We examine the role of demographics and family/social interaction in Chinese household finance. The impacts of demographic characteristics are not limited to stock market participation, but extend to other financial activities. Households with strong family and social interaction are more likely to save, invest in risky assets and borrow. Family interaction is positively related to informal financing.

This paper extends the current literatures on the relation between fund expenses and fund flows using data from Taiwan. Our findings for the Taiwan market differ from previous studies on the U.S. market. Specifically, we find no support for the notion of “out of sight, out of mind”. For Taiwan mutual funds, net flows and inflows are negatively related to operating expenses but not front-end loads. The discrepancy between our results and those reported for the U.S. market may be attributed to the fee structure in Taiwan, where operating expenses are much higher than front-end loads and seem to have a bigger impact on fund performance. The negative relation between net flows (inflows) and operating expenses is more pronounced for funds with high institutional investor participation and funds charging high operating expenses. However, investor types show no significant impact on the relations between front-end loads and various measures of fund flows.

本文首次使用中国健康与养老追踪调查数据，以民间金融为背景，考察居民认知能力与借款行为之间的关系。实证结果发现，认知局限得分与农村居民是否借出资金以及所借出资金占家庭财富的比例显著负相关，表明认知能力影响居民的风险承担决策。通过将农村样本按照贫富分组，发现显著的相关关系仅存在于相对富裕的样本之中。这说明在正规金融较为落后、民间金融活跃的农村地区，认知能力较强的富人更可能从事私人风险借贷。除财富之外，年龄、教育水平、参与社交活动以及家庭年生活支出也是资金出借决策的重要影响因素。本文丰富了精神健康和风险决策行为的研究。

本文对研究各国家庭资产配置的文献进行综述，进一步讨论其未来学术与政策研究思路。在样本方面，本文建议进行跨国资产配置的长期追踪调查，比较观察发达国家与发展中国家，进而探讨经济发展程度与家庭资产配置的关系。有关跨国文化与社会变量的研究，也须仰赖各国文化与社会相关的数据。在议题上，有关跨国金融的研究尚未对跨国性间接金融与直接金融进行比较。关于经济低度发展国家的研究，未来重点则是如何建立适当方式，考虑因非自愿性因素而被排除的家庭。最后，基于中国的经济发展进程，本文提出了资本市场建设的立论基础，并强调直接金融和间接金融对不同经济阶段和经济区域的影响。

证券分析师是市场解读信息的重要力量。然而最近的研究表明，分析师意见存在系统性的偏差。鉴于此，探讨分析师意见偏差背后的行为动机，剖析分析师意见对证券价格的影响便具有重要意义。本文应用迎合理论，构建分析师与投资者之间的理性博弈模型，证明了在投资者具有信息劣势的博弈中，分析师的迎合动机会放大噪音对其购买意见以及均衡价格的影响。理性投资者并未能消除分析师迎合动机造成的股价噪音，从而从分析师角度，为股价对噪音的过度反应找到了一种理性的微观机制。