$rmt4oea PDF

Proceedings of the Second American Academic Research Conference on Global Business, Economics,
Finance and Social Sciences (AAR17New York Conference) ISBN: 978-1-943579-13-6

New York-USA. 28-30, April 2017. Paper ID: N713
A Financial Literacy Survey among University Students in Greece
Nikolaos D. Philippas,
Professor of Finance,
Department of Business Administration,
University of Piraeus, Greece.
Founder of Greek Financial Literacy Institute.
E-mail: philipas@unipi.gr
Vasiliki A. Tzora,
PhD Candidate,
Department of Business Administration,
University of Piraeus, Greece.
E-mail: vtzora@gmail.com
___________________________________________________________________________
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to measure the level of financial literacy among university
students in Greece. Data was acquired from students attending two different departments
(Business Administration and Statistics & Insurance Science) at University of Piraeus, mostly
between 18-22 and 23-28 years of age. This group of students was targeted because they have
been exposed to higher education with financial matters and it was able to be compared to
average young population. Focus was given to young Greek population since the future
generation should have high level of financial literacy in order to overcome any financial crisis
and preventing from happening again. The results of the data were analyzed based on gender,
age, department, year of study/semester, parental income, parental income reduction, parental
employment, parental education, work experience, keep record of expenses and holder of bank
account. Descriptive, cross-tabulations, chi-square tests and logistic regression analyses were
used in completing the analysis. Relationships between financial literacy and students’
characteristics were found to be significant. Overall, the results showed that male students are
more financial literate than female students. Further, students involved in Business and
Statistics studies scored lower in financial knowledge questions at “absolute” terms (e.g.
answered correctly all 5 questions). Moreover, students’ financial fragility was examined and
results revealed that students who are more financial literate are able to bear with an
unexpected financial need.
___________________________________________________________________________
Key Words: Financial Literacy, Financial Knowledge, Financial Fragility, University students,
Greece
JEL Classification: A20, D14, I21, I23
1
www.globalbizresearch.org
1. Introduction
Financial literacy is an essential skill required for everyday life around the world. On daily
basis people are called upon to make minor or important financial decisions. This includes
making ends meet, budgeting, paying bills on time, saving, borrowing and investing. People
are able to make decisions about a car loan, a house down payment, a mortgage, insurance,
retirement and higher education. Nevertheless, people need to be properly educated to make
the best financial decisions. Greece is still experiencing the financial cost from the 2008
international financial crisis, where the negatives effects are visual on the country’s economy
and society. However, if people were better informed on personal financial matters they might
acquire more sophisticated financial products and have smaller exposure to debt through
mortgages and consumer loans. As per Bank of Greece report (2016) at 2nd quarter at 2016, the
non-performing loans reached 45.1%. Therefore, financial crisis has shown that is vital to invest
on people’s financial literacy through awareness programs, initiatives and national campaigns,
especial for young population. Through financial education is expected swift of people’s
financial behavior as studies have shown a link of increased financial knowledge level and
better financial behaviors. Hence, OCED (2005) states that financial education is the process
to improve individuals’ financial well-being. Recognizing the importance of financial literacy
awareness, in order to improve financial well-being and financial security, focus has been given
to young population in Greece.
Many studies have shown that levels of financial literacy are low, especially among young
population and university students. (Danes, & Hira, 1987; Volpe, Chen, & Pavlicko, 1996;
Chen, & Volpe, 1998; Beal, & Delpachitra, 2003; Sarigul, 2014; Cameron, Calderwood, Cox,
Lim, & Yamaoka, 2014; Fatoki, 2014; Thapa, & Nepal, 2015). Due to this, young citizens are
unable to understand key financial terms and concepts preventing them from making wise
financial decisions. Further, the absent of financial education is obvious. This provides some
support for the argument that low levels of financial literacy was one of the contributing factors
to the recent Global Financial Crisis (Gerardi, Goette, & Meier, 2010). Further, Chardin
(2011) highlights the importance of individual’s (investor and consumer) awareness of the
financial transactions they enter into, due to wider global financial crisis, poor financial literacy
and lack of understanding of financial concepts and products.
The purpose of this study is to determine the levels of financial literacy among Greek
university students with majoring in Business and Statistics. Further, this study classifies the
factors and characteristics that determine those levels of financial literacy. Additionally,
students’ financial knowledge will be linked to students’ financial fragility. The paper has 5
sections. Section 2 reviews available financial literacy studies. Section 3 analyses the
2
methodology. Section 4 reveals the results and discussion. Section 5 states the final
remarks/conclusion.
2. Literature Review
Financial literacy, with its broad meaning, was first detected in a letter to Thomas Jefferson
(principal author of the Declaration of Independence and the third President of the United
States), dated August 23, 1787, where John Adams recognized the need for financial literacy:
“All the perplexities, confusions, and distresses in America arise, not from defects in their
constitution or confederation, not from a want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright
ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation.” (Financialcorps, 2014). Over 200
years later, on 1998 Mandell through his first study “Jumpa$tart Survey of Financial Literacy
Among High School Students” defines financial literacy as “the ability to use knowledge and
skills to manage one's financial resources effectively for lifetime financial security”. The
President’s Advisory Council on Financial Literacy (PACFL, 2008:35), based on the previous
definition, and developed a common definition of the term as “the ability to use knowledge and
skills to manage financial resources effectively for a lifetime of financial well-being”. Hence,
it urges the private sector, state and local governments, and non-profits to adopt the Council’s
definition, so that programmatic decisions are based on a common understanding of terms
(PACFL, 2008; Remund, 2010). OECD/INFE defined financial literacy as “a combination of
awareness, knowledge, skill, attitude and behavior necessary to make sound financial decisions
and ultimately achieve individual financial well-being” (Atkinson & Messy, 2012; G20,
2012:32; OECD (2014b).
The literacy review showed that financial literacy has been imprinted with various
meanings. By some researchers is reflected as the understanding of the available financial
products (such as loan interest rates, saving account rates) and health and life insurance; ability
to compare competing offers, and plan for future financial needs (Emmons, 2005). Other
researchers depicted financial literacy as the knowledge of basic financial concepts, such as the
applying of interest compounding, the difference between nominal and real values, and the
basics of risk diversification (Lusardi 2008a, 2008b) in order to make sensible saving and
investment decisions. Lusardi & Tufano (2008) also focused on debt literacy, a component (a
specific form) of financial literacy. Additionally, Hung, Parker, and Yoong (2009) suggested
that the conceptual model of financial literacy should be on financial knowledge, skills, and
behavior, as well as their mutual relationships. Therefore, it can be concluded that financial
literacy is more than a measure of knowledge and skills that is reflected in individual’s attitude
and behavior for their profound financial decisions (Philippas, & Tzora, 2016).
It is obvious that individuals should have at least an acceptable level of financial literacy
due to accessibility of financial markets, as new financially complex products and services are
3
rapid spread. Further, changes in the pension landscape require responsibility and careful
financial management (Lusardi, & Mitchel, 2014). Young individuals in particular are not only
likely to deal with growing complexity in financial products, services and markets, but they are
more likely to have more financial risks in adulthood than their parents. Young adults will have
to make earlier financial decisions (such as student loans, credit cards and pension accounts)
and it has proven to be difficult for financially unsophisticated individuals to master them
(OECD, 2012; Lusardi, Mitchell, & Curto, 2010; Lusardi, & Mitchel, 2014; Brown, Kapteyn,
& Mitchell, 2016). Moreover, students at university level should improve their financial literacy
level before they enter the job market in order to have positive financial attitudes (Oppong-
Boaky, & Kansanba, 2013, Fotaki, 2014).
From the review of financial literacy we will focused on the measurement studies on
university students and few international adult studies only for comparison reasons. Much of
the literacy focuses on the U.S. showing that Americans have low levels of financial literacy
and make poor financial decisions.
Danes & Hira (1987) studied 323 students from Iowa State University with a measurement
instrument of 51 questions divided into five areas of money management knowledge: credit
cards (8 questions), insurance (6 questions), personal loan (13 questions), record keeping (6
questions) and overall financial management (18 questions). The Pearson Product Moment
correlations and ordinary least squares regression analyses indicated low level of knowledge in
insurance, credit cards, and overall financial management areas. The results showed that male
scored higher in insurance and personal loans maters, while females scored higher in the area
of overall financial management. In general, gender, marital status and age were the significant
factors in explaining the differences in level of knowledge in several areas.
Volpe, Chen and Pavlicko (1996) studied the personal investment literacy (a subscale of
financial literacy) of 454 university students at Youngstown State University in Ohio and its
relationships with gender, academic discipline and work experience. The measurement
instrument was consisted of 23 items. The results revealed low levels of personal investment
literacy of the university students. In particular, male students and participants with Business
majors scored higher and are more knowledgeable about investing.
Chen & Volpe (1998) studied the personal financial literacy levels of 924 university
students from 13 campuses. The questionnaire was consisted from 52 questions. In more details,
it was studied students’ knowledge on personal finance (36 questions), their opinions and
decisions (8 questions) and collected demographic data (8 questions). Additionally, the
knowledge questions were divided in the areas of general knowledge, saving and borrowing,
insurance and investments. The mean percentage of correct scores, analyses of variance
(ANOVA) and logistic regression showed low level of personal financial literacy. The findings
suggested that education, demographic characteristics, experience and income have significant
4
impact on students’ knowledge. The results showed that participants with business majors,
male, older and with more work experience earned high scores in the survey.
Lusardi, Mitchell, & Curto (2010) studied American youth using the data from the NLSY97
survey (1997 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth). Data was obtained from 7,417
participants of age 23-28. The financial literacy questions included in wave 11 of the NLSY97
were the ones designed for the 2004 Health and Retirement Study (HRS) by Lusardi & Mitchell
(2006). The findings revealed that the “interest rate” question (or “compound interest” question
(Lusardi & Mitchel, 2006) was answered correctly by 79% of the participants, 54% answered
the “inflation” question correctly and only 47% answered the “risk diversification” question
(Lusardi, Mitchell, & Curto, 2010:10). Overall results showed that financial literacy is low
among young adults, while it is strongly related to sociodemographic characteristics and family
financial sophistication. The findings revealed that male participants, with university education
and wealthy background are more likely to answer correctly the “risk diversification’ question.
Outside the U.S. similar surveys have been conducted. Beal & Delpachitra (2003) studied
789 Australian students from the University of Southern Queensland. The measurement
instrument was consisted of 25 multiple choice financial literacy questions covering the areas:
basic concept, markets and instruments of financial markets, planning, analysis and decision
making, and insurance. The methodology used was similar that of Chen & Volpe (1998).
Overall the findings were in line with the findings of Chen & Volpe (1998), revealing that
Australian university students are not skilled, nor knowledgeable, in financial matters. Male
students with major in Business, with work experience and income and financial experience
scored better.
Sabri, MacDonald, Hira & Masud (2010) studied the levels of financial literacy of 2,519
college students in Malaysia. The measurement instrument was consisted of 25 items of
financial knowledge. The researchers for their analysis used bivariate t-test, analysis of variance
(ANOVA) and multiple regression analysis. The results overall showed that less than half of
the questions were answered correctly. Moreover, the bivariate test revealed that Chinese
students, from private colleges, freshmen who didn’t shared financial matters with their parents
showed lower levels of financial literacy. The variables gender, place of origin, GPA scores,
residence, parents’ education and saving experience were insignificant with the levels of
financial literacy.
Oppong-Boakye, & Kansanba (2013) studied the levels of financial literacy of 203 business
university students in Ghana. The researchers used the measurement instrument that was
developed for the “National Jump$tart Coalition Survey” (Mandell, 2008). The results revealed
high levels of financial literacy among university students with positive relationship to financial
attitudes and behaviors. Moreover, finds indicated that formal education is the major source of
financial literacy followed by parents, media and peers. On the contrast, Fatoki (2014) studied
5
non-business university students in South Africa. In particular, participants were agriculture

and chemistry students. Overall, the results revealed that non-business university students
scored lower levels of financial literacy. The financial literacy was measured by an adapted
version, to fit the South African context, of the questionnaire used at the National Jump$tart
Coalition Survey (Mandell, 2008).
An international comparison of financial literacy by using the same measurement tool
shows what factors explain the differences in financial literacy. Jappelli (2010) relied on the
data of the IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook (WCY) of about 4,000 business leaders and
55 countries from 1995 to 2008. The study examined the cross-country differences in economic
literacy. Overall, results showed low levels of literacy and that economic literacy is correlated
with education and associated with higher income and wealth. Atkinson & Messy (2012)
studied the levels of financial literacy of adult population in 14 countries. The questionnaire
was developed by the OECD International Network on Financial Education and covered a mix
of knowledge, behaviors and attitudes related to personal finance. Overall, the findings showed
that men scored higher than women on the combined measure, oldest and youngest participants
scored lower and that higher income participants are more likely to score higher. Further, higher
educated participants exhibited positive behavior and attitude with higher levels of knowledge,
confirming a positive relationship between education and financial literacy. On 2014 the
Standard & Poor’s rating services global financial literacy survey (Klapper, Lusardi &
Oudheusden, 2015) was conducted on adult population. In details more than 150,000 adult
participants were randomly selected in more than 140 economies. The levels of financial
literacy were measured using questions assessing basic financial knowledge on interest rates,
interest compounding, inflation, and risk diversification. The financial literacy questions were
a refreshed version (similar) to the ones designed for the 2004 Health and Retirement Study
(HRS) by Lusardi & Mitchell (2006). Overall the results revealed that worldwide, only one in
three adults are financially literate. In particular, male, with higher income, and higher
education are more likely have higher financial knowledge. Additionally, adults with bank
accounts and credit cards have higher financial knowledge, irrespective to their income. On
2016, OECD released the findings of another international study for adult population (OECD,
2016). The financial literacy data was collected from 30 countries and economies, where 51,650
adults aged 18 to 79 were interviewed. The survey was focused on measuring relevant aspects
of financial knowledge, behavior, attitudes and inclusion. The financial literacy levels were
indicated by combing scores on knowledge, attitudes and behavior. Overall, the findings
showed low levels of financial literacy. The average score for all participating countries was
62.85% (or 13.2 out of possible 21), compared with an average of 65.24% (or 13.7/21). Also,
results in financial knowledge across all participants showed that women scored lower than
men. The most recent international comparison study was conducted online by Allianz (2017).
6
The data was collected from 10 western European countries where 10,000 people participated
(1,000 from each country). The survey was supervised by Professor Lusardi and the questions
were based from the 2004 Health and Retirement Study (HRS) (Lusardi & Mitchell, 2006) and
from 2009 TNS Global Economic Crisis Study (Lusardi, Schneider & Tufano, 2011). Overall,
the results revealed that the participants scored correctly higher in the “interest rate” question
and 63% answered the “inflation” question correctly. On average, less than 50% of the
participants answered correctly the risk questions. Also, results showed men scored higher than
women and that difference varies among countries, age and education groups. Last, the study
compares the results from the interest rate question with the results obtained from previous
studies and the values are very close. Therefore, Allianz (2017) study confirms that little has
changed over the last 10 years and a financial crisis later, regardless the attention devoted to
financial topics.
3. Research Methodology
This research was conducted among students at the University of Piraeus in Athens, Greece,
during the spring semester in 2016. University of Piraeus has approximately a student
enrolment of about 11,000 students. There are four schools: Economics, Business and
International Studies, Maritime and Industrial Studies, Finance and Statistics and Information
and Communication Technologies and nine departments. The participant survey sample was
students from the Department of Business Administration where approximately 1,950 students
are attending and from the Department of Statistics & Insurance Science with approximately
1,300 students (University of Piraeus, 2017).
3.1 Data Collection
Data was collected through the use of a paper version self-administered survey instrument.
Mostly, final-year undergraduate students were targeted in both departments. The total
participation number was 456 students from Department of Business Administration (55%) and
Department of Statistics & Insurance Science (45%). Questionnaires were distributed during
the examination period by the approval of the professor. At this point, it is important to point
out that the participation was optional and personal data confidentiality measures were taken.
Students’ profile, final-year students and majoring in Business and Statistics, were rationale
selected as the participants were expected to score higher. Firstly, due to more years being
exposed to higher education and secondly, due to relevant major with financial matters.
Tables 1-6 (appendix) presents in details the demographic (Table1-3.), socio-economical
and financial crisis affects (Table 4.) and personal information of students’ characteristics
(Table 6.).
Tables 1-6 (Appendix)
7
From the characteristics it is worth mentioning that the financial crisis affects (Table 4.) are
more than obvious on students’ parental income with the majority (55.9%) of the participants
reporting reduction between 20-50% and 31.1% reduction of over 50%. Further, the majority
of the monthly parental income lies between EUR 1,000-EUR 1,999 (40.2%). Referring to
participant’s standard of living 61.4% reported a reduction. Last, the uncertainty that these
young people feel about the future is shocking with 92.5% answered that they are concerned
about the future.
3.2 Survey Instrument
The measurement instrument was focused on financial knowledge and financial skills,
including numeracy (interest), compound interest, inflation and risk diversification. The items
came from previously validated international financial literacy surveys in the literature among
Standard & Poor’s rating services global financial literacy survey (Klapper et al., 2015, Lusardi
& Mitchel, 2006). Further, in order to measure individual’s financial fragility a similar question
to the TNS Global Economic Crisis Study (Lusardi, Schneider and Tufano, 2011; Lusardi,
2013) was included. Initially, the questions were first translated into Greek and then translated
back to English in order to avoid any inconsistencies. Students were asked to answer to 31
multiple choice questions in total. In more details, students answered 5 questions measuring the
levels of their financial knowledge and 19 questions on their demographics characteristics, on
their parents’ socio-economic, financial crisis affects and educational background and some on
their personal financial experience.
The criterion of Cronbach’s alpha was used for establishing the internal consistency
reliability and it was found to be 0.61, which is acceptable (Kline, 2000). Further, the clarity of
the questionnaire was evaluated by two, knowledgeable in financial matters, faculty members
of Piraeus University. The limitation of this study lies to levels of financial literacy drawn from
a single University in Athens, Greece. Additionally, the validity of the survey instrument it
might be open to discussion due to limited number of items included. However, as it was
mentioned earlier, these items in the questionnaire have been used in many prior studies
(Klapper et al., 2015; Lusardi, Schneider and Tufano, 2011; Lusardi & Mitchel, 2006). The
survey instrument was pilot tested to a small group of students prior to final examination where
modifications were made for better students’ comprehension.
3.3 Methodology
The main research question was whether the university students exposed to higher
education with financial matters would demonstrate higher level of financial literacy compared
to average young population. Therefore, the first hypothesis [H1] is that young university
population studying Business and Statistics have higher financial literacy levels than
regular/average young population. Further, we investigated whether the university students
exposed to higher education with financial matters and excellent level of financial literacy (e.g.
8
answered correctly all 5 questions) would react better to financial fragility of an unexpected
need than students with lower level of financial literacy. Therefore, the second hypothesis [H2]
is that young university population studying Business and Statistics with excellent financial
literacy levels (e.g. answered correctly all 5 questions) can cover an unexpected financial need.
The methodology used was based on the proposed analysis by Vannieuwenhuyze, Loosveldt &
Molenberghs (2010) and the binary logistic regression approach in defining financial literacy
levels is similar the work of Akben-Selcuk (2015), Beal & Delpachitra (2003) and Chen &
Volpe (1998). In details, this analysis examines initially the relationship between two variables
(the dependant and the independent variables) through the use of the cross-tabulation tool.
Cross-tabulation analysis, also known as contingency table analysis, is most often used to
analyze categorical (nominal measurement scale) data. But in order to test the statistical
significant of the cross-tabulation table the Chi-square statistic is primary used. Chi-square tests
whether or not the two variables are independent. If the variables are independent (have no
correlation), then the results of the statistical test will be “non-significant” meaning that we
believe there is no relationship between the variables. If the variables are related, then the results
of the statistical test will be “statistically significant” meaning that we can state that there is
some relationship between the variables.
Therefore, in our case, the dependant variable financial literacy is compared to each
independent variable (e.g. gender, age, nationality etc.) and we examine if the variables are
related at the “0.05 or 5% level”. Further, this means that the variables have a low chance of
being independent.
Then, binary logistic regression modeling is used as the analytical method. In details, the
university students were divided into two groups. Students with high scores in financial
knowledge questions were classified as financial literate, while students with low scores were
classified as financial illiterate.
At this point, it is worth mentioning that two different benchmark scenarios for measuring
financial literacy were performed by gradually increasing the degree of difficulty.
1st scenario: Students that answered correct 3 out of 4 financial knowledge concepts (at least 3
out of 5 questions marked correctly) were classified as financial literate. This benchmark is in
line with the work of Klapper et al. (2015).
2nd scenario: Students that answered correct 4 out of 4 financial knowledge concepts (where 5
out of 5 questions marked correctly) were classified as financial literate.
The dichotomous variable (0, 1) was then used in each binary logistic regression as the
dependant variable which is explained by the independent variables that were drawn from the
cross-tabulation and chi square analysis.
9
4. Results and Discussion

4.1 Descriptive Statistics
Table 7. (Appendix)
In order to define the levels of financially literacy of University students in Greece,
participants were asked to answer 5 questions in financial knowledge. Results revealed that the
students at the first interest concept scored the lowest percentage of correct answers (56.6%).
These findings are in line with the results of S&P Global FinLit Survey (2016) for Greece where
the same question had the smallest percentage of corrects answers (Philippas, & Tzora, 2016).
Hence, it is worth mentioning that in the interest concept 18.86% of the participants answered
that they didn’t know the answer.
The second concept of compound interest had two questions and students correctly
answered 66.4% and 55.5%, respectively. Regardless the difference in scores it is clear that the
concept is understood by a big percentage of students.
The third examined concept of financial knowledge inflation scored the higher percentage
of correct answers (81.1%) among the concepts. At the S&P Global FinLit Survey report the
countries that scored high in this question were the countries with recent history of inflation
(e.g. Bosnia & Herzegovina and Argentina) (Klapper et al., 2015).
Regarding the last concept of risk diversification the 77.4% of students answered
correctly, while only the 6.8 % of the participants answered that they didn’t know the answer.
The level of financial literacy for Greek university students with majoring in Business and
Statistics in absolute terms (students answered correctly all 5 financial knowledge questions)
were determined as low as 19.3%. In details, 88 out of 456 students answered all 5 questions
correctly.
Figure 1. (Appendix)
Figure 1 (Appendix) shows the financial literacy levels in “absolute” terms (e.g. answered
correctly all 5 questions). It is believed that this approach is more representative due to the fact
that the students’ have been exposed to higher education in related financial matters and it
would be expected to score higher than average young people and therefore the control limits
should be tighter. At a later stage at the levels of financial literacy in absolute terms will be
referred as 2nd Scenario.
For comparison reasons, if we apply the measurement level of financial literacy by the work
of Klapper et al. (2015), where participants have to answer correctly at least 3 categories (1st
Scenario), the level of financial literacy for university Greek youth population is 71%. As it
was expected this level of financial literacy is way too higher than the findings for general
population in Greece 45% by Klapper et al. (2015). The survey was conducted on 2014 where
10
1.000 participants were interviewed. As per the researchers, the target population consisted of
the entire population aged 15 and above, aside from prisoners and soldiers (Klapper et al., 2015)
4.2 Logistic Regression Results
4.2.1 – 1st Logistic Regression Model (1st Scenario)
The results of the cross-tabulation analysis, based on the chi square values by applying the
1st scenario that was analyzed earlier, showed that the dichotomous dependant variable
financial literacy (0, 1) and only the independent variable “Age” are related at 5% level of
significant (p=0.035). It is worth mentioning all the independent variables: Department,
Semester, Age, Gender, Nationality, Work Experience, Father’s Education, Mother’s
Education, Father’s Unemployment, Mother’s Unemployment, Parents’ Income, Reduction of
Parents’ Income, Reduction of Standard of Living, Concern about the Future, Keep record of
income/expenses and Holder of Bank account. Therefore, only the independent variable “Age”
was used at the logistic regression.
Table 8. (Appendix)
Table 8 presents the overall test of the model. The full model was statistically significant
with chi square (2, N=456) = 6.295, p<0.05, meaning that it could discern differences between
students who are financial literacy and those that are not. Therefore, the model seems to fit well
for developing relationship between dependant and independent variables.
Table 9. (Appendix)
Moreover, from the Table 9 we can see that the model had correctly classified 71.3% of the
observations for the entire sample. This is a widely used measure of the overall fit of the model
by examining model’s ability to correctly classify observations.
Last, the analyzed independent variable “Age” was found to be statistically significant at
p=0.042 (p<0.05).
While we were examining financial crisis affects we also examined the relationship
between the students’ parental income reduction and “absolute” financial knowledge acquired,
using a crosstab. The Pearson’s chi-square value was 1.404 (p=0.705), suggesting that there is
no relationship between the two variables.
4.2.2 – 2nd Logistic Regression Model (2nd Scenario)
The results from the cross-tabulation analysis, based on the chi square values by applying
the 2nd scenario and more “absolute/strict scenario” that was analyzed earlier showed that the
dichotomous dependant variable financial literacy (0, 1) and the independent variables
“Gender” (p=0.019), “Father’s Education” (p=0.016) and “Keep records of income/expenses”
(p=0.046) are related at 5% level of significant (p<0.05). It is worth mentioning all the
independent variables: Department, Semester, Age, Gender, Nationality, Work Experience,
Father’s Education, Mother’s Education, Father’s Unemployment, Mother’s Unemployment,
Parents’ Income, Reduction of Parents’ Income, Reduction of Standard of Living, Concern
11
about the Future, Keep record of income/expenses and Holder of Bank account. Therefore, the
above mentioned independent variables “Age”, “Father’s Education” and “Keep records of
income/expenses” were used at the logistic regression.
Table 10. (Appedix)
Table 10 presents the overall test of the model. The full model was statistically significant
with chi square (8, N=456) = 29.864, p<0.05, meaning that it could discern differences between
students who are financial literacy and those that are not. Therefore, the model seems to fit well
for developing relationship between dependant and independent variables.
Table 11. (Appendix)
Moreover, from the Table 11 we can see that the model was able to explain between 6.4%
(Cox & Snell R-square) and 10.3% (Nagelkerke R-square) of the variance and correctly
classified 81% of the observations for the entire sample.
Table 12. (Appendix) - Analytical the results of the binary logistic regression.
At the model three of the independent variables analyzed were found to be statistically
significant at 5% level (p<0.05). “Gender” (p=0.006), “Father’s Education” (p=0.013) and
“Keep record of income/expenses” were found to be statically significant. Among the three
independent variables the strongest predictor was “Keep record of income/expenses”, with odds
ratio of 1.907. This indicates the odd of financial literate is likely to be 1.907 times higher for
students who “Keep record of income/expenses” than those who don’t. Similarly, the odds ratio
for “Gender” was 0.493. This indicates that the odd of financial literacy is likely to be 0.493
times lower for female students than for male students.
While we were examining financial crisis affects, we also examined the relationship
between the students’ parental income reduction and excellent financial knowledge (e.g.
answered correctly all 5 questions) acquired, using a crosstab. The Pearson’s chi-square value
was 1.139 (p=0.768), suggesting that there is no relationship between the two variables.
However, from the characteristics of the sample it is worth mentioning that (82%), 209 students
out of the 255, with lower financial knowledge (as they scored at least one wrong answer)
reported a parental income reduction between 20%-50%.
4.3 Financial Fragility
As it was mentioned before, students’ financial fragility, in the sense of being exposed to
unexpected financial shock/emergency, was measured with a similar question from the work of
Lusardi, Schneider and Tufano (2011). However, the amount of an unexpected need was
significantly reduced in order to match students allowance or income. Therefore, the participant
students were asked whether will be able to cover a EUR 300 unexpected need if it arose within
the next month.
Table 13. (Appendix)
12
From the Table 13, we can see that 41% claimed that they are sure that they can cover the
amount, but at the same time 39% claimed that maybe they can cover the amount. However,
almost 60% of the participants are not that sure that they can cover the amount of EUR 300. A
small amount if we consider that undergraduate education in Greece is free.
Furthermore, Female students were less likely to report being certainly able to cope with
a financial shock than men (Figure 2).
Figure 2. (Appendix)
By examining financial fragility, we also examined the relationship between the students’
financial fragility and their “absolute”/excellent financial literacy (e.g. answered correctly all 5
questions) acquired, using a crosstab. The Pearson’s chi-square value was barely below
accepting levels of p=0.05. However, from the characteristics of the sample it is worth
mentioning that 53% of students with excellent financial literacy were certain that they could
cover an unexpected economic need. On the contrast, the majority of the students’ with lower
financial literacy (41.6%) answered that they maybe could cover the unexpected amount.
Recognizing, therefore, this different we could assume that through financial crisis people with
financial knowledge learned to manage their finances for rainy days.
5. Conclusion
According to many, recent empirical studies, low levels of financial literacy is a serious
social problem, as most people have a relative low knowledge about basic financial concepts
and tools.
A review of the financial literacy showed that many of the studies focused on demographic
variables of students and sample students are taken from Universities around the world. In
Greek context, so far, there isn’t yet any other study measuring the levels of financial literacy
of University students by examining various areas of financial knowledge and financial
fragility. This study tries to fill this gap using Greek data.
This study surveyed 456 students from the University of Piraeus in Athens majoring in Business
and Statistics and examined their financial knowledge on interest, compound interest, inflation
and risk diversification. Further, the relationship between financial literacy and students
characteristics was examined. In addition, students’ financial fragility was examined and results
revealed that students who are more financial literate are able to bear with an unexpected
financial need.
Overall, the results showed that students involved in Business and Statistics studies scored
low level (19%) of financial literacy in “absolute” terms (e.g. answered correctly all 5
questions). From the percentage of the correct answers students scored higher in “inflation”
concept with 81% and risk diversification concept with 77.4% following the concepts
13
“compound interest” concept (66.4% was the highest out of two questions) and the lowest score
was at the “interest” concept with 56.6%.
Then two different scenarios were carried by analyzing the variable with cross-tabulation,
chi square and logistic regression analysis. However, we believe that the “absolute/strict”
scenario, where a student was considered financial literate if had answered all the 5 questions
and concepts respectively, was more accurate indicator due to small number of the questions
asked to the students with higher education exposure to financial matters. Therefore, the results
suggested that female students are more likely to be less financial literate than male students.
These finding are in line with many findings on gender for financial literacy (e.g. Klapper et
al., 2015, Sarigül, 2014, Beal & Delpachitra, 2003; Chen & Volpe, 1998).
Further, the results suggested that students who “keep records of income/expenses” are more
likely to be higher financial literate than students who don’t keep those records. Last, logistic
regression analysis revealed that father’s education is statically significant at 5% level. In
details, results suggested that students are more likely to be high financial literate if their
father’s education was at least high school graduate and university graduate. These results are
new contribution to the existing data on financial literacy.
However, there are some limitations to this study. The prime limitation is that in order to
keep the questionnaire short prevented us from adding more questions. Additionally,
participants came from a single University in Athens. Hence, students from non-business
departments could also participate.
Our research has shown that the level of financial literacy for university students in
Business and Statistics studies don’t demonstrate higher level of financial literacy than average
population. Therefore, the first hypothesis [H1] is rejected. Moreover, the second hypothesis
[H2] that excellent level financial literacy student is demonstrate better financial fragility is
accepted.
Therefore, it is concluded that university students majoring in Business and Statistics have
average financial knowledge on the examined compound interest and interest concepts and their
levels of financial literacy is determined by gender, father’s education and the habit or record
keeping. Educators, government and regulators could use these findings to develop financial
literacy policies. Only through financial education today’s youth can generate financial literate
citizens. Therefore, the financial education of young generation could start as early as possible
from school throughout university.
Acknowledgement: This work has been partly supported by the University of Piraeus Research
Center.
References
Allianz SE (2017), When will the penny drop?, Money, financial literacy and risk in the digital age
2017 report, International Pension Papers 1/2017 (January 20, 2017).
14
Akben-Selcuk, E., 2015, Factors Influencing College Students’ Financial Behaviors in Turkey: Evidence
from a National Survey. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 7(6).
Atkinson, A., and Messy, F., 2012, Measuring financial literacy: Results of the OECD/International
Network on Financial Education (INFE) pilot study. OECD Working Papers on Finance, Insurance, and
Private Pensions, No. 15, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k9csfs90fr4-en
Bank of Greece (2016), Monetary Policy, Interim Report 2016 (December).
Beal, D.J. and Delpachitra, S.B., 2003, Financial literacy among Australian university students,
Economic Papers, 22 (1), 65-78.
Brown, J. R., Kapteyn, A. and Mitchell, O. S., 2016, Framing and Claiming: How information – framing
affects expected social security claiming behavior. Journal Risk and Insurance, 83: 139–162.
doi:10.1111/j.1539-6975.2013.12004.x.
Cameron, M. P., Calderwood, R., Cox, A., Lim, S., and Yamaoka, M., 2014, Factors associated with
financial literacy among high school students in New Zealand. International Review of Economics
Education, 16(Part A), 12-21. doi:10.1016/j.iree.2014.07.006.
Chardin, T., 2011, Weathering the Storm: Tax as a component of Financial Capability. Australasian
Accounting Business & Finance Journal. Vol. 5. n.º 2. p. 53-68.
Chen, H. and Volpe, R. P., (1998). An analysis of personal financial literacy among college students.
Financial Services Review , 7 (2), 107-128.
Danes, S. M., and Hira, T. K., 1987, Winter, Money management knowledge of college students. The
Journal of Student Financial Aid, 17(1), 4-16.
Emmons, W., 2005, Consumer-Finance Myths and Other Obstacles to Financial Literacy. St. Louis
University Public Law Review, 24: 335–362.
Fatoki, Olawale, 2014, The financial literacy of non-business university students in South Africa, Int J
Edu Sci, 7(2): 261-267 (2014).
FinancialCorps., 2014, History of Financial Literacy–The First 200 Years (Accessed on January 15,
2016).
G20, 2012, Leader’s Declaration – Los Cabos, Mexico, 19 June 2012, www.g20.utoronto.ca/2012/2012-
0619-loscabos.pdf (Accessed on November 12, 2016)
Gerardi, K.S., Goette, L.F., Meier, S., 2010, Financial Literacy and Subprime Mortgage Delinquency:
Evidence From a Survey Matched to Administrative Data. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Working
Paper No. 2010-10 Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Atlanta.
Hung, A., Parker, A.M., and Yoong, J.K., 2009, Defining and Measuring Financial Literacy. RAND
Corporation, Working paper WR-708.
Jappelli, T., 2010, Economic Literacy: An International Comparison. Economic Journal. Vol. 120. n.º
548. p. F429-F451.
Klapper, L., Lusardi, A., and van Oudheusden, P., 2015, Financial Literacy around the World: Insights
from the Standard & Poor’s Rating Services Global Financial Literacy Survey.
http://www.FinLit.MHFI.com (Accessed on November 23, 2016).
Kline, P., 2000, The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). pp.13. London: Routledge
Lusardi, A., 2008a, Household saving behavior: The role of financial literacy, information, and financial
education programs. NBER Working Paper 13824.
Lusardi, A., 2008b, Financial literacy: An essential tool for informed consumer choice? Dartmouth
College Working Paper.
Lusardi, A., 2013, Insights: Financial Capability, FINRA, Investor Education Foudation (September).
Lusardi, A., and Mitchell. O.S., 2006, Financial Literacy and Planning: Implications for Retirement
Wellbeing. Working Paper, Pension Research Council, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.
Lusardi, A., and Mitchell, O.S., 2014, The Economic Importance of Financial Literacy: Theory and
Evidence. Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, March. Vol. 52(1): 5-44.
15
Lusardi, A., Mitchell, O.S., Curto, V., 2010, Financial literacy among the young. J. Consum. Aff. 44 (2)
358–380.
Lusardi, A, Schneider, D. J. and Tufano, P. (2011), Financially Fragile Households: Evidence and
Implications, in Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, pp. 83-150 (Spring 2011).
Lusardi, A. and Tufano, P., 2008, Debt literacy, financial experiences, and overindebtedness. Dartmouth
Working Paper.
Mandell, L., 1998, Our Vulnerable Youth: The Financial Literacy of American 12th Graders.
Washington, D.C.: The Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy. (117 pages)
Mandell, L., 2008, The Financial Literacy of Young American Adults. Results of the 2008 National
Jump$tart Coalition Survey of High School Seniors and College Students, For the Jump$tart Coalition®
for Personal Financial Literacy
OECD, 2014b, PISA 2012 Results: Students and Money (Volume VI): Financial Literacy Skills for the
21st Century, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris.
OECD, 2005, Recommendation on Principles and Good Practices for Financial Education and
Awareness: OECD, Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs.
OECD, 2012, PISA 2012 Financial Literacy Assessment Framework. Doc: FinLit_Frmwrk_PISA12.
April 2012. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/46962580.pdf. Accessed: November 4, 2016.
OECD, 2016, OECD/INFE International Survey of G20/OECD INFE Core Competencies framework on
Financial Literacy for Adults.
Oppong-Boakye PK, and Kansanba R., 2013, An assessment of financial literacy levels among
undergraduate business students in Ghana. Research J in Fin and Acct, 4(8): 36-49.
Philippas N. and Tzora V. 2016. Financial Literacy: Definitions and Approaches. Scientific Volume in
honor of Professor Economou. University of Piraeus (Forthcoming).
President’s Advisory Council on Financial Literacy (PACFL), 2008, 2008 Annual Report to the President
http://jumpstart.org/assets/files/PACFL_ANNUAL_REPORT_1-16-09.pdf
Remund, L. D., 2010, Financial Literacy Explicated: The Case for a Clearer Definition in an Increasingly
Complex Economy. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol.44, Issue.2, pages 276-295, summer 2010.
Sabri, M. F., MacDonald, M., Hira, T. K. and Masud, J., 2010, Childhood Consumer Experience and the
Financial Literacy of College Students in Malaysia. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal,
38: 455–467. doi:10.1111/j.1552-3934.2010.00038.x, availably:
Sarigül, H., 2014, A Survey of Financial Literacy Among University Students. Journal of Accounting &
Finance, (64), 207-224.
S&P Global FinLit Survey, 2016, Global Financial Literacy (Accessed on March 1, 2016)
Thapa, B.S., and Nepal, S.R., 2015, Financial Literacy in Nepal: A Survey Analysis from College
Students, NRB Economic Review, 2015, vol. 27, issue 1, pages 49-74
University of Piraeus, 2017, Official student enrolment data. Registry offices at Department of Business
Administration and Department of Statistics & Insurance.
Vannieuwenhuyze, J., Loosveldt, G., and Molenberghs, G., 2010, A Method for Evaluating Mode Effects
in Mixed-Mode Surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 74, No. 5, 2010, pp. 1027–1045.
Volpe, R. P., Chen, H., and Pavlicko J. J., 1996, Fall/Winter, Personal investment literacy among college
students: A survey. Financial Practice and Education, 6(2), 86-94.
16
Appendix
Table 1: Characteristics of the Sample – A. Education
Characteristics of the Sample Number of Participants Percentage

A. Education
1. Department
a) Business Administration 251 55.0
b) Statistics & Insurance 205 45.0
2. Semester
a) 2nd-4th 3 0.7
th th
b) 5 -8 368 80.7
c) 9th + 85 18.6
Table 2: Characteristics of the Sample – B. Demographic Characteristics

B. Demographic
Characteristics
1. Gender
a) Male 234 51.3
b) Female 222 48.7
2. Nationality
a) Greek 443 97.1
b) Foreign (other than Greek) 13 2.9
3. Years of Age
a) 18 to 22 344 75.4
b) 23 to 28 105 23.0
c) 29 and over 7 1.5
Table 3: Characteristics of the Sample – C. Experience

C. Experience
1. Years of Work Experience
a) None 128 28.1
b) Less Than Two Years 189 41.4
c) Two to Less Than Four 86 18.9
Years
d) Four to Less Than Six Years 26 5.7
e) Six Years or More 27 5.9
17
Table 4: Characteristics of the Sample – D. Parental Income

D. Income
1. Monthly Parental Income
(Net)
a) Less than EUR 1,000 86 20.7
b) EUR 1,000-EUR 1,999 167 40.2
c) EUR 2,000-EUR 2,999 90 21.7
d) EUR 3,000-EUR 4,499 41 9.9
e) EUR 4,500 and over 31 7.5
f) Don’t Know 20 4.4
g)Refuse to answer 21 4.6
2. Parental Income Reduction
a) No income reduction 7 1.5
b) Income reduction under 20% 52 11.4
c) Income reduction between 255 55.9
20%-50%
d) Income reduction over 50% 142 31.1
3. Reduction of Standard of
Living
a) Yes 280 61.4
b) No 176 38.6
4. Concern about the future
a) Yes 422 92.5
b) No 34 7.5
Table 5: Characteristics of the Sample – E. Parents’ Information

E. Parents’ Information
1. Father’s Education
a) No education 2 .4
b) Primary School 33 7.3
c) Lower High School 31 6.9
d) Upper High School 125 27.7
e) Post-secondary education 96 21.2
f) University 123 27.2
g) Master / PhD 42 9.3
2. Mother’s Education
18
a) No education - -
b) Primary School 24 5.3
c) Lower High School 32 7.1
d) Upper High School 155 34.2
e) Post-secondary education 80 17.7
f) University 140 30.9
g) Master / PhD 22 4.9
Table 6: Characteristics of the Sample – F. Personal Information

F. Personal Information
1. Keep record of expenses
a) Yes 252 55.3
b) No 204 44.7
2. Holder of Bank account
a) Yes 366 80.4
b) No 89 19.6
Table 7: Descriptive Analysis - Percentage of Correct Answers for Each Financial Knowledge
Question
Questions – Concepts Number of Participants Percentage of correct answers

Q 1. Numeracy (Interest) 258 56.6
Q 2. Compound Interest (a) 303 66.4
Q 3. Compound Interest (b) 253 55.5
Q 4. Inflation 370 81.1
Q 5. Risk Diversification 353 77.4
Table 8: Overall test of the Model (Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients)
Chi-square df Sig.
Step 1 Step 6.295 2 .043
Block 6.295 2 .043
Model 6.295 2 .043
Table 9: Overall fit of the Model (Classification Tablea )

Predicted
Lusardi metric Percentage
Observed No FinLit FinLit Correct
Step 1 Lusardi metric No FinLit 4 128 3.0
FinLit 3 321 99.1
19
Overall Percentage 71.3
a. The cut value is ,500
Table 10: Overall test of the Model (Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients)
Chi-square df Sig.
Step 1 Step 29.864 8 .000
Block 29.864 8 .000
Model 29.864 8 .000
Table 11: Model Summary (Cox & Snell R-square & Nagelkerke R-square)
Cox & Snell R Nagelkerke R

Step -2 Log likelihood Square Square
1 410.030a .064 .103
a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 20 because
maximum iterations has been reached. Final solution cannot be
found.
Table 12: Analytical the Results of the Binary Logistic Regression.
Summary of Logistic regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Financial Literacy
B S.E. Wald df P-Value Odds

Step 1a @3.Gender -.708 .256 7.655 1 .006* .493
@7.FathersEducation 16.175 6 .013*
@7.FathersEducation(1) -19.698 28420.722 .000 1 .999 .000
@7.FathersEducation(2) .108 .725 .022 1 .881 1.114
@7.FathersEducation(3) 1.461 .627 5.428 1 .020* 4.310
@7.FathersEducation(4) -.043 .561 .006 1 .938 .958
@7.FathersEducation(5) 1.028 .539 3.644 1 .056 2.796
@7.FathersEducation(6) .889 .532 2.791 1 .095 2.434
@18.Keeprecord-expenses .645 .260 6.159 1 .013* 1.907
Constant -2.151 .515 17.428 1 .000 .116
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: @3.Gender , @7.FathersEducation, @18.Keeprecordofexpenses.
*Statistically significant value at 5% level (p,0.05)
Table 13: Financial Fragility
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
20
Valid I am sure that I can't cover 40 8,8 8,8 8,8

Maybe I can't cover 40 8,8 8,8 17,5
Maybe I can cover 178 39,0 39,0 56,6
I am sure that I can cover 187 41,0 41,0 97,6
Don't Know 11 2,4 2,4 100,0
Total 456 100,0 100,0
Figures.
Figure 1: Financial Literacy levels for Greek University Students in “absolute” terms (students
answered all 5 questions correctly)
Figure 2: Financial Fragility by Gender
21

$rmt4oea PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

$rmt4oea PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proceedings of the Second American Academic Research Conference on Global Business, Economics,

Finance and Social Sciences (AAR17New York Conference) ISBN: 978-1-943579-13-6

A Financial Literacy Survey among University Students in Greece

non-business university students in South Africa. In particular, participants were agriculture

4. Results and Discussion

Characteristics of the Sample Number of Participants Percentage

Table 2: Characteristics of the Sample – B. Demographic Characteristics

Characteristics of the Sample Number of Participants Percentage

Table 3: Characteristics of the Sample – C. Experience

Characteristics of the Sample Number of Participants Percentage

Characteristics of the Sample Number of Participants Percentage

Table 5: Characteristics of the Sample – E. Parents’ Information

Characteristics of the Sample Number of Participants Percentage

Table 6: Characteristics of the Sample – F. Personal Information

Characteristics of the Sample Number of Participants Percentage

Questions – Concepts Number of Participants Percentage of correct answers

Table 8: Overall test of the Model (Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients)

Table 9: Overall fit of the Model (Classification Tablea )

Cox & Snell R Nagelkerke R

Table 12: Analytical the Results of the Binary Logistic Regression.

Summary of Logistic regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Financial Literacy

B S.E. Wald df P-Value Odds

*Statistically significant value at 5% level (p,0.05)

Table 13: Financial Fragility

Valid I am sure that I can't cover 40 8,8 8,8 8,8

Figure 2: Financial Fragility by Gender

You might also like