Savings Debts Kan

8/3/2019 Savings Debts Kan

1/29

Savings, investments, debts and psychological well-being in married and

cohabiting couples

Man Yee Kan

University of Oxford

Heather LaurieUniversity of Essex

DRAFT for discussion please do not quote without authors permission.


2/29

Savings, investments, debts and psychological well-being in married and

cohabiting couples1


3/29

ABSTRACT

This paper builds on the existing literature about the distribution of financial resources

within the household between couple members. Using data from the British Household Panel

Study (BHPS) we examine the ownership of housing, savings, investments and debts by couple

members, and how these vary by individual and household characteristics. A particular focus is

the extent to which financial resources derived from paid employment may be allocated within

the household through the ownership of assets and debts by couple members. We then examine

the relationship between the ownership of assets and liabilities with individual psychological

well-being. The analysis finds that most couples who own their own home do so in joint names

even though cohabiting couples are significantly less likely to have joint home ownership

compared with married couples. Savings are more commonly held in joint names than

investments or debts and there is evidence of an increasing independence in financial

arrangements between couple members through the period 1995 to 2005. Cohabitation reduces

the likelihood of shared financial arrangements. Both partners labour market income affects the

likelihood of having any savings or investments for both men and women but as mens labour

i i h lik lih d f h i j i l h ld i d i i h h i


4/29

Introduction

There is a growing literature on womens wealth holdings compared to men. This

focuses on the impact of womens patterns of labour market participation and the gender wage

gap on womens ability to build up assets and savings for the future. Rowlingson et al (1999)

highlight the importance of the lifecycle for understanding how people accrue assets over time

and the implications for womens wealth holdings over the longer term. A major policy concern

is the longer term impact on pensions and financial well-being in retirement for women who are

unable to accrue savings due to having taken breaks from paid employment to raise children or

earning low wages when they are in employment (Warren et al. 2001; Ginn and Arber 2002;

Arber 2003). Women tend to be more likely to be either out of the labour market altogether due

to caring responsibilities or to work part-time. Even if women work full-time across the life-

course there is a well-documented gender wage gap with women tending to have on average

lower wages than men even when in equivalent occupations (Bardasi and Gornick 2000). This

affects womens long-term ability to save and reduces their pension income in later life relative

to men (Warren, Rowlingson and Whyley 2001), an effect which Bardasi and Jenkins (2004)

fi d i i il d diff i l h i i b d h


5/29

cohabiting couples. A key outcome of concern for this paper is the effect of potentially gendered

patterns of holdings between couple members on individual psychological well-being as

measured by the short-form of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ12). The paper focuses

on home ownership, as it usually forms the largest part of the household assets, as well as liquid

assets, in the form of savings and investments, and debts as a means to unpack gender

differences in the distribution of wealth between couple members and the implications for their

psychological well-being.

Theoretical Background and Research Questions

There is an extensive sociological literature on the distribution of financial resources

between couple members in terms of the management and control of money entering the

household from employment and non-employment sources (Pahl 1989; Vogler and Pahl 1993;

Rake and Jayatilaka 2002). This work has demonstrated that an assumption that financial

resources are equally distributed within the household does not necessarily reflect the reality of

financial sharing. There is considerable variation in the way couples manage their money and

h h h i h h h ld hi h d d d


6/29

spent (Goode 2009) even though, as Hand (2006) points out, negotiation may be based more on

assumptions and understandings that have developed over time than rational discussion and clear

decision-making. Sung and Bennett (2007:169) find that loyalty to an ideal of coupledom

continues to be strong even if more often expressed as jointness and mutuality rather than

equality, shedding some light on broader issues of gender relations within the household and

how these are mediated both by social norms and the socio-economic characteristics of

individuals. Burgoyne and Morison (1997) suggest that re-partnering following a relationship

breakdown can lead to greater independence in financial arrangements in the new relationship as

couples are more reluctant to adopt a joint model of shared finances.

The majority of married and cohabiting couples describe their financial arrangements as

being jointly managed (Pahl 1989; Laurie and Gershuny 2000; Sung and Bennett 2007). Vogler,

Brockman and Wiggins (2006) suggest that we are seeing a shift towards greater independence

in money management between couple members, particularly for cohabiting rather than married

couples. They argue that we are seeing a shift to partially independent or independent financial

management, where each partner contributes equally to household expenditure regardless of

i l l Thi l d i li i b l b d


7/29

the broader gender inequalities in paid and unpaid work (Westaway and McKay 2007). This

study finds that women are more likely than men to have savings but womens savings are worth

less on average, women owe less money but are more likely to have problems with debt than

men, and women start off saving into pensions as much as men but end up with smaller pensions.

Recent qualitative research in the UK provides insights into the distribution not only of

income within the household but of savings and debt holdings between couple members.

Rowlingson and Joseph (2010) find that there is an important distinction between formal legal

ownership of assets and debts and how these are perceived by couple members. Savings may be

held in one name but seen as a joint resource for the couple, a situation which has the potential to

disadvantage cohabiting women in particular on the break-up of a relationship if there are

inequalities in the value of assets and liabilities held by each partner. This study also found that

women were more likely to say they had problem debts due to debts they had been left with from

a previous relationship and the use of credit cards, combined with a greater willingness than men

to admit to debt problems when being interviewed. Assets and debts were not equally shared

within couples nor did couple members play an equal role in decision-making about assets and

d b hil l i i f i i i i d i i


8/29

which can privilege those with good credit ratings and an independent income while

disadvantaging others.

In addition to research into savings behaviour, the levels of unsecured personal debt in

the UK have been of increasing concern, especially in the context of the recession where

households and individuals may be over-stretched and unable to meet their commitments.

Kempson et al. (2004), in a longitudinal analysis of data from the British Household Panel Study

found that just under half (45 per cent) of individuals interviewed in 1995 and again in 2000

owed nothing in both years while 25 per cent owed money in both years. The proportion who

owed money did not change between 1995 and 2000 but the amount owed had doubled over the

five year period. There were also some shifts in the type of borrowing with credit card use

increasing and hire purchase and mail order becoming less common. They also found that certain

types of households were more likely to be using credit with 68 per cent of family households

and 75 per cent of lone parents owing money. While we have evidence at the household level

that credit use and the amounts owed varies by household composition and income, we have

limited quantitative evidence about how debt is distributed within couples.

B i fi i ll i d d b i f f f d f


9/29

group or rank income, rather than income level alone which may be most strongly associated

with psychological well-being as measured by self-reported life satisfaction scales.

Focusing solely on income levels to look at the association between economic

circumstances and self-reported well-being, the findings usually show that an increase in income

does not necessarily increase personal happiness (Boyce, Brown and Moore 2010). However, as

Headey and Wooden (2004) find, measures of wealth are positively associated with life

satisfaction and in Britain these effects are larger than income effects when comparing

households at the top and bottom end of the wealth distributions. When considering the effect of

a lack of savings and problems managing financially, a recent study by Taylor, Jenkins and

Sacker (2009) showed a strong association between financial incapability (defined as people who

said they were struggling financially and had no savings) and psychological well-being. After

controlling for a range of demographic and socio-economic characteristics, higher financial

incapability was associated with higher mental stress, lower reported life satisfaction, and health

problems associated with anxiety or depression. They also find that the relationship between

financial incapability and psychological well-being varies and is strongest at the bottom of the

fi i l i bili di ib i di h l d h l i ll h f l ff f


10/29

decrease levels of well-being. We have two main research questions. First whether there is

evidence of increasing independence in financial arrangements between couple members over

time and secondly, whether sole or jointly held housing or other assets or debts affect

psychological well-being. We consider both household and individual characteristics including

partners and own employment status, annual income, age, education, marital status, whether

cohabiting, the presence of children and how these factors affect married and cohabiting women

and men differently in terms of their wealth and debt holdings and psychological well-being.

Data and Methods

The data used are from the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), which collected

detailed information on savings, investments and debts at the individual level in the 1995, 2000

and 2005 waves. The sample includes married or cohabiting couples where both partners are of

working age (i.e. women aged < 60 and men aged < 65) in the three waves2. There are repeated

observations of some respondents in the pooled sample. In our analytical models, robust standard

errors are used in most of the models to take account of these multiple observations of

i di id l


11/29

Ownership of housing, savings, investments and debts

The main dependent variables in our models are whether or not respondents own their

housing, have savings, investment and debts respectively, as well as whether or not they hold

these assets and debts jointly or solely. The BHPS asked respondents about whether they had a

number of types of liquid assets and debts3. If respondents reported having one or more types of

savings, investments or debts, they were then asked about whether these were in their sole name,

in joint names, or held solely and jointly with someone else. As for housing ownership, the

BHPS asked in the household questionnaire about the housing tenure of respondents current

accommodation (e.g. owned outright, owned with a mortgage, rented private accommodation,

council housing). If the home was owned outright or with a mortgage, respondents were then

asked about the names under which the property was held. The number of missing values for

these questions about home ownership is negligible (less than 1 per cent).

We run multinomial logistic regressions in a set of models to compare the

characteristics of people with no ownership, sole ownership and joint ownerships of assets and

debts4. In the final set of models, we examine the possible impacts of having or not having

d d b h l i l ll b i W h l i l ll b i i h 12


12/29

the year of the study, age group, marital status (married, cohabiting or remarried, i.e. either one

or both partners were married more than once), housing tenure status, presence of a child under

16, as these variables have been shown to be important predictors of both wealth holding and

well-being in past studies.

Results

Descriptive Findings

Table I gives the proportion of married or cohabiting men and women in the sample by

year who reported having no ownership, sole ownership and joint ownership of housing, savings,

investments and debts respectively. In the UK, due to policies promoting house ownerships

since the 1970s, it is common for people to purchase their houses outright or by mortgage. More

than 70 per cent of people own their homes. Nevertheless, non-ownership is more common

among women (28 per cent) than men (26 per cent). Turning to liquid assets, just over 70 per

cent of men and women had savings, and just under 50 per cent had debts. However, women

were less likely than men to have investments: 37 per cent of women had investments compared

41 f Of h h 1995 2000 d 2005 h i f d


13/29

upward trend towards sole holdings from 1995 to 2000 and 2005. This is due in part to the

increasing prevalence of cohabitation. But our findings, as will be seen from the multivariate

analysis, show that sole holdings have also become more prevalent than joint holdings among

married couples over this period. There are relatively higher proportions of women and men

who do not have any investments or debts compared to the case of savings. Investments are most

commonly held as sole assets amongst the different types of liquid assets and debts. About 77

per cent of men and women who have investments hold them under their sole name.

Findings of Multivariate Analyses: Determinants of ownership of housing and having savings,

investment and debts

Tables II to V present models of multinomial regressions predicting the ownership and sole

ownership (contrasting with joint ownership) of housing and liquid assets and debts. Here we are

particularly interested in the associations between the individuals own and their spouses labour

market income and their ownership of housing or holding any assets or debts. We find that the

ownership status of all types of assets and debts is strongly associated with life stage factors. Net

f h f d i l lik l h h i


14/29

characteristics, having a dependent child reduces the likelihood of owning housing and of having

savings. Having a dependent child also makes men more likely to have debts.

As for labour market income, the respondents own income is positively associated with

the likelihood of home ownership and having savings and investments for both men and women.

Spouses labour income has similar positive associations. In addition, there is no significant

difference between ones own and the spouses associations. The associations of both partners

income and the holding of debts are weak after controlling for other factors concerning economic

background and stage of the life course. As expected, home ownership has a strong association

with having liquid assets and debts. Those who jointly own their home with their spouse are

more likely to have savings and investments and less likely to have debts than either non-home

owners or those who hold their housing in their sole names.

[Tables II to V here]

In sum, the ownership of housing and having liquid assets are associated with both the

individuals own and their partners labour income. We have found a relatively symmetrical


15/29

couples, cohabiting couples are far more likely to own housing under one partners name.

Remarriage, however, makes no significant difference to the likelihood of sole ownership of

housing. While age and whether or not having a dependent child are significant predictors of

home ownership, they do not predict sole versus joint ownership of housing. Most remarkably,

for both men and women, the partners income rather than ones own income, decreases the

likelihood of sole ownership.

Turning to the models in Tables III to V, we see again that cohabitation is a key factor

influencing whether or not assets and debt are held in sole or joint names. Cohabiting couples

are significantly less likely to hold their assets and debts in joint names than married couples,

even controlling for home ownership, age, and other factors. Women who have remarried are

also more likely than those who have not remarried to hold their savings in their sole name.

In contrast to housing, there is a period effect on the likelihood of having joint holdings for

all three types of liquid assets and liabilities. After controlling for other factors in the models,

the likelihood of having joint holdings is reduced over the ten years from 1995. Cohabitation is

also major factor. Cohabiting couples have a lower chance of having joint holdings in all the

h f d d b d i d l Thi fl h i l


16/29

Most strikingly, we find that whether liquid assets and debts are held in sole or joint names

depends largely on the status of property ownership. From Table III, compared with couple

members who have joint housing assets, those who hold housing in their sole name are more

likely to have sole saving accounts only (the corresponding coefficients are positive in both the

mens and the womens models). The likelihood of sole ownership of savings is significantly

higher when housing is held under the spouses name only. In Tables IV and V, we can also

identify similar patterns of association between sole home ownership and sole holdings of

investments and debts. Housing assets usually constitute the major share of total assets of the

household. One might therefore expect that joint home ownership would predict a higher chance

of sole ownership in other types of assets, which are typically of lower financial value than

housing and should be deemed less important once the major part of the assets is shared.

Nevertheless, our findings do not support this conjecture as the majority of couples hold savings,

investments and debts in their sole name even if housing is in joint names. In contrast, sole

holding of housing assets is likely to reflect a disposition for independent financial management

among couple members as these couples tend towards an independent model across all types of

fi i l d li h h d i i f h


17/29

Turning to debts, men have a lower chance of having jointly held debts as their income

increases. But womens likelihood of having joint debts rather than sole debts is not associated

significantly with either their own or their partners income, net of other controls. This shows

that, unlike savings and investments, the joint or sole holding of debts is independent of the

partners labour income.

Savings, investment and debts and psychological well-being

In this section, we explore the relationship between assets and debts and psychological

well-being. The dependent variable of the models in Table VI is the psychological well-being

score from the GHQ12. This ranges from 0 to 36, where a higher score indicates more stress and

poorer psychological well-being.

The background variables behave within our expectations. People in the youngest age

group have significantly better well-being than those in the oldest age group which is the

reference category. Council tenants are worse off in their well-being than home owners, after

controlling for other characteristics. Well-being is generally positively associated with annual

i l h h h ffi i i f h d l b i ll i i ifi f


18/29

Both mens and womens well-being increases where they have savings, but there is no

statistically significant difference between having solely held or jointly held savings. As for

investments, mens well-being is positively influenced if they have solely held investments.

Womens well-being is associated significantly with jointly held investments, but the coefficient

for solely held investments is marginally insignificant. Men who have solely held debts have

worse well-being scores than those who do not, after taking account of other characteristics.

However, womens debt status does not have a significant association with their psychological

well-being. This contrasts with some qualitative studies which suggest that women are more

likely than men to express anxiety related to debts (Rowlingson and Joseph, 2010).

In summary, mens and womens psychological well-being is generally better where they

have savings and investments. However, the results show that whether or not those savings are

held in sole or joint names does not make any significant difference to psychological well-being.

Womens well-being is improved where they have jointly held investments with their partner

while men suffer worse well-being if they have debts.

S i


19/29

(Rowlingson and Joseph 2010) which show that savings, in tangible and psychological terms, are

commonly perceived as shared assets in marital relationships even if in reality the savings are

held in one partners name only.

The findings also show a more or less symmetrical association of both partners income

with the likelihood of having housing and other assets and debts. The association between joint

versus sole holding of assets and debts and income is less clear. The partners income is

negatively associated with sole housing ownership. We also see that increases in mens labour

income are negatively associated with the likelihood that women have joint holdings in savings

and investments with their partner. These findings suggest that inequalities between men and

women in the labour market with respect to levels of income do translate into inequalities within

the household.

The results reveal there is independence in some aspects of financial management within

couple relationships as Vogler, Brockman and Wiggins (2006) suggest. Whether this indicates a

broader secular shift towards more independent forms of financial management in all aspects of

household financial resource allocation remains open. Net of other characteristics, there is a

i i d ff i h lik lih d f h i j i h ldi h i d f


20/29

The weak relationship between having debts and psychological well-being is most likely

due to the fact that most of these debts are short-term or can be managed within available income

(Kempson et al., 2004). Annual income is therefore a better predictor of well-being than having

assets or debts. Further research will examine the relationship between well-being and the

amount and duration of debts in order to understand under what circumstances debt becomes

problematic within couple relationships.

Notes

1. The research is part of the programme for the for the ESRC Research Centre on Micro-social Change(MISOC) at the University of Essex, RES-518-28-0001

2. The number of homosexual couples in the BHPS is too small for analysis so these cases are excluded fromthe analysis.

3. Types of savings include: savings or deposit account, national savings bank (post office), Tessa (taxexempted saving accounts) only ISA (individual saving account) or cash ISA, national savings certificates.

Types of investments include: premium bonds, unit trusts/investment trusts (excluding ISAs, PEPs

(personal equity plans)), stocks and shares ISA or PEP, shares (UK or foreign), national savings bonds,

other investments, gilts, government securities. Types of debts include: hire purchase, personal loans from

bank or financial institution, credit cards (including store cards), catalogue or mail order, Department of

Work and Pensions Social Fund loan, loans from individuals, overdrafts, student loan, and other loans.

4.

We also ran logistic regression models estimating the determinants of ownerships of housing, savings,investments and debts. The results are similar with the multinomial models which contrast between non-

ownership with joint ownership.

5 Remarriage includes those who have reported being legally married more than once It does not include


21/29

Bibliography

Arber, S. 2003 Gender and generation: Changing pension inequalities over time. in Atkinson,

G.A., McKay, S.D., Kempson, E. and Collard, S. (eds)Levels of financial capability in the UK:

Results of a baseline survey. Bristol, UK: Financial Services Authority.

Banks, J., Smith, Z. and Wakefield, M. 2002 The Distribution of Financial Wealth in the UK:

Evidence from 2000 BHPS Data. Working Paper 02/21, Institute for Fiscal Studies. London

Bardasi, E. and Gornick, J.C. 2000 Women and Part-time Employment: workers' "choices"

and wage penalties in five industrialised countries Working Paper of the Institute for Social and

Economic Research, 2000-11. Colchester: University of Essex.

Bardasi, E. and Jenki ns, S.P. 2004 The gender gap in private pensionsISER Working Paper

Series 2004-29, Institute for Social and Economic Research: University of Essex

Blanchflower, D.G. and Oswald, A.J. 2004 Well-being over time in Britain and the USA.

Journal of Public Economics 88:1359 - 1386.

Boyce, C. J., Brown G. D. A. and Moore, S. C. 2010 Money and happiness: Rank of income,

i ff lif i f i h l l S 21 471 475


22/29

Goode, J. 2009 For love or money? Couples negotiations of credit and debt in low-income

families in the UK.Benefits 17(3):213-224.

Hand, K. 2006 Mothers accounts of work and family decision-making in couple families.

Family Matters 75:70 - 75.

Headey, B. and Wooden, M.2004 The Effects of Wealth and Income on Psychological Well-

Being and Ill-Being. IZA Discussion Papers 1032, Institute for the Study of Labor: Berlin

Jarvis, S. and Jenkins, S.P. 1999 Marital splits and income changes: Evidence from the

British Household Panel Survey.Population Studies 53(2):237-254.

Kempson, E., McKay, S. and Willitts, M. 2004 Characteristics of families in debt and the

nature of indebtedness DWP Research Report211 Leeds: Corporate Document Services.

Laurie, H. and Gershuny, J. 2000 Couples, work and money. in Berthoud, R. and Gershuny,

J. (eds) Seven Years in the Lives of British Families: Evidence on the dynamics of social change

from the British Household Panel Survey. Bristol: Policy Press.

Pahl, J. 1989 Money and Marriage. London: Macmillan.

Pahl, J. 1999Invisible Money: Family finances in the electronic economy. Bristol: The Policy

P


23/29

Sung, S. and Bennett, F. 2007 Dealing with money in low- to moderate-income families:

Insights from individual interviews. in Clarke, K., Maltby, T. and Kennett, P. (eds) Social

Policy Review 19: Analysis and debates in social policy 2007. Bristol: Policy Press in association

with Social Policy Association.

Taylor, M., Jenkins, S.P. and Sacker, A. 2009 Financial Capability and well-being: Evidence

from the BHPS Financial Services Authority Occasional Paper(34) London: Financial Services

Authority.

Treas, J. 1993 Money in the Bank: Transaction Cost and the Economic Organization of

Marriage.American Sociological Review 58(5):723-734.

Vogler, C., Brockman, M. and Wiggins, R.D. 2006 Intimate relationships and changing

patterns of money management at the beginning of the twenty-first century.British Journal of

Sociology 57(3):455482.

Vogler, C. and Pahl, J. 1993 Social and economic change and the organisation of money

within marriage.Work, Employment and Society 7(1):71-95.

Warren, T., Rowlingson, K. and Whyley, C. 2001 Female finances: Gender Wage Gaps and

G d A G k l d S 15(3) 465 488


24/29

Table I. Percentage of men owning housing and having savings, investments and debts by year and gender

Note: Data from the British Household Panel Survey 1995, 2000, and 2005. The sample contains married and cohabiting men

and women at working age.For men,N= 6,151; for women,N= 6,106.

Nil Joint Sole Nil Joint Sole Nil Joint Sole Nil Joint Sole

Overall 25.9 65.5 8.6 28.4 66.0 5.6 29.3 41.5 29.2 27.1 47.7 25.3

1995 26.4 64.6 9.0 29.8 65.6 4.6 32.2 32.0 35.8 29.8 39.0 31.1

2000 27.2 64.0 8.7 28.9 64.2 6.9 26.7 46.0 27.3 23.6 51.7 24.7

2005 23.8 68.2 8.0 26.3 68.6 5.2 28.8 47.6 23.6 27.9 53.0 19.1

Nil Joint Sole Nil Joint Sole Nil Joint Sole Nil Joint Sole

Overall 58.8 31.7 9.6 62.9 29.1 8.0 52.0 31.6 16.4 52.8 31.3 16.0

1995 57.3 27.7 15.0 62.5 24.5 13.0 52.5 27.7 19.8 51.7 28.0 20.3

200057.4 34.7 7.8 61.2 31.6 7.2 49.1 34.6 16.3 51.5 33.9 14.6

2005 62.1 32.7 5.2 65.1 31.6 3.3 54.7 32.8 12.4 55.4 32.0 12.6

Housing - Men Housing - Women Savings - Men Savings - Women

Investments - Men Investment - Women Debts - Men Debts - Women


25/29

Table II Multinomial Logistic Regression Models of Ownership of Housing Assets (Contrasts with joint ownership)

Men Women

No ownership Sole ownership No ownership Sole ownership

B Robust

SE

B Robust

SE

B Robust

SE

B Robust

SE

Year 2000 0.24***

0.07 -0.08*

0.10 0.16*

0.06 0.36**

0.13

Year 2005 0.31**

0.09 -0.26*

0.12 0.27**

0.08 -0.05 0.17

Aged 24 or below 0.60***

0.12 -0.07 0.18 0.78***

0.11 -0.31 0.23

Aged between 25 and 44 0.27**

0.10 0.19 0.15 0.31**

0.10 0.18 0.18

Cohabiting 1.66***

0.10 1.79***

0.13 1.49***

0.09 1.97***

0.17

Remarried 0.68*** 0.16 -0.54 0.35 0.34* 0.16 0.35 0.32

Having a dependent child 0.25**

0.09 -0.17 0.13 0.13 0.09 -0.17 0.16

Annual labour income/1000 -0.06***

0.01 0.003 0.003 -0.05***

0.01 0.01 0.01

Spouse annual labour income/1000 -0.03***

0.01 -0.03***

0.01 -0.04***

0.005 -0.02*

0.01

Constant -0.50***

0.13 -2.10***

0.15 -0.48***

0.12 -2.82***

0.20

Wald 2(df) 653.58

***(18) 688.93

***(18)

%N 25.9 8.6 28.4 5.6

Note: Data from the British Household Panel Survey 1995, 2000, and 2005. The sample contains married and

cohabiting men and women at working age. For men,N= 6,151; for women,N= 6,106. The omitted categories in

the independent variables are: Year 1995, Aged 45 or over, Married, Having no dependent child.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001


26/29

Table III Multinomial Logistic Regression Models of Holding Savings (Contrasts with joint holdings)

Men Women

No savings Sole holdings No savings Sole holdings

B Robust

SE

B Robust

SE

B Robust

SE

B Robust

SE

Year 2000 0.16*

0.08 0.62***

0.07 0.09 0.08 0.48***

0.07

Year 2005 0.63***

0.09 0.82***

0.08 0.80***

0.10 0.74***

0.09

Aged 24 or below -0.25 0.13 -0.33**

0.12 -0.32*

0.13 -0.60***

0.11

Aged between 25 and 44 -0.05 0.10 -0.20*

0.08 -0.11 0.11 -0.30**

0.09

Cohabiting 0.91***

0.12 0.93***

0.11 1.09***

0.13 1.08***

0.11

Remarried 0.04 0.17 0.11 0.16 0.62** 0.182 0.34* 0.16

Private property - self-owned 0.46**

0.17 0.89***

0.14 0.17 0.19 0.31*

0.15

Private property spouse-owned 0.93***

0.18 0.70***

0.17 0.84***

0.17 0.82***

0.15

Private renter 0.75***

0.15 0.49**

0.15 0.66***

0.16 0.29 0.15

Council tenant 1.58***

0.15 0.48**

0.15 1.56***

0.15 0.46**

0.15

Having a dependent child 0.44***

0.09 -0.06 0.08 0.55***

0.10 0.02 0.08


0.004 -0.001 0.002 -0.04***

0.01 -0.01*

0.003

Spouse annual labour income/1000 -0.02*** 0.005 -0.001 0.003 -0.02*** 0.004 0.01** 0.003

Constant -0.22 0.12 -0.26**

0.09 -0.18 0.13 0.11 0.09

Wald 2(df) 724.68***

(26) 726.52***

(26)

%N 29.3 41.5 27.1 47.7



the independent variables are: Year 1995, Aged 45 or over, Married, Private property jointly owned by bothpartners, and Having no dependent child.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001


27/29

Table IV Multinomial Logistic Regression Models of Holding of Investments (Contrasts with joint holdings)

Men Women

No investments Sole holdings No investments Sole holdings

B Robust

SE

B Robust

SE

B Robust

SE

B Robust

SE

Year 2000 0.85***

0.10 0.91***

0.10 0.72***

0.11 0.85***

0.11

Year 2005 1.71***

0.13 1.33***

0.13 1.90***

0.16 1.71***

0.16

Aged 24 or below 1.31***

0.21 0.52*

0.22 1.03***

0.19 0.22 0.20

Aged between 25 and 44 0.65***

0.12 0.20 0.12 0.51***

0.14 0.09 0.14

Cohabiting 1.44***

0.23 1.28***

0.23 1.55***

0.26 1.25***

0.26

Remarried 0.64** 0.21 0.35 0.22 0.45* 0.21 0.20 0.22

Private property - self-owned 0.42 0.22 0.88***

0.21 0.57*

0.27 0.50 0.27

Private property spouse-owned 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.25 0.76**

0.25 0.72**

0.25

Private renter 0.71**

0.27 0.25 0.27 0.60*

0.30 0.22 0.30

Council tenant 2.32***

0.35 0.78*

0.37 2.17***

0.38 0.56 0.40

Having a dependent child -0.08 0.11 -0.26*

0.11 -0.18 0.13 -0.27 0.13


0.003 -0.001 0.002 -0.05***

0.01 -0.02**

0.01

Spouse annual labour income/1000 -0.02*** 0.01 -0.01 0.004 -0.01** 0.003 0.01 0.003

Constant 1.17***

0.13 0.44***

0.11 1.33***

0.14 0.53***

0.13

Wald 2(df) 742.74***

(26) 586.67***

(26)

%N 58.8 31.7 62.9 29.1




*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001


28/29

Table V Multinomial Logistic Regression Models of Holding of Debts (Contrasts with joint holdings)

Men Women

No debts Sole holding No debts Sole holding

B Robust

SE

B Robust

SE

B Robust

SE

B Robust

SE

Year 2000 0.10 0.08 0.35***

0.09 0.31***

0.08 0.49***

0.09

Year 2005 0.49***

0.10 0.52***

0.11 0.53***

0.10 0.58***

0.11

Aged 24 or below -1.09***

0.14 -0.25 0.14 -1.16***

0.13 -0.33*

0.14

Aged between 25 and 44 -0.75***

0.10 -0.23*

0.11 -0.89***

0.11 -0.36**

0.12

Cohabiting 0.70***

0.13 1.07***

0.13 0.33**

0.13 0.67***

0.12

Remarried -0.06 0.17 0.12 0.19 -0.01 0.18 0.19 0.19

Private property - self-owned 0.65***

0.18 0.80***

0.19 0.40*

0.20 0.80***

0.20

Private property spouse-owned 0.62**

0.21 0.47*

0.21 0.98***

0.18 0.93***

0.19

Private renter 0.53**

0.19 0.72***

0.18 0.60**

0.18 0.80***

0.18

Council tenant 0.33*

0.14 0.32*

0.15 0.29*

0.14 0.58***

0.15

Having a dependent child -0.22*

0.09 -0.18 0.10 -0.12 0.10 -0.27**

0.10

Annual labour income/1000 0.001 0.003 0.010**

0.003 -0.01**

0.005 0.0001 0.004

Spouse annual labour income/1000 -0.01* 0.004 -0.004 0.004 0.01* 0.003 0.001 0.003

Constant 1.44***

0.11 0.10 0.12 1.47***

0.11 0.33**

0.12

Wald 2(df) 424.76***

(26) 434.97***

(26)

%N 52.0 31.6 52.8 31.3




*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001


29/29

Table VI. OLS Models of Associations between Holdings of Assets and Debt, and Psychological Well-being

Savings & Psychological

well-being

Investments & Psychological well-

being

Debts & Psychological

well-being

Men Women Men Women Men Women

B Robust

SE

B Robust

SE

B Robust

SE

B Robust

SE

B Robust

SE

B Robust

SE

Year 2000 -0.05 0.14 0.09 0.16 -0.09 0.14 0.05 0.16 -0.07 0.14 0.05 0.16

Year 2005 -0.11 0.16 0.01 0.18 -0.14 0.16 0.01 0.18 -0.07 0.16 0.06 0.18

Aged 24 or below -1.48*** 0.22 -0.97*** 0.25 -1.53*** 0.22 -1.03*** 0.25 -1.58*** 0.22 -0.94*** 0.25

Aged between 25 and 44 -0.25 0.18 -0.40 0.21 -0.27 0.18 -0.43* 0.21 -0.30 0.18 -0.38 0.21

Cohabiting -0.04 0.20 -0.02 0.23 -0.02 0.19 0.002 0.23 -0.01 0.19 0.04 0.23

Remarried -0.19 0.36 0.40 0.36 -0.21 0.36 0.44 0.36 -0.20 0.36 0.47 0.36

Private property - self-owned 0.04 0.23 0.06 0.34 0.02 0.23 0.04 0.34 0.05 0.23 0.07 0.34

Private property spouse-owned 0.75* 0.36 -0.001 0.28 0.79* 0.36 0.02 0.28 0.83* 0.36 0.04 0.28

Private renter 0.41 0.26 0.39 0.29 0.46 0.26 0.45 0.29 0.47 0.26 0.50 0.29

Council tenant 1.06*** 0.29 1.11*** 0.32 1.18*** 0.29 1.30*** 0.32 1.23*** 0.29 1.42*** 0.32

Having a dependent child 0.33* 0.16 0.02 0.19 0.38* 0.16 0.11 0.19 0.36* 0.16 0.11 0.19

Annual income/1000 -0.01* 0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.01* 0.01 -0.02* 0.01 -0.02** 0.01 -0.02* 0.01

Spouse annual income/1000 -0.0004 0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.0009 0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.002 0.01 -0.012 0.01Jointly held savings/investments/debts -0.41* 0.17 -0.97*** 0.20 0.01 0.16 -0.44* 0.17 0.41** 0.16 -0.10 0.17

Solely held savings/investments/debts -0.59** 0.19 -0.98*** 0.22 -0.52* 0.21 -0.41 0.27 0.29 0.20 -0.003 0.21

Constant 11.29*** 0.24 13.01*** 0.28 11.01*** 0.21 12.46*** 0.24 10.81 0.21 12.30*** 0.24R

2 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

Df 15 15 15 15 15 15

Note: Data from the British Household Panel Survey 1995, 2000, and 2005. The sample contains married and cohabiting men and women at working age. Cases with

missing values in psychological well being are drop (

Documents

Savings Debts Kan