IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/restud/v84y2017i1p323-356..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inferior Products and Profitable Deception

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Heidhues
  • Botond Kőszegi
  • Takeshi Murooka

Abstract

We analyse conditions facilitating profitable deception in a simple model of a competitive retail market. Firms selling homogenous products set anticipated prices that consumers understand and additional prices that naive consumers ignore unless revealed to them by a firm, where we assume that there is a binding floor on the anticipated prices. Our main results establish that “bad” products (those with lower social surplus than an alternative) tend to be more reliably profitable than “good” products. Specifically, (1) in a market with a single socially valuable product and sufficiently many firms, a deceptive equilibrium—in which firms hide additional prices—does not exist and firms make zero profits. But perversely, (2) if the product is socially wasteful, then a profitable deceptive equilibrium always exists. Furthermore, (3) in a market with multiple products, since a superior product both diverts sophisticated consumers and renders an inferior product socially wasteful in comparison, it guarantees that firms can profitably sell the inferior product by deceiving consumers. We apply our framework to the mutual fund and credit card markets, arguing that it explains a number of empirical findings regarding these industries.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Heidhues & Botond Kőszegi & Takeshi Murooka, 2017. "Inferior Products and Profitable Deception," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 84(1), pages 323-356.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:restud:v:84:y:2017:i:1:p:323-356.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/restud/rdw037
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Glenn Ellison, 2005. "A Model of Add-On Pricing," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 120(2), pages 585-637.
    2. Sumit Agarwal & Souphala Chomsisengphet & Neale Mahoney & Johannes Stroebel, 2015. "Regulating Consumer Financial Products: Evidence from Credit Cards," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 130(1), pages 111-164.
    3. David Laibson & Andrea Repetto & Jeremy Tobacman, 2005. "Estimating Discount Functions with Consumption Choices over the Lifecycle," Levine's Bibliography 784828000000000643, UCLA Department of Economics.
    4. Paul Heidhues & Botond K?szegi & Takeshi Murooka, 2016. "Exploitative Innovation," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 1-23, February.
    5. Kosfeld, Michael & Schüwer, Ulrich, 2011. "Add-on Pricing, Naive Consumers, and the Hidden Welfare Costs of Education," CEPR Discussion Papers 8636, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Sumit Agarwal & John C. Driscoll & Xavier Gabaix & David Laibson, 2009. "The Age of Reason: Financial Decisions over the Life Cycle and Implications for Regulation," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 40(2 (Fall)), pages 51-117.
    7. Xavier Gabaix & David Laibson, 2018. "Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia and information suppression in competitive markets," Chapters, in: Victor J. Tremblay & Elizabeth Schroeder & Carol Horton Tremblay (ed.), Handbook of Behavioral Industrial Organization, chapter 3, pages 40-74, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Alexander, Gordon J. & Jones, Jonathan D. & Nigro, Peter J., 1998. "Mutual fund shareholders: characteristics, investor knowledge, and sources of information," Financial Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 301-316.
    9. James J. Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte C. Madrian, 2010. "Why Does the Law of One Price Fail? An Experiment on Index Mutual Funds," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 23(4), pages 1405-1432, April.
    10. Bucks, Brian & Pence, Karen, 2008. "Do borrowers know their mortgage terms?," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 218-233, September.
    11. Santosh Anagol & Hugh Hoikwang Kim, 2012. "The Impact of Shrouded Fees: Evidence from a Natural Experiment in the Indian Mutual Funds Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 576-593, February.
    12. Daniel Bergstresser & John M. R. Chalmers & Peter Tufano, 2009. "Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Brokers in the Mutual Fund Industry," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(10), pages 4129-4156, October.
    13. Fabian Duarte & Justine S. Hastings, 2012. "Fettered Consumers and Sophisticated Firms: Evidence from Mexico's Privatized Social Security Market," NBER Working Papers 18582, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Susan E. Woodward & Robert E. Hall, 2012. "Diagnosing Consumer Confusion and Sub-optimal Shopping Effort: Theory and Mortgage-Market Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(7), pages 3249-3276, December.
    15. Robert Kosowski & Allan Timmermann & Russ Wermers & Hal White, 2006. "Can Mutual Fund “Stars” Really Pick Stocks? New Evidence from a Bootstrap Analysis," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 61(6), pages 2551-2595, December.
    16. Ronald T. Wilcox, 2003. "Bargain Hunting or Star Gazing? Investors' Preferences for Stock Mutual Funds," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 76(4), pages 645-664, October.
    17. ,, 2006. "Competition over agents with boundedly rational expectations," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 1(2), pages 207-231, June.
    18. Brad M. Barber & Terrance Odean & Lu Zheng, 2005. "Out of Sight, Out of Mind: The Effects of Expenses on Mutual Fund Flows," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 78(6), pages 2095-2120, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. repec:oup:restud:v:84:y::i:1:p:323-356. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Liu, Lu, 2019. "Non-salient fees in the mortgage market," Bank of England working papers 819, Bank of England.
    3. Lunn, Pete & McGowan, Féidhlim & Howard, Noel, 2018. "Do some financial product features negatively affect consumer decisions? a review of evidence," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number RS78, June.
    4. John Y. Campbell, 2016. "Restoring Rational Choice: The Challenge of Consumer Financial Regulation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(5), pages 1-30, May.
    5. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    6. Paul Heidhues & Botond Kőszegi, 2015. "On the Welfare Costs of Naiveté in the US Credit-Card Market," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 47(3), pages 341-354, November.
    7. deHaan, Ed & Song, Yang & Xie, Chloe & Zhu, Christina, 2021. "Obfuscation in mutual funds," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(2).
    8. Mark Egan & Gregor Matvos & Amit Seru, 2019. "The Market for Financial Adviser Misconduct," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(1), pages 233-295.
    9. Vokata, Petra, 2021. "Engineering lemons," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(2), pages 737-755.
    10. Mark Grinblatt & Seppo Ikäheimo & Matti Keloharju & Samuli Knüpfer, 2016. "IQ and Mutual Fund Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(4), pages 924-944, April.
    11. Navone, Marco, 2012. "Reprint of Investors’ distraction and strategic repricing decisions," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 2729-2741.
    12. Carlin, Bruce I., 2009. "Strategic price complexity in retail financial markets," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 278-287, March.
    13. Keane, M.P. & Thorp, S., 2016. "Complex Decision Making," Handbook of the Economics of Population Aging, in: Piggott, John & Woodland, Alan (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Population Aging, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 661-709, Elsevier.
    14. Gu, Yiquan & Wenzel, Tobias, 2020. "Curbing obfuscation: Empower consumers or regulate firms?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    15. Michael P. Keane & Susan Thorp, 2016. "Complex Decision Making: The Roles of Cognitive Limitations, Cognitive Decline and Ageing," Economics Papers 2016-W10, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    16. Navone, Marco, 2012. "Investors’ distraction and strategic repricing decisions," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 1291-1303.
    17. Chioveanu, Ioana & Zhou, Jidong, 2009. "Price Competition and Consumer Confusion," MPRA Paper 17340, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Michael Grubb, 2015. "Failing to Choose the Best Price: Theory, Evidence, and Policy," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 47(3), pages 303-340, November.
    19. Justine Hastings & Ali Hortaçsu & Chad Syverson, 2017. "Sales Force and Competition in Financial Product Markets: The Case of Mexico's Social Security Privatization," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85(6), pages 1723-1761, November.
    20. Guiso, Luigi & Pozzi, Andrea & Tsoy, Anton & Gambacorta, Leonardo & Mistrulli, Paolo Emilio, 2022. "The cost of steering in financial markets: Evidence from the mortgage market," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(3), pages 1209-1226.
    21. Mark Egan & Shan Ge & Johnny Tang, 2022. "Conflicting Interests and the Effect of Fiduciary Duty: Evidence from Variable Annuities," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 35(12), pages 5334-5386.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Deceptive product; Inferior product; Naivete; Profitable deception; Mutual funds; Credit cards;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D14 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Household Saving; Personal Finance
    • D18 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Protection
    • D21 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Theory

    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:oup:restud:v:84:y:2017:i:1:p:323-356.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/restud .

    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.