Financial professionals and financial well-being: Evidence from the national financial well-being survey Richard Stebbinsa,*, Kyoung Tae Kima, Martin Seayb aDepartment of Consumer Sciences, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA bDepartment of Personal Financial Planning, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA Abstract This study examined the association between financial professional use and financial well-being using the 2016 National Financial Well-Being Survey. We tested financial well-being across various sources of financial advice such as financial professionals, family, employer, community, financial institution, and government. Results from the logistic regression showed that those who received advice from financial professionals had higher levels of financial well-being than those who did not receive advice from a financial professional. Additional analyses with those who received financial advice from any source also showed that use of a financial professional had a stronger positive asso- ciation with financial well-being. This study provides important insights to help consumers and edu- cators better understand the value of financial professionals. © 2022 Academy of Financial Services. All rights reserved. JEL classifications: D12; D14 Keywords: Source of financial advice; Financial professionals use; Financial well-being; National Financial Well-Being Survey 1. Introduction Seeking out and using financial advice is a form of help-seeking behavior driven by the need to “solve problems, meet needs, and reach goals related to financial subjects” (Fan, 2021). Prior research created a framework for financial help-seeking behavior using help-seeking processes in health care decisions (e.g., Grable & Joo, 1999). This framework provides five *Corresponding author: Tel.: 205-348-6057; fax: 205-348-8721. E-mail address: rstebbins@ua.edu 1057-0810/22/$ – see front matter © 2022 Academy of Financial Services. All rights reserved. Financial Services Review 30 (2022) 191–204 stages for consideration: (1) financial behaviors, (2) self-evaluation of financial behaviors, (3) the identification of the causes of financial behaviors, (4) decision to seek help, and (5) choos- ing an assistance option (Grable & Joo, 1999). Age, education, income, and self-esteem tend to be the factors that most directly influence choice of help-provider (Grable & Joo, 2003). There are also certain characteristics that those likely to help-seek seem to share across studies. Older adults with higher levels of financial literacy and cognitive ability are more likely to seek advice from a financial professional (Kim, Maurer, & Mitchell, 2019). Among students, older students with less net worth and financial knowledge were more likely to seek advice (Britt, Grable, Cumbie, Cupples, Henegar, Schindler, & Archuleta, 2011). Finding a source of financial advice is relatively easy. A Public Awareness Campaign launched by the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc. (CFP Board) in 2010 increased awareness of the CFP certification in the United St from 17% in 2011 to 34% in 2015 (CFP Board, 2015). The CFP Board has spent over $90 million on marketing since 2011, with another campaign, With a CFP Professional, launched in 2018 (CFP Board, 2021). The percentage of households using financial advice has been reported at 27% (Elmerick, Montalto, & Fox, 2002; Hanna, 2011), similar to the 26.55% found in the current study. However, not all sources of advice are equal. Financial professionals may provide a wide range of services for clients, from helping plan for a child’s education to creating a comprehensive financial plan (Elmerick, Montalto, & Fox, 2002). The relationship may be limited in scope and time or extend for a lifetime. Research has also connected the use of a financial planner with increased financial knowledge (Robb, Babiarz, & Woodyard, 2012), which influences the ability to meet financial obligations and make investment decisions (Hilgert, Hogarth, & Beverly, 2003). Planning for the future, specif- ically holding a retirement saving goal, has also been linked with the use of a financial planner (Kim, Pak, Shin, & Hanna, 2018). Combined, these individual elements suggest that the use of a financial professional might be connected with financial well-being. Family and friends might not have the same level of expertise, leading to different outcomes. Previous studies have recognized the importance of financial well-being on a variety of out- comes, with a special emphasis on the young (Gutter & Copur, 2011; Shim, Xiao, Barber, & Lyons, 2009). Despite the importance placed on financial well-being, U.S. adults average a score of 54 out of 100 on the financial well-being scale devised by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB, 2017). According to the CFPB, approximately 33% of adults score below 51 on the scale that means that these adults have a high probability of worrying about food, running out of food, having utilities shut off, being unable to afford medical treatment, or even becoming homeless (CFPB, 2017). Governmental action during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, including stimulus checks, student loan interest and payment freeze, student loan forgiveness, and eviction moratoriums, highlight the importance policy- makers place upon financial well-being. Research examining financial well-being has used varying terminology to describe the concept including financial wellness (Joo & Garman, 1998), financial satisfaction (Joo & Grable, 2004), and financial stress (Kim & Garman, 2003). In particular, previous studies have used financial satisfaction as a mediator between wages and happiness (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002), a dimension of life satisfaction or well-being (Vera-Toscano, Ateca- Amestoy, & Serrano-Del-Rosal, 2006), and as subjective well-being and life satisfaction overall (Archuleta, Dale, & Spann, 2013; Hsieh, 2001; Plagnol, 2011). While there is 192 R. Stebbins et al. / Financial Services Review 30 (2022) 191–204 general agreement on the broad definition of financial well-being, there has not been a con- sensus on how it should be specifically measured or defined. Recent research has viewed fi- nancial well-being as a construct dealing with current money management and expected future financial security (Netemeyer et al., 2018). Financial well-being can also be broadly defined as an individual’s satisfaction with his or her personal financial situation (CFPB, 2015a). Financial well-being is considered the goal of financial education and the “ultimate measure of success for financial literacy efforts” (CFPB, 2015a). The InCharge financial dis- tress/financial well-being scale (IFDFW Scale) was developed in 2004 (Prawitz, Garman, Sorhaindo, O’Neill, Kim, & Drentea, 2006). This was the first scale created to specifically measure financial well-being and it was created based on the literature and suggestions from financial educators. This scale has been improved with the inclusion of input from financial practitioners (CFPB, 2015a). The main object of this study is to examine the association between the source of financial advice and financial well-being. In this study, we used the CFPB’s measure of financial well- being defined as “a state of being wherein a person can fully meet current and ongoing finan- cial obligations, can feel secure in their financial future, and is able to make choices that allow enjoyment of life” (CFPB, 2015b). This was measured using four elements: (1) control over your day-to-day, month-to-month finances; (2) financial freedom to make choices to enjoy life; (3) capacity to absorb a financial shock; and (4) on track to meet your financial goals. The exact questions used to operationalize these elements can be found in the Appendix Table A1. For empirical analyses, we used the 2016 National Financial Well-Being Survey, which is the first national survey released by the CFPB. This study contributes to the literature by using an explicit and comprehensive definition of financial well-being that incorporates feedback from financial practitioners in addition to financial education experts. This study also makes an important contribution but assessing the role of any financial advice and then breaking out those who received financial advice to examine the impact of different sources of financial advice. This research will provide important insights into financial advice and fi- nancial well-being. This contribution to the literature will also aid consumers in the valua- tion of financial advice and financial literacy. 2. Method 2.1. Dataset and sample selection The 2016 National Financial Well-Being Survey (NFWBS) is a nationally representative dataset that was collected by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in 2016. The main goal of this dataset was to understand financial well-being in U.S. adults, how financial knowledge and consumer behavior contribute to financial well-being, and support research. Respondents were emailed and completed the survey online. The survey asked questions related to financial well-being, skill, knowledge, and demographic information using existing scales when possible. After we dropped cases where respondents chose “Response not written to data- base,” or “refused to answer,” the final analytic sample includes 6,248 respondents. For robust- ness, we analyzed a subsample of 5,097 respondents who used any source financial advice. R. Stebbins et al. / Financial Services Review 30 (2022) 191–204 193 2.1. Measurement of variables 2.1.1. Dependent variable. In this study, a dependent variable is a financial well-being scale score developed by NFWBS. Financial well-being scale is constructed based on four elements: (1) control over daily and monthly finances, (2) capacity to absorb a financial shock, (3) on track to meet fi- nancial goals, and (4) the financial freedom to make choices that allow enjoyment of life. An individual with a high level of financial well-being feels that he can meet current and future financial obligations, is secure in his financial future, and the ability to make choices that allow enjoyment of life. Financial well-being is operationalized by asking 10 questions on a Likert-type scale that are combined to create a single score. This single score ranges from 0 to 100 and the mean is 52.30. Fig. 1 shows a distribution of financial well-being scale. 2.1.2. Independent variables. 2.1.2.1. Source of financial advice. Respondents were questioned “Do you seek advice on mat- ters involving money from any of the following types of people or organizations?” with several options to choose. Respondents could choose as many or as few of the options listed. The options included family, employers, friends/co-workers, community, financial institution, finan- cial professionals and government. Family included parents, spouses (or partners), and even extended family members such as cousins. The friends/co-workers option included co-workers and those friends outside of the workplace and different types of employers combined into a sin- gle employer option. The community option included community or faith-based organizations. The financial professional option included financial advisors, planners, counselors, or coaches. Fig. 1. Distribution of financial well-being scale, 2016 NFWBS. Note: Weighted results. NFWBS = National Financial Well-Being Survey. 194 R. Stebbins et al. / Financial Services Review 30 (2022) 191–204 2.1.2.2. Control variables. According to the CFPB, financial well-being may be influenced by: (1) income and employment; (2) savings and safety nets; (3) past financial experience; and (4) financial behaviors, skills, and attitudes. In addition to the source of financial advice, finan- cial skill and financial knowledge are included in our model. The financial knowledge is meas- ured based on three financial knowledge questions related to personal finance topic of compound interest, inflation and stock (Lusardi & Mitchell, 2008).The number of correct answers was summed, ranging from 0 to 3. The financial skill scale is a 10-item Likert type scale that asks respondents to answer questions about their perceived skill in learning about finances, making financial decisions, and recognizing when they need more information or help to make a financial decision. The questions are combined to create a single score that ranges from 0 to 100 and the mean is 49.89. This study also included the following set of control variables such as age (18-24; 25–34; 35–44; 45–54; 55–64; 65–74; 75, or older), gender (male, female), marital status (married, part- ner, single, or separated/divorced/widowed), race/ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic, or others), employment status (self-employed, employee, homemaker, student, disabled, or retired), edu- cation (less than high school, high school diploma, some college, bachelor’s degree, or post- bachelor’s degree), household income (0–$20,000; $20,000–$29,9000; $30,000–$49,900; $50,000–$74,900; $75,000–$99,900; or $100,000 or more) and Census Division (New England, Mid-Atlantic, East-North Central, West-North Central, South Atlantic, East-South Central, West-South Central, Mountain, or Pacific). 2.1.2.3. Statistical analysis. For descriptive results, we conducted several t-tests to compare the value of financial well-being across different sources of financial advice. Further, this study used an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model to analyze the association between financial professional use and financial well-being, controlling for various house- hold characteristics. For robustness check, we conducted regression analyses on a subsample that used any source of financial advice. All of our results were weighted using the survey weight provided by the 2016 NFWBS. 3. Results 3.1. Descriptive results Fig. 2 shows descriptive results of different sources of financial advice. The results showed that most of the respondents, 63%, received financial advice from family members. Less than 4% of the respondents relied on the government or the community for financial advice. Financial professionals were the third-largest source of financial advice at 21.8%. Lastly, only 18.9% of the respondents did not consult with any of the given options for financial advice. Note that because respondents could select multiple sources, the total is well over 100%. As shown in Table 1, respondents who used a financial professional for advice reported the highest levels of financial well-being at with a mean score of 60.7. The mean financial well- being score ranged from 60.7 down to 50.3, which was associated with taking advice from the government. Those respondents who did not receive any financial advice fared slightly better than those taking advice from the government, with a mean financial well-being score of 52.2. R. Stebbins et al. / Financial Services Review 30 (2022) 191–204 195 Mean financial well-being scores went up to 52.7 for community advice, 53.2 for employer advice, 54.7 for advice from family, and 58 for advices from financial institutions. The overall mean score on the financial well-being scale was 52.3. Table 1 also presents t-test results, including six group comparisons of financial well-being scale with a reference group of finan- cial professional use. All six pairwise comparisons are statistically significant.1 With a mean financial well-being score of 52.3, the final analytic sample was 6,248 respondents. The mean financial knowledge score was 2.44 out of 3, and the mean financial skills score was 49.9 out of 100. This is high relative to other studies (Lusardi & Mitchell, 2014); however, given our sample consisting of financially literate and older White males, it is expected. All respondents were 18 or older with fewer younger participants (9.7% under the age of 24) and a larger group of older participants (24.3% were over age 61). The sample was 48.4% male and almost 55% were married. Education levels were spread fairly Fig. 2. Descriptive statistics, source of financial advice, 2016 NFWBS. Note: Weighted results. NFWBS = National Financial Well-Being Survey. Table 1 Mean financial well-being scale by different sources of financial advice, 2016 NFWBS Source of financial advice Distribution Mean Financial Well-Being Scale p-value Financial professional (reference) 21.8% 60.7 N/A Family 62.6% 54.7 <0.0001 Employer 26.8% 53.2 <0.0001 Community 3.6% 52.7 0.0003 Financial institution 18.2% 58.0 0.0341 Government 3.3% 50.3 0.0035 No advice 18.9% 52.2 <0.0001 Note. Weighted results. t-tests were conducted for six group comparisons (reference: financial planner). NFWBS = National Financial Well-Being Survey. 196 R. Stebbins et al. / Financial Services Review 30 (2022) 191–204 evenly between those holding a graduate degree, bachelor’s degree, some college, or having no college. The majority of the sample, 64.9% was White and 44.6% earned over $75,000 per year. Almost half of the respondents were salaried workers and 20.9% of were retired. More detailed information is available in Appendix Table A2. 3.2. Multivariate results Table 2 presents baseline results from the OLS regression. Results from both the reduced and full model showed that use of a financial professional had a positive effect on financial well-being (reduced model) even after controlling for various types of financial advice (full model). In particular, the use of a financial professional was positively associated with finan- cial well-being and specifically increased the level of financial well-being by 1.85–1.95. Advice from family was positively related, while advice from employer and government were both negatively related to the level of financial well-being. Financial knowledge and skills increased the financial well-being score. As the age of the respondent increased, the level of financial well-being increased. Married respondents had higher financial well-being scores than partner and separated, divorced, or widowed. Compared with salaried workers, disabled respondents had lower levels while home- makers and retired had higher levels of financial well-being. The stronger negative associations for financial well-being were found in respondents with a disability and those that were sepa- rated, widowed, or divorced. This is similar to previous research which found financial difficul- ties for divorced individuals (West & Mitchell, 2022). The educational attainment of the respondent was positively associated with financial well-being. Not surprisingly, as income level increased, the level of financial well-being increased. In fact, the largest coefficient was associated with incomes higher than $150,000 as compared with respondents with less than $20,000 in annual income. It is also important to note that both age and income both had stron- ger positive associations than other variables with financial well-being. This is consistent with previous research finding age and income were the most significant contributors to financial well-being (West et al., 2021). As shown in Table 3, we conducted similar analyses with respondents who used any type of financial advice as a robustness check. Results from additional analyses were consistent with our main results. Use of a financial professional and use of family advice were posi- tively while advice from employer and government were negatively associated with finan- cial well-being. Full results are available from authors upon request. 4. Discussion and implications This study analyzed the association between financial professional use and financial well- being. Among various sources of financial advice, respondents who used a financial profes- sional for advice reported the highest levels of financial well-being while lowest for those who took advice from the government. Further, results from the 2016 NFWBS showed a positive association between the use of a financial professional and financial well-being even after controlling for various types of financial advice. Overall, our empirical results R. Stebbins et al. / Financial Services Review 30 (2022) 191–204 197 Table 2 OLS Regression of financial well-being, all respondents (N = 6,248), 2016 NFWBS Variables Coefficient Standard error p-value Coefficient Standard error p-value Source of financial advice Financial professional 1.8545 0.3479 <0.0001 1.9453 0.3679 <0.0001 Family — — — 0.8701 0.3876 0.0248 Employer — — — �0.9531 0.3290 0.0038 Community — — — �0.1789 0.7340 0.8075 Financial institution — — — 0.2831 0.3717 0.4463 Government — — — �2.9460 0.7732 0.0001 No advice — — — 0.0102 0.5015 0.9837 Financial knowledge score 0.8225 0.1906 <0.0001 0.7891 0.1912 <0.0001 Financial skills score 0.4111 0.0110 <0.0001 0.4114 0.0110 <0.0001 Age of respondent (ref: Age 45–54) Age 18–24 �1.1863 0.6657 0.0748 �1.4060 0.6718 0.0364 Age 25–34 �1.4710 0.4492 0.0011 �1.4418 0.4510 0.0014 Age 35–44 �0.8361 0.4780 0.0803 �0.7889 0.4776 0.0986 Age 55–61 1.0994 0.5022 0.0286 1.1602 0.5023 0.0209 Age 62–69 4.7919 0.6035 <0.0001 4.7489 0.6037 <0.0001 Age 70–74 6.5155 0.8019 <0.0001 6.4250 0.8019 <0.0001 Age 75 or older 7.0357 0.7622 <0.0001 6.9418 0.7636 <0.0001 Male (ref: Female) 0.3734 0.2823 0.186 0.4461 0.2824 0.1143 Marital status (ref: Married) Partner �1.6284 0.5873 0.0056 �1.5036 0.5883 0.0106 Single (never married) 0.5362 0.4275 0.2098 0.7868 0.4330 0.0692 Separated/divorced/widowed �1.9218 0.4163 <0.0001 �1.6136 0.4250 0.0001 Race/ethnicity (ref: White) Black �0.0049 0.4488 0.9913 0.1117 0.4505 0.8042 Hispanic 0.6181 0.4131 0.1346 0.6171 0.4139 0.1360 Others �1.3211 0.5148 0.0103 �1.2575 0.5144 0.0145 Employment status (ref: Salaried workers) Self-employed 0.0141 0.5519 0.9796 �0.1143 0.5518 0.8360 Homemaker 1.6479 0.5816 0.0046 1.4503 0.5828 0.0129 Student �1.4246 0.7291 0.0507 �1.5847 0.7297 0.0299 Disabled �3.6130 0.5020 <0.0001 �3.7266 0.5042 <0.0001 Retired 2.2690 0.5684 <0.0001 2.2063 0.5679 0.0001 Education (ref: Less than high school diploma) High school 2.3484 0.6994 0.0008 2.3881 0.6983 0.0006 Some college 0.8066 0.7053 0.2528 0.8591 0.7039 0.2223 Bachelor degree 1.4935 0.7420 0.0442 1.5274 0.7407 0.0392 Post-bachelor degree 2.2965 0.7667 0.0028 2.3735 0.7654 0.0019 Household income (ref: Less than $20,000) $20,000–$29,999 1.1599 0.5949 0.0512 1.0676 0.5942 0.0724 $30,000–$39,999 2.4896 0.5860 <0.0001 2.3136 0.5859 <0.0001 $40,000–$49,999 4.1452 0.6690 <0.0001 3.9420 0.6686 <0.0001 $50,000–$59,999 5.7668 0.6501 <0.0001 5.5721 0.6499 <0.0001 $60,000–$74,999 6.5514 0.6274 <0.0001 6.3844 0.6270 <0.0001 $75,000–$99,999 7.2807 0.5903 <0.0001 7.1220 0.5900 <0.0001 $100,000–$149,999 8.9721 0.5925 <0.0001 8.7319 0.5936 <0.0001 $150,000 or more 11.4253 0.6267 <0.0001 11.2671 0.6274 <0.0001 Constant 22.1398 1.0630 <0.0001 21.9743 1.1222 <0.0001 Regional fixed effect (census division) Included Included Adjusted R2 0.4047 0.4073 Note. Weighted results. NFWBS = National Financial Well-Being Survey; OLS = ordinary least squares. 198 R. Stebbins et al. / Financial Services Review 30 (2022) 191–204 support the positive association between the use of a financial professional and financial well-being. Interestingly, advice from employer and government were negatively related to the level of financial well-being, which implies an effect is offset by other types of financial advice. This may also be due to the likely types of advice offered by the government and the specificity of advice employers offer. Government advice tends to cover government entitlements such as unemployment benefits, welfare, food stamps, or Children’s Health Insurance Program. Employer financial advice might only cover retirement plan options for employees. If financial well-being is viewed as a domain of overall well-being or life satisfaction, policymakers should support financial planning education. This has been done at the K–12 level in several states with a positive impact of improving the credit scores and lowering the probability of delinquency in young adults (Urban, Schmeiser, Collins, & Brown, 2015). Three years after the programs began, ‘credit scores increased by 10.89 points in Georgia, 16.19 points in Idaho and 31.71 points in Texas’ (Urban, Schmeiser, Collins, & Brown, 2015). Instructors teach these K–12 programs with various backgrounds with minimal train- ing requirements in Georgia and no formal training requirements in Texas (Urban, Schmeiser, Collins, & Brown, 2015). A college degree in financial planning could help improve the curriculum. However, in 2018, only 4.5% of four-year universities offer degrees in financial planning (Iacurci, 2018). Funding for more programs can be encouraged through policy and consumer demand. The advice of financial planners might help vulnerable consumers better understand the market and the value of planning for retirement (Hilgert et al., 2003; Robb et al., 2012). An alarming portion of Millennials are saving for retirement in conservative investments such as bonds or money market funds (Tepper, 2018). On the other end of the pendulum, preda- tory retail investor trading of GameStop highlighted the volatility investors, primarily in their mid-30s, were willing to take on (Hasso et al., 2021). In addition, there are fewer finan- cial planners under the age of 30, who might better understand Millennials, than there are over the age of 70 (Iacurci, 2018). Table 3 OLS Regression of financial well-being, respondents who used financial advice (N = 5,097), robust- ness check, 2016 NFWBS Variables Coefficient Standard error p-value Coefficient Standard error p-value Source of financial advice Financial professional 1.8504 0.3593 <0.0001 2.0015 0.3668 <0.0001 Family — — — 0.7598 0.3868 0.0495 Employer — — — �0.9785 0.3259 0.0027 Community — — — �0.0734 0.7231 0.9191 Financial institution — — — 0.2684 0.3673 0.4649 Government — — — �2.9334 0.7621 0.0001 Constant 21.9445 1.2037 <0.0001 21.8242 1.2513 <0.0001 Control variables Included Included Regional fixed effect (census division) Included Included Adjusted R2 0.4008 0.4040 Note. Weighted results. Control variables are the same as Table 2. NFWBS = National Financial Well-Being Survey; OLS = ordinary least squares. R. Stebbins et al. / Financial Services Review 30 (2022) 191–204 199 In this study, there are some important limitations to note. First, this study used a cross- sectional dataset, which makes it difficult to make a causal inference on the association between financial professional use and financial well-being. At present, no other national survey dataset is available that contains the full range of information needed for ideal analy- ses of the research questions, especially for the solid measurement of financial well-being. However, the use of a longitudinal dataset allows researchers to account for some methodo- logical concerns. In addition, Heckman, Seay, Kim, and Letkiewicz (2016) discussed a sig- nificant concern about the content validity of financial planner measurement among publicly available U.S. household datasets. Given the NFWBS dataset’s limitation, financial professional use is defined broadly incorporating financial advisors, planners, counselors, or coaches. There may be different levels of interaction within each category with clients, ranging from biannual meetings over a lifetime for a comprehensive financial planner to a few meetings in a single month to cover an emergency situation with a financial counselor. Self-selection bias may also exist as clients seeking professional financial advice might be more likely to be in good financial situations and potentially possess greater knowledge than those that do not seek professional financial advice. The positive association between financial professionals and financial well-being supports the CFP Board’s Public Awareness Campaign and financial institutions’ increased offerings of robo advisors (Fisch, Laboure, & Turner, 2017). Robo advisors are more popular with Millennials than the Boomers and more people now have access to some sort of financial planning (Cutler, 2015). However, a weakness of the robo advisor is that it does not educate the users on financial planning topics and that goes hand-in-hand with the fact that the robo advice is only as good as the information the user supplies (Wharton, 2018). Future research could examine the outcomes of clients that use a robo-advisor compared with clients that use a financial professional. Future studies should use a well-developed scale of financial professional use that may capture the various aspects of financial advisory services to meet the validity requirement as well as capture specific aspects of comprehensive financial planning services. In addition, the potential differences in financial well-being of different cohorts using different types of financial professionals for advice could yield interesting results. Future research should also examine clients’ financial well-being before and after engagement of a financial professional to potentially speak to causation and impact. Note 1 We conducted similar t-tests as a reference group of no advice. Five pair-wise com- parisons are found to be significant except for the pair of community—no advice. 200 R. Stebbins et al. / Financial Services Review 30 (2022) 191–204 Appendix Table A1 Descriptive statistics of sample characteristics, 2016 NFWBS Variables Percentage Mean (Median) financial well-being scale 52.30 (54.00) Source of advice Financial professional 21.8% Family 62.6% Employer 26.8% Community 3.6% Financial institution 18.2% Government 3.3% No advice 18.9% Mean (Median) financial knowledge score 2.44 (3.00) Mean (Median) financial skills score 49.89 (49.00) Age of respondent Age 18–24 9.67 Age 25–34 21.13 Age 35–44 14.07 Age 45–54 18.93 Age 55–61 11.92 Age 62–69 10.83 Age 70–74 5.35 Age 75 or older 8.10 Gender Male 48.43 Female 51.57 Marital status Married 55.39 Partner 6.71 Single (never married) 22.24 Separated/divorced/widowed 15.66 Race/ethnicity White 64.89 Black 11.65 Hispanic 15.45 Others 8.02 Employment status Salaried workers 50.41 Self-employed 6.94 Homemaker 6.78 Student 5.05 Disabled 9.91 Retired 20.90 Education Less than high school 4.77 High school 20.72 Some college 28.45 Bachelor’s degree 24.26 Post-bachelor’s degree 21.81 (continued on next page) R. Stebbins et al. / Financial Services Review 30 (2022) 191–204 201 References Archuleta, K. L., Dale, A., & Spann, S. M. (2013). College students and financial distress: Exploring debt, finan- cial satisfaction, and financial anxiety. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 24, 50–62. Britt, S. L., Grable, J. E., Cumbie, J., Cupples, S., Henegar, J., Schindler, K., & Archuleta, K. (2011). Student finan- cial counseling: An analysis of clinical and non-clinical sample. Journal of Personal Finance, 10(2), 172–186. CFP Board. (2015). 2015 Annual Brand Tracking Report: Executive Summary. Available at https://www.cfp.net/ docs/default-source/news-events–-research-facts-figures/2015-brand-tracking-report-executive-summary.pdf CFP Board. (2021). Increasing Awareness. Available at https://www.cfp.net/initiatives/increasing-awareness Table A1 (Continued) Variables Percentage Household income Less than $20,000 13.08 $20,000–$29,999 8.86 $30,000–$39,999 9.95 $40,000–$49,999 6.63 $50,000–$59,999 7.55 $60,000–$74,999 9.37 $75,000–$99,999 13.41 $100,000–$149,999 15.97 $150,000 or more 15.18 Census division New England 5.06 Mid-Atlantic 12.87 East-North Central 14.42 West-North Central 6.59 South Atlantic 21.16 East-South Central 5.15 West-South Central 11.27 Mountain 6.91 Pacific 16.57 Note. Weighted results. NFWBS = National Financial Well-Being Survey. Table A2 Financial Well-Being survey questions, 2016 NFWBS No. Questions How well does this statement describe you or your situation? 1 I could handle a major unexpected expense 2 I am securing my financial future 3 Because of my money situation, I feel like I will never have the things I want in life 4 I can enjoy life because of the way I’m managing my money 5 I am just getting by financially 6 I am concerned that the money I have or will save won’t last How often does this statement apply to you? 7 Giving a gift for a wedding, birthday, or other occasion would put a strain on my finances for the month 8 I have money left over at the end of the month 9 I am behind with my finances 10 My finances control my life Note. NFWBS = National Financial Well-Being Survey. 202 R. Stebbins et al. / Financial Services Review 30 (2022) 191–204 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. (CFPB). (2015a). Financial Well-Being: The Goal of Financial Education. Iowa City, IA: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Available at https://www.consumerfinance. gov/data-research/research-reports/financial-well-being/ Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). (2015b). Measuring Financial Well-Being: A Guide to Using the CFPB Financial Well-Being Scale. Available at https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201512_cfpb_financial- well-being-user-guide-scale.pdf Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). (2017). Financial Well-Being in America. Available at https:// files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201709_cfpb_financial-well-being-in-America.pdf Cutler, N. E. (2015). Millennials and finance: The “Amazon Generation.” Journal of Financial Service Professionals, 69(6), 33–39. Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2002). Will money increase subjective well-being? Social Indicators Research, 57, 119–169. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014411319119 Elmerick, S. A., Montalto, C. P., & Fox, J. J. (2002). Use of financial planners by US households. Financial Services Review, 11, 217. Fan, L. (2021). A conceptual framework of financial advice-seeking and short-and long-term financial behaviors: An age comparison. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 42, 90–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834- 020-09727-3 Fisch, J. E., Laboure, M., & Turner, J. A. (2017). The Economics of Complex Decision Making: The Emergence of the Robo Adviser. Available at https://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/events/170911/Robo-vs-Human-Advisers-Aug-28.pdf Grable, J. E., & Joo, S. H. (1999). Financial help-seeking behavior: Theory and implications. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 10, 14. Grable, J. E., & Joo, S. H. (2003). A snapshot view of the help-seeking market. Journal of Financial Planning, 16, 88. Gutter, M., & Copur, Z. (2011). Financial behaviors and financial well-being of college students: Evidence from a national survey. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 32, 699–714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-011- 9255-2 Hanna, S. D. (2011). The demand for financial planning services. Journal of Personal Finance, 10, 36–62. Hasso, T., Müller, D., Pelster, M., & Warkulat, S. (2021). Who participated in the GameStop frenzy? Evidence from brokerage accounts. Finance Research Letters, 45(2), 102140. Heckman, S., Seay, M., Kim, K. T., & Letkiewicz, J. (2016). Household use of financial planners: Measurement considerations for researchers. Financial Services Review, 25, 427–446. Hilgert, M. A., Hogarth, J. M., & Beverly, S. G. (2003). Household financial management: The connection between knowledge and behavior. Federal Reserve Bulletin, 89, 309. Hsieh, C.-M. (2001). Correlates of financial satisfaction. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 52, 135–153. https://doi.org/10.2190/9YDE-46PA-MV9C-2JRB Iacurci, G. (2018). Few Colleges Offer a Financial Planning Program. InvestmentNews. Available at https:// www.investmentnews.com/few-colleges-offer-a-financial-planning-program-75860 Joo, S.-h., & Garman, E. T. (1998). The potential effects of workplace financial education based on the relation- ship between personal financial wellness and worker job productivity. Personal Finances and Worker Productivity, 2, 163–173. Joo, S.-h., & Grable, J. E. (2004). An exploratory framework of the determinants of financial satisfaction. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 25, 25–50. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JEEI.0000016722.37994.9f Kim, J., & Garman, E. T. (2003). Financial stress and absenteeism: An empirically derived model. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 14, 31. Kim, H. H., Maurer, R., & Mitchell, O. S. (2019). How Cognitive Ability and Financial Literacy Shape the Demand for Financial Advice at Older Ages (No. w25750). National Bureau of Economic Research. Available at https://www.nber.org/papers/w25750 Kim, K., Pak, T., Shin, S., & Hanna, S. (2018). The relationship between financial planner use and holding a retirement saving goal: A propensity score matching analysis. Financial Planning Review, 1, e1008. https:// doi.org/10.1002/cfp2.1008 R. Stebbins et al. / Financial Services Review 30 (2022) 191–204 203 Lusardi, A., & Mitchell, O. S. (2008). Planning and financial literacy: How do women fare? American Economic Review, 98, 413–417. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.98.2.413 Lusardi, A., & Mitchell, O. S. (2014). The economic importance of financial literacy: Theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Literature, 52, 5–44. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.52.1.5 Netemeyer, R. G., Warmath, D., Fernandes, D., & Lynch, J. G., Jr. (2018). How am I doing? Perceived financial well-being, its potential antecedents, and its relation to overall well-being. Journal of Consumer Research, 45, 68– 89. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx109 Plagnol, A. C. (2011). Financial satisfaction over the life course: The influence of assets and liabilities. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32, 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2010.10.006 Prawitz, A. D., Garman, E. T., Sorhaindo, B., O’Neill, B., Kim, J., & Drentea, P. (2006). InCharge financial dis- tress/financial well-being scale: Development, administration, and score interpretation. Financial Counseling and Planning, 17, 34–50. Robb, C. A., Babiarz, P., & Woodyard, A. (2012). The demand for financial professionals’ advice: The role of fi- nancial knowledge, satisfaction, and confidence. Financial Services Review, 21(4), 291–305. Shim, S., Xiao, J. J., Barber, B. L., & Lyons, A. C. (2009). Pathways to life success: A conceptual model of finan- cial well-being for young adults. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 708–723. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.appdev.2009.02.003 Tepper, T. (2018). Millennials Prefer Cash Over Stocks–And it Could Cost Them Millions. Bankrate. Available at https://www.bankrate.com/investing/financial-security-july-2018/ Urban, C., Schmeiser, M., Collins, J. M., & Brown, A. (2015). State Financial Education Mandates: It’s All in the Implementation. Washington, DC: FINRA Investor Education Foundation. Available at https://www. finrafoundation.org/files/state-financial-education-mandates-its-all-implementation Vera-Toscano, E., Ateca-Amestoy, V., & Serrano-Del-Rosal, R. (2006). Building financial satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 77, 211–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-005-2614-3 West, T., Cull, M., & Johnson, D. (2021). Income more important than financial literacy for improving well- being. Financial Services Review, 29(3), 187–207. West, T., & Mitchell, E. (2022). Australian women with good financial knowledge fare better in divorce. Australian Journal of Management, 47, 203–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/03128962211022041 Wharton. (2018). The Rise of the Robo-advisor: How Fintech is Disrupting Retirement. Knowledge@Wharton. Available at https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/rise-robo-advisor-fintech-disrupting-retirement/ 204 R. Stebbins et al. / Financial Services Review 30 (2022) 191–204