Här är en artikel i The University of Chicago Magazine som använder statistik från det svenska PPM-systemet för att visa människans begränsade rationalitet. Men den klarlägger också skillnader och stridslinjer mellan Rational Choice och Behavioral Economics. Lång men läsvärd.

“Back in Sweden, PPM was conceived on the conventional economic belief that, given lots of information, consumers can better weigh their options and as a result make better decisions; it’s a laissez-faire economist’s—and libertarian’s—dream come true. Because unfettered competition, traditionalists believe, drives down costs and eliminates inferior products, any fund meeting certain standards could enter the market and, with the exception of the default fund, set its own fees and advertise to attract participants’ money. “The combination of free entry, unfettered competition, and free choice seems hard to quarrel with,” Thaler and Cronqvist write. But they raise a standard behavioralist’s caution: “However, if participants are not well-informed or highly motivated, then maximizing choice may not lead to the best possible outcome.””

Här är en delrapport av Cronqvist och Thaler. De avslutar så här: “We have seen that the portfolios individuals formed themselves seemed heavily influenced by recent returns (an extrapolation bias) and by a preference for investing at close to home (a “familiarity” bias). This is a useful reminder of a general point: markets can actually increase the biases individuals display in nonmarket settings.”

Lämna ett svar

Din e-postadress kommer inte publiceras. Obligatoriska fält är märkta *

Denna webbplats använder Akismet för att minska skräppost. Lär dig hur din kommentardata bearbetas.