same procedure is used for spouses.2) where e(.in year t are Ln Eit = Ln Yi + e(AGEit − 45) + uit . Following King and Dicks-Mireaux [40]. εpi and c(AGEi ). c(AGEi ). ˆ (A. (A. Since age-earnings proﬁle e(AGEit − 45) and c(AGEi ) cannot be identiﬁed for this estimation.2) and estimate the resulting earnings equation using each wave of SCF separately. and this provides the ˆ estimate βp . with one exception. I assume that the cohort eﬀect. I calculate the minimum variance estimator of εpi using εpi = α(εpi + uit ). Their permanent income is adjusted for 107 . I combine (A. The selectivity-adjusted earnings functions are estimated for the sample consisting of individuals with nonzero earnings. and is assumed to be uncorrelated with εpi ). Instead. ˆ is zero. King and Dicks-Mireaux [40] use outside data to impose a cohort eﬀect. For heads with zero ˆ earnings. permanent income is calculated from Zi βp .5. I need the estimates of βp .1) and (A.3) 2 2 2 where α = σs /(σs + σu ). to get an estimate of εpi . I assume that α = 0. Finally.) measures the log of the age-earnings proﬁle. AGEit is the age of the respondent and uit is the log of the transitory component (uit has zero mean 2 and variance of σu . Earnings equations are estimated separately for household heads and spouses. To construct an estimate of permanent income.

non-participation at diﬀerent stages of the life cycle as follows: ˆ Yiw = Yi P rob(Ei > 0). and the probability of nonzero earnings is computed for each spouse from the probit estimates. 108 . ˆ where Yi is the permanent income estimate. Household permanent income is the sum of the estimates of permanent income for the head and spouse.

AGE Age of the household head in 1983.1 Name SAVE1 Deﬁnition of Variables Description First diﬀerence in net worth between 1983-89 divided by 6. 109 . Household net worth in 1983.Appendix B Appendix for Chapter 3 B. VRI MEANINC PERMINC TRANS NWORTH NWORTH25 Variance of log income. Mean of the residual income from the earnings regression. SAVE2 First diﬀerence in net worth between 1983-89 controlling for capital gains in home prices divided by 6. NWORTH90 =1 if the household in the 10 percent of the net worth distribution in 1983. VRLI Variance of residual of log income from the earnings equation. Mean of reported income between 1982-88. Mean of the predicted income from the earnings regression. =1 if the household in the bottom 25 percent of the net worth distribution in 1983.

EDUC WHITE MARRIED NCHILD YOUNGCH MIDDCH HIGHSCH ∆CHILD Years of education of the household head in 1983. =1 if the household head is planning to leave a bequest. Number of children between age 7-12 in 1983. =1 if the household head is white. Number of children between age 0-6 in 1983. =1 if the household had an additional child between 1983-89. Change in the number of adults between 1983-89. Number of children living in the household in 1983. =1 if the spouse is working fulltime in 1983. NADULT ∆NADULT BEQUEST HOWN83 HOWN89 SPFULLT Number of adults living in the household in 1983. =1 if the household owns a home in 1989. =1 if the household owns a home in 1983. 110 . Number of children between age 13-18 in 1983. =1 if the household head is married.

=1 if the household head is female. Diﬀerence between net worth in 1986 and 1983 divided by 3. =1 if the household head has a high school degree. Diﬀerence between total income in 1985 and permanent income.Appendix C Appendix for Chapter 4 C. 111 .1 Name CHILD COLLEXP Deﬁnition of Variables Description Number of children ever born to the household head. NWORTH NWORTH25 Net worth in 1986. Diﬀerence between net worth in 1986 excluding the capital gains on primary residence and net worth in 1983 divided by 3. =1 if the household is in the bottom 25 percentile of the wealth distribution. NWORTH75 =1 if the household is in the top 25 percentile of the wealth distribution. Amount of expenditure on the college education of a child in 1986 dollars. AGE FEMALE HIGHSCH Age of the household head in 1983. PERINC TRINC SAVE1 SAVE2 Predicted 1985 household income.

=1 if the household head is married. =1 if the spouse is working at a full-time job. Number of children attending college between 1983-86. SRETIRE SEMERGE SCHEDU =1 if retirement is the most important reason for saving. NSMSA NCHCOLL =1 if the place of residence is not in a SMSA. COLLEGSP FSPOUSE BLACK MARRIED RISKY =1 if the spouse has a college degree. 112 . WINDF =1 if the household received a windfall greater than $3.000 between 1983-86. SHOME =1 if saving to buy a home is the most important reason for saving. =1 if the household head is African-American. =1 if emergencies are the most important reason for saving. SOTHER =1 if the household cited another reason as the most important reason to save. BEDUCAT =1 if the household head thinks it is all right to borrow for education. HIGHSCHSP =1 if the spouse has a high school degree. =1 if the household head is willing to undertake risky investments.COLLEG =1 if the household head has a college degree. =1 if children’s education is the most important reason for saving.

1996. 113 . Review of Economics and Statistics. Lewis. Journal of Political Economy. and Paul Taubman. 1973. [6] Martin Browning and Annamaria Lusardi. 1998. theories and micro facts. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [2] Gary S. Becker and Gregg H. Pollak. 100(2):390–429. Family re- sources. Becker. On the interaction between quantity and quality of children. Household saving: Micro A general equilibrium model of Journal of Political Economy. Robert A. Journal of Political Economy. 1989.S. Behrman. Bertaut. 81(2):S279–S288. 80(2):263–275. Stockholding behavior of U. taxes. [4] James Berkovec and Don Fullerton. family size. A Treatise On the Family. 1992. [5] Carol C. and access to ﬁnancing for college education. 34(4):1796– 1855. 97(2):398–419. housing. [3] Jere R. Journal of Economic Literature. households: Evidence from the 1983-1989 Survey of Consumer Finances. and portfolio choice. 1991.Bibliography [1] Gary S.

Journal of Monetary Economics. Finance and Economics Discussion. Samwick. 41(1):41–71. [13] Ngina S. [10] Christopher D. How important is precautionary saving? Review of Economics and Statistics. Krane. Brueckner. Carroll and Andrew A. 1997. Staﬀord. The nature of precautionary wealth. and Spencer D. 80(3):410–19. How does future income aﬀect current consumption? Quarterly Journal of Economics. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1999. 89(2):377–380. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics. Buﬀer stock saving and the life-cycle/permanent income hypothesis. American Economic Review. 112(1):1–56. Technical Report 15. [9] Christopher D. 1997. 15(2):159–180. Dynan. Unemployment risk and precautionary wealth: Evidence from households’ balance sheet. Carroll. Portfolio choices of parents and their children as young adults: Asset accumulation by African-American families. [8] Christopher D. [12] Christopher D. 1997. Chiteji and Frank P.[7] Jan K. Carroll and Andrew A. Samwick. 1999. Carroll. 1994. 1998. Consumption and investment motives and portfolio choice of homeowners. Karen D. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 109(1):111–148. [11] Christopher D. 114 . Carroll.

Journal of Public Economics. 115 . Washington. [16] Andrew W. F. Technical Report 48. 1998. [18] Karen Dynan. Unemployment Risk. Dick and Aaron S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. [17] Wendy E. Miller. 101(6):1104–13. Robin. 1992. 1993. and Durable Goods Purchase Decisions. IL. Dunn. Parental ﬁnancial support for undergraduate education. [20] Marjorie Falvin and Takshi Yamashita. [19] Aaron Edlin. University of California. New York: Oxford University Press. Precautionary Saving. Hinsdale. 1992. 7(2):143–158. Edlin. Choy and Henke R. Understanding Consumption. Fama and Merton H. The implicit taxes from college ﬁnancial aid. Is College Fiancial Aid Equitable and Eﬃcient? Journal of Economic Perspectives. San Diego. Deaton. How prudent are consumers? Journal of Political Economy. Dryden Press. 65(3):295–322. U. Technical Report 1998. Department of Education. The Theory of Finance. Technical report. 1993.S. [15] Angus S. Finance and Economics Discussion. [21] Eugene. National Center for Education Statistics. 1997.[14] Susan P. 1972. Owner-occupied housing and the composition of the household portfolio over the life cycle.

Journal of Urban Economics. and Dongwook Kim. [23] William G. Vernon Henderson and Yannis M. Vernon Henderson and Yannis M. 1983. [25] Allen C. 21(2):228– 241. A model of housing Journal of Urban Economics. 8(4):145– 160. [28] J. Goodman and Masahiro Kawai. 1994. Journal of Economic Perspectives.[22] Martin Feldstein. [29] Charles Yuji Horioka and Wako Watanabe. American Economic Review. Hendershott. [24] Allen C. and demand for housing: New evidence. Ioannides. Goodman. 1995. Owner occupancy: Investment vs consumption demand. 85(3):552–66. 20(1):83–102. Haurin. 12(2):214–237. Housing decisions of American youth. Permanent income. 73(1):98–113. Why do people save? A micro-analysis of motives for household saving in Japan. 1987. American Economic Review. 1990. [26] Donald R. 35:28–45. Ioannides. Intergenerational transfers and the accumulation of wealth. Patric H. College scholarship rules and private saving. 116 . tenure choice. 1997. 1994. Demographics of individual housing demand. 107(442):537–552. Journal of Urban Economics. 1982. Regional Science and Urban Economics. Economic Journal. hedonic prices. Gale and John Karl Scholz. [27] J.

Income variability. 1988. Jonathan Skinner. [31] V. Handbook of Population and Family Economics. 117 Journal of Urban . chapter The Economics of Fertility in Developed Countries. 43(4):381–399. 9(1):97–105.[30] V. Ioannides. 36(4):620–630.Willis. and Stephen P. Journal of Political Economy. An empirical analysis of life cycle fertility and female labor supply. 1997. 29(2):219–229. Joseph Hotz. 2(3):145–159. Dynamics of the composition of household asset portfolios and the life cycle. [35] Nancy A. Jianakoplas and Alexandra Bernasek. 1998. 1999. pages 275–347. Amsterdam: Elsevier. An empirical investigation of alternative approches to estimating the equilibrium demand for housing. 1981. Miller. Pre- cautionary saving and social insurance. 1992. Household saving and portfolio change: Evidence from the 1983-89 SCF panel. uncertainty and housing tenure choice. Regional Science and Urban Economics. [36] Richard Deitz John Robst and KimMarie McGoldrick. [37] Arthur B. Economics. Joseph Hotz and Robert A. [33] Keith Ray Ihlanfeldt. [32] R. 1997. Are women more risk averse? Economic Inquiry. Kennickell and Martha Starr-McCluer. 56(1):91–118. Jacob Alex Klerman. Review of Income and Wealth. Applied Finance. 103(21):360–399. and Robert J. [34] Yannis M. 1995. Glenn Hubbard. Econometrica. Zeldes.

The impact of asset-tested college ﬁnancial aid on household savings. 1983. Kimball. King and Jonathan I. American Economic Review. [41] Mervyn A. Econometrics. [39] Miles S. Asset holdings and the Journal of Business and Economic Statistics. 15(3):452–63. 92(366):247–267. 8:357–382. On the importance of the precautionary saving Journal of motive. King and L-D. 69(2):155–193. 88(2):449–453. 2001. 1998. Cambridge University Press. Leape.S. Dicks-Mireaux. 1982. Retrospective reporting of household wealth: Evidence from the 1983-89 Survey of Consumer Finances. 1990. [43] Mark Long. 118 . Econometrica. 1997. Economic Journal. [40] Mervyn A. 1998. Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. [42] Lung-Fei Lee and Robert P. Precautionary saving in the small and in the large. L.[38] Arthur B. Estimation of some limited dependent variable models with the application to housing demand. life-cycle. Maddala. [45] G. Trost. 58(1):53–73. Kennickell and Martha Starr-McCluer. Journal of Public Economics. 1978. [44] Annamaria Lusardi. Wealth and portfolio composition: Theory and evidence.

77:185–207. Samwick. Health insurance and precautionary savings. Journal of Monetary Economics. Journal of Political Economy. 1997. [49] Nicholas S. 1996. [48] Jonathan Skinner. [50] Martha Starr-McCluer. American Economic Review. 54:844–855. 1989. National Center for Education Statistics. American Sociological Review. Journal of Public Economics. Presley and Suzanne B. [53] Nigel Tomes. 89(5):928–958. [47] Jennifer B. Middle income undergraduates: Where they enroll and how they pay for their education. U. Sund´n and Brian J.S. Washington. 1998. 88(2):207–211. inheritance and the intergenerational transmission of inequality. Household portfolio allocation and over the life cycle. Technical Report 6185. Poterba and Andrew A. Risky income. The family. Technical report. Souleles. Clery. [51] Lala Carr Steelman and Brian Powell. 2000. 2001. 1988. 86(1):285–295. American Economic Review. College tuition and household savings and consumption. Gender diﬀerences in the alloe cation of assets in retirement savings plan. 1981. Surette. [52] Annika E. Department of Education.[46] James M. Acquiring capital for college: The constraints of family conﬁguration. life cycle consumption and precautionary savings. National Bureau of Economic Research. 119 . 22(2):237–55.

Recent trends in the size distribution of household wealth. Optimal consumption with stochastic income: Deviations from certanity equivalence. 19(2):209–234. 1998. Journal of Economic Perspectives. [55] Robert J. A model of fertility and children’s schooling. [58] Stephen P. 12(3):131–150. Economic Inquiry.[54] Nigel Tomes. Wolﬀ. Willis. Wolpin. 92(5):852–874. Quarterly Journal of Economics. [57] Kenneth I. 1984. Journal of Political Economy. A new approach to the economic theory of fertility behavior. 1981. 104(2):275–98. Journal of Political Economy. An estimable dynamic stochastic model of fertility and child mortality. [56] Edward N. 1989. 1973. Zeldes. 120 . 81(2):S14–S64.

she accepted an assistant professor position at Purdue University. Eﬀective August 2002. She received her Bachelor of Arts degree in Business Administration from Boˆazi¸i University in January 1994. the daugh¨ ter of Onder Yilmazer and Necla Yilmazer. g c She began her graduate studies at Boˆazi¸i University. 1970. IN 47901 This dissertation was typed by the author. 121 . B Lafayette. where she received a g c Master of Arts degree in Economics in June 1997. Permanent address: 834 Main Street Apt. She later continued her education at the University of Texas at Austin.Vita Tansel Yilmazer was born in Izmir. Turkey on June 2.

- Read and print without ads
- Download to keep your version
- Edit, email or read offline

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

CANCEL

OK

You've been reading!

NO, THANKS

OK

scribd

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->