IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v59y2013i8p1855-1870.html

What Are Investors Willing to Pay to Customize Their Investment Product?

Author

Listed:
  • Dennis Vrecko

    (Finance Center Muenster, University of Muenster, 48143 Muenster, Germany)

  • Thomas Langer

    (Finance Center Muenster, University of Muenster, 48143 Muenster, Germany)

Abstract

Even though buy-and-hold (B&H) investment strategies can take the risk tolerance of an investor into account by specifying a suitable stock proportion, the outcome profiles of B&H strategies are restricted to a specific class of return distributions. For investors with particular risk preferences, further customization should thus provide additional value. The objective of this paper is to investigate the strength of preference for such customized distributions and to draw conclusions about the demand for personalized investment products. In two experimental studies, 256 participants could adjust the return distribution of an initially chosen B&H investment by using an interactive software program. Our main finding is that most investors make extensive use of the customization option and many are willing to pay a substantial fee for this additional flexibility. We further find that the willingness to pay for customization is lower if the fee is integrated into the display of the return distribution, making its impact on final returns more obvious. We also observe that investors can be clustered into distinct subgroups via their adjustment patterns, but individually elicited prospect theory parameters are barely able to explain and predict these adjustments. As a robustness check, we also survey real investors at an investors fair to compare their preferences with those of our main pool of student subjects. We find that the willingness to pay for customization is slightly lower for these real investors and the main effect of fee integration is also less pronounced. In summary, we observe a strong willingness to pay for additional flexibility even though the actual benefits of customization vary markedly according to the individual. In many cases the accepted fees are so high that standard B&H strategies stochastically dominate the customized distributions after fee integration. This paper was accepted by Peter Wakker, decision analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Dennis Vrecko & Thomas Langer, 2013. "What Are Investors Willing to Pay to Customize Their Investment Product?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(8), pages 1855-1870, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:59:y:2013:i:8:p:1855-1870
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1120.1695
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1695
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1695?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Unser, Matthias, 2000. "Lower partial moments as measures of perceived risk: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 253-280, June.
    2. Brennan, M.J. & Solanki, R., 1981. "Optimal Portfolio Insurance," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(3), pages 279-300, September.
    3. Alen Nosić & Martin Weber, 2010. "How Riskily Do I Invest? The Role of Risk Attitudes, Risk Perceptions, and Overconfidence," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 282-301, September.
    4. Dennis Vrecko & Alexander Klos & Thomas Langer, 2009. "Impact of Presentation Format and Self-Reported Risk Aversion on Revealed Skewness Preferences," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 6(2), pages 57-74, June.
    5. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    6. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    7. Christine Kaufmann & Martin Weber & Emily Haisley, 2013. "The Role of Experience Sampling and Graphical Displays on One's Investment Risk Appetite," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 323-340, July.
    8. Tobias Broenner & Rene Levinsky & Jianying Qiu, 2007. "A Note on Skewness Seeking: An Experimental Analysis," Jena Economics Research Papers 2007-079, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    9. Todd Mitton & Keith Vorkink, 2007. "Equilibrium Underdiversification and the Preference for Skewness," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 20(4), pages 1255-1288.
    10. Richard H. Thaler & Eric J. Johnson, 1990. "Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 643-660, June.
    11. David A. Wise, 2011. "Explorations in the Economics of Aging," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number wise09-2.
    12. John Beshears & James J. Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte C. Madrian, 2011. "How Does Simplified Disclosure Affect Individuals' Mutual Fund Choices?," NBER Chapters, in: Explorations in the Economics of Aging, pages 75-96, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Daniel G. Goldstein & Eric J. Johnson & William F. Sharpe, 2008. "Choosing Outcomes versus Choosing Products: Consumer-Focused Retirement Investment Advice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(3), pages 440-456, August.
    14. Stefan Zeisberger & Dennis Vrecko & Thomas Langer, 2012. "Measuring the time stability of Prospect Theory preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(3), pages 359-386, March.
    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. Pouget, Sébastien & Brodback, Daniel & Guenster, Nadja & Wang, Ruichen, 2025. "Investor Valuation for Socially Responsible Assets: A Willingness to Pay Experiment," TSE Working Papers 2025-1683, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    2. Brunner, Fabian & Gamm, Fabian & Mill, Wladislaw, 2023. "MyPortfolio: The IKEA effect in financial investment decisions," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    3. Baars, Maren & Cordes, Henning & Mohrschladt, Hannes, 2020. "How negative interest rates affect the risk-taking of individual investors: Experimental evidence," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    4. Sébastien Pouget & Daniel Brodback & Nadja Guenster & Ruichen Wang, 2025. "Investor Valuation for Socially Responsible Assets: A Willingness to Pay Experiment," Post-Print hal-05327492, HAL.
    5. François Desmoulins-Lebeault & Luc Meunier, 2018. "Moment Risks: Investment for Self and for a Firm," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 242-266, December.
    6. Nolte, Sven & Schneider, Judith C., 2018. "How price path characteristics shape investment behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 33-59.
    7. Carole Bernard & Gero Junike & Thibaut Lux & Steven Vanduffel, 2024. "Cost-efficient payoffs under model ambiguity," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 965-997, October.
    8. Meunier, L. & Ohadi, S., 2023. "Exclusion strategy in socially responsible investment: One size does not fit all," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).

    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. Felix Holzmeister & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler & Florian Lindner & Utz Weitzel & Stefan Zeisberger, 2020. "What Drives Risk Perception? A Global Survey with Financial Professionals and Laypeople," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(9), pages 3977-4002, September.
    2. repec:osf:osfxxx:v6r9n_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Dennis Vrecko & Alexander Klos & Thomas Langer, 2009. "Impact of Presentation Format and Self-Reported Risk Aversion on Revealed Skewness Preferences," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 6(2), pages 57-74, June.
    4. Matteo Benuzzi & Matteo Ploner, 2024. "Skewness-seeking behavior and financial investments," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 129-165, March.
    5. Huber, Jürgen & Palan, Stefan & Zeisberger, Stefan, 2019. "Does investor risk perception drive asset prices in markets? Experimental evidence," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    6. Christoffersen, Jeppe & Holzmeister, Felix & Plenborg, Thomas, 2023. "What is risk to managers?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    7. Meyer, Steffen & Urban, Linda & Ahlswede, Sophie, 2016. "Does feedback on personal investment success help?," SAFE Working Paper Series 157, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    8. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    9. Schade, Christian & Steul, Martina & Schröder, Andreas, 2002. "Starting points' effects on risk-taking behavior," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 2002,15, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    10. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver & Wiercinski, Ben, "undated". "The Relationship between Farmers' Shock Experiences and their Uncertainty Preferences - Experimental Evidence from Mexico," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 256212, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    11. Potters, Jan & Riedl, A. & Smeets, Paul, 2016. "Towards a Practical and Scientifically Sound Tool for Measuring Time and Risk Preferences in Pension Savings Decisions," Other publications TiSEM db8f7fd6-cd3c-44a5-a0ec-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    12. Meyer, Steffen & Urban, Linda & Ahlswede, Sophie, 2015. "Does a personalized feedback on investment success mitigate investment mistakes of private investors? Answers from large natural field experiment," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 112988, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    13. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Vassilopoulos, Achilleas, 2016. "Intertemporal stability of survey-based measures of risk and time preferences over a three-year course," MPRA Paper 73548, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    15. Huber, Christoph & Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael, 2022. "Volatility shocks and investment behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 56-70.
    16. Katerina Straznicka, 2012. "Temporal stability of risk preference measures," Working Papers 1236, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Etienne (GATE Lyon St-Etienne), Université de Lyon.
    17. Andrea Lippi & Laura Barbieri & Mariacristina Piva & Werner De Bondt, 2018. "Time-varying risk behavior and prior investment outcomes: Evidence from Italy," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(5), pages 471-483, September.
    18. Stefan Zeisberger & Dennis Vrecko & Thomas Langer, 2012. "Measuring the time stability of Prospect Theory preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(3), pages 359-386, March.
    19. Bas Donkers & Carlos J.S. Lourenco & Benedict G.C. Dellaert & Daniel G. Goldstein, 2013. "Using Preferred Outcome Distributions to estimate Value and Probability Weighting Functions in Decisions under Risk," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 13-065/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    20. Chuang, Yating & Schechter, Laura, 2015. "Stability of experimental and survey measures of risk, time, and social preferences: A review and some new results," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 151-170.
    21. Lin, Mei-Chen & Lin, Yu-Ling, 2021. "Idiosyncratic skewness and cross-section of stock returns: Evidence from Taiwan," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:59:y:2013:i:8:p:1855-1870. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.