The study on the first-line local government officers’ risk attitudes and preferences for financial management tools-taking town and city offices in Changhua County for examples

• Main Authors: Fang,Fen, 方粉
• Other Authors: Ming-Cheng Wu
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2009
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/76250421226682423885

碩士 === 國立彰化師範大學 === 商業教育學系 === 97 === To get a good grasp about risk tolerance toward personal financial management and the difference in the preference in investment portfolio management of city and town government officers, the purpose of the study is to examine their difference of attitude and the relevance between the risk attitude and individual preference in investment portfolio management. The study also investigates city and town government officers’ intention toward personal financial management and the obtaining situation of information for their financial management. In this study, under stratified random sampling, a total of 517 questionnaires were distributed, 494 valid questionnaires were obtained out of 514 questionnaires received. Twenty(20) of the questionnaires are considered invalid, resulting in the response rate of 99.42% and the valid response rate of 95.55%. The study analyzes collected data to examine any correlation by utilizing the statistic software- SPSS12.0.The statistical methods include descriptive statistical analysis, cluster analysis, discriminatory analysis, chi-square test, t-test, and one-way ANOVA. Based on the findings, the study reaches the following conclusions: As regards town and city government officers: 1.The variables of personal background do not cause a significant difference on risk attitude. 2.The variables of personal background which cause a significant difference on the preference in investment portfolio management are below:1)Gender causes a significant difference on the preference for bonds, stocks, real estate, investment-linked insurance policy, certificate of deposit, and foreign currency deposit；2)Age causes a significant difference on the preference for mutual funds and stocks；3)Marital status causes a significant difference on the preference for mutual funds and foreign currency deposits；4)Salary causes a significant difference on the preference for stocks；5)Education causes a significant difference on the preference for certificate of deposit. 3.Risk attitude variables do not cause a significant difference on the preference for bonds, stocks, and foreign currency deposit. However, they do cause a significant difference on the preference for mutual funds, investment-linked insurance policy, certificate of deposit, and real estate. 4.Town and city government officers do not have sufficient access to information for their investment analysis. Only a few are making use of the services of a financial advisor or a financial institution which offers portfolio management services, and in the future just a few have the intention of seeking such services from a financial advisor or a financial institution. Thus, there is potential for a financial institution to further develop the market for portfolio management services. Keywords: risk attitude, investment portfolio, local government officer