According to the Federal Reserve of the United States, in the second quarter of 2024, American credit card debt reached USD 1.14 trillion, the highest balance ever recorded. In an age of high-interest, complex credit cards, how does financial literacy affect credit card debt repayment? Also, how could financial literacy and education stop the rise in credit card debt in America? To answer these questions, we use microdata from the latest wave of the Survey of Consumer Finances for 2022. We aim to capture the likelihood of credit card repayment behaviors related to the monthly balances owed by 3865 credit card holders. We consider three categories of self-reported credit card payoff behavior: hardly ever, sometimes, and always or almost always. Given the ordinal nature of our outcome variable, we perform a series of likelihood-ratio and Brant tests to assess the assumption of the proportionality of odds across response categories. Following the failure of the tests, we conclude with the selection of a generalized ordered logit/partial proportional odds model that allows us to relax the parallel lines constraint for those variables for which it is not justified. In our logistic regressions, we account for a comprehensive set of demographic characteristics, and from our results, we highlight the following: For credit card holders with low financial literacy, we find that the odds of moving to a higher category of payoff behavior are 21% and significantly lower than those of high financial literacy respondents. Further, for college-educated card holders, the odds of paying off always or almost always versus sometimes and hardly ever are 2.49 times and significantly greater than the odds for credit card holders without a college education. Credit card holders who are minority group members, female, under 45, have dependents, or earn less than USD 50,000 demonstrate a tendency for poor credit card payoff behavior. In our conclusion, we discuss how to improve credit card repayments. We stress the importance of monitoring people closely. We also aim to provide better financial advice to certain groups. Lastly, we present a more realistic approach to building and sustaining financial literacy.

We study gender differences in risk-taking investment strategies in Defined Contribution (DC) Plans with the help of data from the US Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF). By DC plans, we refer not only to employer-sponsored plans such as 401(k)s and 403(b)s, but also to Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and Roth and Keogh accounts. We suggest our own split of the SCF DC plans into risk-free and risky ones, and we build risky shares of total DC plans. We compare the risky shares of females and males in two different settings. In the first setting, we work with two samples of single people, and in the second setting we work with an extended SCF sample. In both settings, we conclude that there are no significant differences in the risky shares of total DC plans between (single) women and (single) men but that there are significant gender differences in risky IRAs and 401(k)s between (single) women and (single) men. We conclude with policy implications.

This paper reexamines the question of gender differences in financial relative risk aversion using updated methods and data. Specifically, the paper revisits the 1998 work “Are women more risk averse?” by Jianakoplos and Bernasek, suggests refinements in their model in relation to the database used, namely the U.S. Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF), and performs new tests on the latest SCF from 2022. The suggested refinements pertain first to an enhanced computation of wealth, which includes additional categories of assets such as 401(k)s or other thrift savings accounts, and second to the more subtle handling and consideration of specific demographic data of the SCF respondents. Unlike the original study, which also included married couples, the new study focuses exclusively on single-headed (never-married) households. This eliminates ambiguity about the actual financial decision maker in households, enabling a clearer assessment of individual gendered behavior. Following the refinements, the new tests reveal a continuing pattern of decreasing relative risk aversion; however, contrary to the 1998 findings, there is no significant gender difference in financial relative risk aversion in 2022. This study also documents that education levels strongly influence risk-taking: single women with higher education levels are more likely to hold risky assets, while for men, higher education correlates with less risk-taking. The paper concludes by informing policymakers and financial educators so as to further tailor their strategies for promoting gender equality in financial decision-making.

The growing weight being placed on self-directed retirement accounts within the United States retirement income policy framework, and the time inconsistency challenge of individuals, particularly women, tending to under-invest in retirement savings accounts motivated the current work. Using data from the United States Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances, for a period spanning from 1989 to 2019, 11 cross-sections of data, the paper investigated the role of gender in United States retirement risk-taking investment strategies of single (never married) individuals. The analysis documented increasing trends in the risk-taking of both single women and single men but recorded differences in the risk-taking profiles of the two groups, with single men taking more risk than single women in their retirement wealth building in most cross-sections, with the gender risk-taking gap dropping, nonetheless, algebraically in magnitude from 1989 to 2019.

In early 2020, single-person households constituted 17% of the labor force in the United States. How did these single-person households fare in terms of their weekly hours worked following the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic? To answer the question, this paper used panel data from the Basic Monthly Current Population Survey and worked with a balanced panel of 2,659 single-person households that were consecutively surveyed in February, March, and April of 2020; that is, a period including the outbreak, as well as the first peak of the pandemic. In terms of the change in total hours worked per week, the paper recorded decreases across most demographic groups. Particularly, the paper documented that single-person households in any of the groups of Black, Hispanic, high school graduates, those aged less than 25, those aged between 31 and 35, and those between 46 and 50 were among the most severely negatively affected groups. Moreover, whether fixed or random effects models were used, the study concluded with a positive effect for teleworkability (the capability to work remotely) as well as with a positive effect for essential jobs on total weekly hours worked. Finally, the author included the need for safeguarding teleworkability in a broader policy discussion, as well as the need for developing coping mechanisms against disruptions of weekly hours worked especially under extreme hardships and crises.