Reaching for Returns in Retail Structured Investment

References

• Abdellaoui M, Baillon A, Placido L, Wakker P (2011) The rich domain of uncertainty: Source functions and their experimental implementation. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(2):695–723.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baillon A (2008) Eliciting subjective probabilities through exchangeable events: An advantage and a limitation. Decision Anal. 5(2):76–87.Link, Google Scholar
• Baillon A, Bleichrodt H (2015) Testing ambiguity models through the measurement of probabilities for gains and losses. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconomics 7(2):77–100.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baltussen G, van den Assem MJ, van Dolder D (2016) Risky choice in the limelight. Rev. Econom. Statist. 98(2):318–332.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barberis N, Huang M (2008) Stocks as lotteries: The implications of probability weighting for security prices. Amer. Econom. Rev. 98(5):2066–2100.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barberis N, Thaler R (2003) A survey of behavioral finance. Handbook of the Economics of Finance (Elsevier, Amsterdam), 1053–1128.Google Scholar
• Barberis N, Mukherjee A, Wang B (2016) Prospect theory and stock returns: An empirical test. Rev. Financial Stud. 29(11):3068–3107.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bateman H, Stevens R, Lai A (2015) Risk information and retirement investment choice mistakes under prospect theory. J. Behav. Finance 16(4):279–296.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baucells M, Lewandowski M, Kontek K (2019) Range utility theory for uncertain cash-flows. Preprint, submitted, October 8, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3466617.Google Scholar
• Benartzi S, Thaler RH (1995) Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle. Quart. J. Econom. 110(1):73–92.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bennet M (2010) Complexity and its discontents: Recurring legal concerns with structured products. New York Univ. J. Law Bus. 7(2010):811–844.Google Scholar
• Bernard C, Boyle P (2008) Structured investment products with caps and floors. Working paper.Google Scholar
• Bernard C, Boyle PP, Gornall W (2011) Locally capped investment products and the retail investor. J. Derivatives 18(4):72–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blavatskyy PR, Pogrebna G (2010) Models of stochastic choice and decision theories: Why both are important for analyzing decisions. J. Appl. Econometrics 25(6):963–986.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blümke A (2009) How to Invest in Structured Products: A Guide for Investors and Asset Managers (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, United Kingdom).Google Scholar
• Booij AS, Van de Kuilen G (2009) A parameter-free analysis of the utility of money for the general population under prospect theory. J. Econom. Psych. 30(4):651–666.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Booij AS, Van Praag BM, Van De Kuilen G (2010) A parametric analysis of prospect theory’s functionals for the general population. Theory Decision 68(1-2):115–148.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brandstätter E, Gigerenzer G, Hertwig R (2006) The priority heuristic: Making choices without trade-offs. Psych. Rev. 113(2):409–432.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Breuer W, Perst A (2007) Retail banking and behavioral financial engineering: The case of structured products. J. Banking Finance 31(3):827–844.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camerer C, Weber M (1992) Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity. J. Risk Uncertainty 5(4):325–370.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carbone E, Dong X, Hey J (2017) Elicitation of preferences under ambiguity. J. Risk Uncertainty 54(2):87–102.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Castellano R, Cerqueti R (2013) Roots and effects of financial misperception in a stochastic dominance framework. Quality Quantity 47(6):3371–3389.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Célérier C, Vallée B (2017) Catering to investors through security design: Headline rate and complexity. Quart. J. Econom. 132(3):1469–1508.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Choi J, Kronlund M (2017) Reaching for yield in corporate bond mutual funds. Rev. Financial Stud. 31(5):1930–1965.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clarke KA (2007) A simple distribution-free test for nonnested model selection. Political Anal. 15(3):347–363.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Collier BL, Schwartz D, Kunreuther HC, Michel-Kerjan EO (2017) Risk preferences in small and large stakes: Evidence from insurance contract decisions. NBER Working Paper No. w23579, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Das SR, Statman M (2013) Options and structured products in behavioral portfolios. J. Econom. Dynamic Control 37(1):137–153.Crossref, Google Scholar
• De Bondt WP (1993) Betting on trends: Intuitive forecasts of financial risk and return. Internat. J. Forecasting 9(3):355–371.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Deng G, Dulaney T, Husson T, McCann C, Yan M (2015) Ex post structured-product returns: Index methodology and analysis. J. Investing 24(2):45–58.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Diecidue E, Van De Ven J (2008) Aspiration level, probability of success and failure, and expected utility. Internat. Econom. Rev. 49(2):683–700.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dimmock SG, Kouwenberg R (2010) Loss aversion and household portfolio choice. J. Empirical Finance 17(3):441–459.Google Scholar
• Dimmock SG, Kouwenberg R, Mitchell OS, Peijnenburg K (2015) Estimating ambiguity preferences and perceptions in multiple prior models: Evidence from the field. J. Risk Uncertainty 51(3):219–244.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Entrop O, McKenzie M, Wilkens M, Winkler C (2016) The performance of individual investors in structured financial products. Rev. Quant. Finance Accounting 46(3):569–604.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Erner C, Klos A, Langer T (2013) Can prospect theory be used to predict an investor’s willingness to pay? J. Banking Finance 37(6):1960–1973.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ert E, Erev I (2008) The rejection of attractive gambles, loss aversion, and the lemon avoidance heuristic. J. Econom. Psych. 29(5):715–723.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischbacher U (2007) z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experiment. Econom. 10(2):171–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fox CR, Tversky A (1998) A belief-based account of decision under uncertainty. Management Sci. 44(7):879–895.Link, Google Scholar
• Ghent AC, Torous WN, Valkanov RI (2019) Complexity in structured finance. Rev. Econom. Stud. 86(2):694–722.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ghirardato P, Maccheroni F, Marinacci M (2004) Differentiating ambiguity and ambiguity attitude. J. Econom. Theory 118(2):133–173.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gregg D, Rolfe J (2017) Risk behaviours and grazing land management: A framed field experiment and linkages to range land condition. J. Agricultural Econom. 68(3):682–709.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grosshans D, Zeisberger S (2018) All’s well that ends well? On the importance of how returns are achieved. J. Banking Finance 87(2018):397–410.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harinck F, Van Dijk E, Van Beest I, Mersmann P (2007) When gains loom larger than losses: Reversed loss aversion for small amounts of money. Psych. Sci. 18(12):1099–1105.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison GW, List JA (2004) Field experiments. J. Econom. Literature 42(4):1009–1055.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison GW, Ross D (2017) The empirical adequacy of cumulative prospect theory and its implications for normative assessment. J. Econom. Methodology 24(2):150–165.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison GW, Swarthout JT (2019). Cumulative prospect theory in the laboratory: A reconsideration. Working paper, Center for the Economic Analysis of Risk, Atlanta.Google Scholar
• Henderson BJ, Pearson ND (2011) The dark side of financial innovation: A case study of the pricing of a retail financial product. J. Financial Econom. 100(2):227–247.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hens T, Rieger MO (2014) Can utility optimization explain the demand for structured investment products? Quant. Finance 14(4):673–681.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hey JD, Lotito G, Maffioletti A (2010) The descriptive and predictive adequacy of theories of decision making under uncertainty/ambiguity. J. Risk Uncertainty 41(2):81–111.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hunt S, Stewart N, Zaliauskas R (2015) Two plus two makes five? Survey evidence that investors overvalue structured deposits. FCA Occasional Paper 9.Google Scholar
• Jessen P, Jørgensen PL (2012) Optimal investment in structured bonds. J. Derivatives 19(4):7–28.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jiao P (2020) Payoff-based belief distortion. Econom. J. 130(629):1416–1444.Google Scholar
• Jørgensen PL, Nørholm H, Skovmand D (2011) Overpricing and hidden costs of structured products for retail investors: Evidence from the Danish market for principal protected notes. Preprint, submitted June 13, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1863854.Google Scholar
• Kilka M, Weber M (2001) What determines the shape of the probability weighting function under uncertainty? Management Sci. 47(12):1712–1726.Link, Google Scholar
• Kontek K, Lewandowski M (2018) Range-dependent utility. Management Sci. 64(6):2812–2832.Link, Google Scholar
• Kunz AH, Messner C, Wallmeier M (2017) Investors’ risk perceptions of structured financial products with worst-of payout characteristics. J. Behav. Experiment. Finance 15(2017):66–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lazar M, Levkowitz A, Oren A, Sonsino D (2017) A note on receptiveness to loss in structured investment. J. Behav. Experiment. Econom. 69(2017):92–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• L’Haridon O, Vieider FM (2019) All over the map: A worldwide comparison of risk preferences. Quant. Econom. 10(1):185–215.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li X, Subrahmanyam A, Yang X (2018) Can financial innovation succeed by catering to behavioral preferences? Evidence from a callable options market. J. Financial Econom. 128(1):38–65.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N (2001) Risk as feeling. Psych. Bull. 127(2):267–286.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loomes G (2010) Modeling choice and valuation in decision experiments. Psych. Rev. 117(3):902–924.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Menapace L, Colson G, Raffaelli R (2015) Climate change beliefs and perceptions of agricultural risks: An application of the exchangeability method. Global Environ. Change 35(2015):70–81.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mukherjee S, Sahay A, Pammi VC, Srinivasan N (2017) Is loss-aversion magnitude-dependent? Measuring prospective affective judgments regarding gains and losses. Judgment Decision Making 12(1):81–89.Google Scholar
• Nilsson H, Rieskamp J, Wagenmakers EJ (2011) Hierarchical Bayesian parameter estimation for cumulative prospect theory. J. Math. Psych. 55(1):84–93.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pachur T, Kellen D (2013) Modeling gain-loss asymmetries in risky choice: The critical role of probability weighting. Proc. Annual Meeting Cognitive Sci. Soc., vol. 35, 3205–3210.Google Scholar
• Prelec D (1998) The probability weighting function. Econometrica 66(3):497–527.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rajan RG (2006) Has finance made the world riskier? Eur. Financial Management 12(4):499–533.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rieger MO, Hens T (2012) Explaining the demand for structured financial products: Survey and field experiment evidence. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft 82(5):491–508.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roberts DC, Boyer TA, Lusk JL (2008) Preferences for environmental quality under uncertainty. Ecological Econom. 66(4):584–593.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roger P (2008) Capital protected notes for loss averse investors: A counterintuitive result.Preprint, submitted March 18, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1106749.Google Scholar
• Rottenstreich Y, Hsee CK (2001) Money, kisses, and electric shocks: On the affective psychology of risk. Psych. Sci. 12(3):185–190.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Saha A (1993) Expo-power utility: A ‘flexible’ form for absolute and relative risk aversion. Amer. J. Agricultural Econom. 75(4):905–913.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schertler A (2016) Pricing effects when competitors arrive: The case of discount certificates in Germany. J. Banking Finance 68(2016):84–99.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schmidt U, Zank H (2008) Risk aversion in cumulative prospect theory. Management Sci. 54(1):208–216.Link, Google Scholar
• Sokol-Hessner P, Hsu M, Curley NG, Delgado MR, Camerer CF, Phelps EA (2009) Thinking like a trader selectively reduces individuals’ loss aversion. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106(13):5035–5040.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sonsino D, Regev E (2013) Informational overconfidence in return prediction–More properties. J. Econom. Psych. 39(2013):72–84.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sonsino D, Benzion U, Mador G (2002) The complexity effects on choice with uncertainty–Experimental evidence. Econom. J. 112(482):936–965.Google Scholar
• Sonsino D, Rosenboim M, Shavit T (2017) The valuation “by-tranche” of composite investment instruments. Theory Decision 82(3):353–393.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thaler RH (1985) Mental accounting and consumer choice. J. Behav. Decision Making 4(3):199–214.Google Scholar
• Trautmann ST, Van De Kuilen G (2015) Ambiguity attitudes. Koehler DJ, Harvey N, eds. The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, (Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA), 89–116.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty 5(4):297–323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Venkatraman V, Payne JW, Huettel SA (2014) An overall probability of winning heuristic for complex risky decisions: Choice and eye fixation evidence. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 125(2):73–87.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vieider FM (2009) The effect of accountability on loss aversion. Acta Psych. (Amsterdam) 132(1):96–101.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weber EU, Blais AR, Betz NE (2002) A domain‐specific risk‐attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. J. Behav. Decision Making 15(4):263–290.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wilcox NT (2011) ‘Stochastically more risk averse:’ A contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk. J. Econometrics 162(1):89–104.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zeisberger S, Vrecko D, Langer T (2012) Measuring the time stability of prospect theory preferences. Theory Decision 72(3):359–386.Crossref, Google Scholar