IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/stabus/3885.html

The Good, the Bad and the Complex: Product Design with Impeperfect Information

Author

Listed:
  • Asriyan, Vladimir

    (CREi and Barcelona GSE)

  • Foarta, Dana

    (Stanford U)

  • Vanasco, Victoria

    (CREi and Barcelona GSE)

Abstract

We study the joint determination of product quality and complexity in a rational setting. We introduce a novel notion of complexity, which affects how costly it is for an agent to acquire information about product quality. In our model, an agent can accept or reject a product proposed by a designer, who can affect the quality and the complexity of the product. Examples include banks that design financial products that they offer to retail investors, or policymakers who propose policies for approval by voters. We find that complexity is not necessarily a feature of low quality products. While an increase in alignment between the agent and the designer leads to more complex but better quality products, higher product demand or lower competition among designers leads to more complex and lower quality products. Our findings produce novel empirical implications on the relationship between quality and complexity, which we relate to evidence within the context of financial products and regulatory policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Asriyan, Vladimir & Foarta, Dana & Vanasco, Victoria, 2020. "The Good, the Bad and the Complex: Product Design with Impeperfect Information," Research Papers 3885, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    • Handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:3885
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/gsb-cmis/gsb-cmis-download-auth/499869
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Ana Babus & Maryam farboodi, 2019. "The Hidden Costs of Strategic Opacity," 2019 Meeting Papers 1508, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    2. Allen, Franklin & Barbalau, Adelina, 2024. "Security design: A review," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    3. Geng, Sen & Guan, Menglong, 2023. "Trustworthy by design," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 70-87.
    4. Foarta, Dana & Morelli, Massimo, 2020. "Complexity and the Reform Process," Research Papers 3891, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    5. Haslag, Peter & Srinivasan, Kandarp & Thakor, Anjan V., 2024. "Competition, Product differentiation and Crises: Evidence from 18 million securitized loans," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D78 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Positive Analysis of Policy Formulation and Implementation
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • G18 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Government Policy and Regulation
    • P16 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies - - - Capitalist Institutions; Welfare State

    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:ecl:stabus:3885. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gsstaus.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.