Household Wealth: Low-Yielding and Poorly Structured?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present a newly generated data set on real returns of households’ aggregated asset holdings, which adds additional and more sophisticated information to existing relevant datasets in the literature. To do this, we draw on various datasets from public and private sources and then transform and combine them in a consistent manner that allows for international comparative and intertemporal analyses. Based on this, we address two current debates on the development of household wealth in the euro area that have been triggered by the low-interest environment. The first debate refers to the development of real yields on household wealth from 2000 to 2018, whereas the second debate deals with the mean-variance efficiency of household portfolios. Contrary to widespread belief, we find that yields on total wealth, which were largely dominated by non-financial assets’ yields, were mostly positive, although they exhibit a declining trend. Moreover, on average, overall real yields were significantly lower after 2008. Referring to portfolio efficiency, we find that current portfolios seem to be comparatively close to mean-variance efficiency. If households were to optimize their portfolios despite limited room for improvement, holdings of equity and investment fund shares should be reduced, contradicting common recommendations of financial advisors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".