From the Editor This issue contains Issue 4 of Volume 26 of Financial Services Review (FSR). I would like to thank the board and members of the Academy of Financial Services for their continued support. I continue to work in broadening the scope of articles, while still focusing on individual financial management and personal financial planning. I encour- age authors to reach out when discussing implications of their findings in a more comprehensive way. As such, all articles in the Journal more appropriately relate to financial planning issues. The lead article “Does Financial Risk Tolerance Change Over Time? A Test of the Role Macroeconomic, Biopsychosocial and Environmental, and Social Support Factors Play in Shaping Changes in Risk Attitudes” is coauthored by Stephen Kuzniak and John E. Grable, both at University of Georgia. In this paper, the authors address the need that financial planners, as well as regulators, require evidence documenting to what extent risk tolerance changes over time, and if changes do occur, the variables associated with variability. Based on a model that included macroeconomic indicators, biopsychosocial and environmental factors, and measures of social support, they find that risk-tolerance attitudes are remain generally stable over time. Additionally, there are groups of test takers that exhibit significant shifts in risk tolerance. They also describe some of the variables associated with these score changes, as well as provide financial planning professionals with guidance on how to identify clients who may be prone to shifting their tolerance for financial risk. The second article “Which Measures Predict Risk Taking in a Multi-stage Controlled Investment Decision Process?” is coauthored by Kremena Bachmann, Thorsten Hens, and Remo Stössel, all at the University of Zurich. The authors assess the ability of different risk profiling measures to predict risk taking along a multi-stage process that reflects individuals’ willingness to take risks. They find that the individual willingness to take risks varies along the process, but its level is always related to a composite measure of the individual risk tolerance. Assessment of the risk tolerance cannot be substituted by a simulated experience, although the latter can improve the perception of the risk and reward potential of the investment and motivate higher risk taking. The risk tolerance measure addresses different notions of risk, but they found that individual loss aversion is the most powerful predictor of risk taking at all stages of the discovery process. By contrast, they found that neither the self-assessed risk tolerance measures Financial Services Review 26 (2017) v–vii 1057-0810/17/$ – see front matter © 2017 Academy of Financial Services. All rights reserved. nor investment experience are suitable for consistently predicting risk taking at different stages of the process. The third article, “Evaluating the relationship between IFA remuneration and advice quality: an empirical study” is coauthored by Jiřı́ Sindelar and Petr Budinsky, both at the University of Finance and Administration Prague. The authors investigate the interaction between commission remuneration of independent financial advisers and selected sales factors, including the quality of advice. Utilizing data on investment transactions and a linear model with mixed effects, they found that the link between commission and quality of the subsequent recommendation is not homogeneous, and advice-bias potential is present only in a limited range of organizational environments, connected mainly to the flat-structure business model. Alternatively, they found that arbitrage between different product classes creates a biasing potential across almost all types of firms, creating potential for market systemic risk. The fourth article, “Portfolio insurance using leveraged ETFs” is coauthored by Jeffrey George and William J. Trainor Jr., both at East Tennessee State University. The authors examine the use of leveraged exchange traded funds (LETFs) within a constant proportional portfolio insurance (CPPI) strategy. They state that the advantage of using LETFs in such a strategy is that it allows a greater percentage of the portfolio to be invested in the risk-free rate relative to a traditional CPPI. They indicate that where a standard CPPI strategy may require 50% of the portfolio to be invested in equities, using a 2x LETF only requires 25%, and a 3x LETF only requires 16.7% to attain the same effective exposure to equities. Their results show that when the risk-free asset is yielding at least 3% or the 1 year minus 90-day Treasury exceeds 1%, the use of LETFs within a CPPI framework results in annual returns approximately 1–2% higher with better Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, and Cumulative Prospect Values, while reducing Value at Risk (VaR) and Excess Shortfall (ES) below VaR. The final article, “Who Seeks Financial Advice?” is coauthored by Maher H. Alyousif and Charlene M. Kalenkoski, both at Texas Tech University. The authors examine the determinants of seeking five types of financial advice and find consistency across different types of advice. Additionally, they observe no significant differences among subsamples defined by gender, age, and financial literacy. They show that income and risk tolerance are related positively to the demand for financial advice and affect the probability of seeking advice more than other variables. They also indicate that a low perception of financial knowledge, which can be a proxy for self-confidence, and financial fragility decrease the probability of seeking financial advice. Thanks to those who make the journal possible, especially the referees and contrib- uting authors. Over the past year, the following reviewers provided excellent reviews of the articles you enjoyed within the pages of Financial Services Review. I would like to send a special thank you to the many reviewers that have significantly contributed to the quality of our journal by providing timely and thorough reviews of the submissions to our journal. Please consider submission to the Financial Services Review and rely on the style information provided to ease readability and streamline the review process. The Journal welcomes articles over the range of areas that comprise personal financial planning. While vi Editorial / Financial Services Review 26 (2017) v–vii FSR articles are certainly diverse in terms of topic, data, and method, they are focused in terms of motivation. FSR exists to produce research that addresses issues that matter to individuals. I remain committed to the goal of making Financial Services Review the best academic journal in individual financial management and personal financial planning. Best regards, Stuart Michelson Editor Financial Services Review Aamer Sheikh Quinnipiac University KC Ma Stetson University Abigail B. Sussman University of Chicago Kenneth N. Ryack Quinnipiac University Andy Terry University of Arkansas at Little Rock Kenneth White University of Georgia Angela Wheeler Spencer Oklahoma State University Kevin Davis US Air Force Academy Ann Marie Hibbert West Virginia University Kyoung Tae Kim University of Alabama Anthony Loviscek SHU Larry R. Frank Better Financial Education Aron Gottesman Pace University Leonard Lundstrum Northern Illinois University Brian Betker Saint Louis University Manoj Athavale Ball State University Brian Starr Lubbrock Christian University Marc Oliver Rieger University of Trier Catherine Montalto Ohio State University Marianna Brunetti University of Roma Tor Vergata Chris Robinson York University Marie Lachance South Dakota State University Christine Harrington Auburn University Mark Egan University of Minnesota Carlsom Christine McClatchey University of Northern Colorado Mark K. Pyles College of Charleston Christopher Ma Stetson University Martin C. Seay Kansas State University Chungwen Hsu University of Vermont Mei Wang WHU-Otto Beisheim School of Mgmt Colleen Asaad Baldwin Wallace University Melinda Morrill NC State Cris Delatorre University of Northern Colorado Michael Fuerst University of Miami Dale Domain York University Michael S. Gutter University of Florida Darrol Stanley Pepperdine University Nancy Mohan University of Dayton David Hunter Hawaii Nilton Porto University of Rhode Island David M Blanchett Morningstar Investments Mgt Ning Tang SD State University David Nanigian CSU Fullerton Olivia S. Mitchell Wharton School Demissew Diro Ejara University of New Haven Patti Fisher Virginia Tech Derek R. Lawson Kansas State University Patti Fisher Virginia Tech Diane Reyniers London School of Economcics Paul J. Haensly University of Texas Drew Peabody University of North Texas Peter Miu McMaster University George Pennacchi University of Illinois Reinhold Lamb University of North Florida Giovanni Fernandez Stetson University Riccardo Calcagno Emlyon Business School Gowri Shankar University of Washington Richard Evans University of Virginia Grady Perdue University of Houston Clear Lake Richard Toolson Washington State University HanNa Lim Oklahoma State University Sally McKechnie University of Nottingham Huy Lam Shultz Collins Inc Scott J. Boylan Washington and Lee University Ivo Claev University College of London Sean Grover BAM Advisors J. Michael Collins University of Wisconsin Shawn Brayman PlanPlus Jaclyn J. Beierlein East Carolina University Sherman Hanna Ohio State University James Dilellio Pepperdine University Sonya Britt Kansas State University Jane Terpstra-Tong Monash University Stephan Whitaker Federal Reserve Board - Cleveland Jerry Stevens University of Richmond Steve Todd Loyola Jessica West Stetson University Swarn Chatterjee University of Georgia Jim Musumeci Bentley University Tahira Hira Iowa State University Jing J. Xiao University of Rhode Island Terrance Martin Jr University of Texas Pan AM John A. Haslem University of Maryland Tomas Dvorak Union College John Salter Texas Tech University Tracey West Griffith University John Salter Texas Tech University Travis Jones Florida Gulf Coast University Kathleen M. Rehl Rehl Wealth Mgt Wade Pfau The American College William Jennings US Air Force Academy viiEditorial / Financial Services Review 26 (2017) v–vii