The psychology of discounting: Something doesn’t add up

Economist
June 30, 2012

When retailers want to entice customers to buy a particular product, they typically offer it at a discount. According to a new study to be published in the Journal of Marketing, they are missing a trick.

A team of researchers, led by Akshay Rao of the University of Minnesota's Carlson School of Management, looked at consumers' attitudes to discounting. Shoppers, they found, much prefer getting something extra free to getting something cheaper. The main reason is that most people are useless at fractions.

Consumers often struggle to realise, for example, that a 50% increase in quantity is the same as a 33% discount in price. They overwhelmingly assume the former is better value. In an experiment, the researchers sold 73% more hand lotion when it was offered in a bonus pack than when it carried an equivalent discount (even after all other effects, such as a desire to stockpile, were controlled for).

This numerical blind spot remains even when the deal clearly favours the discounted product. In another experiment, this time on his undergraduates, Mr Rao offered two deals on loose coffee beans: 33% extra free or 33% off the price. The discount is by far the better proposition, but the supposedly clever students viewed them as equivalent.

More

Read the Paper

Limited rationality

Economist
June 14, 2012

Much has been made of the amount of deposits that has left the Greek banking sector since the start of the debt crisis: some €70 billion in total, leaving around €160 billion-170 billion still in place. A rush of withdrawals after the first Greek election on May 6th sparked fears of a full-scale run, although the pace has slowed since then—“a dribble”, says one Athens-based banker.

The outflows may pick up again in the final days before this weekend’s second election: one Athenian businessman says he will be taking €1,000-2,000 out of his account in the next couple of days so that he can have cash on hand in case the vote leads to chaos. Multiply that across many accounts, and things will start to feel very hairy again.

But the greater mystery to some is not how many deposits have gone, but how many remain. When banks need to be recapitalised, when the guarantee of the Greek government carries little weight, and when there is a risk of redenomination from euros into drachmas, the rational thing to do is to take money out of the bank, to either send it abroad or put it under the mattress. Why aren’t more Greeks doing it?

Conversations with a small sample of Athenians suggest a number of explanations. One is emotional: some people see it as a matter of honour not to turn their back on the country by taking money out of the bank. “Part of this is about not contributing to a problem I want to avoid,” says a local lawyer. “Banks need deposits to be able to extend funds, and I don’t want to be part of the problem.”

More

Are You With the Dumb Money or the Smart Money?

by James Heaton and Nicholas Polson

Bloomberg
June 14, 2012

Market observers often divide investors into “smart money” and “dumb money.” Our research shows there may be a way to figure out which group you are in.

The first place to look is prices, which reflect the interaction of smart money and dumb money and may contain valuable information about the proportion of either in the market. In other words, the price knows which category we belong to. The trick is to extract that information.

Consider a simple example of a simple market: betting on a horse race. Say there are two horses, A and B. And there are two types of bettors, smart money and dumb money. We place our bet on horse A because we think it is more likely to win. It turns out that 75 percent of the money is on horse B, and 25 percent is on A. These “prices” can help us learn whether we are more likely to be the dumb money or the smart money.

We want to compare the probability that we are the dumb money given the market price to the probability that we are the smart money given the market price. We can write this as P(dumb|market)/P(smart|market). If this ratio is greater than one, then it is more likely that we are the dumb money. Less than one, we are more likely to be the smart money.

More

What Traders’ Testosterone Tells Us About Markets

by Mark Buchanan

Bloomberg
June 11, 2012

An unusual study of traders’ spit may offer a taste of the future in how we understand what drives markets -- and why they aren’t as stable and efficient as we might hope.

Several years ago, two neuroscientists undertook an experiment on the trading floor of a major investment bank in London. Over eight consecutive business days, at both 11 a.m. and 4 p.m., John Coates and Joe Herbert took samples of saliva from the mouths of 17 traders. With these samples, taken before and after the bulk of the day’s trading activity, they measured the rising and falling levels of a number of steroid hormones, including testosterone, adrenaline and cortisol.

The data revealed physiological changes not evident to the eye. To begin with, Coates and Herbert found that when traders did well and made money, they didn’t do it solely through cleverness and cerebral dexterity. Guts also played a role, although “testicles” would actually be more accurate. Traders performed better on days in which they registered higher morning levels of the hormone testosterone, which is mostly produced in the testes.

This isn’t actually surprising. After all, testosterone increases the level of hemoglobin in the blood, enabling it to carry more oxygen. Experiments in both animals and humans show that it boosts searching persistence, fearlessness and appetite for risk, qualities that obviously help any trader exploit real opportunities in the market. Athletes preparing for a competition produce more testosterone, which helps bring them to an optimal state of readiness for intense action.

More

See also

Happyism: The creepy new economics of pleasure

by Deirdre N. McCloskey

The New Republic
June 8, 2012

In the first panel of a Peanuts strip—the preceding ones had been about Lucy scolding her little brother, Linus, for not being a good brother—Lucy asks what Linus is offering her: “What’s this?” “A dish of ice cream.” Then Linus explains: “I brought it to you in order that your stay here on Earth might be more pleasant.” She smiles genially, and uncharacteristically: “Well, thank you ... You’re a good brother.” In the final panel, Linus walks away smiling: “Happiness is a compliment from your sister!”

That about sums it up. Pleasure is to be achieved by things like dishes of ice cream. Psychologists have shown rigorously that people are most pleasured exactly as you might have thought if you are a human being: when eating, say, a heaped pastrami on rye at Manny’s Deli off Roosevelt Road in what was once the garment district of Chicago. Happiness, by contrast, is more complicated, though it can also be pursued at Manny’s. It is the pleasure of kosher comfort food, down to the diminishing marginal utility of that last bite—but it is also expressing one’s urban identity and Chicago-ism, even at the costs of the considerable inconvenience in getting to Manny’s and braving the insults of the countermen. It is introducing your friend, a naïve gentile, to the Jewish side of the City of the Big Shoulders, affirming thereby your philo-Semitism. It is participating in the American democracy of a 1950s cafeteria. It is facing, too, the cost of a little addition to the love handles. And it is a compliment from your sister. Pleasure is a brain wave right now. Happiness is a good story of your life. The Greek word for happiness is “eudaimonia,” which means literally “having a good guiding angel,” like Clarence the angel in It’s a Wonderful Life. The schoolbook summary of the Greek idea in Aristotle says that such happiness is “the exercise of vital powers along lines of excellence in a life affording them scope.”

But nowadays there is a new science of happiness, and some of the psychologists and almost all the economists involved want you to think that happiness is just pleasure. Further, they propose to calculate your happiness, by asking you where you fall on a three-point scale, 1-2-3: “not too happy,” “pretty happy,” “very happy.” They then want to move to technical manipulations of the numbers, showing that you, too, can be “happy,” if you will but let the psychologists and the economists show you (and the government) how.

More

The Moral Diet

by David Brooks

New York Times
June 7, 2012

In the 1970s, the gift shop at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts was an informal affair. It was staffed by about 300 mostly elderly volunteers, and there were cash drawers instead of registers. The problem was that of the shop’s $400,000 in annual revenue, somebody was stealing $150,000.

Dan Weiss, the gift shop manager at the time who is now the president of Lafayette College, investigated. He discovered that there wasn’t one big embezzler. Bunches of people were stealing. Dozens of elderly art lovers were each pilfering a little.

That’s one of the themes of Dan Ariely’s new book The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty. Nearly everybody cheats, but usually only a little. Ariely and his colleagues gave thousands of people 20 number problems. When they tackled the problems and handed in the answer sheet, people got an average of four correct responses. When they tackled the problems, shredded their answers sheets and self-reported the scores, they told the researches they got six correct responses. They cheated a little, but not a lot.

That’s because most of us think we are pretty wonderful. We can cheat a little and still keep that “good person” identity. Most people won’t cheat so much that it makes it harder to feel good about themselves.

More

Capitalism

by Richard A. Posner

The Becker-Posner Blog
June 3, 2012

I agree wholeheartedly with Becker that capitalism is a superior economic system to any other that has been tried, the others being mainly socialism and communism. The best evidence for this is that out of the 194 countries in the world, I can think of only two that are not capitalist—Cuba, which however is moving slowly in the capitalist direction, and North Korea, the greatest economic failure on the planet.

But this statistic indicates that capitalism is a necessary condition of economic success rather than a sufficient condition. Many of the world’s countries, though capitalist, are basket cases—not as badly off as North Korea, but plenty badly off. Per capita incomes in rich capitalist countries such as the United States, Canada, Germany, Britain, and Japan greatly exceed per capita incomes in poor capitalist countries, which are the majority of countries.

So the big question is, given capitalism, what else does a country need in order to prosper? We know that it doesn’t need abundant natural resources or a large population. But it needs a legal and political system that protects property rights, allows a large degree of economic freedom, minimizes corruption, controls harmful externalities (like pollution) and subsidizes beneficial ones (like education), distinguishes between equality of opportunity (which it promotes) and equality of incomes (which it promotes only to the extent of combating poverty), welcomes and assimilates skilled and wealthy immigrants, and (related to protecting economic freedom) avoids public ownership or control of economic enterprises. To create and maintain such a legal and political system a country also requires a culture of respect for business success, of competition and risk-taking, and of consumerism—since, as Keynes argued, consumption drives production.

Such a combination is difficult to achieve; no nation has achieved it. The variance across nations in culture and in institutional structure is very great, and determines the relative economic success of the different nations.

Since there is so much variance across capitalist countries—so much that can go wrong with a capitalist system because of the complex institutional structure and social culture that capitalism requires if it is to be maximally successful in contributing to social welfare—we need to avoid complacency. Complacency was a major factor in the surprising economic collapse that began in September 2008, a collapse the consequences of which are still very much with us.

More

Profits, Competition, and Social Welfare

by Gary S. Becker

The Becker-Posner Blog
June 3, 2012

The financial crisis and the resulting recession have led to a strong reaction in many countries against the profit motive and private enterprise. Left of center political parties are gaining office and power in France, Mexico, Greece, and elsewhere with the promise of much greater regulation of banks and other businesses, renationalizing some companies, and constraining profits through higher taxes and other ways.

It is easy to sympathize with the hostility to the many banks that behaved (in retrospect) so foolishly in ways that damaged everyone else as they took on excessive risk in their quests for greater profits. One can understand also the general reaction against capitalism and “market failures” since commercial and investment banks were in the past a leading example of capitalism at work. Yet anyone concerned about the welfare of the poor and middle classes should resist the temptation to attack competitive private enterprise and capitalism- monopoly or crony capitalism should be deplored. This is only partly because “government failure” also contributed in an important way to the financial crisis as regulators did not rein in the asset explosion of banks and households. Indeed, regulators often encouraged lending to lower income families to buy houses with low down payments, large mortgages and ballooning interest payments.

The main reason to be concerned about the attacks on competitive capitalism is that it has delivered during the past 150 years so much to all strata’s of society, including the poor. I will try to demonstrate this not with a general analysis, but with several rather impressive examples.

China in 1980 was among the poorest countries in the world. It had just gone through the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward that contributed to the deaths of tens of millions of rural and other Chinese. In desperation, a few farsighted Chinese leaders decided to allow private enterprise and capitalism to gain a toehold in its agricultural sector. To the great surprise of many Chinese political leaders, the result was an explosion in farm output, even though farmers had only tiny plots of land to work with. Seeing the success of the liberalization of farm output, China extended the incentive system to industry by encouraging the growth of private enterprises in some sectors. Again, the results far exceeded expectations as these private companies, many owned by Taiwanese and Hong Kong residents, were not only far more efficient than state owned enterprises, but they also became the leaders in the rapid expansion of exports from China to the US and other countries.

More