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

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

### Categories

Editors' Picks Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks 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

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

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

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

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

v . Tansel Yilmazer. As a result of the portfolio constraint.’ and (iii) to accumulate for anticipated future needs.D. Ph. The University of Texas at Austin.Household Saving Behavior. (ii) to build up reserves as a precaution for a ‘rainy day. risky assets and interest-bearing accounts. 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. Portfolio Choice and Children: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances Publication No. such as owner-occupied housing. The ﬁrst chapter examines how the number of children living in the household aﬀects the way households allocate their wealth across diﬀerent assets. 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. Slesnick Using the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF). such as educational expenses. this dissertation examines the relationship between having children and the motives of saving: (i) to hold assets because of the return they provide.

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

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 The Model . . . . . .5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data . . . . . . .2. . . .4 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. . . . Chapter 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Relationship between Fertility and Saving . . . . . . .5 The Eﬀect of Precautionary Motives Saving and Fertility Introduction . . . . . . . . vii .2. . Conclusion . 2. 2. .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Do Children Aﬀect Household Portfolio Allocation? 2. . . . . Estimation and Results . . on Household . . . . .4 Estimation and Results . . . .2 3.1 Theory . . . . . . .3 Data . .3 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Table of Contents Acknowledgments Abstract List of Tables List of Figures Chapter 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 3. .2 Empirical Model . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

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

are not consistent with the predictions of the precautionary saving model that suggests agents faced with uncertainty about future income increase their savings. Using a life cycle model that incorporates precautionary motives for saving. 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. household saving show that saving rates are higher for married couples with no children and lower for those with children. 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. This ﬁnding is consistent with the life-cycle theory of saving and consumption and shows that household composition is an important factor 3 . 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.cost of homeownership. 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. By examining the implications of uncertainty on the fertility decisions of households and incorporating fertility decisions as a motive for household saving behavior. The ﬁndings. however. The data on U. Chapter 3 investigates the relation between household saving and fertility decisions. this chapter extends the empirical work on precautionary saving.S. having an additional child decreases savings of households with young heads and increases savings of those with older heads. Also.

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

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. race and gender of the household head on the portfolio composition. 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]. 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.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. For example. and Ioannides [34] for age eﬀect. they may hold most of their ﬁnancial assets in riskless See Poterba and Samwick [46]. 1 6 . So far. risky assets. and interest-bearing accounts. King and Leape [41]. Conversely. households with children may purchase more housing than households with no children or they may have a higher probability of owning a home. the literature has focused on the impact of demographic variables such as the eﬀect of age. and Sund`n and Surette [52] e for gender eﬀects. Chiteji and Staﬀord [13] for race.

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

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

Neither of these studies explicitly analyzes the determinants of the consumption demand for housing and the portfolio share for housing. 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. the homeowner’s optimal portfolio is ineﬃcient in a mean-variance framework. His model analyzes the resulting distortion of the eﬀect of this investment constraint on the portfolio choice of homeowners. Their simulation concentrates on the eﬀect of taxes on the tenure choice and owner-occupied housing. Harun et al. households decide on tenure and quantity of housing taking both consumption and investment motives into account. [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. Flavin and Yamashita use numerical methods to calculate the mean-variance eﬃcient frontier.5 percent. 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. For example.an investment constraint requires that the quantity of housing owned is at least as large as the quantity of housing consumed. The results of his model show that when the constraint imposed by housing is binding. The literature on housing demand has recognized the role of children on the tenure choice and the demand for housing services. Robst et al. In Berkovec and Fullerton. [36] show that 9 .

according to the 1995 SCF. these variables do not aﬀect the housing demand of homeowners. households typically invest in only a few of the assets available in the economy. Goodman and Kawai [25] ﬁnd that larger households prefer more housing. Ihlanfeldt [33] reports housing demand estimates obtained separately from two samples-recent movers and nonmovers. 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. deﬁned beneﬁt pensions and mutual funds. After controlling for the household size. Besides housing. only 41 percent of households held stocks directly or indirectly in IRAs. marital status. as noted in Goodman [24]. However. little systematic treatment of children has appeared in the estimation of tenure choice and housing demand. Among recent movers.an additional child increases the probability of owning a home by around 8 percent. 401(k)s. Many studies have investigated the reasons that most households choose to hold incomplete portfolios. however.S. their results show that the presence of children in school has either an insigniﬁcant or a negative eﬀect on the demand for 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. 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 . For example. Demographic characteristics such as age. U.

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. The empirical model compares the portfolio allocation of homeowners to that of renters. and they estimate equations for both the probability of owning an asset and its demand conditional upon ownership. His results show that household characteristics such as age and education of the household head are signiﬁcant in explaining the probability of owning stocks. 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. however.discourage households from investing in risky assets. The results show that the number of children has a positive and signiﬁcant eﬀect 11 . Children living in the household have not been the focus of any study examining the portfolio choice of households. the eﬀect of age and marital status appears to be signiﬁcant only for some of the assets. This chapter aims to do so by examining the eﬀect of the number and the age of children on household portfolio choice. In the conditional demand equations. Their ﬁnding is that parents who held stocks are more likely to have children who hold stocks as young adults. For example. Chiteji and Staﬀord [13] link independent young African-American adults back to their parents. Bertaut [5] uses the 1983-89 SCF to analyze the eﬀect of household characteristics on portfolio allocation.

1 The Model Theory This section examines the behavior of a consumer deciding whether to rent or own a home.on the probability of owning a home. As a result of the portfolio constraint imposed by the housing demand of children. Renters invest a smaller share of their portfolio in interest-bearing accounts with an increase in the number 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. Children living in the household also aﬀects the portfolio choice of renters. A summary of the ﬁndings and concluding remarks are presented in Section 2. Following Brueckner [7] and 12 . 2.4. Controlling for the number of children and other variables. The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows.2. homeowners decrease the portfolio share in retirement accounts while they increase the portfolio share in housing. The number of children also increases the housing demand of homeowners. The estimation results are reported in Section 2.3 describes the data set and the variables used in the empirical work. The consumer maximizes a multiperiod utility function.5. Section 2.2 introduces the theoretical model and discusses the empirical speciﬁcation of the model. Section 2. and how much to allocate to other risky assets.2 2. 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.

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

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

6) and (2. J... In the ﬁrst stage.) is the standard normal density function.6) and (2. J.7).1) subject to (2. I rewrite the objective function (2.8) where φ(. and shares of wealth to allocate to each asset j (sj ). 1. .2. σ. First. how much to spend on housing (Eh ). a household determines whether to own or rent a house: H = 1 if Xh β1 + ε1 > 0 = 0 otherwise. and to owner-occupied housing (sh ) is modeled as follows.7) and decides to own or rent a house comparing the utilities in two outcomes. . (2. 2. J. c j (2. are chosen optimally with hc and σ held constant. that maximize (2. The consumer’s problem is to choose c∗ . j = 0. h∗ . hc (and thus σ) is chosen optimally.5).3). In the second stage. h∗ and a∗ .4). hc ) + δ V (R + σz + y)φ(z)dz. (2. 1. (2. the asset levels aj . 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). j = 0.8) subject to (2. The consumer also decides on c∗ ... that maximize (2. . this problem can be solved in two stages.. For both homeowners and renters.Following Fama and Miller [21] and Brueckner [7]. 1. j = c j 0. (2. (2.2). and the standard normal variable z as follows: U (c.1) in terms of R.9) where Xh is a vector of year dummies and characteristics that are associated 15 ... and a∗ .

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

all types of bonds. in 1995. 6) RESTATE includes the market value of seasonal residences and other property. cash value of life insurance. 4) HOUSE is the market value of owner-occupied housing.3 Total assets are grouped into six categories: 1) ACCOUNT includes all holdings of checking accounts. certiﬁcates of deposit. 1. 1992.409 out of 4. and mutual funds. 401(k)s. the supplement consists of 866 out of 3. and 7) OTHER includes trusts. 3) RETIRE includes IRAs. call accounts.519 out of 4. money market deposit accounts. Keogh. and other assets like arts and precious metals. 1995 and 1998 SCF. and demographic characteristics. population. population and a supplement of high-wealth households drawn from Internal Revenue Service ﬁle of high-income returns. 1.3 Data The data for this study are taken from the 1989.S. in 1992. 2) STOCK includes all assets held in stocks. 3 17 .S. the cost of housing services depends on In the 1989 SCF. The SCF constructs sample weights to blend the supplements with the area-probability sample to get a more representative sample of the U.480 out of 3. 1. The consumption demand for housing is computed for renters and homeowners as follows.906.299. For owners. saving accounts. 5) VEHICLE is the value of all the vehicles the household owns. Each survey consists of a representative sample of the U. and in 1998. Investments in businesses are not included in total assets because they generate an income that is diﬃcult to separate from earnings.309 households. income. and other deﬁned contribution plans. The survey contains detailed information on household portfolios.143 households.2. a triennial survey conducted by the Federal Reserve Board.

ρ. r. the rate of increase in the nominal price of housing (ρ) and the overall inﬂation rate (π). the annual rental expenditure reported in the SCF is used as the consumption demand for housing. (2. For renters. I make several assumptions. households that neither rent nor own their homes are excluded for lack of information to cal18 . To calculate the housing expenditure by using equation (2. the interest rate (r).1. The housing expenditures (Eh ) of homeowners are then deﬁned as Eh = [(1 − τ )r + d + (1 − τ )τp − (ρ − π)]G − mτ. π. Following Henderson and Ioannides [28]. the mortgage interest payment (m). is assumed to be the interest rate on treasury bills. The inﬂation rate. Since marginal tax rates are not reported in the SCF.the gross value of the residence (G). The calculation of marginal tax rates is described in Appendix A. the income tax rate (τ ).12) This formulation assumes that homeowners claim tax deductions for property taxes and mortgage interest payments. maintenance and depreciation costs (d). I impute them using detailed account information on the sources of income and demographics for each household. A few restrictions are imposed on the sample. is the annual inﬂation rate calculated using the CPI-U deﬂator. is the rate of increase in the median sale price of houses in that year. First. I assume an annual rate of depreciation of d=0.015 for each of the sample years. The interest rate. and the rate of increase in house prices. the property tax rate (τp ).12). Property tax rates and mortgage interest payments are reported in the SCF.

Sample demographics show the age of the household head (AGE). The variables are described in detail in Appendix A. 1992. In 1989.5 The ﬁnal sample consists of 13. and 1998 SCF. Table 2. 209 and 193 were in the 0. 4 19 . 5 Of the remaining households.culate housing expenditure.509.900. 1995 and 1998. 116. respectively. 317 and 309 households were neither renters nor owners and were dropped from the sample. 127.1 shows the summary statistics for all the variables used in the estimation. 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. 183. respectively. 214. 3. 1992.6 However.4 Second. marital status (MARRIED) and gender (FEMALE) of the household head and the fraction of homeowners (HOMEOWN). The calculation of permanent income follows King and Dicks-Mireaux [40] and is described in Appendix A. 6 The SCF deﬁnes the head of the household to be the husband for all married households. 1995 and 1998.3.1 percentile of the weighted wealth distribution in the 1989. I take the estimated earnings of the household head and the spouse at the age of 45 and an individual-speciﬁc eﬀect. 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.773 and 3. households with female heads are headed by single females. Therefore.1 percent weighted wealth holdings in each wave of the SCF are dropped.989 observations. a co-op or a townhouse association. 1992. both mean and median wealth (ASSET) have risen since 1992. As a proxy for permanent income. or (iii) it owns part or all of the farm/ranch on which it lives on. (ii) it owns both the mobile house and the site. 3. 2. respectively. households with the highest 0.807 households in 1989. to avoid the inﬂuence of extreme outliers on the regression.2. The same pattern is true for permanent income (INCOME). most of which have not changed much over time. 1995.

The average number of children (NCHILD) living in the household declined from 0. Table 2.2 presents interesting changes in household portfolio structures over time.5 percent in 1998. As shown in Table 2. wealth and children (the number of children living in the household) groups. Second.3 presents housing expenditures of homeowners and renters in 1998. 20 . First. The percentage of households with all children older than age 13 (CHAGE13) has stayed the same since 1992. VEHICLE and RESTATE. Table 2. This suggests that households have substituted ﬁnancial assets for nonﬁnancial assets.2. the share for RETIRE increases sharply.2 percent in 1998 due to an increase in the portfolio share for saving accounts. followed by ACCOUNT. there is a steady growth in the portfolio share for STOCK and a steady decline in the portfolio share for RESTATE since 1989. The increases in ACCOUNT.3 percent in 1989 to 11.2 percent in 1995. HOUSE is the most important asset. The portfolio share for ACCOUNT declined from 14.7 percent of total assets in 1989 to 10. The second largest asset in the households’ portfolios is VEHICLE (18. representing 39.75 in 1995 and stayed the same in 1998. Assets in these accounts increased from 5. age.4 percent of total assets in 1998.was higher for homeowners in 1992 than in other years due to the decline in house prices in that year. but it rose to 13. STOCK and RETIRE in 1998 oﬀset the decline in HOUSE. The ﬁrst column shows the share of households in diﬀerent income.6 percent in 1998). the composition of households’ portfolios reveals the importance of housing as an asset.83 in 1989 to 0.

042 for homeowners and $6. For homeowners. Among households with wealth below $250.4 and 2. and the number of children. First. The housing expenditures of renters and homeowners also increase with income.8 percent of total assets) following 21 .The second column indicates the percentage of each of these groups that are homeowners. wealth and the age of the household head. The percentage of households who are homeowners increases with income. the expenditure on housing declines after the age of 65. 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. For homeowners. Average housing expenditures for homeowners and renters are presented. it declines after age 50. there are marked diﬀerences in household portfolios of renters and owners. Tables 2.4 shows the portfolio shares of assets that homeowners and renters hold. The average housing expenditure is $7.5 show the household portfolio composition in 1998 by household permanent income. VEHICLE is the most important asset held (41. respectively.000 and income below $50.000. wealth. The ﬁrst row of Table 2. VEHICLE is the third largest asset (7. accounting for 57. in the remaining two columns of the table. For renters.5 percent of total assets) followed by ACCOUNT (26. age of the household head.030 for renters.9 percent. Since the primary residence is the largest part of homeowners’ wealth. for renters.0 percent). however. It also increases with the number of children. wealth and the number of children in the household. reaching a peak among households with two children. renters spend more on housing than owners.

Table 2.7 percent are homeowners holding 75. in contrast.4. of the households with income below $15. we observe striking diﬀerences in the composition of portfolios by the level of wealth.3 and 2. among homeowners that have wealth exceeding $1 million.6 percent of total assets in housing. the portfolio share for ACCOUNT almost doubles both for homeowners and renters over the age of 65 compared to 50-64 year old group. accumulation in STOCK relative to other assets increases over age 65. Not surprisingly. For homeowners. while the housing share of portfolio declines. the share of the portfolio allocated to RESTATE and for all households. Another noteworthy ﬁnding is that the portfolio shares for STOCK and RETIRE for both homeowners and renters rise with income. STOCK is the most important asset category with a share equal to 25. Several ﬁndings are worth noting.6 percent.7 percent are homeowners. For higher levels of income.000.2 percent of total assets while housing accounted for only 22.RETIRE (10.2 percent). 42. Also.000. For example. For example. but they hold only 42.4 also presents the life cycle patterns in household portfolios. The portfolio shares for other assets such as STOCK. portfolio composition of households with heads over the age of 65 diﬀers considerably from other age groups’ portfolios. the fraction of households who are homeowners increases.9 percent of their total assets in housing. Of the households with income above $100. 86. the share of the portfolio allocated to STOCK rise at a rapid rate with wealth. RETIRE and RESTATE are almost equal for renters and owners. This suggests that households with heads over age 65 substitute 22 . Also. as shown in Tables 2. First.

Children are likely to aﬀect the portfolio structures in two ways. Also. While portfolio composition diﬀers considerably between renters and homeowners. age and wealth are similar. and the second is their eﬀect on asset shares of portfolios conditional upon ownership.liquid assets for nonﬁnancial assets. housing accounts for 56. Table 2. The portfolio share for owner-occupied housing increases with the number of children. Homeowners invest a smaller share of their portfolio in interest-bearing accounts and stocks with an increase in the number of children.3 investigates the eﬀect of children on the tenure choice.3 percent for those with three or more children.5 shows the portfolio shares by the number of children living in the household. 60. and age groups. wealth. and table 2.5 reveal striking diﬀerences in portfolio structures across income. Finally. The table indicates a strong relation between children and the share of portfolio allocated to housing. For example. but it stays steady after age 65. the relative changes in portfolio shares of assets by income.4 and 2. and 65. The results indicate that the number of children living in the household aﬀects the portfolio shares for assets and 23 . Tables 2. Table 2. The ﬁrst is their eﬀect on the choice of tenure.9 percent for households with 2 children.0 percent of the wealth for households with no children. the presence of children increases the share of the portfolio allocated to vehicles. Second.5 looks at the link between children and shares of assets in both renters’ and homeowners’ portfolios. the portfolio share for HOUSE declines with age among the households headed by persons below age 65.

VEHICLE. the marital 7 93 households in 1989. Portfolio choice theory has shown the importance of age. 100 in 1995. I drop one group of assets. RETIRE. and the disturbance covariance matrix is singular. Previous research also indicates that a household’s marginal tax rate (MRT) has an eﬀect on its asset allocation decisions. Then I solve for the parameters of OTHER from the other equations. 111 in 1992. 2. and 106 in 1998 had zero wealth holding. STOCK. Of 13. Thus. HOUSE.7 I exclude those households from the sample and correct for sample selection. The empirical model below investigates the eﬀect of children on both asset shares and homeownership decision. Portfolio shares of the J + 1 assets and housing sum to one. The other variables in X are chosen to be consistent with previous empirical studies. Age and age-squared of the household head are included to capture a possible change in portfolio behavior related to the life cycle. and RESTATE in the estimation of the model. Dummy variables indicating the number and the age of children living in the household are included in X. OTHER. and include ACCOUNT. Moreover.4 Estimation and Results The resulting set of equations constitutes an endogenous switching model in the form of a multivariate regression model.898 households.the probability that a household owns a home. 24 . permanent income and wealth in determining the asset shares in household portfolios. 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

and the share for VEHICLE is signiﬁcantly higher for households with three or more children. RETIRE and HOUSE for homeowners are all statistically signiﬁcant.7-2.0 percent higher in renters’ portfolio. The portfolio share for RETIRE increases with age until the age of 58. homeownership would not have the same eﬀect on renters. The coeﬃcients on the selection terms in equations for ACCOUNT. As renters have two or more children. It leads to a decrease in the share allocated to ACCOUNT. RESTATE and OTHER. should they choose to buy homes. RETIRE and RESTATE. Tables 2. renters have shifted toward RETIRE in their portfolio. the 1998 portfolio share for RETIRE is 5. while the portfolio share for ACCOUNT and STOCK decreases until the age 40 and 43. the share for ACCOUNT decreases. More permanent income is associated with a higher share for ACCOUNT. Tables 2. The eﬀect of children is less pronounced for renters than for homeowners.10 present the estimates of the equations (2. Compared to 1989. Selfselection occurred in households’ tenure choice. respectively. Since 1995.9 and 2.10 report coeﬃcients of the selectivity variables. RESTATE and OTHER and a decrease in the share for ACCOUNT and VEHICLE. STOCK. and a lower share for VEHICLE. for example.11) for renters. An increase in total assets leads to an increase in the share for STOCK. The estimates of the Mills ratios for renters are signiﬁcantly diﬀerent from zero 28 .to HOUSE and VEHICLE. 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. For these assets.

The housing expenditure of homeowners increases 8. 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. For both renters and owners. but the number of children has no eﬀect on renters’ expenditure. Homeowners with one child have 11. On the other hand. the expenditure on housing increases with the number of children.3 percent with the second child. and RESTATE. I mean a household headed by a white married. The age of the children in the household has no eﬀect on the housing expenditure of renters nor homeowners. 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.2 percent. By a typical household. RETIRE. there were no signiﬁcant diﬀerences in the average behavior of the two groups prior to home purchase. After the second child. having more children increases the housing expenditures of homeowners by only 3. 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. all of the children in the household are younger 29 . The last two columns in Tables 2. Table 2. This implies that other than in regards to these three assets.9 percent higher housing expenditure than homeowners with no child.for ACCOUNT. For homeowners.11 presents the estimates of shares for assets that a typical homeowner holds.8 and 2.10 present the estimates of the housing expenditure equation.

The household head is willing to take risky investments and holds mean wealth ($188. an increase in the number of children increases the probability that a household owns a home. and its importance in the portfolio increase with the number of children living in the household. Second. As the household head reaches middle age. The chapter examines the impact of children on the homeownership decision and the constraint of consumption demand for owner-occupied housing. At all ages. conditional on the tenure choice.11 include both of these eﬀects. 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. children change the demand for each asset. 1992. As mentioned above. children have two eﬀects on the portfolio structure of households. HOUSE is the most important asset. First.690) and has a 15 percent marginal tax rate. The number of children has a negative eﬀect on the portfolio share for RETIRE. more is invested in RETIRE. 2.than age 13. this chapter investigates how the number and the age of children living in the household inﬂuence the portfolio composition of households. The portfolio shares of assets calculated in Table 2.5 Conclusion Using the 1989. Using a 30 .160) and permanent income ($46. 1995 and 1998 SCF. 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.

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. Considerable research has focused on whether U. the ratio of housing to total assets increases as the number of children increases. the chapter compares the determinants of portfolio allocation of homeowners to that of renters. households are saving enough for retirement. the ratio of retirement accounts to total assets in renters’ portfolios does not signiﬁcantly decrease with the number of children. the consumption demand for housing is higher than the investment demand. for households with children. One direction for further research is to include the liabilities and bor31 . However.S. the portfolio share for ﬁnancial assets such as interest-bearing accounts and retirement accounts decreases. As homeowners have more children. 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. Since households cannot separate the level of consumption of housing services from their investment in housing as an asset. and the portfolio share for housing increases. Therefore. 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.switching regression model that takes into account the consumption demand for housing. This result suggests that.

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

97 Source: Survey of Consumer Finances.59 0.660 12. 1989-1998.2.61 3.815 258.3 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 47.8 0.12 0.509 0.773 0. 33 .5 0.684 92.750 0.58 0.65 0.158 0.695 47.525 101. The text deﬁnes total assets.66 0.55 3.191 92.80 0.12 0.328 206.968 46.151 203.11 0. All variables are deﬁned in Appendix A.50 3.27 0.829 116.664 6.75 0.97 48.131 5.28 0.28 0.51 2.658 222.83 0.Table 2.807 0. 2) All dollar values are reported in 1998 dollars.985 6.64 0.28 0.75 0.900 0.9 0.14 0.59 0.164 0.319 50.054 49. Notes: 1) Tabulations are weighted using sample weights. permanent income and net worth.59 0.97 48.97 48.154 0.65 0.

094 0.053 0.076 0.076 0.394 0.186 0.059 0.067 0.112 0.143 0.072 0. RETIRE.132 0.2: Mean Asset Shares by Year 1989 Portfolio Shares ACCOUNT STOCK RETIRE HOUSE VEHICLE RESTATE OTHER 1992 1995 1998 0.197 0.105 0.130 0. 1989-1998. VEHICLE.047 0. STOCK.050 0. Notes: 1) Tabulations are weighted using sample weights.072 Source: Survey of Consumer Finances.068 0.057 0. RESTATE. 2) The text deﬁnes the assets called ACCOUNT. HOUSE.432 0.043 0. 34 .059 0.196 0.415 0.208 0. and OTHER.Table 2.043 0.410 0.

35 .54 5.29 4.078 7.748 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 22.564 5.69 4.26 21.496 6.081 $30-50K 29.90 19.46 72.391 Source: Survey of Consumer Finances.489 32.93 1. 2) HH represents all households.486 95.78 7.28 9.79 64.24 86.55 6.46 14.42 78.89 6.40 34.72 14.400 5.030 Income Below $15K 10.195 5.35 42.22 64.77 67.002 6.09 64.72 3.475 5.08 22.546 80.976 7.973 6. 1998.03 21. HO represents homeowners and RR represents renters.847 15.587 95.803 8.22 7.438 8.90 12. 1998 Eh 1998 dollars %HH %HO HO RR All households 100 66.50 51.Table 2.555 93.677 6.883 Above $100K 8.866 4.042 6.17 15.29 68.263 5.43 9.3: Expenditure on Housing.931 6.764 6.645 61.183 7.081 6.16 12.04 5.024 6.72 78.741 7.293 $15-30K 22.69 3.378 $50-100K 29.843 9.12 80.38 29.49 36.456 11. Notes: 1) Tabulations are weighted using sample weights.065 7.

059 0.162 0.062 0.730 0.401 0.281 0.022 0.102 0.166 0.359 0.413 0.028 0.436 RESTATE HO RR 0.027 0.157 0.022 0.083 0.011 0.234 0.010 0.052 0 0.Table 2.039 0 0.122 0.092 0.137 0.293 0.415 0.132 0.135 0.086 0.077 0.075 continued on the next page.002 0.389 0.090 0.064 0.073 $250-1000K 0.587 0.014 0 0.051 0.122 0.066 $50-100K 0.007 0. .097 0.107 0.221 0.047 0.226 0.021 0 0.111 0 0.147 0.040 0.190 0.645 0.149 0.287 0.535 0.068 0.149 0.172 0.192 0.199 0.033 0.065 0.054 $100K-250K 0.048 50-64 0.074 0.031 0.129 Wealth Below $50K 0.032 0.485 0.694 0.759 0.251 0.055 0.025 0.091 0.135 0.017 0.056 0.101 0.062 Above 65 0.252 0.061 0.093 $15-30K 0.043 0 0.087 0.270 0.090 $30-50K 0.183 0.151 0.445 0.064 0.042 $50K-100K 0.089 0.050 0 0.056 0.091 0.075 Age Under 35 0.089 0.049 0.453 0.080 0.078 0.015 0.071 0.019 0.4: Mean Asset Shares.083 0.205 0.041 0.091 0.162 0.111 0. 1998 ACCOUNT STOCK RETIRE HOUSE VEHICLE HO RR HO RR HO RR HO RR HO RR 0.630 0.489 0.054 0.046 0.608 0.086 0.046 0 0 0 0 0 0.049 0.374 0.062 Above $100K 0.078 0.112 0.040 35-49 0.088 0.055 0.020 0.069 0.080 0.004 0.082 Above 1000K 0.018 0.068 0 0.019 0.579 0 0.559 0.490 0.181 0.295 0.260 0.128 0.047 0.256 0.212 0.047 0.750 0.143 0.049 0.028 0.047 0.213 0.165 0.061 0.127 0.201 0.112 0.158 0.454 0.541 0.109 36 All households Income Below $15K 0.238 0.071 0 0.072 0.

RETIRE.055 0.038 0.512 Children CHILD0 CHILD1 CHILD2 CHILD3 37 Source: Survey of Consumer Finances.045 0.044 0.062 0. 2) All dollar values are reported in 1998 dollars.089 0.088 0.115 0. Notes: 1) Tabulations are weighted using sample weights.5: Mean Asset Shares. 3) HO represents homeowners and RR represents renters.040 0.069 0.044 0.195 0.577 0.098 0. HOUSE.044 0.117 0.110 0.222 0.373 0.085 0.032 0.200 0.122 0. 1998.070 0.026 0.471 0.048 0. VEHICLE.495 0.061 0.049 0.074 0.038 0. and RESTATE.098 0.052 0. The text deﬁnes the assets called ACCOUNT.Table 2.288 0. STOCK. 1998: Continued ACCOUNT STOCK RETIRE HOUSE VEHICLE HO RR HO RR HO RR HO RR HO RR RESTATE HO RR 0.102 0. .609 0.087 0.087 0.040 0.019 0.560 0.653 0 0 0 0 0.

747 0.004 ** 0.000 0.049 ** 0.153 ** 0.005 ** 0. 2) Variables are deﬁned in Appendix A.063 0. The number of observations N=13.210 0.261 0.096 0.000 MTR RISKY WHITE YEAR92 YEAR95 YEAR98 Notes: 1) ** indicates signiﬁcance at 1 percent level.304 0.341 0.030 ** 0.6: Results from Probit Estimation HOMEOWN Coeﬃcient Standard Errors Marginal Eﬀects -4. 38 .040 ** -0.118 0.047 ** 0.108 0.052 0.Table 2.041 * -0.080 0.2.143 0.053 0.137 ** 0.029 -0.044 ** 0.193 0.085 0.579.040 -0.287 0.014 -0. and * indicates signiﬁcance at 5 percent level.050 CONSTANT AGE AGE2 /100 MARRIED FEMALE CHILD1 CHILD2 CHILD3 CHAGE13 INCOME/10.034 ** 0.404 0.005 ** 0.030 0.010 2.102 -0.046 0.137 0.007 0.042 ** 0.052 ** 0.072 0.174 0.

007 -0.007 0.003 -0.002 0.018 ** RISKY -0.056 0.006 * CHILD2 -0.006 ** FEMALE 0.008 0.003 0.062 0.004 ** MR:home -0.056 0.002 -0.007 -0.006 0.190 0.004 -0.7: Results: Asset Shares and Housing Expenditure of Homeowners ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 39 ** ** ** ** * * ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * ** ACCOUNT Coef SE CONSTANT 0.008 0.001 0.020 0.006 0.006 ** CHILD3 -0.001 -0.012 0.002 0.009 0.003 -0.023 0.010 0.049 0.005 0.013 0.003 0.004 0.002 -0.001 0.020 -0.024 0.001 0.006 L INCOME -0.432 0.008 0.063 0.001 0.007 0.087 0.009 0.007 0.013 0.001 -0.002 -0.004 0.059 0.031 0.003 ** YEAR95 -0.007 0.004 0.008 0.033 0.005 0.006 0.003 0.003 0.003 ** YEAR98 -0.005 0. .007 -0.018 ** MR:+ wealth -0.112 0.005 -0.027 0.006 -0.013 0.003 -0.007 -0.029 0.003 -0.515 0.002 0.032 0.005 CHILD1 -0.009 0.031 * STOCK Coef SE -0.003 -0.398 0.021 0.003 0.307 0.089 0.010 0.063 0.021 0.001 ** MARRIED -0.003 0.198 0.004 0.002 ** L ASSET 0.039 VEHICLE Coef SE 0.005 -0.008 0.016 0.001 0.003 -0.069 -0.027 0.007 ** CHAGE13 -0.455 0.010 0.007 0.001 ** AGE2 /100 0.021 0.067 0.006 -0.000 0.006 0.009 0.010 0.054 ** AGE -0.011 0.002 0.008 0.020 -0.037 0.006 0.007 0.005 0.001 0.061 0.002 0.001 0.008 -0.000 0.016 0.026 0.021 0.004 0.049 HOUSE Coef SE 1.009 -0.Table 2.010 ** * ** continued on the next page.004 0.004 0.008 0.005 0.019 0.029 0.004 0.006 -0.011 -0.006 0.006 -0.023 0.005 0.001 0.009 0.006 0.026 0.003 ** YEAR92 -0.125 0.024 0.020 0.022 0.013 0.054 RETIRE Coef SE -0.063 0.027 0.007 -0.001 -0.005 0.092 0.002 0.001 * MTR -0.023 0.010 0.115 0.006 -0.077 0.021 0.012 0.024 0.002 -0.

007 ** * * 1.234 0.019 0.584 0. .189 0.002 0.003 0.004 -0. MR represents Mills Ratio.002 0.011 ** 0. STOCK.015 -0.024 0.001 0.018 0.177 0.005 YEAR98 -0.003 ** L ASSET 0.004 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.Table 2.001 ** MARRIED -0.015 0.246 0.004 -0.005 * YEAR95 0.008 0.204 0.116 0. RESTATE.025 MR: + wealth 0. The number of observations N=10.068 0.004 -0. RETIRE.018 0.004 0.181 0.036 Notes: 1) ** indicates signiﬁcance at 1 percent level.004 0.004 0.008 CHAGE13 0. HOUSE.032 0. and * indicates signiﬁcance at 5 percent level.009 ** CHILD1 -0.009 FEMALE -0.002.002 0.002 ** 2 AGE /100 -0.004 0.017 0.014 0.010 0.008 0.001 0.012 0.094 0.8: Homeowners: Continued ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 40 log Eh Coef SE * -0.002 -0.005 YEAR92 0.010 0.307 0.023 0.005 -0.043 0.001 0.049 -0.002 ** MTR -0.002 0.2.008 0.008 ** CHILD3 -0.007 0.008 CHILD2 -0.006 -0.025 -0.003 -0.000 0.003 0.023 0.001 -0.005 ** MR:home -0.004 0.010 0.025 ** RISKY -0.017 0.393 -0.119 0.052 0.018 -0.158 0.001 0.006 0.015 0.036 0.120 ** ** ** ** ** RESTATE Coef SE CONSTANT -0.017 0.202 0.053 OTHER Coef SE -0.568 0. All variables are deﬁned in Appendix A. and OTHER. 2) The text deﬁnes the assets called ACCOUNT.005 -0.080 ** AGE 0.007 * L INCOME -0.001 0.220 0.024 0.066 0.503 0.005 -0.021 0.004 -0. VEHICLE.

033 0.050 0.319 0.014 0.001 0.027 0.012 0.051 0.015 -0.016 0.002 ** MARRIED -0.014 0.014 0.059 0.015 0.019 0.054 0.015 0.033 0.021 ** CHAGE13 -0.097 -0.072 0.007 0.017 0.006 -0.019 -0.000 0.008 -0.061 0.034 0.011 ** 0.027 0.021 ** FEMALE 0.014 ** 0.029 0.130 0.013 0.109 0.035 0.120 0.039 STOCK Coef SE -0.029 0.017 CHILD2 -0.038 * MR:+ wealth 0.048 -0.012 0.023 0.004 ** MTR 0.007 0.019 0.032 0.002 0.079 * RISKY 0. .013 0.025 0.013 * CHILD1 -0.001 0.080 0.Table 2.019 ** CHILD3 -0.008 -0.003 0.059 0.005 0.008 0.010 0.154 ** 0.017 0.015 -0.001 0.243 -0.001 -0.039 0.014 YEAR95 -0.030 0.004 -0.006 0.015 0.021 0.052 0.031 0.012 YEAR92 -0.9: Results: Asset Shares and Housing Expenditure of Renters ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** 41 ACCOUNT Coef SE CONSTANT 0.002 ** 0.018 0.037 RETIRE Coef SE ** -0.008 0.026 -0.086 0.000 0.285 0.019 0.011 0.024 0.005 0.010 0.077 0.015 * YEAR98 0.038 0.007 0.068 0.014 ** L ASSET -0.028 0.070 0.018 0.020 0.002 ** -0.243 0.014 0.001 0.064 ** 0.074 0.001 0.010 0.026 -0.022 L INCOME 0.204 0.003 0.103 -0.026 0.011 0.010 0.793 0.003 ** AGE2 /100 0.015 0.014 MR:home -0.011 -0.004 0.053 ** continued on the next page.009 0.022 0.019 0.089 0.020 -0.035 VEHICLE Coef SE 2.173 AGE -0.381 0.014 0.019 0.017 0.023 0.002 0.004 0.005 0.003 0.079 0.

110 0.062 0.014 0.030 0.118 0.010 L INCOME 0.102 0.020 -0.004 0.109 0.024 MR: home 0.285 -0.044 0.10: Renters: Continued ** ** 42 log Eh Coef SE 4.033 ** MR: + wealth -0. MR represents Mills Ratio.006 ** ** RESTATE Coef SE CONSTANT -0.014 0.022 0.001 0.001 0.2.012 0.002 2 AGE /100 -0. RESTATE.577.010 0.012 CHILD3 -0.020 0.003 ** L ASSET -0. .030 0.001 0.036 0. and OTHER.001 0.014 CHAGE13 -0. STOCK.061 0. RETIRE.014 -0.007 0.334 0.002 0.073 * ** ** ** OTHER Coef SE 0.030 0.038 0.365 0.045 0.003 -0.042 0.035 -0.365 -0.032 0.Table 2.008 RISKY 0.073 ** 0.038 ** Notes: 1) ** indicates signiﬁcance at 1 percent level and * indicates signiﬁcance at 5 percent level.014 -0.003 -0. All variables are deﬁned in Appendix A.011 0.010 CHILD1 0.064 0.004 -0.001 0.011 -0. 2) The text deﬁnes the assets called ACCOUNT.002 * MARRIED 0.005 0.125 -0.038 0.005 ** -0.035 0.069 0.083 0.004 0.009 YEAR92 -0. HOUSE.005 0.018 0.054 MTR -0. The number of observations N=3.014 -0.173 0.014 -0.020 0.011 0.017 0.030 0. VEHICLE.189 0.017 0.020 0.037 0.010 * YEAR98 -0.009 * YEAR95 -0.017 0.038 0.005 0.012 0.067 0.315 0.022 0.011 CHILD2 -0.029 0.016 0.014 0.580 0.000 0.001 0.002 -0.004 0.130 * AGE 0.015 FEMALE -0.033 -0.027 0.004 0.021 0.

057 0.040 0. STOCK.650 0.043 CHILD1 0.063 0.048 0.053 0.053 Notes: The text deﬁnes the assets called ACCOUNT.112 0. RETIRE.099 0.611 0.049 0.055 0.058 0.070 0.055 0.Table 2.096 0.111 0.044 0.049 0.590 0.088 0.086 0.090 0.102 0.044 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 0.030 CHILD2 CHILD3 0.120 0. VEHICLE.038 0.043 0.043 0.023 0.642 0. and RESTATE.094 0. 43 .607 0.064 0.093 0.089 0.047 0.047 0.033 0.141 0.036 0.037 0.064 0.122 0.095 0.038 0.056 0.043 0.058 0.114 0.047 0.594 0.056 0.617 0.534 0.602 0. HOUSE.552 0.103 0.079 0.105 0.577 0.132 0.049 0.100 0.128 0.626 0.054 0.061 0.036 0.101 0.

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

ignoring the eﬀect of uncertainty on household composition. 3 45 . [10] suggest that the mixed results might be due to the diﬃculties in empirically testing for precautionary saving. ﬁnding an appropriate instrument. and bequest motives. and incorporating the restrictions of the theoretical model. given precautionary and other motives. whereas Carroll and Samwick [11]. and. that is. See Browning and Lusardi [6] and Carroll et al. For example. [12] and Lusardi [44] ﬁnd more support for the precautionary motive. household income or the age of the head might aﬀect household saving and fertility simultaneously. precautionary motives. this chapter extends the empirical work on precautionary saving. It seems reasonable that these motives are aﬀected by the presence of children. Most of a household’s saving motives can be grouped into one of three categories: life-cycle motives. By examining the implications of uncertainty on the fertility decisions of households and incorporating fertility decisions into household saving decisions. Furthermore. ﬁnally. the bequest motive includes saving to leave assets to children.tle or no evidence for precautionary motive. the precautionary motive includes saving to protect the well-being of children against income ﬂuctuations. fertility might be aﬀected by uncertainty or income ﬂuctuations. the life-cycle motive includes saving for children’s education. Browning and Lusardi [6] and Carroll et al. Yet the causal eﬀect might go in the opposite direction.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. This chapter takes account of the fact that children are endogenous along with the The problems include proxying certainty. [10] for the details.

respectively.1 percent. [30] for a survey of life-cycle fertility models. 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 3.4 For example. all of the four reasons reveal a hump shape: saving for ‘rainy days’ peaking in the 41-50 age group. More than 32 percent reported that ‘rainy days’ were an important motivation for saving. the eﬀect of income uncertainty on fertility over the life-cycle.7 and 4.1 presents the proportion of households citing the following motives -‘rainy’ days. retirement. saving for a home purchase peaking below age 31. with 18 percent. The proportion of households citing saving for children’s educational expenses and home purchase were 5. and saving for the education of children peaking between age 31-40. 46 . Table 3. saving for retirement peaking between age 51 and 60. This suggests that the relative importance of saving for each motive depends highly on the composition and the life-cycle stage of the household. The most frequently reported reason for saving was to increase resources for ‘rainy days’ such as unemployment and unexpected needs. This chapter also addresses a neglected topic in the childbearing literature. The second most frequent reason was saving for retirement. Most life-cycle fertility models incorporate some types of uncertainty.saving behavior when estimating the eﬀect of children on savings. When disaggregated into age groups.3). Wolpin [57] estimates a dynamic stochastic model of fertility within 4 See Hotz et al. namely.

however. have speciﬁcally analyzed whether uncertainty about earnings is a signiﬁcant factor on the choice of whether or not to have a child. 6 Becker [1] suggests that children can be viewed as durable goods yielding psychic income to the parents. 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. In a study that addresses whether unemployment risk is an important factor in the timing of the purchase decision of durable goods.an environment where infant survival is uncertain. even after controlling for the fact that saving is endogenous to the fertility behavior. and consider a number of uncertainties such as the outcome of the contraceptive eﬀort. Dunn [17] ﬁnds consumers respond to increases in the unemployment risk by postponing purchases of a home or a vehicle. However. I ﬁnd that households with higher income uncertainty are less likely to have a child. the time path of the husband’s income. this chapter can be viewed as a combination of those two prior works. 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. None of these studies. Thus. Using the data from the panel of 1983-89 SCF. The ﬁnding is consistent with previous studies that found little or no eﬀect of precautionary motive on savings. and thus the variance of income does not appear in the decision function. and transitory shocks to the wife’s wage. 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.5 Hotz and Miller [31] integrate the life cycle fertility and labor supply.) 5 47 . 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.6 This chapter examines whether income uncertainty is associated with lower fertility and higher savings.

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

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

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

1984. 822 were reinterviewed in 1986 using a shorter questionnaire. year dummies. education. and 1985 are drawn from the 1986 wave of SCF which was conducted with a large subset of 1983 respondents using a shorter questionnaire. 9 The income measure includes both capital and non-capital income. dummies representing asset holdings in 1983. household demographic variables and age-interaction terms.8 Income values for 1982. 1986. 103 households in the 1983 SCF. The income measure comes from the question. All values are converted to 1989 dollars using the Consumer Price Index Research Series Using Current Methods(CPI-U-RS). I kept the value of the primary residence constant. 1987 and 1988 are drawn from the 1983-1989 panel. I deﬁne two measures of income uncertainty. before taxes and other deductions were made?’ Income of the households for 1983. I regress log income on age. ‘In [the preceding calendar year] how much was the total income you (and your family living here) received from all sources. To exclude the capital gains. 8 9 Income uncertainty at- Of the 4. 2. 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. The precautionary saving model predicts that income risk regarding capital income might have a diﬀerent eﬀect 53 . Using the panel dimension of income observations in the data. To remove the predictable component of income growth.The inconsistency seems to be lower for home purchases (Kennickell and StarrMcCluer [38]). The ﬁrst measure assumes that households have knowledge about their future income and expect their income to change over time as household characteristics change.

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

All variables are described in detail in Appendix B.13 Table 3.to exclude for identiﬁcation is problematic. 000 is somewhat arbitrary.1. those households with more than three missing or non-positive income values are dropped. 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. I use VRL and VRLI without an instrumental variable estimator.. this exclusion or a similar one is necessary when working with means which are aﬀected by outliers. Of the remaining 1. 12 55 . Therefore.180 households. 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. The ﬁnal sample consists of 1. separation or the death of either head or spouse are excluded. divorce.12 To calculate an accurate measure of income uncertainty.) This eliminates the income variability or net worth change caused by family separation or family creation. households that experienced a change in composition such as marriage. The sample selection criteria for the sample are as follows. 299 households out of 1. A household is only included in the analysis if it remained intact between 1983 and 1989 (i. The variable ∆CHILD indiThe cut-oﬀ net worth of $10 million and saving of $600. In the panel 1983-89 SCF. However.2 illustrates the composition of the sample in detail. 13 The sample design in 1983 speciﬁcally excluded households with the heads under the age of 22. 000.e. See Kennickell and Starr-McCluer [37] for details.479 experienced a major change in family composition and were dropped from the sample.

Also. 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. fecund households are faced with higher income uncertainty than the rest of the sample. Columns (1) and (2) provide the variable means and standard deviations of all of the households in the sample and the fecund households.. have higher expected income and have a higher number of young (0-6 years old) children in 1983.3 percent of the families experienced more than one birth during that time period-2. had less net worth in 1983.179 less than the mean net worth of the rest of the fecund houseOnly 3.3 percent had two children and 1.are plausible: households with an additional child are younger. respectively.0 percent had three. Fecund households are headed by younger persons. 14 56 . 18.14 I refer to the households that had a child as households with an additional child. which is $37. and saved more compared to the other households in the sample. Therefore.2 provides the variable means by household fertility of the fecund households. ∆CHILD = 1 if the household experienced at least one birth of a child.cates the fertility of the household between 1983 and 1989. Among fecund households. The average net worth for households with an additional child is $82. but had higher income between 1983 and 1989.e. Columns (3) and (4) of Table 3. i.with and without an additional child . I use a probit model and a dummy variable to indicate the fertility choice instead of using a count data model. mostly married (89.6 percent of the fecund households had a child between 1983 and 1989.1 percent). comparisons across the two groups of households . According to the SCF data.611 in 1983.

The homeownership proportion for the rest of the fecund sample is higher in 1983 but compared to the households with an additional child.5 in 1989. while fecund households without an additional child saved $7. Households in the bottom 25 and top 10 percent of the SAVE2 distribution face higher income variability than the rest of sample. 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. they saved $11.holds. The homeownership proportion among households with an additional child was 53. the increase is insigniﬁcant. 690.7 percent in 1983 and rose to 77.191). Uncertainty estimates are greater for households with mean income below $10. 462. from 67. This suggests that households at the tails of the income distribution face higher uncertainty.0 percent in 1983 to 72. 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.8 percent in 1989. we observe that households who had a child are faced with lower income uncertainty (0. Also. households with an additional child saved more than the rest of the fecund sample. According to SAVE1 and SAVE2. The measures of income uncertainty by household characteristics are given in Table 3. 170 and $8. when we compare the income uncertainty of the two groups. On the other hand. 000. 000 and above $60. When households are grouped by SAVE1. the bottom 25 percent of the distribution faces a lower income variability than the households in the 25-50 percent of 57 .132 versus 0. respectively. 648 and $6.3.

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

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

7 for SAVE1 and SAVE2. is included as a right-hand variable with other factors that might aﬀect the saving behavior. income (PERMINC.7 use the same income and uncertainty measures as columns (1)-(3) in table 3. Estimates of the saving equations are presented in tables 3. However. TRANSINC and MEANINC). ∆CHILD. age of the head (AGE). a self-described expectation to leave a bequest (BEQUEST83). 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. in terms of the eﬀect of uncertainty. both permanent income and mean income in columns (1) and (2) are signiﬁcant.likely to have another child.5.6 and 3. transitory income in column (1) has a negative eﬀect and mean income in column (3) is insigniﬁcant. Similarly. Finally. namely. age interaction terms (AGE×NCHILD and age×∆CHILD) and income uncertainty interaction terms (VRLI (VRL)×NWORTH25 and VRLI (VRL)×NWORTH90).6 and 3. the probability of having a child seems to increase with income. a measure of income uncertainty (VRLI and VRL). Columns (1)-(3) in tables 3. The predicted probability of having a child. the number of adults and children living in the household (NADULT and NCHILD). a dummy indicating having 1983 net worth in the top 10 percent and bottom 25 percent (NWORTH90 and NWORTH25). the income uncertainty interaction terms show whether or not . compared to households headed by an unmarried person. 60 . the behavior of the wealthy and the not wealthy are diﬀerent than the rest of the population. the change in the number of adults between 1983-1989 (∆NADULT).

34. 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.500 less than the rest of the population as a result of an increase in income uncertainty. Changes in the number of adults between 1983 61 . Before we examine the eﬀect of children on savings. evaluated at the sample average of VRLI. For example. Saving also increases with income. which is 0.6 and Table 3.162.24 in column (1) of Table 3. regardless of the measure. let us look at the eﬀect of the number of adults living in the household.162 save about $15. households in the top 10 percent of the wealth distribution save almost $11.000 more than the rest of the sample. the results in Table 3.500 less than the rest of the population whereas households in the bottom 25 percent of the wealth distribution save $3. respectively.The results for two measures of savings are quite similar (SAVE1 in Table 3. around $7. which is 0.6 and SAVE 2 in Table 3. Both SAVE1 and SAVE2 reduce with the number of adults living in the household.6 show that households in the top 10 percent of the wealth distribution and with VRLI of 0. However.7). and it is signiﬁcantly lower than the estimated propensity to save out of permanent income.6.132-$8.7 do not the support the idea that households save a higher fraction of transitory income. The results in Table 3.447. Having 1983 net worth in the top 10 percent is associated with higher levels of SAVE1 and SAVE2 in all speciﬁcations. The estimated coeﬃcient of the propensity to save out of transitory income is 0.

Households with children save less when the household head is below age 35 and save more above that age. do not aﬀect SAVE1 but appear to reduce SAVE2. Also. however being one year older and having an additional child increases savings. age does not aﬀect the savings behavior of those without children. however.555-$12. households expecting to leave a bequest save signiﬁcantly more (around $12. When we control for permanent income as in column (1) of Tables 3. the sample is restricted to only fecund households. The same is true for the number of children living in the household. That is another impact of children on household savings. This result highlights the importance of the interaction between household composition and the age of the household head. Having an additional child reduces savings. we observe that the eﬀects of the children and age interaction terms decrease but do not disappear.and 1989. and the fertility decision is modeled as an endoge- 62 . Controlling for the number of children already living in the household.796 more) than household that do not expect to leave a bequest.7. 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. 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. For this.6 and 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. This ﬁnding suggests that the overall eﬀect of children on household saving is negative.066 less if they had chosen to have a child. changes in the number of children and children already living in the household reveal a signiﬁcant eﬀect on household savings. The direction of the response.133 according to the results of the three regressions in Tables 3. The results show that households would have saved around $2.15 The results are given in Table 3. average SAVE1 of the households that did not have a child is around $12.5 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. implying that younger households save less whereas older 15 See Maddala [45] for the models with self-selectivity. depends on the age of the household head. even after controlling for several demographic characteristics. In estimating this eﬀect. I take into account the fact that fertility decisions are endogenous to household saving decisions.8.6. The empirical results suggest that income uncertainty directly aﬀects the probability of having a child. however. 63 .297-4.695-13. 3. Finally. Overall.nous switching model.

64 .households save more with an increase in the number of children. At the same time. 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. the age eﬀect on savings disappears. Household composition is an important factor of life-cycle savings. the ﬁndings are not consistent with the predictions of the precautionary saving model that agents faced with uncertainty about future income increase their savings.

345 0.192 0.057 0.000 Source: Survey of Consumer Finances.117 0. 1983 All By Age Below 31 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 70 and over Rainy Days Retirement Home 0.206 0.250 0.011 0. Notes: The table reports the proportion of households citing the selected motives as the most important reason for saving as ‘rainy days’. Observations are weighted to reﬂect the U.362 0. 65 .176 0.004 0.052 0.S. retirement. population as a whole.000 0. Number of observations: 1035.323 0.Table 3.273 0.017 0.230 0.1: Saving Motives by Age Groups.010 0.289 0.047 0. buying home and education of children respectively.041 Children 0.122 0.383 0.111 0.016 0. 1983-1989.065 0.326 0.047 0.

672 0.437 0. All dollar values are in 1989 dollars.490 0.372 0.9 0.670 0.516 2.1 12.001 0.151 N 1035 509 422 87 Note: ∆CHILD=1 if the household had a child between 1983 and 1989 (0 otherwise).186 2.537 0.7 0. The table reports means of the variables.407 0.891 0.302 0.734 0.487 0.624 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 45.8 12. 66 .556 0.246 0.645 0.189 38.456 0.767 1.191 0.4 0.424 0.1.791 1.1 0.780 0.112 2.132 0.725 0.537 0.6 13.845 0.334 0.778 0.197 ∆CHILD = 1 11170 8690 38852 41210 82611 30.297 0.169 Fecund HH ∆CHILD = 0 8282 7648 6868 6462 43109 44122 40171 39921 112861 119790 36. All variables are described in Appendix B.4 13.055 0. Observations are weighted using the sample weights.725 0.788 0.162 0.938 0.747 0.289 0.795 0.180 0.652 0.120 0.135 0.460 0.Table 3.092 2.

1184 0.0 0.3376) VLI 0.169 (0.3980) Above $24.2825) (0.2449) (0.1479 (0.0 0.1095 0.2 0.162 (0.2 0.492 10.1855 (0.3279) SAVE1 Below (-$1.2713 (0.0 0.1468 0.7517 25.2920 0.2330 (0.265-52.1194 (0.7 0.490-7.1436 0.1559 0.3234 (0.9087) NWORTH Below $10.5066) 1 Child 17.446 15.426) MEANINC Below $10.1715 (0.0 0.4881) (0.1269 (0.0 0. VRLI is the variance of residual log income.2738) (0.6504) $10.125 25.0902 (0. Observations are weighted using the sample weights (N=1305).3524) (0.7 0.0998 0.999 37.9431) (0.518-314.1363 (0.2299 0.3: Mean Income Uncertainty by Household Demographics % HH VRLI All 100 0.4472) (0.5512) SAVE2 Below (-$739) 25.Table 3.6129) (-$739)-1.000-59.489 25.0 0.4232) $10.1056 0.1284 (0.078)-1.1912 0.000-29.078) 25.4963) 0.6786) (0.1794) Above $30.2458) 0. and VLI is the variance of log income.3362 0.1996) (0.1462 (0.818 15.0 0.725 25.5245) 0.057-30.2391 (0.233-12.0 0.1808) (0. All variables are deﬁned in Appendix B.2657) Above $60.2290 0.4940) (0.1296 (0.0977 (0.2210) (0.1832 (0.2274) (-$1.0 0.1 0.2269) (0.1330 0.2740) (0.2371) $1.10.5836) (0.1707 (0.0 0.3230) $127.4092) (0.433) 0.2171) 2 and more 27.3333) (0.999 36.2642) $30.2013 0.5530) NCHILD No Children 55.0 0.726. 67 .5537) $ 1.2134 0.0 0.0 0.2374 (0.1889 (0.0 0.1027 0.126-24.1.1312 (0.446 10.0988 (0.1527 (0.492 15.1088 (0.2281 (0.6357) (0.2973) Note: Standard deviations are given in parentheses.1451 0.056 25.0 0.1 0.265 25.818 10.1716 (0.232 25.000 12.4780) $ 10.000 14.2086) Above $314.3334) $52.2117 (0.0 0.2579) $7.1803 0.

9 11.0812 0.220 34.4: Savings.1507 20.812 6.1774 0.1727 3.2920 6.769 0.1.3 8.5 24.1408 0.636 27.272 9.8 10.487 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 12.528 4.422 0.912 0.1839 0.5 4.477 40.1 4.257 43. and VLI is the variance of log income.049 5.390 52.331 23.2261 Note: ∆CHILD=1 if household had a child between 1983-1989 (0 otherwise). VRLI is the variance of residual log income. 68 . All variables are deﬁned in Appendix B.628 0.3064 0.884 36.2376 VLI 0.899 0.1369 0.0841 56.619 3.Table 3.

0008] [-.1037] [-0.024** 0.20 Pseudo R2 0.001 MEANINC/1000 MARRIED 1.130 0.0920] 1.980 -0.175** 0.886** 0.001 1.844 MIDDCH -0.0426] -0.060 -2.236 [-0.203** (1) Coef StdE 1.3340] [-0.357 0.027** 0.063 0.369 [-0.060 [-0.024** 0.019** 0.001** 0. Marginal eﬀects are given in the brackets.Table 3.130** 0.060 -160.0845] [-0.175** 0.768 0.369 -0.208** 0.448 0. and HAGE is HOWN83×AGE.543 0.132** 0.077 0.3338] [-0.1297] [ 0.073 SPFULLT -0.0094] [-.566 [-0.385** 0.020** [-.1040] [-0.418 0.392** 0.130** 0.0095] [-.953** 0.047 [-0.565 1.564 HOWN83 2.0553] [-0.178** 0.627** 0.225** [-.021** -0.368 -0.225** 0.0625] -0.024** Note: Coef reports coeﬃcients and StdE reports standard errors.717* -0.000 0.0099] [-.166** 0.0550] [-0.0001] [ 0.0675] -0.006 TRANSINC/1000 -0.623** 0.31 0.186** [-.134 0.154** 0. .409 0.397 0.366 -0. ** indicates signiﬁcance at 5 percent level.0001] [ 0.886** 0.384** 0. Number of observations N=509.062 -160.410 0.208** 0.749** -0.0612] [0.420 YAGE 0.00 0.068 YOUNGCH -1.001* [ 0.0829] [-0.0613] 0.229 -0.1038] [-0.720* -0. YAGE is YOUNGCH×AGE.047 -0.000* 0.001 1.154** 0.0541] -0.0577] (3) Coef StdE 1.545 0.232 HAGE -0.14 0.5: Probit: Fertility Decision of Fecund Households (2) Coef StdE 1.35 0.1041] [-0.31 0.2375] -2.0786] [-0.0844] [-0.627** 0.714 NADULTS 0.020** -0.331 HIGHSCH -0.019** 0.049 Likelihood -152.0787] [-0. and * indicates signiﬁcance at 10 percent level.998 -0.228 WHITE -0.389 0.063 0.0594] 69 CONSTANT AGE VLRI VLI PERMINC/1000 0.131 0.

Number of observations=1. ** indicates signiﬁcance at 5 percent level.035. .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 .22 257 53 -7244 3908 -24818 11791 707 319 12952 5786 -7845 5112 .Table 3.22 -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 * .22 ** ** ** ** ** Note: Coef reports coeﬃcients and StdE reports standard errors. and * indicates signiﬁcance at 10 percent level.

18 223 57 -8264 3929 -24089 11699 686 319 11736 5772 -10074 5321 . ** indicates signiﬁcance at 5 percent level.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 3.035.7: 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 .18 Note: Coef reports coeﬃcients and StdE reports standard errors. Number of observations=1. and * indicates signiﬁcance at 10 percent level. .

Table 3.375 422 422 422 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.154 10.133 12.8: 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) 13.672 8. 72 .527 10.695 12.

According to the 1996 National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey (NPSAS).000) it was 98 percent (Presley and Clery [47]). Understanding the eﬀect of ﬁnancing children’s college education on household saving behavior is important at least for three reasons. While the percentage was lower for those in the lower income group (income below $35. for those in the higher income group (income above $70.Chapter 4 Saving for Children’s College Education 4. 90 percent of dependent undergraduate’s parents contributed to their children’s college costs. Using the 1983-86 SCF. Gale and Scholz [23] estimate that the annual ﬂow of parental 73 .1 Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to analyze an important life-cycle saving motive: saving for children’s college education. Of those contributing to their children’s college costs.000). and 80 percent reported using some current income. about 65 percent reported using some previous savings. 65 percent of the parents contributed a positive amount to their children’s college costs as a gift. and the average amount of their support was about $3.900 (Choy and Henke [14]). parents contribute a signiﬁcant amount to their children’s college costs. According to the 1987 NPSAS. First.

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

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

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

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

The percentage of households saving for ‘rainy days. the eﬀect of the number of children on the percentage of households reporting saving for children’s education disappears.8 percent). 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. 24. Among the households in the bottom 25 percentile of the wealth distribution. the percentage of households saving for retirement increases with wealth.4 percent in the top 25 percentile report saving for retirement. 5.1 also shows the percentage of households citing each saving motive by the number of children and net worth in 1983. For example.7 percent of those in bottom 25 percentile of wealth distribution report saving for retirement. while only 2.’ retirement and other reasons show a systematic trend relative to the total number of children. the percentage of households citing ‘rainy days’ and other reasons as the most important reason decreases. Table 4. Among the households in the higher wealth groups. 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. Controlling for the number of children. This table shows that the number of 78 .3 percent vs. and the percentage of households citing retirement as the most important reason increases. among households with 1 or 2 children. As the number of children increases. 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.

households save for their children’s college expenditures. 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.000 in children’s college expenses saves $8. We continue to observe this eﬀect even after controlling for the household wealth. Also. The data from the 1983-86 SCF is used to estimate two equations in which the dependent variables are household savings and educational expenses. Section 4. 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. Households with higher income and wealth expect to have higher educational expenses. I also obtain predictions concerning the simultaneous determination of family size and college expenditures per child. and the amount of savings increases with the age of the household head. and they save in advance for these expenses.2 an79 . 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. Further. a household with a 43 year old head expecting to have $2.000 more than it would had it not expected to have any college expenses. The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows. In this chapter. the eﬀect of anticipated educational expenses on household savings are estimated. Using the actual college expenses reported in the SCF. Other things constant. the empirical ﬁndings provide an answer to why saving is concentrated among wealthier households.children has a signiﬁcant eﬀect on saving motives.

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

which results in an increase in accumulated assets. a decrease in second-period consumption is likely to decrease the ﬁrst-period consumption. The ﬁrst-order conditions are −U1 + (1 + r)U2 = 0 −πnU2 + Ue = 0 −πeU2 + Un = 0 (4. and Un is the marginal utility of family size.4) where the three choice variables are accumulated assets (A).5) (4. educational expenses (e) and the number of children (n). This expression implies that an increase in educational expenses decreases the second-period consumption relative to ﬁrst-period consumption. Since the right-hand side is a constant.where π is the price of education.1) yields the following unconstrained maximization problem: U = U (y1 − A. y2 + (1 + r)A − πen.3) into (4. If the utility function is CES with equal elasticity of substitution between all arguments.5) can be written as follows: 1 y1 − A = (1 + r) γ−1 . e.8) where γ is the elasticity of substitution.6) (4. Substituting (4.7) where U1 and U2 are the marginal utility of consumption in the ﬁrst and second periods. respectively.2) and (4. y2 + (1 + r)A − πen (4. 81 . equation (4. n) (4. Ue is the marginal utility of children’s education.

3 82 .6) and (4. 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.To extend the analysis to account for uncertainty. household saving can be associated with two diﬀerent saving motives: saving for uncertainty about future income (precautionary saving) and saving for children’s education. The empirical speciﬁcation of the model described below controls for precautionary saving while it estimates the eﬀect of educational expenses on household savings.3 The combination of a positive third derivative of the utility function and uncertainty about future income reduces consumption in the ﬁrst period. In this case. This interdependence implies an inverse relationship between the number of children and educational expenses. E1 [U2 ] exceeds U2 [E1 ].7). 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. 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. let us assume that the second period wage income y2 is stochastic. If the third derivative is positive. When uncertainty about future income is assumed. then U2 is a convex function.

822 of these households were reinterviewed. The respondents were also asked how many years of college their children completed from 1983-85. income and demographic characteristics. Unfortunately. The ﬁrst measure. savings and other control variables. the data does not diﬀerentiate between children away in college or living on their own and with former spouses. 4 83 . Household savings are measured in two ways. In 1986. SAVE1.3 Data The empirical analysis uses data from the 1983-1986 SCF. I use the number of children attending college and the number of years they attended to normalize college expenditures. The SCF contains detailed information on household assets.4 The college expenditure variable (COLLEXP) captures the quality dimension associated with the expenditure per child. The 1983 survey contains interviews from a random sample of 3. college expenditure. 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 variables used in the empirical analysis are classiﬁed into four groups: fertility. The college expenditure variable is the outlay of college education per child. including those not living in the household. This variable includes children of previous marriages living with former spouses. In 1986. The fertility variable (CHILD) is the number of children of either the respondent or spouse. liabilities.824 households and a high-income supplement of 438 households. 2.4.

the value of the primary residence in 1983 is kept constant. saving accounts. race. and the educational level of the spouse.is the change in net worth between 1983 and 1986 divided by the number of years. credit card debt. stocks. balances outstanding on lines of credit and loans on consumer durables. other loans for property. marital status. money market deposit accounts. bonds. individual retirement accounts. call accounts. Household permanent income (PERINC) is deﬁned as the predicted income in 1985 obtained from regressing the log of total income on age. Keogh accounts. vehicles and other real assets like art and precious metals. home equity. 1984 and 1985. race. trusts. educational expenditures and fertility decisions. Using the reported household income for 1982. and whether or not the household head is willing to undertake risky investments). These are age. mutual funds. and the demographic characteristics associated with tastes (urban residence. reasons for borrowing and saving. I estimate household permanent and transitory income. where the ﬁrst includes liquid assets (checking assets. 1983.5 SAVE1 includes the realized and unrealized capital gains. a second measure of savings (SAVE2) is used. 5 84 . Other controls include variables that aﬀect savings. Total liabilities include mortgage debt. gender of the household head and other household characteristics. In order to exclude unrealized capital gains on the primary residence. loans. cash value of life insurance and the later includes residential property. Transitory income (TRINC) Total assets is the sum of ﬁnancial assets and nonﬁnancial assets. education. certiﬁcates of deposit and saving accounts). business equity. other real estate. automobile loans. Net worth (NWORTH) is the total value of household’s assets minus its total liabilities. gender and the educational level of the household head. Whenever a household did not buy or sell a house that was the family’s primary residence.

Table 4.931 and $3. Table 4.1 gives a detailed deﬁnition of the variables used in the estimation of the model. Also.690 households.575 in 1986 dollars. The sample is also constrained to include only the households with nonretired household heads and their spouses if the head is married. The average household net worth in 1983 is $81. The sample is restricted to families that did not change composition from 1983-86. respectively. Estimating the relationship between savings and educational expenditures is complicated for families who experienced a major change in composition such as marriage and divorce. Permanent and transitory incomes in 1985 are $25.2 presents summary statistics of the variables used. The average household in the sample is headed by a forty two year old married high school graduate and includes two children. the typical household saves $5.806 and according to second measure. it saves $4. Appendix C. households with family income above $100. the average expenditure is $2. The head of the median household reports that it is all right to borrow money for educational expenses.811.3 presents average household savings and college expenses by 85 . These restrictions leave us with a sample containing 1.005.000 are excluded to avoid the diﬃculty of modeling the relationship between educational expenditures and savings.is the diﬀerence between reported income in 1985 and estimated permanent income.296. According to the ﬁrst measure of savings. For households with nonzero college expenditures. Households with retired household heads are assumed to be in the life-cycle stage of dissaving.

077. household savings increase with the number of children in college.9) (4.10) . The data show that college expenses increase with net worth. The data show that households continue to save while children are in college. household savings increase with the number of children in college. more than twice as much the households in the same wealth group with one child in college. college expenditures per child decreases.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. Table 4. Savings of households with children in college increase with net worth. However.the number of children attending college. Households in all three wealth groups (bottom 25 percentile. 4. the number of children in college is inversely related to the expenditure per child as predicted by the quantityquality model. As the number of children in college increases.3 also breaks down savings and college expenses by the number of children in college and net worth in 1983. 25-75 percentile and top 25 percentile) spend less per child as the number of children attending college increases. Except the households in the bottom 25 percentile of the net worth distribution with two or more children attending college. However. Households in the top 25 percentile of the wealth distribution with two or more children in college save on average $18.

η2 > 0. δ1 < 0. i. The structural disturbances ui = (u1i . and φi is an age speciﬁc factor. The model predicts that an increase in the number of children decreases the anticipated and actual educational expenditure. is obtained to estimate the expected educational expenses. κ3 is a vector of parameters. 6 87 .e. The theoretical model derives predictions concerning the eﬀect of the completed lifetime fertility on the educational expenses. However.11) where x3i is a vector of demographic characteristics. 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. Another prediction of the model is that educational expenses increases household savings. i. n. the completed fertility.where x1i and x2i are the vectors of exogenous variables.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. Therefore. and κ1 and κ2 are the vectors of parameters to be estimated. 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 ) = .e. the data on household fertility gives the number of children ever born to a household headed by a person of a certain age.

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

age (AGE) and education (COLLEG) of the household head. namely. Of the 1.9). I use the estimates of the regression to predict the completed household fertility when the household head is 55 years old (CHILD). SEMERG.controlling for marital status. -$187). the amount of college expenditure decreases with the number of children.03. Table 4. The right-hand variables also include other factors that might aﬀect the college expenditures. As predicted by the quantity-quality model. The average CHILD is 3. 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. 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 . Columns 1 and 2 contain the results with CHILD and columns 3 and 4 contain the results with CHILD. households with spouses working full-time and with high school and college degrees have fewer children. 338 had a child attending college between 1983-86. The instrumental estimate of the coeﬃcient on the number of children is almost three times as large as the OLS estimate (-$459 vs.5 reports estimates of the equation (4. SCHEDUC and SHOME). Households with children attending college between 1983-86 are included in the estimation of the Tobit regression. and 252 reported contributing a positive amount to their children’s college expenses.690 households in the sample. and permanent and transitory income (PERINC and TRINC).

436. the average contribution of the top 25 percentile is $3. an additional child results in a drop of $317 in expected college expenditures at the mean of values. Households citing saving for retirement and buying a home as the most important reason for saving spend less on children’s education. ˆ Using the approximation. Φ is the standard normal cumuˆ ˆ lative distribution. Estimates in Table 4. Households citing saving for children’s education as the most important reason for saving spend more than other households.6 presents actual and estimated college expenses by household net worth in 1983. Estimated contributions of the households with children in college are very close to the actual expenses.6 show SAVE1 and SAVE2 for households with 90 . The average COLLEXP is $1. ˆ σ (4.12) where σ is the estimate of the standard error. The amount of contribution to children’s college education increases with wealth. While the average contribution of households in the bottom 25 percentile of wealth distribution is $1. The last two columns of Table 4. and δ1 and κ1 are the estimates of δ1 and κ1 . CHILD.variables as follows: ˆ ˆ δ1 ∗ Φ((δ1 ni + x1i κ1 )/ˆ ).5 show that increases in permanent and transitory income increase the level of expenditures for educational expenses.093 per child. respectively. I use estimates of the Tobit model and the expected completed fertility.789 per child. Households with heads who believe that it is all right to borrow for educational expenses have higher expenditures. Table 4. to calculate the expected college expenditures (COLLEXP ).

000 between 1893-86. Table 4. However. nonurban residence (NSMSA) and dummies indicating household net worth in 1983 (NWORTH25 and NWORTH75). the data in Table 4. two other reasons for saving. the coeﬃcient of expected college expenditure (COLLEXP ) is negative and the coeﬃcient of age interaction term (AGE×COLLEXP ) is positive.and without children in college. households with greater wealth save more if they have a child attending college. In estimates of both equations. Columns 1 and 2 contain the estimates for SAVE1. Households in the bottom 25 percentile of wealth distribution save signiﬁcantly less than those without children in college. which are retirement and emergencies (SRETIRE and SEMERG).3. The estimates of SAVE1 and SAVE2 are very similar. permanent and transitory incomes (PERINC and TRINC). indicating that an increase in expected college expenditure raises 91 . Similar to Table 4.6 show that wealthier families contribute more to their children’s education and continue to save while their children are in college.7 presents the eﬀect of expected college expenditures on household savings. and the number of children attending college between 1983-86 (NCHCOLL). and columns 3 and 4 contain the estimates for SAVE2. a dummy indicating whether or not the household had a windfall greater than $3. Explanatory variables include age (AGE). households in top 25 percentile of the wealth distribution save almost ﬁve times more if they have a child in college. gender (FEMALE) of the household head. a dummy indicating whether the household head is willing to take risky investments (RISKY). Interestingly.

The eﬀect of transitory income on both measures of savings is positive and signiﬁcant. Finally. Using the estimates in Table 4. Households citing saving for retirement as the most important reason save more. showing that households save approximately 39 percent of their transitory income.savings after age 28.398 less than those in the middle of the wealth distribution . Permanent income increases both SAVE1 and SAVE2. Finally. I mean a household in the 25-75 percentile of the wealth distribution. Also. 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. citing a motive other than retirement or emergencies as the most 92 .7.1 shows the eﬀect of the age of the household head on SAVE1. the number of children attending college does not signiﬁcantly decrease household savings. households with heads who are willing to undertake risky investments save $7. By typical. saving for emergencies does not signiﬁcantly aﬀect savings.493 more and households in the top 25 percentile save $11. household savings are calculated in ﬁve year intervals. For each age group. Unfortunately. This result does not necessarily mean that households are not saving for children’s college education. the data does not have detailed information on the years that children were attending college between 1983 and 1986. However.833 more than other households. households in the bottom 25 percentile of the wealth distribution save $2. Figure 4. the ﬁgure ﬁrst calculates savings of a typical household expecting to contribute $2. had it not expected to contribute a positive amount.000 to college expenses and compares it to what it would have saved.

This striking result is due to the assumption that this household is assumed not to cite saving for retirement as the most important reason. 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. 4.6 Conclusion This chapter examines the eﬀect of saving for children’s college edu- cation on household savings. who is not willing to undertake risky investments and did not receive a windfall greater than $3. The eﬀect of expecting to contribute $2000 on household savings is $8.000 between 1983-86.894. for example. that this household starts saving for retirement when the household head is 43 years old. and it increases with the age of the household head. If we assume.894. Saving motives change with age and household composition.000 at the age of 43. headed by a male. The results in Table 4. savings decline to zero at the age of 43.important saving motive.000 college expenses increase with age. this will increase its saving by $4.7 show that the eﬀect of saving for retirement on household saving is positive and raises household savings by $4. The household is assumed to have average permanent and transitory incomes for their age group. I also obtain predictions 93 . If the household does not expect to contribute to children’s college expenses. The results show that savings of the household with an anticipated $2. the eﬀect of anticipated college expenses on savings is positive and signiﬁcant.

Other things constant. and the change in net worth excluding the capital gains on primary residence.concerning the simultaneous determination of family size and college expenditure per child. 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. which are the change in net worth between 1983 and 1986. By focusing on household savings.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. 94 . The results are also consistent with the ﬁndings in Souleles [49]. 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. which show that despite large college expenses. I estimate expected expenditures on children’s college education. Using the actual college expenditures reported in the 1983-86 Survey of Consumer Finances. I analyze the eﬀect of educational expenditures on two diﬀerent measures of savings. the diﬀerence between savings of households with and without college expenses can be as high as $8. The main ﬁnding of this chapter is that households save in advance for children’s college expenditures.

377 0.023 0.053 SHOME 0.455 0.010 0.404 0.013 0.070 0.057 0. Tabulations are weighted using the sample weights.381 0.009 0.’ SCHEDU: saving for the education of children.066 0.060 0.063 0.049 0.053 0.310 0.032 25-75p 75 to 100p Source: Survey of Consumer Finances. SHOME: saving to buy a home.212 0.042 0. SRETIRE: saving for retirement.027 0.355 0.027 0.102 0.068 0.339 0.043 0.369 0.391 0.057 0.002 0.049 0.1: Saving Motives By the Number of Children SRETIRE 0.279 0.244 0.033 0.079 0.004 0.543 0.023 HH 0.035 SOTHER 0.064 0. SOTHER: saving for other reasons and NOSAVE: cannot/does not save.120 0.382 0.341 0.029 0.341 0.042 0.087 0.000 0. SEMERGE: saving for ‘rainy days. .153 CHILD 0 1-2 3 or more 0.223 0.Table 4.000 0.345 SEMERG SCHEDU 0.082 0.009 0.264 0.000 0.469 0.058 0.016 95 0.021 0.115 0.440 0.083 0. The number of observations N=1690.351 0.330 0.007 0. 1983.043 0.471 0.074 0.397 0.337 0.380 NOSAVE 0.037 NWORTH 0-25p 0 1-2 3 or more 0 1-2 3 or more 0 1-2 3 or more 0.016 0.383 0. Notes: This table reports the proportion of households citing the selected motives as the most important reason for saving.401 0.278 0.

75 TRINC 3296.32 15127.11 12491.86 0.32 2817.13 35397. The number of observations N=1690.64 NWORTH 81575.43 HIGHSCH 0.68 AGE 42.50 BLACK 0.28 RISKY 0.47 2.2: Descriptive Summary of Variables Variables Mean Std.41 33402.47 SAVE2 4811.36 SAVE1 5806.24 0. All variables are described in Appendix C.48 BEDUCAT 0.43 14.43 COLLEG 0. 96 . 1983-86.10 FEMALE 0.35 WINDF 0.14 COLLEXP> 0 2005.17 0.65 0.08 0.24 0.08 161860.86 PERINC 25931.13 0.53 0.28 0.33 MARRIED 0. All dollar values are reported in 1986 dollars. Deviation CHILD 2.1.37 NSMSA 0.45 Source: Survey of Consumer Finances.Table 4. Notes: Tabulations are weighted using sample weights.

Tabulations are weighted using sample weights.Table 4. 97 .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. All dollar values are reported in 1986 dollars. The number of observations N=1690. Notes: NCHCOLL shows the number of children attending college between 1983-86. 1983-86.

145 ** 0. Notes: ** indicates signiﬁcance at 5 percent level. 98 .004 ** -0.48 0.389 0.097 ** 0.032 0.057 ** -0.43 -2971.038 0.090 ** -0. Variables are described in Appendix C.293 Source: Survey of Consumer Finances.461 0.964 0.022 0.408 0.1.717 0.062 ** 1.078 0.038 0.106 0.435 0.Table 4.062 ** 1690 2.930 0. and * indicates signiﬁcance at 10 percent level.134 ** 0. Error -1.039 ** -0.128 ** 0.126 ** -0. 1983-86.4: 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.

1.7 338 .0 ** 72.Table 4.9 ** 67.7 * 997.6 133.9 -458.0 409.0 0.6 408. All variables are described in Appendix C.70 Source: Survey of Consumer Finances.4 23. and * indicates signiﬁcance at 10 percent level.2 2524.6 -1124.3 134.9 -45.5 22.4 555.746 -2429. Error Coeﬃcient Std.3 2444.4 1589.5 18.6 -407.7 1467.1 1063. Error -601.3 609.4 10.1 72.8 -7.7 ** 1391.5 551. Notes: ** indicates signiﬁcance at 5 percent level.2 19.1 611.8 473.5 472.5: Tobit Estimates of College Expenditure Equation Coeﬃcient Std.6 1452.8 -372.9 ** -4903. 99 .5 -1335.81 CONSTANT AGE CHILD CHILD PERINC/1000 BEDUCAT SRETIRE SEMERG SCHEDUC SHOME COLLEG TRINC/1000 SIGMA N OBS Proportion of + observations Log L ** ** * ** ** * ** ** -2429.4 92.0 9.8 ** -1103.0 ** 2905.8 468.9 557.9 2912. 1983-86.2 88.8 232.1 550.9 ** -187.1 -4936.

52 0 5.59 2334 17.29 1436 44. All dollar values are reported in 1986 dollars.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.65 0 1.Table 4.02 0 7. 100 . Notes: Tabulations are weighted using sample weights. The number of observations N=1690. 1983-86.6: 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. CHCOLL=1 if the household has a child attending college between 1983-86 (0 otherwise).

3 ** 10.0 1642.2 5041. Error 22618.1 3139.1 2796.Table 4.5 0.1.8 382.0 7833.3 ** 309.1 4.0 2460.8 2783.8 160. All variables are described in Appendix C.8 163.8 3199.0 382.6 -315.5 2493.0 5607.1 4894.3 10.8 -615.7: 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.2 -10.2 3.3 0.2 3422.2 1820.8 140.8 .9 139.6 388.3 2016.6 407.3 -774.4 ** 336.3 416.8 3349.084 Source: Survey of Consumer Finances.1 * 4679.0 -790.4 2434.0 1271.5 1325.3 0. Error ** 22327.6 10944.8 761.9 2474.5 .4 2538. .7 ** 0. a Predicted value of the variable from Tobit regression of educational expenditures.5 -1310.8 ** 6820. and * indicates signiﬁcance at 10 percent level.3 2954.6 2026.2 ** -9.107 SAVE2 Coeﬃcient Std.2 ** -1284.0 -11398.8 4.6 ** -9329.9 11080.2 3.6 1516.3 * 3028.5 2409.9 1728. Notes: ** indicates signiﬁcance at 5 percent level. 1983-86.

Figure 4. 068 − | 28 | 33 | 38 | 43 • | 48 | 53 Age • • −5. 791 − ? savings of a household with $2000 college expenses. 045 − • 3.1: The Importance of Educational Expenses on Savings SAVE16 10. 736 − • • • | 23 −1. • savings of a household with no college expenses. 102 .

Appendices 103 .

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

Consumption demand for housing. =1 if the household head is a single female. it is the opportunity cost of owning a house. Marginal tax rate of the household. For homeowners. I then apply the appropriate tax rate schedule to calculate the household’s tax liability. Number of children younger than age 22 who live in the household. =1 if only one child is living in the household. See Appendix A.2 Name Deﬁnition of Variables Description Estimated earnings of the household head and spouse at the age of 45. CHILD0 CHILD1 CHILD2 CHILD3 =1 if no children are living in the household. A. See Appendix A. =1 if three or more children are living in the household.3.1. AGE MARRIED FEMALE NCHILD Age of the household head in years. The marginal tax rate is computed by running this method twice . INCOME ASSET MTR Eh Total assets of the household. =1 if two children are living in the household. =1 if the household head is married. The diﬀerence in total tax liabilities divided by 100 gives the marginal tax rate.once with AGI and then with AGI minus 100. 105 .yields the taxable income.

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

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

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

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

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

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

=1 if the household head is married. =1 if the household head is African-American. SRETIRE SEMERGE SCHEDU =1 if retirement is the most important reason for saving. SHOME =1 if saving to buy a home is the most important reason for saving. BEDUCAT =1 if the household head thinks it is all right to borrow for education. =1 if emergencies are the most important reason for saving.000 between 1983-86. =1 if the spouse is working at a full-time job. =1 if the household head is willing to undertake risky investments. HIGHSCHSP =1 if the spouse has a high school degree. Number of children attending college between 1983-86.COLLEG =1 if the household head has a college degree. 112 . COLLEGSP FSPOUSE BLACK MARRIED RISKY =1 if the spouse has a college degree. SOTHER =1 if the household cited another reason as the most important reason to save. NSMSA NCHCOLL =1 if the place of residence is not in a SMSA. WINDF =1 if the household received a windfall greater than $3. =1 if children’s education is the most important reason for saving.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you sure?

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

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd