IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/gaae09/53256.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Sind landwirtschaftliche Unternehmer bei Zinssätzen zahlenblind? – Erste empirische Ergebnisse –

Author

Listed:
  • Musshoff, Oliver
  • Hirschauer, Norbert
  • Wassmuss, Harm

Abstract

Landwirte wechseln oft nicht von ihrer Hausbank zu einer anderen Bank, auch wenn diese bessere Konditionen bietet. Diese „Wechselträgheit“ kann zum einen in den Transaktionskosten des Wechsels begründet sein. Zum anderen kann sie aber auch das Ergebnis begrenzt rationalen Entscheidungsverhaltens sein. Die Analyse der Befragungsergebnisse einer Gruppe norddeutscher Landwirte zeigt, dass diese tatsächlich begrenzt rational sind. Sie unterschätzen den geldwerten Nachteil, der ihnen durch höhere Darlehenszinsen der Hausbank entsteht. Anders ausgedrückt: Sie wechseln nicht die Bank, auch wenn die von ihnen subjektiv wahrgenommenen Wechselkosten schon längst durch den geringeren Effektivzins eines Alternativangebotes „gedeckt“ sind. Damit lässt sich schlussfolgern, dass Landwirte ihre Entscheidungen besser an ihren jeweiligen Präferenzen ausrichten können, wenn sie durch Anwendung finanzmathematischer Kenntnisse den ökonomischen Vor- oder Nachteil verschiedener Finanzierungsangebote zutreffender einschätzen. Banken, die mit objektiv günstigeren Konditionen werben, sollten ihr Marketingkonzept dahingehend anpassen, dass sie neben dem Effektivzinsvorteil auch den absoluten Kostenvorteil kommunizieren.

Suggested Citation

  • Musshoff, Oliver & Hirschauer, Norbert & Wassmuss, Harm, 2009. "Sind landwirtschaftliche Unternehmer bei Zinssätzen zahlenblind? – Erste empirische Ergebnisse –," 49th Annual Conference, Kiel, Germany, September 30-October 2, 2009 53256, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:gaae09:53256
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.53256
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/53256/files/v43korrigiert.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.53256?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brocas, Isabelle & Carrillo, Juan D. (ed.), 2003. "The Psychology of Economic Decisions: Volume One: Rationality and Well-Being," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199251087, Decembrie.
    2. Akerlof, George A & Dickens, William T, 1982. "The Economic Consequences of Cognitive Dissonance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 307-319, June.
    3. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    4. Bruno Frey & Matthias Benz & Alois Stutzer, 2004. "Introducing Procedural Utility: Not Only What, but Also How Matters," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 160(3), pages 377-401, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Steinhorst, Martin P. & Bahrs, Enno, 2011. "Die Analyse der Rationalität im Verhalten von Stakeholdern des Agribusiness anhand eines Experiments," 51st Annual Conference, Halle, Germany, September 28-30, 2011 114490, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    2. Steinhorst, M.P. & Bahrs, E., 2012. "Die Analyse der Rationalität im Verhalten von Stakeholdern des Agribusiness anhand eines Experiments," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 47, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2015. "Behavioral political economy: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 395-417.
    2. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2014. "Behavioral public choice: A survey," Freiburg Discussion Papers on Constitutional Economics 14/03, Walter Eucken Institut e.V..
    3. Gernot Wagner & Richard Zeckhauser, 2012. "Climate policy: hard problem, soft thinking," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 110(3), pages 507-521, February.
    4. Emmanuel PETIT, 2010. "The role of regret in the persistence of anomalies in financial markets (In French)," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2010-07, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    5. Hosseini, Hamid, 2003. "The arrival of behavioral economics: from Michigan, or the Carnegie School in the 1950s and the early 1960s?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 391-409, September.
    6. Elena Argentesi & Helmut Lütkepohl & Massimo Motta, 2010. "Acquisition of Information and Share Prices: An Empirical Investigation of Cognitive Dissonance," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 11(3), pages 381-396, August.
    7. Wichardt, Philipp C. & Schunk, Daniel & Schmitz, Patrick W., 2009. "Participation costs for responders can reduce rejection rates in ultimatum bargaining," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 33-35, April.
    8. Mario Cedrini & Marco Novarese, 2015. "The challenge of fear to economics," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 14(1), pages 99-106, June.
    9. Macera, Rosario, 2014. "Dynamic beliefs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-18.
    10. Gebhard Kirchgässner, 2014. "On Self-Interest and Greed," CESifo Working Paper Series 4883, CESifo.
    11. Yaniv, Gideon, 1998. "Phobic disorder, psychotherapy, and risk-taking: an economic perspective," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 229-243, April.
    12. Rafael Lalive & Alois Stutzer, 2010. "Approval of equal rights and gender differences in well-being," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 23(3), pages 933-962, June.
    13. Bracha, Anat & Brown, Donald J., 2012. "Affective decision making: A theory of optimism bias," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 67-80.
    14. Kai Barron, 2021. "Belief updating: does the ‘good-news, bad-news’ asymmetry extend to purely financial domains?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 31-58, March.
    15. Chen, Si, 2012. "Optimistic versus Pessimistic--Optimal Judgemental Bias with Reference Point," MPRA Paper 50693, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Rod Cross, 2014. "Unemployment: natural rate epicycles or hysteresis?," European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Edward Elgar Publishing, vol. 11(2), pages 136-148, September.
    17. Bruno S. Frey & Reiner Eichenberger, 1989. "Should Social Scientists Care about Choice Anomalies?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 1(1), pages 101-122, July.
    18. Catherine L. Kling & John A. List & Jinhua Zhao, 2013. "A Dynamic Explanation Of The Willingness To Pay And Willingness To Accept Disparity," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 909-921, January.
    19. Antonides, Gerrit, 1995. "Entrapment in risky investments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 447-461.
    20. Gilles Grolleau & Deborah Peterson, 2015. "Biodiversity conservation through private initiative: the case of Earth Sanctuaries Ltd," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 293-312, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural Finance;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:gaae09:53256. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gewisea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.