IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v112y2024ics0361368224000023.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transaction cost unbundling and investors’ reliance on investment research: Evidence from experimental asset markets

Author

Listed:
  • Stirnkorb, Sebastian

Abstract

Broker-dealers traditionally charge their clients for the provision of investment research with a composite fee that bundles payments for research with other variable fees, such as those for trade executions. Due to regulatory changes in Europe, US broker-dealers temporarily allowed some of their clients to pay an explicit fee for the provision of investment research. Drawing on the sunk cost literature, I examine how transaction cost unbundling influences investors’ reliance on investment research. Results from 16 experimental markets indicate that investors place greater weight on costly forecasts under a system of unbundled payments compared to bundled payments, but only if transaction costs are sufficiently high, which is consistent with the dynamics of a sunk cost fallacy. I find marginal evidence that the enhanced focus on the forecast further inhibits investors' learning, as reflected in a slower reduction of price errors over time. These results are important since investors worldwide are increasingly paying explicit charges for investment research, a trend reinforced by a recent SEC policy change.

Suggested Citation

  • Stirnkorb, Sebastian, 2024. "Transaction cost unbundling and investors’ reliance on investment research: Evidence from experimental asset markets," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:112:y:2024:i:c:s0361368224000023
    DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2024.101542
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368224000023
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.aos.2024.101542?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Verrecchia, Robert E, 1982. "Information Acquisition in a Noisy Rational Expectations Economy," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(6), pages 1415-1430, November.
    2. Elliott, W.B. & Hodge, F. & Kennedy, J.J. & Pronk, M., 2007. "Are MBA students a good proxy for nonprofessional investors?," Other publications TiSEM 20271f1d-d385-4122-a175-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Sunder, Shyam, 1992. "Market for Information: Experimental Evidence," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(3), pages 667-695, May.
    4. Ackert, Lucy F. & Church, Bryan K. & Zhang, Ping, 2018. "Informed traders’ performance and the information environment: Evidence from experimental asset markets," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 1-15.
    5. Camerer, Colin & Weigelt, Keith, 1991. "Information Mirages in Experimental Asset Markets," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 64(4), pages 463-493, October.
    6. Forsythe, Robert & Lundholm, Russell, 1990. "Information Aggregation in an Experimental Market," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(2), pages 309-347, March.
    7. Grossman, Sanford J & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1976. "Information and Competitive Price Systems," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 66(2), pages 246-253, May.
    8. Khim Kelly & Bernardine Low & Hun†Tong Tan & Seet†Koh Tan, 2012. "Investors’ Reliance on Analysts’ Stock Recommendations and Mitigating Mechanisms for Potential Overreliance," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 991-1012, September.
    9. Edelen, Roger M. & Evans, Richard B. & Kadlec, Gregory B., 2012. "Disclosure and agency conflict: Evidence from mutual fund commission bundling," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(2), pages 308-326.
    10. Gourville, John T & Soman, Dilip, 1998. "Payment Depreciation: The Behavioral Effects of Temporally Separating Payments from Consumption," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(2), pages 160-174, September.
    11. Bloomfield, Robert & O'Hara, Maureen, 1999. "Market Transparency: Who Wins and Who Loses?," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 12(1), pages 5-35.
    12. Peter Bossaerts & Cary Frydman & John Ledyard, 2014. "The Speed of Information Revelation and Eventual Price Quality in Markets with Insiders: Comparing Two Theories," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 18(1), pages 1-22.
    13. Harvey, Nigel & Fischer, Ilan, 1997. "Taking Advice: Accepting Help, Improving Judgment, and Sharing Responsibility," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 117-133, May.
    14. W. Brooke Elliott & Jessen L. Hobson & Brian J. White, 2015. "Earnings Metrics, Information Processing, and Price Efficiency in Laboratory Markets," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 555-592, June.
    15. Tan, Hun-Tong & Yates, J. Frank, 1995. "Sunk Cost Effects: The Influences of Instruction and Future Return Estimates," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 311-319, September.
    16. Copeland, Thomas E & Friedman, Daniel, 1991. "Partial Revelation of Information in Experimental Asset Markets," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 46(1), pages 265-295, March.
    17. Stephanie M. Grant, 2020. "How Does Using a Mobile Device Change Investors’ Reactions to Firm Disclosures?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 741-775, June.
    18. Jeffrey Hales, 2007. "Directional Preferences, Information Processing, and Investors' Forecasts of Earnings," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(3), pages 607-628, June.
    19. Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, 01-02.
    20. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang, 2001. "Mental Accounting, Loss Aversion, and Individual Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(4), pages 1247-1292, August.
    21. Jeffrey Ng & Tjomme O. Rusticus & Rodrigo S. Verdi, 2008. "Implications of Transaction Costs for the Post–Earnings Announcement Drift," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(3), pages 661-696, June.
    22. Brad M. Barber & Terrance Odean, 2000. "Trading Is Hazardous to Your Wealth: The Common Stock Investment Performance of Individual Investors," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 55(2), pages 773-806, April.
    23. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang, 2001. "Mental Accounting, Loss Aversion, and Individual Stock Returns," NBER Working Papers 8190, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    24. Guo, Yifeng & Mota, Lira, 2021. "Should information be sold separately? Evidence from MiFID II," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(1), pages 97-126.
    25. Diamond, Douglas W. & Verrecchia, Robert E., 1987. "Constraints on short-selling and asset price adjustment to private information," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 277-311, June.
    26. Guojin Gong & Hong Qu & Ian Tarrant, 2021. "Earnings Forecasts and Price Efficiency after Earnings Realizations: Reduction in Information Asymmetry through Learning from Price," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 654-675, March.
    27. Jessen L. Hobson, 2011. "Do the Benefits of Reducing Accounting Complexity Persist in Markets Prone to Bubble?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 957-989, September.
    28. Bingxu Fang & Ole-Kristian Hope & Zhongwei Huang & Rucsandra Moldovan, 2020. "The effects of MiFID II on sell-side analysts, buy-side analysts, and firms," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 855-902, September.
    29. Ganguly, Ananda R. & Kagel, John H. & Moser, Donald V., 1994. "The effects of biases in probability judgments on market prices," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 19(8), pages 675-700, November.
    30. Yaniv, Ilan, 2004. "Receiving other people's advice: Influence and benefit," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 1-13, January.
    31. Robalo, Pedro & Sayag, Rei, 2018. "Paying is believing: The effect of costly information on Bayesian updating," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 114-125.
    32. Arkes, Hal R. & Blumer, Catherine, 1985. "The psychology of sunk cost," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 124-140, February.
    33. W. Brooke Elliott & Brian T. Gale & Jessen L. Hobson, 2022. "The Joint Influence of Information Push and Value Relevance on Investor Judgments and Market Efficiency," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 1049-1083, June.
    34. Fama, Eugene F, 1991. "Efficient Capital Markets: II," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 46(5), pages 1575-1617, December.
    35. Bloomfield, R & Libby, R, 1996. "Market reactions to differentially available information in the laboratory," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(2), pages 183-207.
    36. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Merl, Robert, 2022. "Literature review of experimental asset markets with insiders," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 33(C).
    2. repec:grz:wpsses:2021-04 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Nuzzo, Simone & Morone, Andrea, 2017. "Asset markets in the lab: A literature review," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 42-50.
    4. Brice Corgnet & Cary Deck & Mark DeSantis & Kyle Hampton & Erik O. Kimbrough, 2023. "When Do Security Markets Aggregate Dispersed Information?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(6), pages 3697-3729, June.
    5. Martin, Rachel, 2019. "Examination and implications of experimental research on investor perceptions," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 145-169.
    6. Simone Alfarano & Andrea Morone & Eva Camacho, 2011. "The role of public and private information in a laboratory financial market," Working Papers. Serie AD 2011-06, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    7. Ackert, Lucy F. & Church, Bryan K. & Zhang, Ping, 2018. "Informed traders’ performance and the information environment: Evidence from experimental asset markets," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 1-15.
    8. Johannes Abeler & Felix Marklein, 2017. "Fungibility, Labels, and Consumption," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 99-127.
    9. Marc Vorsatz & Helena Veiga, 2008. "The Effect of Short–Selling on the Aggregation of Information in an Experimental Asset Market," Working Papers 2008-26, FEDEA.
    10. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    11. Adam Zaremba & Jacob Koby Shemer, 2018. "Price-Based Investment Strategies," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-319-91530-2, June.
    12. Gino, Francesca, 2008. "Do we listen to advice just because we paid for it? The impact of advice cost on its use," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 234-245, November.
    13. Ackert, Lucy F. & Church, Bryan K. & Shehata, Mohamed, 1997. "Market behavior in the presence of costly, imperfect information: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 61-74, May.
    14. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    15. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    16. Daniel, Kent & Hirshleifer, David & Teoh, Siew Hong, 2002. "Investor psychology in capital markets: evidence and policy implications," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 139-209, January.
    17. Edward Halim & Yohanes E. Riyanto & Nilanjan Roy, 2019. "Costly Information Acquisition, Social Networks, and Asset Prices: Experimental Evidence," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 74(4), pages 1975-2010, August.
    18. Corgnet, Brice & Deck, Cary & DeSantis, Mark & Porter, David, 2018. "Information (non)aggregation in markets with costly signal acquisition," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 286-320.
    19. Li An & Huijun Wang & Jian Wang & Jianfeng Yu, 2020. "Lottery-Related Anomalies: The Role of Reference-Dependent Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 473-501, January.
    20. Coller, Maribeth & Tuttle, Brad, 2002. "The acquisition of price-relevant domain knowledge by a market," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 77-101, February.
    21. Andrea Albertazzi & Friederike Mengel & Ronald Peeters, 2021. "Benchmarking information aggregation in experimental markets," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(4), pages 1500-1516, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Transaction costs; Unbundling; Sunk cost fallacy; Investor judgment and decision making; Experimental markets; MiFID II;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • G1 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets
    • G4 - Financial Economics - - Behavioral Finance
    • M41 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Accounting

    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:eee:aosoci:v:112:y:2024:i:c:s0361368224000023. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aos .

    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.