4.6 Article

Digital customization of consumer investments in multiple funds: virtual integration improves risk-return decisions

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE
卷 49, 期 4, 页码 723-742

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11747-020-00740-4

关键词

Customization; Consumer decision making; Risk-return decisions; Digital marketing; Financial services; Online decision tools

类别

资金

  1. Netspar (Network for Studies on Pension, Aging, and Retirement)
  2. ERIM (Erasmus Research Institute in Management)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Digital technology in financial services is enabling consumers to access investment funds more widely, at lower costs, and customize their investments. However, direct digital access also poses challenges as consumers may make suboptimal investment decisions. This research introduces two behavioral effects and a new choice architecture to help consumers overcome these challenges.
Digital technology in financial services is helping consumers gain wider access to investment funds, acquire these funds at lower costs, and customize their own investments. However, direct digital access also creates new challenges because consumers may make suboptimal investment decisions. We address the challenge that consumers often face complex investment decisions involving multiple funds. Normative optimal asset allocation theory prescribes that investors should simultaneously optimize risk-returns over their entire portfolio. We propose two behavioral effects (mental separation and correlation neglect) that prevent consumers from doing so and a new choice architecture of virtually integrating investment funds that can help overcome these effects. Results from three experiments, using general population samples, provide support for the predicted behavioral effects and the beneficial impact of virtual integration. We find that consumers' behavioral biases are not overcome by financial literacy, which further underlines the marketing relevance of this research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据