We analyze contract choices, loan-repayment behavior, and welfare in a model of a competitive credit market when borrowers have a taste for immediate gratification. Consistent with many credit cards and subprime mortgages, for most types of nonsophisticated borrowers the baseline repayment terms are cheap, but they are also inefficiently front loaded and delays require paying large penalties. Although credit is for future consumption, nonsophisticated consumers overborrow, pay the penalties, and back load repayment, suffering large welfare losses. Prohibiting large penalties for deferring small amounts of repayment—akin to recent regulations in the US credit-card and mortgage markets—can raise welfare. (JEL D14, D18, D49, D86)
We develop a rational dynamic model in which people are loss averse over changes in beliefs about present and future consumption. Because changes in wealth are news about future consumption, preferences over money are reference-dependent. If news resonates more when about imminent consumption than when about future consumption, a decision maker might (to generate pleasant surprises) overconsume early relative to the optimal committed plan, increase immediate consumption following surprise wealth increases, and delay decreasing consumption following surprise losses. Since higher wealth mitigates the effect of bad news, people exhibit an unambiguous first-order precautionary-savings motive. (JEL D14, D81, D83, D91)
We modify the Salop (1979) model of price competition with differentiated products by assuming that consumers are loss averse relative to a reference point given by their recent expectations about the purchase. Consumers' sensitivity to losses in money increases the price responsiveness of demand—and hence the intensity of competition—at higher relative to lower market prices, reducing or eliminating price variation both within and between products. When firms face common stochastic costs, in any symmetric equilibrium the markup is strictly decreasing in cost. Even when firms face different cost distributions, we identify conditions under which a focal-price equilibrium (where firms always charge the same "focal" price) exists, and conditions under which any equilibrium is focal. (JEL D11, D43, D81, L13)
We use Kőszegi and Rabin's (2006) model of reference-dependent utility, and an extension of it that applies to decisions with delayed consequences, to study preferences over monetary risk. Because our theory equates the reference point with recent probabilistic beliefs about outcomes, it predicts specific ways in which the environment influences attitudes toward modest-scale risk. It replicates "classical" prospect theory—including the prediction of distaste for insuring losses—when exposure to risk is a surprise, but implies first-order risk aversion when a risk, and the possibility of insuring it, are anticipated. A prior expectation to take on risk decreases aversion to both the anticipated and additional risk. For large-scale risk, the model allows for standard "consumption utility" to dominate reference-dependent "gain-loss utility," generating nearly identical risk aversion across situations. (JEL D81)
Abstract Online intermediaries with information about a consumer's tendencies often 'steer' her toward products she is more likely to purchase. We analyse the welfare implications of this practice for 'fallible' consumers, who make statistical and strategic mistakes in evaluating offers. The welfare effects depend on the nature and quality of the intermediary's information and on properties of the consumer's mistakes. In particular, steering based on high-quality information about the consumer's mistakes is typically harmful, sometimes extremely so. We argue that much real-life steering is of this type, raising the scope for a broader regulation of steering practices.
In: Discussion Papers / Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, Forschungsschwerpunkt Markt und politische Ökonomie, Abteilung Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und industrieller Wandel, Band 2004-17
"Wir analysieren das optimale Verhalten eines profitmaximierenden Monopolisten mit stochastischen Produktionskosten, der an rationale, verlustaverse Konsumenten verkauft. Hierzu entwickelt der Beitrag übertragbare Techniken, die es erlauben, die Nachfrage von verlustaversen Konsumenten herzuleiten, und bestimmt die optimale Preissetzungsstrategie des Monopolisten. Ein Konsument empfindet einen Verlust, wenn er den von ihm gezahlten Kaufpreis mit erwarteten niedrigeren Preisen des Monopolisten vergleicht. Dieser Verlust reduziert die Zahlungsbereitschaft des Konsumenten und senkt somit seine Nachfrage. Der Beitrag zeigt auf, unter welchen Bedingungen eine Firma mit kontinuierlich verteilten Grenzkosten diesen 'Vergleichseffekt' (lokal) eliminiert, indem sie eine diskrete Preisverteilung wählt - also, eine Preisverteilung mit Preisstarrheit. Diese Preisstarrheit tritt umso eher auf, je höher die Dichte der Kostenverteilung, je niedriger die Nachfrageelastizität oder je größer die Kaufwahrscheinlichkeit des Konsumenten ist. Unabhängig davon, ob die optimale Preisverteilung Preisstarrheit aufweist oder nicht, schwächt der Monopolist diesen Vergleichseffekt ab in dem er antizyklische Preisaufschläge verlangt. Auf der anderen Seite führt die Kauferwartung des Konsumenten dazu, dass er einen Verlust realisiert, wenn er das Gut nicht konsumieren kann. Eine höhere Kauferwartung führt somit zu einer höheren Zahlungsbereitschaft des Konsumenten. Daher kann es trotz der Tendenz zur Preisstarrheit auch Umstände geben, unter denen eine Unternehmung mit fixen Grenzkosten zufällige 'Sonderangebote' macht, welche die Kauferwartung des Konsumenten erhöhen und somit mehr Nachfrage bei höheren Preisen generieren." (Autorenreferat)
