Home > 2016 > Mortgages

Women Less Confident in Housing Market Than Men, Survey Finds

Advertiser Disclosure Comments 0 Comments

Women and men feel very differently about the health of the U.S. housing market, a new survey suggests. Men are far more confident that buying a home today is a good investment, that they can afford a down payment, or that they can upgrade to a bigger home, according to ValueInsured, a firm that provides insurance to home buyers.

Years of surveys have suggested that women are more risk-averse in financial arenas than men. (Keep in mind, some of these surveys are often conducted by financial institutions with an interest in convincing people to take more risks — that is, to move more money into their financial products.)

Meanwhile, “risk-averse” often sounds like veiled criticism, when it could just as easily represent wisdom. For example, back in 2003, Gallup released a poll showing an enormous disparity in economic optimism between men and women in the U.S. (68% of men versus 42% of women expressed optimism, a record at the time). Longer term, women who were described by Gallup as “not convinced about the recovery” in 2003 turned out to be right.

The gender difference isn’t a U.S. phenomenon, according to a study published by New Zealand researchers called “Are Men More Optimistic?” Examining decades’ worth of polling data from 18 Western countries, the group found an optimism gap in 17 of them, with Germany as the exception. The researchers found that in only one month (March 2000) did U.S. women show greater confidence than U.S. men.

“This gender difference is present in key indicators such as economic growth, interest rates, inflation and future stock market performance, and persists after we control for income, employment, wealth, education and marital status,” the researchers said. “Our results hold regardless whether we consider questions about respondent’s personal future economic situation or the general state of the economy.”

With that as context, here’s what ValueInsured found:

  • Women are less confident that the American housing market is healthy, with a confidence gap of 21 percentage points (68% of men versus 47% of women).
  • Women are less confident that buying a home today is a secure and smart financial investment, with a confidence gap of 15 percentage points (76% of men versus 61% of women).
  • Women non-homeowners are less confident that they can afford the down payment to buy a home, with a confidence gap of 13 percentage points (42% of men versus 29% of women).
  • Men are more confident than women that they can sell their home for the same amount or more than what they paid for it.
  • More men (83%) than women (74%) would like to sell their current home and upgrade to a new one.
  • The most dramatic difference arose among men and women who already had a home and might consider trading up: While 92% of men said they could afford the down payment on a new home, only 69% of women said they felt that way.
  • It’s not that women don’t want homes: ValueInsured found that 77% of women who don’t own a home say they would like to buy a home compared to 70% of men.

The ValueInsured Modern Homebuyer Survey was conducted online by Equation Research on behalf of ValueInsured in March 2016 among a nationally representative sample of 1,157 American adults ages 18 and older. The margin of error is plus or minus 2.4%.

The firm says gender differences in financial goal-setting might explain the gap: Asked about their personal definition of the American Dream, women were more likely to cite being “debt free,” while men were more likely to cite “owning my own home.”

“Understanding these differences in attitudes will help make this year’s home-buying season successful for both sellers and lenders,” said Joe Melendez, CEO of ValueInsured, in a news release about the survey. “The numbers highlight the need to ensure that all buyers, and especially women, know about the new ways they can protect their hard-earned investments when buying a home.”

“Overconfidence” is one reason often given for men’s greater comfort with risk; men are more likely to overestimate their investing skills, some studies suggest. A Berkley study called “Boys will be Boys: Gender, Overconfidence, and Common Stock Investment,” found that men trade 45% more than women, which costs them 2.65% annually in returns.

But reasons often given for women’s risk-aversion, if we agree on that term, sound an awful lot like stereotypes that — as all stereotypes do — break down under deeper examination. There is some evidence that gender-based risk-taking differences are starting to disappear among younger adults. One BlackRock survey found that millennial women are twice as likely as Baby Boomer women to take on higher risk investments seeking higher returns.

On the other hand, some recent data does suggest men are more prone to rash decisions than women. A 2009 Vanguard study found that during the most recent stock market crash, in 2008 and 2009, women were 10% less likely to “abandon” stocks – generally a bad idea after a crash. Men who did sell locked in their losses, meaning they missed out on the huge post-crash gains.

In other words, don’t let anyone tell you that you’re wrong about the risks you do or don’t take with your own money. Do your own research, trust yourself. Be confident but not overconfident. Before you make a big financial decision like buying a home, take the time to see where your credit stands, since that factors in heavily in mortgage approval. You can see two of your credit scores for free every month on Credit.com.

More Money-Saving Reads:

Image: SolisImages

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team