Financial Services Review, 33(1) 
 

i 
 

Volume 33 Issue 1 From the Editor 

I have some exciting updates to share about Financial Services Review (FSR). First, as you can see 

from the number of papers in this issue, the journal is in a strong position and growing. We've seen a 

notable increase in both the quantity and quality of submissions, and our acceptance rate continues to 

decline, reflecting rising reviewer expectations that align with the goal of enhancing the journal's 

impact. Another development is that the editorial board and I are moving forward with an application 

for possible Scopus indexing. While there are no guarantees, I do believe that FSR is in a strong 

position for consideration. As an example, papers from FSR have been cited nearly 1,200 times in 

Scopus journals. The journal’s impact is expansive. The final update is that this issue includes some 

outstanding papers. Let’s quickly review these papers. 

The first paper (The Impact of the COVID-19 Income Shock on Debt Management: A Mediation 

Analysis) was co-authored by Drs. Ouyang Congrong, Thomas Crandall, and Swarn Chatterjee. This 

study examines the relationship between large, unexpected income drops during the COVID-19 

pandemic and individuals' use of stimulus checks to pay off debt. This research team found that those 

with significant income reductions were more likely to use their checks for debt management. The 

paper also highlights the role of perceived financial control in the decision-making process, showing 

that individuals who felt a lack of control over their finances were more likely to use stimulus funds 

for debt relief. 

The next paper (Retirement Expectations vs. Reality: If COVID-19 Did Not Impact Retirement 

Expectations Significantly, What Did?) was written by Drs. Zhikun Liu, David Blanchett, Qi Sun, and 

Naomi Fink. This study analyzes the retirement expectations and actual retirement ages of older 

Americans, finding that while many expect to delay retirement, the COVID-19 pandemic had no 

significant impact on this trend. They did find that key factors influencing retirement decisions include 

health, wealth, marital status, education, and disability status. Their paper underscores the importance 

of understanding how these factors can help explain the gap between expected and actual retirement 

expectations. 

Drs. Emily Koochel, Megan McCoy, and Sonya Lutter wrote the third paper in this issue (Protecting 

Well-being through Financial Shocks). This study explores how resources, including personal qualities 

like self-control and perceived health, can buffer the effects of financial stress and improve financial 

well-being. They found that beyond income, factors such as access to resources and a strong sense of 

control play a critical role in enhancing resilience to financial challenges. 

Dr. Megan McCoy and her colleagues, Drs. Ives Machiz, Portia Johnson, and Kenneth White, 

contributed the next paper (Resilient Personality or Financial Resilience Framework for Coping with 

Physical and Mental Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic). This study examines how two 

resilience frameworks—the financial resilience framework and the resilient personality model—were 

related to physical and mental health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Their analysis 

indicates that while both frameworks contribute to resilience, financial resilience is a stronger predictor 

of positive health outcomes than a resilient personality. 

The fifth paper (An Investigation of the Relationship between Gender and Investor Behavior During a 

Market Correction) was written by Drs. Matthew Sommer, Megan McCoy, and HanNa Lim. This study 

investigates how U.S. retail investors coped during a recent declining stock market and a period of 

rising inflation. They found that men were more likely to shift investments from stocks and bonds to 

cash, while women experienced more financial stress. Their work shows that financial stress and 



Financial Services Review, 33(1) 
 

ii 
 

investment overconfidence are linked to shifts in trading behavior, although the indirect effects are 

minor and only partially mediated by gender. 

The next paper (Retail Investors and Investment Fraud Victims: Is There a Connection?) was 

contributed by Christopher Rand, Melisande McCrae, and Jason Martin. This study examines the 

characteristics of investment fraud victims, finding that both overconfident and financially literate 

investors are more likely to be victimized (although they differ in their investment behaviors). 

Overconfident investors were observed to be more comfortable with risk and use background checks 

on investment professionals, while financially literate investors engage in more frequent trading and 

stock allocation, with males and younger investors being more likely to experience fraud. 

Drs. Yu Zhang, Khurram Naveed, and Jia Qi wrote the next paper in this issue (Crypto Investment: The 

Role of Investment Motivations, Investment Confidence, and Risk Perceptions). This study examines 

the psychological and behavioral factors influencing cryptocurrency investment, finding that 

motivations and investment confidence positively impact current and future investment decisions, 

while risk perceptions act as a barrier. Their findings suggest that understanding these psychological 

factors can improve investor profiling and enable financial advisors to offer more personalized 

guidance in the volatile cryptocurrency market. 

In the next paper (Assessing the Impact of Rebalancing on Equal-weighted and Value-weighted 

Portfolios over Five Decades), Drs. Rama Malladi and Alexander Stanoyevitch discuss how 

transaction costs affect the performance gap between equal-weighted portfolios (EWPs) and value-

weighted portfolios (VWPs). They found that EWPs generally outperform VWPs unless transaction 

costs become excessive. The results highlight that while EWPs offer significant diversification 

benefits, transaction costs play a critical role in diminishing their outperformance. 

Dr. Eun Jin Kwak and I wrote the second-to-last paper in this issue (A Domain Specific Measure of 

Investment Risk Preference). This paper proposes a new measure of risk preference that combines 

aspects of revealed-preference measures and propensity assessment techniques. The resulting test adds 

to the literature by advancing the precision of investment risk assessment tools. 

This issue of FSR concludes with a paper (Does Overspending Harm Retirement Preparation?) written 

by Drs. Christina Lynn, Stuart Heckman, Michael Kothakota, and Derek Lawson. This study explores 

the relationship between overspending and retirement preparation, testing the Behavioral Life Cycle 

Hypothesis using three data sets. Findings from their study reveal that overspending is only weakly 

linked to poor retirement preparation, suggesting that overspending behavior may only sometimes 

reflect one's retirement readiness. Dr. Lynn et al. provide detailed policy solutions to address 

overspending and improve financial awareness. 

I would like to end by giving you an update about my role as editor. I announced in the last issue that 

Volume 33 Issue 1 would be my last as editor. I made that announcement prematurely. I’ve been asked 

to stay on through 2025 or until the Academy of Financial Services (AFS) can find a new permanent 

editor. As I told the AFS board, I am totally committed to ensuring that FSR continues to remain 

impactful. In this regard, I am officially announcing that I will serve as interim editor for the 

foreseeable future. I am so grateful for the guidance provided by those serving on the Advisory and 

Editorial Boards. The individuals listed on the masthead (and online) are amazing professionals. 

Finally, thank you for being an active participant in FSR. Each one of you, as a contributor or reader, 

has helped shape the content and quality of the Financial Services Review. Until next time, all the best, 

 

John E. Grable, Ph.D., CFP®