Meet the Series Editor

Miroslav Blumenberg, Ph.D., was born in Subotica and received his BSc in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. He completed his Ph.D. at MIT in Organic Chemistry; he followed up his Ph.D. with two postdoctoral study periods at Stanford University. Since 1983, he has been a faculty member of the RO Perelman Department of Dermatology, NYU School of Medicine, where he is codirector of a training grant in cutaneous biology. Dr. Blumenberg's research is focused

on the epidermis, expression of keratin genes, transcription profiling, keratinocyte differentiation, inflammatory diseases and cancers, and most recently the effects of the microbiome on the skin. He has published more than 100 peer-reviewed research articles and graduated numerous Ph.D. and postdoctoral students.


*3.3.2. Ultrathin nickel nanosheets through topotactic reduction transformation*

Except for topotactic oxidation, toporeduction is also frequently used to prepare nonlayered materials. Sun [41] used this method and synthesized ultrathin nickel nanosheets array recently. Ni(OH)2 nanosheet array on a metal substrate is prepared first. And then, ethylene glycol is used as the reduction agent to get Ni nanosheets. The slow conversion kinetics keeps the ultrathin nanosheet morphology and atomic thickness.

**Figure 9** reveals the morphology inherence between Ni and Ni(OH)2 nanosheet array. **Figure 9a**, **b** shows SEM and HRTEM of Ni(OH)2 sheet array. It is seen that the thickness of Ni(OH)2 is about 5.8 nm (10–12 layers), whereas the thickness of Ni nanosheet shown in

**Figure 9.** (a and c) SEM images of the as-synthesized Ni(OH)2 nanowall array and Ni-NSA. (b and d) HRTEM image of a scrolled Ni(OH)2 nanowall and a vertically laid Ni nanosheet. The inset shows the thickness of Ni(OH)2 nanowall and Ni nanosheet [41].

**Figure 9c**, **d** is about 2.2 nm (10 atomic layers). This provides strong evidence that Ni nano‐ sheets are obtained by toporeduction transformation.

### **3.4. Chemical vapor deposition (CVD)**

closer to the thickness of (111)-oriented Co3O4 nanosheets. More specifically, the discrepancies between α-Co(OH)2 {100} (*d*=2.76 Å) and Co3O4 {220} (*d*=2.84 Å) are calculated to be below 3%. Moreover, Co2+ atomic arrangement in α-Co(OH)2 (001) plane and Co3O4 (111) plane is very closer (**Figure 8b**). These features enable atomically thick Co3O4 nanosheets to preserve the

Atomically thick Co3O4 nanosheets were prepared by this method, as confirmed by TEM, AMF and XRD. From TEM image, one could clearly see ultrathin nanosheets with lateral size of about 400 nm with the near transparency of the sheets (**Figure 8c**). HRTEM image, and the corresponding fast Fourier transform (FFT) pattern in **Figure 8d** and **e** for the as-obtained product depicts its [111] preferential orientation. The thickness of the as-synthesized Co3O4 nanosheets is also evaluated by tapping-mode atomic force microscopy (AFM). AFM image and the corresponding height distribution (**Figure 8f, g**) show that the measured height is about 1.5 nm. Microscopically, the colloidal suspension of the product displays the Tyndall phenomenon (**Figure 8h**), so that the formation of homogeneous ultrathin nanosheets in ethanol can be inferred. As shown in **Figure 8i**, XRD pattern of the atomically thick nanosheetbased films can be readily indexed to be pure Co3O4 (JCPDS no. 42-1467) and also displays the highly preferred [111] orientation, which is corresponding to the result of HRTEM. All of the results undoubtedly confirm that Co3O4 nanosheets with ultrathin thickness have been successfully synthesized. The oriented growth of ATCNs is attributed to α-Co(OH)2-to-Co3O4

topochemical conversion with the relationship of [001] α-Co(OH)2 and [111] Co3O4.

Except for topotactic oxidation, toporeduction is also frequently used to prepare nonlayered materials. Sun [41] used this method and synthesized ultrathin nickel nanosheets array recently. Ni(OH)2 nanosheet array on a metal substrate is prepared first. And then, ethylene glycol is used as the reduction agent to get Ni nanosheets. The slow conversion kinetics keeps

**Figure 9** reveals the morphology inherence between Ni and Ni(OH)2 nanosheet array. **Figure 9a**, **b** shows SEM and HRTEM of Ni(OH)2 sheet array. It is seen that the thickness of Ni(OH)2 is about 5.8 nm (10–12 layers), whereas the thickness of Ni nanosheet shown in

**Figure 9.** (a and c) SEM images of the as-synthesized Ni(OH)2 nanowall array and Ni-NSA. (b and d) HRTEM image of a scrolled Ni(OH)2 nanowall and a vertically laid Ni nanosheet. The inset shows the thickness of Ni(OH)2 nanowall

*3.3.2. Ultrathin nickel nanosheets through topotactic reduction transformation*

the ultrathin nanosheet morphology and atomic thickness.

and Ni nanosheet [41].

thickness of the precursor possible.

14 Two-dimensional Materials - Synthesis, Characterization and Potential Applications

Recently, CVD technique has shown promise to generate high-quality TMD layers with a scalable size, controllable thickness and excellent electronic properties. CVD is a hightemperature chemical synthesis process by which a desired material is deposited on substrates. CVD processes have been extensively studied for synthesizing thin film coatings of a wide range of materials, including metals, semiconductors, and insulators. The scheme of CVD method is shown in **Figure 10a** [1]. The precursor vapor is introduced from outside or generated inside the tube furnace. The main advantages of CVD synthesis process are represented by the accesses to high quality, high purity 2D nanomaterials with controlled properties, which allow one to control the morphology, crystallinity and defects of 2D nanostructures by tuning the process parameters [42]. Due to these advantages, some 2D nanomaterals have been prepared by this way conveniently, such as graphene, MoS2, h-BN [43–49]. CVD method is also another annealing strategy for the growth of high-quality singlecrystalline 2D sheet on substrates. Even so, CVD suffers from the requirement of high tem‐ perature, high vacuum and specific substrates. In the following, we will take h-BN and MoS2 as an example to elaborate this strategy.

**Figure 10.** (a) Schematic illustration of experimental setup for the 2D materials synthesis by a noncatalytic vapor depo‐ sition process. The precursor vapor can be introduced from outside or generated inside the tube furnace [1]. (b) AFM images of the initial flakes of h-BN. White arrows point to the sharp edges of these flakes. Inset: TEM image of the folded edge of a monolayer h-BN [43]. (c) AFM image of a monolayer MoS2 film on a SiO2/Si substrate. Inset: corre‐ sponding height profile of as-obtained nanosheets [46].

Hexagonal BN is called "white graphite" due to its similar lamellar structure to graphite. h-BN possesses many unique properties such as chemical stability, strong mechanical strength, high-thermal conductivity and low dielectric constant. What is more, the band gap of h-BN can be tuned with thickness. To produce BN precursor, the first heating zone is ramped up to *T*1=60∼90°C with a heating belt. Turn on the on-off valve between the first and second heating zone only during CVD process, one can prevent the undesired growth. The second heating zone is heated up to *T*2 = 1000°C for typically 10∼90 min under 10 sccm hydrogen atmosphere at a pressure of 350 mTorr after mounting the copper foil. Copper foil (25 μm, Alfa Aesar) is used as the metal catalyst substrate. Before the growth of h-BN, copper foil is annealed at 1000°C for 20 min under 10 sccm H2 to grow the copper grain and to obtain a smooth surface. AFM of as-obtained sample provides direct evidence for single-layer h-BN synthesized by chemical vapor deposition method (**Figure 10b**). AFM image and the corresponding height distribution inset in **Figure 10b** show that the measured height is about 0.42 nm, consistent with monolayer thickness (c-axis spacing for h-BN is ∼0.32 nm). In addition, TEM image of monolayer h-BN clearly demonstrates that the number of layer of h-BN is one (**Figure 10c**). Moreover, for a complete h-BN layer (**Figure 10d**), the wrinkles of h-BN film (indicated by a yellow arrow) under scanning electron microscopy (SEM) can be clearly seen. These wrinkles are characteristic of h-BN and graphene films due to the negative thermal expansion coeffi‐ cients of h-BN and graphene. All of the results undoubtedly confirm that h-BN with monolayer thickness have been successfully synthesized.

Synthesis of transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDs) using CVD is the cutting edge research area in recent years. Lee [46] synthesized single-layer MoS2 by this method recently. As shown in **Figure 10c**, ultrathin MoS2 nanosheets with smooth surface are observed with AFM. The cross-sectional height in inset of **Figure 10c** reveals that the thickness of MoS2 film is ∼0.72 nm, which corresponds to a monolayer MoS2.


**2. Antibody-based therapies of type 1 diabetes**

In this section, we will discuss antibody-based therapy in T1D including therapies using an‐ ti-CD20 and anti-CD3 antibodies as well as anti-thymocyte globulin.


The Role of Wealth in Gain and Loss Perception: An Empirical Analysis

Andrea Lippi

## Abstract

People with significantly different initial starting capitals may perceive gains and losses differently. In order to test this hypothesis, we consider and compare two samples of investors: retail investors as those with a maximum of €500,000 worth of assets under management (AUM) and private investors as those with more than €500,000 AUM. Based on the answers obtained from specifically devised questionnaires, we test the differences in gain and loss perception and check the level of satisfaction/dissatisfaction in situations of gain and loss. The results obtained demonstrate that private and retail investors perceive gains and losses differently.

Keywords: perception of gain, perception of loss, decision-making, private investors, retail investors

## 1. Introduction

A plethora of experiments (e.g., [1, 2]) demonstrate that decisions made in an economic and financial setting are influenced by subjective perceptions. The framing effect [3] is a perceptual phenomenon implying that different presentations of the same information may lead to different choices. Chen et al. [4], Del Vecchio et al. [5], Gourville [6], Levin et al. [3], McKechnie et al. [7], Sinha and Smith [8], Tombu and Mandel [9] and Tversky and Kahneman [10] have investigated how the framing effect could influence the decision-making process. DelVecchio [11], DelVecchio et al. [5], Gourville [6], Kahneman [12, 13], McKechnie et al. [7] and Mellers [14] have examined the incoherence of judgement when faced with similar or indifferent situations. Kahneman and Tversky [15], Kühberger [16] and Olsen [17, 18] demonstrate that the framing effect can influence the decision-making process so as to cause a shift from 'risk-adverse' to 'risk-seeking' and vice versa, the so-called risky-choice framing effect. The framing effect is predicted by Kahneman and Tversky [15] in their prospect theory. According to this theory, individuals' choices are always made considering the gains and losses compared with an initial starting capital (reference point). Kahneman and Tversky [19] argue that investors decide by mentally referring to their status quo (i.e. the current level of wellbeing). In any situation in which it risks being altered, the decision-making procedure is adjusted [10, 20] in order to preserve it as far as possible [15]. According to Kahneman and Tversky [15, 19], the absolute value perceived of losses appears to be more consistent than that of earnings of the same amount (loss aversion). Kahneman et al. [21] and Tversky and Kahneman [22] demonstrate that the distress experienced on losing a sum of money is almost twice that of the pleasure associated with gaining the same amount. Bearing in mind these conclusions, we believe it is rational to suppose that two people with significantly different amounts of initial capital (reference points) may perceive gains and losses differently. Since the initial level of wealth is the reference point on which a judgement in wealth variation is based, it is logical to forecast that perceived changes in wealth are different for private and retail investors, because as is well known, private investors have a higher level of wealth than their retail counterparts. The former have a large amount of wealth in financial assets (minimum US\$ 500000.001 ), an expensive lifestyle and sophisticated needs in terms of diversification of asset allocation, which include real estate, luxury collectibles, artworks and passion investment; in contrast, retail investors do not have these characteristics. We consider as retail investors those with a maximum of €500000.00 worth of assets under management (AUM) and private investors as those with more than €500000.00 AUM. The aim of this chapter is to test whether private and retail investors perceive gains and losses differently.

In any situation in which it risks being altered, the decision-making procedure is adjusted [10, 20] in order to preserve it as far as possible [15]. According to

The Role of Wealth in Gain and Loss Perception: An Empirical Analysis

capital may perceive gains and losses differently.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86617

3. The sample selection

Table 1.

129

Description of sample groups.

Kahneman and Tversky [15, 19], the absolute value perceived of losses appears to be more consistent than that of earnings of the same amount (loss aversion). Kahneman et al. [21] and Tversky and Kahneman [22] demonstrate that the distress experienced on losing a sum of money is almost twice that of the pleasure associated with gaining the same amount. Bearing in mind these conclusions, we believe it is rational to suppose that two people with significantly different amounts of initial

During the 2015, we contacted approximately 100 financial advisers and asked if they were willing to forward the questionnaires we had prepared to some of their private and retail clients (see Appendices A and B). We asked each financial adviser to contact at least two private and two retail investors so as to obtain a minimum of 400 completed questionnaires. The questionnaire, delivered to investors in a closed envelope, was anonymous; only age, sex, geographical provenance and the amount of asset under management were the required fields; it was very simple, comprising only two pages of multiple-choice questions. We decided to let the investors answer alone in their own homes so as to receive uninfluenced answers [23] and gave them 3 days to return the questionnaire either to their financial advisers or directly to us, recommending in both cases the use of a sealed envelope. We rejected those without any indication of quantity of assets under management. The others were used to identify two groups of sample investors, as shown in Table 1.

The questions in the questionnaires were designed taking inspiration from the examples and experiments discussed in the literature [5, 11, 15, 19, 21, 24]. In particular, we focused our investigation on the level of perception of gains and losses starting from an initial amount of wealth. In order to ask questions consistent with the goals of this paper, we asked advisers to give a prior indication of the average assets under management of their private and retail clients. The information obtained allowed us to design questions for a hypothetical private investor with €3000000.00 average assets under management and his/her hypothetical retail counterpart with about €300000.00 average assets under management. Thus, we designed two questionnaires: one for private investors (see Appendix A) and one designed for retail investors (see Appendix B). When formulating the questions, we bore in mind the fact that semantic cues [25–30] can influence or

Average AUM (euros) 3002000.00 315198.00 AUM standard deviation (euros) 1260349.48 179908.00 Average age 61.68 55.66 Age standard deviation 6.94 6.28 % male 86 85 % living in northern/central Italy 80 80 Number of observations 100 100

Private Retail

Our analysis tests the differences in gain and loss satisfaction/dissatisfaction perceived by private and retail investors; moreover we compare the levels of satisfaction/dissatisfaction declared by private and retail investors.

The conclusions of this survey are significant from two different perspectives. First, the paper extends existing literature on the topic of gain and loss perception by comparing private and retail investors, an important distinction in the banking and financial sector. Second, the results obtained should be taken into consideration by banks, financial intermediaries, consultants and asset managers aiming to improve their relationships with clients and to develop the most suitable financial products for different types of clients.

## 2. Literature review

A plethora of experiments (e.g., [1, 2]) demonstrate that decisions made in an economic and financial setting are influenced by subjective perceptions. The framing effect [3] is a perceptual phenomenon implying that different presentations of the same information may lead to different choices. Chen et al. [4], Del Vecchio et al. [5], Gourville [6], Levin et al. [3], McKechnie et al. [7], Sinha and Smith [8], Tombu and Mandel [9] and Tversky and Kahneman [10] have investigated how the framing effect could influence the decision-making process. DelVecchio [11], DelVecchio et al. [5], Gourville [6], Kahneman [12, 13], McKechnie et al. [7] and Mellers [14] have examined the incoherence of judgement when faced with similar or indifferent situations. Kahneman and Tversky [15], Kühberger [16] and Olsen [17, 18] demonstrate that the framing effect can influence the decision-making process so as to cause a shift from 'risk-adverse' to 'risk-seeking' and vice versa, the so-called risky-choice framing effect. The framing effect is predicted by Kahneman and Tversky [15] in their prospect theory. According to this theory, individuals' choices are always made considering the gains and losses compared with an initial starting capital (reference point). Kahneman and Tversky [19] argue that investors decide by mentally referring to their status quo (i.e., the current level of wellbeing).

1 Capgemini, The World Wealth Report, www.worldwealthreport.com

The Role of Wealth in Gain and Loss Perception: An Empirical Analysis DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86617

In any situation in which it risks being altered, the decision-making procedure is adjusted [10, 20] in order to preserve it as far as possible [15]. According to Kahneman and Tversky [15, 19], the absolute value perceived of losses appears to be more consistent than that of earnings of the same amount (loss aversion). Kahneman et al. [21] and Tversky and Kahneman [22] demonstrate that the distress experienced on losing a sum of money is almost twice that of the pleasure associated with gaining the same amount. Bearing in mind these conclusions, we believe it is rational to suppose that two people with significantly different amounts of initial capital may perceive gains and losses differently.

## 3. The sample selection

more consistent than that of earnings of the same amount (loss aversion). Kahneman et al. [21] and Tversky and Kahneman [22] demonstrate that the distress experienced on losing a sum of money is almost twice that of the pleasure associated with gaining the same amount. Bearing in mind these conclusions, we believe it is rational to suppose that two people with significantly different amounts of initial capital (reference points) may perceive gains and losses differently. Since the initial level of wealth is the reference point on which a judgement in wealth variation is based, it is logical to forecast that perceived changes in wealth are different for private and retail investors, because as is well known, private investors have a higher level of wealth than their retail counterparts. The former have a large

), an expensive

amount of wealth in financial assets (minimum US\$ 500000.001

Application of Decision Science in Business and Management

faction/dissatisfaction declared by private and retail investors.

1 Capgemini, The World Wealth Report, www.worldwealthreport.com

losses differently.

products for different types of clients.

2. Literature review

128

lifestyle and sophisticated needs in terms of diversification of asset allocation, which include real estate, luxury collectibles, artworks and passion investment; in contrast, retail investors do not have these characteristics. We consider as retail investors those with a maximum of €500000.00 worth of assets under management (AUM) and private investors as those with more than €500000.00 AUM. The aim of this chapter is to test whether private and retail investors perceive gains and

Our analysis tests the differences in gain and loss satisfaction/dissatisfaction perceived by private and retail investors; moreover we compare the levels of satis-

The conclusions of this survey are significant from two different perspectives. First, the paper extends existing literature on the topic of gain and loss perception by comparing private and retail investors, an important distinction in the banking and financial sector. Second, the results obtained should be taken into consideration by banks, financial intermediaries, consultants and asset managers aiming to improve their relationships with clients and to develop the most suitable financial

A plethora of experiments (e.g., [1, 2]) demonstrate that decisions made in an economic and financial setting are influenced by subjective perceptions. The framing effect [3] is a perceptual phenomenon implying that different presentations of the same information may lead to different choices. Chen et al. [4], Del Vecchio et al. [5], Gourville [6], Levin et al. [3], McKechnie et al. [7], Sinha and Smith [8], Tombu and Mandel [9] and Tversky and Kahneman [10] have investigated how the framing effect could influence the decision-making process. DelVecchio [11], DelVecchio et al. [5], Gourville [6], Kahneman [12, 13], McKechnie et al. [7] and Mellers [14] have examined the incoherence of judgement when faced with similar or indifferent situations. Kahneman and Tversky [15], Kühberger [16] and Olsen [17, 18] demonstrate that the framing effect can influence the decision-making process so as to cause a shift from 'risk-adverse' to 'risk-seeking' and vice versa, the so-called risky-choice framing effect. The framing effect is predicted by Kahneman and Tversky [15] in their prospect theory. According to this theory, individuals' choices are always made considering the gains and losses compared with an initial starting capital (reference point). Kahneman and Tversky [19] argue that investors decide by mentally referring to their status quo (i.e., the current level of wellbeing).

During the 2015, we contacted approximately 100 financial advisers and asked if they were willing to forward the questionnaires we had prepared to some of their private and retail clients (see Appendices A and B). We asked each financial adviser to contact at least two private and two retail investors so as to obtain a minimum of 400 completed questionnaires. The questionnaire, delivered to investors in a closed envelope, was anonymous; only age, sex, geographical provenance and the amount of asset under management were the required fields; it was very simple, comprising only two pages of multiple-choice questions. We decided to let the investors answer alone in their own homes so as to receive uninfluenced answers [23] and gave them 3 days to return the questionnaire either to their financial advisers or directly to us, recommending in both cases the use of a sealed envelope. We rejected those without any indication of quantity of assets under management. The others were used to identify two groups of sample investors, as shown in Table 1.

The questions in the questionnaires were designed taking inspiration from the examples and experiments discussed in the literature [5, 11, 15, 19, 21, 24]. In particular, we focused our investigation on the level of perception of gains and losses starting from an initial amount of wealth. In order to ask questions consistent with the goals of this paper, we asked advisers to give a prior indication of the average assets under management of their private and retail clients. The information obtained allowed us to design questions for a hypothetical private investor with €3000000.00 average assets under management and his/her hypothetical retail counterpart with about €300000.00 average assets under management. Thus, we designed two questionnaires: one for private investors (see Appendix A) and one designed for retail investors (see Appendix B). When formulating the questions, we bore in mind the fact that semantic cues [25–30] can influence or

## Table 1.

Description of sample groups.

alter answers. For this reason, when possible we used neutral semantic cues and scenario questions that do not present any probability, so as to avoid 'one-stage' or 'two-stage' problems [31]. In this way each question follows a linear programme model [32], with the aim of not creating any gambling element in the investors' minds.

## 4. Declaration of satisfaction/dissatisfaction: retail vs. private investors

This analysis is based on the answers obtained for questions 1–4 in the questionnaires (see Appendices A and B). The private sample was asked to express a degree of 'satisfaction' or 'dissatisfaction' concerning an achieved performance, first in terms of percentage (+3%) and then in terms of absolute value (+ €90000.00)2 . We did not express any start value parameter in the questions, so investors could express their real degree of satisfaction/dissatisfaction bearing in mind their wealth. The same questions were then presented first in the case of a loss in absolute value ( €90000.00) and then as a loss quantified as 3%. The same situation was presented to the retail sample, first considering a + 3% performance and a €9000.003 gain and then in the case of a loss in absolute value ( €9000.00) and a loss quantified as 3%; in this case too, we did not express any start value parameter for the above reason. The results are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 seems to show different perceptions of gains and losses depending on whether these are expressed in terms of absolute value or as a percentage, even if these represent the same amount, both among investors belonging to the same sample and when comparing private and retail investors. In fact, in the case of a positive scenario (Figure 1, upside), the gain expressed in absolute value seems to be perceived by both samples with more satisfaction than the same amount expressed as a percentage. More specifically, it seems that retail investors perceive more dissatisfaction than private investors when faced with gains expressed as percentages. Figure 1 in a negative scenario (downside) confirms that losses expressed in absolute values and as percentages, even if of the same amount, are perceived differently both by private and by retail investors. However, in this case, Figure 1 shows that the loss expressed in euros is perceived with more dissatisfaction by retail investors than by private investors. With the aim of testing the evidence in the graph, Table 2 presents the statistical analysis of the perceptions of the two samples examined in the case of a positive (upside) or a negative (downside) situation.

Figure 1.

(downside).

percentage

percentage

Table 2.

131

terms of absolute value

terms of absolute value

\*Statistically significant at 10%.

In the case of a gain (positive scenario)

In the case of a loss (negative scenario)

Declaration of satisfaction faced with a gain situation expressed as a

The Role of Wealth in Gain and Loss Perception: An Empirical Analysis

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86617

Declaration of satisfaction faced with a gain situation expressed in

Declaration of dissatisfaction faced with a loss situation expressed as a

Declaration of dissatisfaction faced with a loss situation expressed in

Gain and loss perception comparing private and retail investors.

Satisfaction/dissatisfaction as perceived by private and retail investors in terms of gains (upside) and losses

Mean retail

Mean private

0.37 0.47 0.10\*

0.78 0.74 0.04

0.63 0.58 0.05

0.20 0.29 0.09\*

Diff.

Table 2 confirms the existence of some statistically significant differences between the two analysed samples. The satisfaction perceived when faced with a gain expressed as a percentage is different between private and retail investors (p = 0.0767), while in the case of a negative scenario, the dissatisfaction perceived when faced with a loss expressed in terms of absolute value differs between private and retail investors (p = 0.0702). As previously demonstrated in many studies [5–7, 11–14], our results also reveal a clear inconsistency in judgement, similar for and common to both samples. This situation can be explained by the way the assessment parameters were presented and by the investors' internal reference points [4, 8, 33].

2 €90000.00 is about 3% of the private sample average asset under management.

3 €9000.00 is about 3% of the retail sample average asset under management.

The Role of Wealth in Gain and Loss Perception: An Empirical Analysis DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86617

Figure 1.

alter answers. For this reason, when possible we used neutral semantic cues and scenario questions that do not present any probability, so as to avoid 'one-stage' or 'two-stage' problems [31]. In this way each question follows a linear programme model [32], with the aim of not creating any gambling element in the investors'

Application of Decision Science in Business and Management

4. Declaration of satisfaction/dissatisfaction: retail vs. private investors

did not express any start value parameter in the questions, so investors could express their real degree of satisfaction/dissatisfaction bearing in mind their wealth. The same questions were then presented first in the case of a loss in absolute value ( €90000.00) and then as a loss quantified as 3%. The same situation was presented to the retail sample, first considering a + 3% performance and a

eter for the above reason. The results are shown in Figure 1.

€9000.003 gain and then in the case of a loss in absolute value ( €9000.00) and a loss quantified as 3%; in this case too, we did not express any start value param-

Figure 1 seems to show different perceptions of gains and losses depending on whether these are expressed in terms of absolute value or as a percentage, even if these represent the same amount, both among investors belonging to the same sample and when comparing private and retail investors. In fact, in the case of a positive scenario (Figure 1, upside), the gain expressed in absolute value seems to be perceived by both samples with more satisfaction than the same amount expressed as a percentage. More specifically, it seems that retail investors perceive more dissatisfaction than private investors when faced with gains expressed as percentages. Figure 1 in a negative scenario (downside) confirms that losses expressed in absolute values and as percentages, even if of the same amount, are perceived differently both by private and by retail investors. However, in this case, Figure 1 shows that the loss expressed in euros is perceived with more dissatisfaction by retail investors than by private investors. With the aim of testing the evidence in the graph, Table 2 presents the statistical analysis of the perceptions of the two samples examined in the case of a positive (upside) or a negative (down-

Table 2 confirms the existence of some statistically significant differences between the two analysed samples. The satisfaction perceived when faced with a gain expressed as a percentage is different between private and retail investors (p = 0.0767), while in the case of a negative scenario, the dissatisfaction perceived when faced with a loss expressed in terms of absolute value differs between private and retail investors (p = 0.0702). As previously demonstrated in many studies [5–7, 11–14], our results also reveal a clear inconsistency in judgement, similar for and common to both samples. This situation can be explained by the way the assessment parameters were presented and by the investors' internal reference

2 €90000.00 is about 3% of the private sample average asset under management. 3 €9000.00 is about 3% of the retail sample average asset under management.

This analysis is based on the answers obtained for questions 1–4 in the questionnaires (see Appendices A and B). The private sample was asked to express a degree of 'satisfaction' or 'dissatisfaction' concerning an achieved performance, first in terms of percentage (+3%) and then in terms of absolute value (+ €90000.00)2

. We

minds.

side) situation.

points [4, 8, 33].

130

Satisfaction/dissatisfaction as perceived by private and retail investors in terms of gains (upside) and losses (downside).

#### Table 2.

Gain and loss perception comparing private and retail investors.

## 5. Level of satisfaction/dissatisfaction declared by retail and private sample investors

This analysis is based on the answers obtained from questions 5 and 6 in the questionnaires (see Appendices A and B). We would like to test our survey samples' perception of loss and gain by asking them to identify the degree of 'satisfaction'/ 'dissatisfaction' experienced, on a scale from 0 to 10, when faced with a positive/ negative variation of wealth in terms of absolute value ( €90,000 per private

investor and €9000 per retail investor). The results are shown in Figure 2. A horizontal reading of Figure 2 shows that the level of satisfaction declared by retail and private investors faced with a gain is almost the same, while there is an obvious difference in the case of a loss, when retail investors appear more dissatisfied than private investors. Table 3 presents the statistical analysis of this difference

and confirms our impression: the level of difference in dissatisfaction declared by

Gains and losses: the level of satisfaction/dissatisfaction declared by private investors and retail investors.

Figure 2 is read vertically, that is to say the level of satisfaction/dissatisfaction declared by private investors and by retail investors in the case of gains/losses offers an important point of analysis. With reference to the retail investor sample, the empirical thesis [21, 22], according to which the disappointment experienced on losing a sum of money appears to be about twice that of the pleasure associated with gaining the same amount, seems to be valid. In fact, the weighted average degree of satisfaction on gaining is 4.44, while dissatisfaction on losing the same amount is on average 9.41. Instead, with reference to the private sample, the dissatisfaction a private client experiences on losing a sum of money does not appear to be twice that of the pleasure associated with gaining the same amount (gain satisfaction weighted average = 4.47 vs. loss dissatisfaction weighted average = 6.14). Thus, the Kahneman and Tversky [15] value function, which is steeper for losses than for gains, seems to be valid for the retail sample but not for the private one. This conclusion must take into account the initial 'anchor' level of wealth [4, 8, 15, 19, 33], which is high for the private investors interviewed and by which economic changes are evaluated. The results therefore lead us to consider the possibility that very wealthy people could show a limited degree of indifference towards gains and losses [34].

Mean retail

Mean private

4.44 4.47 0.03

9.41 6.14 3.27\*\*\*

Diff.

The results presented in this chapter demonstrate that private and retail investors evaluate financial performance (gains and losses) differently. In particular, the results presented in this chapter show that investors, whether retail or private, perceive gain and loss expressed in terms of absolute value and as a percentage differently, even if the gain/loss is of the same amount. However, we demonstrate that loss expressed in euros is perceived with more dissatisfaction by retail investors

The comparison of results obtained in the analyses conducted shows significant changes in evaluations of gains and losses. However, the quantification of satisfaction/dissatisfaction declared by private and by retail investors in the case of gains/ losses demonstrates that the disappointment expressed by retail investors on losing a sum of money appears to be about twice that of the pleasure associated with gaining the same amount. This situation is not confirmed with reference to private investors. This is due to the fact that the two groups start from different initial levels of wealth, which provide the parameter used to determine satisfaction or

The results presented in this chapter suggest some considerations we believe should be taken into account by banks, asset managers, private bankers and finan-

cial planners in order to improve the range of products offered and their

private and retail investors is statistically significant (p = 0.000).

Level of satisfaction on a scale from 0 to 10 when faced with a gain

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86617

The Role of Wealth in Gain and Loss Perception: An Empirical Analysis

Level of dissatisfaction on a scale from 0 to 10 when faced with a

6. Conclusions

situation

Table 3.

loss situation

\*\*\*Statistically significant at 1%.

than private investors.

dissatisfaction.

133

Figure 2.

Satisfaction and dissatisfaction perceived by private investors (on the left) and retail investors (on the right) in the case of gain (upside) and loss (downside).

The Role of Wealth in Gain and Loss Perception: An Empirical Analysis DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86617

#### Table 3.

5. Level of satisfaction/dissatisfaction declared by retail and private

Application of Decision Science in Business and Management

This analysis is based on the answers obtained from questions 5 and 6 in the questionnaires (see Appendices A and B). We would like to test our survey samples' perception of loss and gain by asking them to identify the degree of 'satisfaction'/ 'dissatisfaction' experienced, on a scale from 0 to 10, when faced with a positive/ negative variation of wealth in terms of absolute value ( €90,000 per private investor and €9000 per retail investor). The results are shown in Figure 2.

A horizontal reading of Figure 2 shows that the level of satisfaction declared by retail and private investors faced with a gain is almost the same, while there is an obvious difference in the case of a loss, when retail investors appear more dissatisfied than private investors. Table 3 presents the statistical analysis of this difference

Satisfaction and dissatisfaction perceived by private investors (on the left) and retail investors (on the right) in

sample investors

Figure 2.

132

the case of gain (upside) and loss (downside).

Gains and losses: the level of satisfaction/dissatisfaction declared by private investors and retail investors.

and confirms our impression: the level of difference in dissatisfaction declared by private and retail investors is statistically significant (p = 0.000).

Figure 2 is read vertically, that is to say the level of satisfaction/dissatisfaction declared by private investors and by retail investors in the case of gains/losses offers an important point of analysis. With reference to the retail investor sample, the empirical thesis [21, 22], according to which the disappointment experienced on losing a sum of money appears to be about twice that of the pleasure associated with gaining the same amount, seems to be valid. In fact, the weighted average degree of satisfaction on gaining is 4.44, while dissatisfaction on losing the same amount is on average 9.41. Instead, with reference to the private sample, the dissatisfaction a private client experiences on losing a sum of money does not appear to be twice that of the pleasure associated with gaining the same amount (gain satisfaction weighted average = 4.47 vs. loss dissatisfaction weighted average = 6.14). Thus, the Kahneman and Tversky [15] value function, which is steeper for losses than for gains, seems to be valid for the retail sample but not for the private one. This conclusion must take into account the initial 'anchor' level of wealth [4, 8, 15, 19, 33], which is high for the private investors interviewed and by which economic changes are evaluated. The results therefore lead us to consider the possibility that very wealthy people could show a limited degree of indifference towards gains and losses [34].

## 6. Conclusions

The results presented in this chapter demonstrate that private and retail investors evaluate financial performance (gains and losses) differently. In particular, the results presented in this chapter show that investors, whether retail or private, perceive gain and loss expressed in terms of absolute value and as a percentage differently, even if the gain/loss is of the same amount. However, we demonstrate that loss expressed in euros is perceived with more dissatisfaction by retail investors than private investors.

The comparison of results obtained in the analyses conducted shows significant changes in evaluations of gains and losses. However, the quantification of satisfaction/dissatisfaction declared by private and by retail investors in the case of gains/ losses demonstrates that the disappointment expressed by retail investors on losing a sum of money appears to be about twice that of the pleasure associated with gaining the same amount. This situation is not confirmed with reference to private investors. This is due to the fact that the two groups start from different initial levels of wealth, which provide the parameter used to determine satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

The results presented in this chapter suggest some considerations we believe should be taken into account by banks, asset managers, private bankers and financial planners in order to improve the range of products offered and their

relationships with clients. First, it is fundamental to map an investor's entire wealth with meticulous accuracy in order to identify the real (or approximate) current status quo. Second, negative change in wealth must be identified, so that immediate action can be taken in order to avoid psychological pressure on the investor. In this context, the creation of financial or insurance products with 'stop loss' or guaranteed invested capital could be a very useful support. Finally, we believe it is very important to check the risk level sustainable by each investor (private or retail) and verify whether the portfolio asset allocation is suitable for the investor.

5. Bearing in mind your current level of wealth, on a scale from 0 to 10, how

The Role of Wealth in Gain and Loss Perception: An Empirical Analysis

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86617

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

No satisfaction, low satisfaction, medium high satisfaction, very high

6.Bearing in mind your current level of wealth, on a scale from 0 to 10, how dissatisfied would you feel with a €90,000 loss? (Please put an X in the

No dissatisfaction, low dissatisfaction, medium high dissatisfaction, very high

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

This questionnaire is a tool used to collect information about the reaction of investors

in the face of possible market scenarios, for research purposes. The questionnaire is anonymous, and to ensure it remains so, we suggest you fill it in alone, in your own home, and return it in a sealed envelope either to your financial planner or directly to Andrea Lippi, c/o Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Via Emilia Parmense, 84, 29122 Piacenza. Please answer truthfully to avoid falsifying our research results. Thank you in

Age \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Sex M □ F □ Geographic area North/Center □ South □ Please declare your total assets under management (i.e. mutual funds, Sicav,

1. Bearing in mind your current level of wealth, in the case of a positive

performance equal to +3% per year, you would consider yourself: (Please put

2. Bearing in mind your current level of wealth, in the case of a profit equal to €9000 per year, you would consider yourself: (Please put an X in the appropriate box)

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.

asset management, shares, bonds, financial insurance).

Appendix B: The retail investors' questionnaire

box)

Satisfied Not satisfied

satisfaction

dissatisfaction

Dear investor,

advance for your cooperation.

€ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

an X in the appropriate box)

Satisfied Not satisfied

135

appropriate box)

satisfied would you feel with a €90,000 gain? (Please put an X in the appropriate

## Appendix A: The private investors' questionnaire

Dear investor,

This questionnaire is a tool used to collect information about the reaction of investors in the face of possible market scenarios, for research purposes. The questionnaire is anonymous, and to ensure it remains so, we suggest you fill it in alone, in your own home, and return it in a sealed envelope either to your financial planner or directly to Andrea Lippi, c/o Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Via Emilia Parmense 84, 29122 Piacenza. Please answer truthfully to avoid falsifying our research results. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_. Age \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Sex M □ F □ Geographic Area North/Center □ South □ Please declare your total assets under management (i.e., mutual funds, Sicav, asset management, shares, bonds, financial insurance). € \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

1. Bearing in mind your current level of wealth, in the case of a positive performance equal to +3% per year, would you consider yourself: (Please put an X in the appropriate box)

2. Bearing in mind your current level of wealth, in the case of a profit equal to €90,000 per year, you would consider yourself: (Please put an X in the appropriate box)

3. Bearing in mind your current level of wealth, in the case of a negative performance equal to 3% per year, you would consider yourself: (Please put an X in the appropriate box)

4.Bearing in mind your current level of wealth, in the case of a loss equal to €90,000 per year, you would consider yourself: (Please put an X in the appropriate box)

The Role of Wealth in Gain and Loss Perception: An Empirical Analysis DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86617

5. Bearing in mind your current level of wealth, on a scale from 0 to 10, how satisfied would you feel with a €90,000 gain? (Please put an X in the appropriate box)

No satisfaction, low satisfaction, medium high satisfaction, very high satisfaction

6.Bearing in mind your current level of wealth, on a scale from 0 to 10, how dissatisfied would you feel with a €90,000 loss? (Please put an X in the appropriate box)

No dissatisfaction, low dissatisfaction, medium high dissatisfaction, very high dissatisfaction

## Appendix B: The retail investors' questionnaire

### Dear investor,

relationships with clients. First, it is fundamental to map an investor's entire wealth with meticulous accuracy in order to identify the real (or approximate) current status quo. Second, negative change in wealth must be identified, so that immediate action can be taken in order to avoid psychological pressure on the investor. In this

guaranteed invested capital could be a very useful support. Finally, we believe it is very important to check the risk level sustainable by each investor (private or retail)

This questionnaire is a tool used to collect information about the reaction of investors

context, the creation of financial or insurance products with 'stop loss' or

and verify whether the portfolio asset allocation is suitable for the investor.

in the face of possible market scenarios, for research purposes. The questionnaire is anonymous, and to ensure it remains so, we suggest you fill it in alone, in your own home, and return it in a sealed envelope either to your financial planner or directly to Andrea Lippi, c/o Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Via Emilia Parmense 84, 29122 Piacenza. Please answer truthfully to avoid falsifying our research results. Thank you in

Age \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Sex M □ F □ Geographic Area North/Center □ South □ Please declare your total assets under management (i.e., mutual funds, Sicav,

1. Bearing in mind your current level of wealth, in the case of a positive

€ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

performance equal to +3% per year, would you consider yourself: (Please put

2. Bearing in mind your current level of wealth, in the case of a profit equal to €90,000 per year, you would consider yourself: (Please put an X in the

3. Bearing in mind your current level of wealth, in the case of a negative

4.Bearing in mind your current level of wealth, in the case of a loss equal to €90,000 per year, you would consider yourself: (Please put an X in the

performance equal to 3% per year, you would consider yourself: (Please put

Appendix A: The private investors' questionnaire

Application of Decision Science in Business and Management

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.

asset management, shares, bonds, financial insurance).

Dear investor,

advance for your cooperation.

an X in the appropriate box)

an X in the appropriate box)

appropriate box)

Satisfied Not satisfied

Satisfied Not satisfied

Satisfied Not satisfied

134

appropriate box)

This questionnaire is a tool used to collect information about the reaction of investors in the face of possible market scenarios, for research purposes. The questionnaire is anonymous, and to ensure it remains so, we suggest you fill it in alone, in your own home, and return it in a sealed envelope either to your financial planner or directly to Andrea Lippi, c/o Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Via Emilia Parmense, 84, 29122 Piacenza. Please answer truthfully to avoid falsifying our research results. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Age \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Sex M □ F □ Geographic area North/Center □ South □ Please declare your total assets under management (i.e. mutual funds, Sicav, asset management, shares, bonds, financial insurance).

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.

€ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

1. Bearing in mind your current level of wealth, in the case of a positive performance equal to +3% per year, you would consider yourself: (Please put an X in the appropriate box)

2. Bearing in mind your current level of wealth, in the case of a profit equal to €9000 per year, you would consider yourself: (Please put an X in the appropriate box)

3. Bearing in mind your current level of wealth, in the case of a negative performance equal to 3% per year, you would consider yourself: (Please put an X in the appropriate box)

4.Bearing in mind your current level of wealth, in the case of a loss equal to €9000 per year, you would consider yourself: (Please put an X in the appropriate box)

5. Bearing in mind your current level of wealth on a scale from 0 to 10, how satisfied would you feel with a €9000 gain? (Please put an X in the appropriate box)

No satisfaction, low satisfaction, medium high satisfaction, very high satisfaction

6.Bearing in mind your current level of wealth, on a scale from 0 to 10, how dissatisfied would you feel with a €9000 loss? (Please put an X in the appropriate box)

No dissatisfaction, low dissatisfaction, medium high dissatisfaction, very high dissatisfaction

Author details

Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Piacenza, Italy

provided the original work is properly cited.

\*Address all correspondence to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
The Role of Wealth in Gain and Loss Perception: An Empirical Analysis

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86617

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

Andrea Lippi

137

The Role of Wealth in Gain and Loss Perception: An Empirical Analysis DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86617

## Author details

3. Bearing in mind your current level of wealth, in the case of a negative

4.Bearing in mind your current level of wealth, in the case of a loss equal to €9000 per year, you would consider yourself: (Please put an X in the

5. Bearing in mind your current level of wealth on a scale from 0 to 10, how

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

No satisfaction, low satisfaction, medium high satisfaction, very high

6.Bearing in mind your current level of wealth, on a scale from 0 to 10, how dissatisfied would you feel with a €9000 loss? (Please put an X in the

No dissatisfaction, low dissatisfaction, medium high dissatisfaction, very high

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

satisfied would you feel with a €9000 gain? (Please put an X in the appropriate

an X in the appropriate box)

Application of Decision Science in Business and Management

appropriate box)

box)

Satisfied Not satisfied

Satisfied Not satisfied

Satisfied Not satisfied

satisfaction

dissatisfaction

136

appropriate box)

performance equal to 3% per year, you would consider yourself: (Please put

Andrea Lippi Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Piacenza, Italy

\*Address all correspondence to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

## References

[1] Kahneman D, Knetsch JL. Valuing public goods. The purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 1992;22: 57-70

[2] Thaler RH. Quasi Rational Economics. New York: Russell Sage Foundations; 1991

[3] Levin PI, Gaeth GJ, Schreiber J. A new look at framing effects: Distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2002;88(1): 411-429. DOI: 10.1006/obhd.2001.2983

[4] Chen SS, Monroe KB, Lou Y. The effects of framing price promotion messages on consumer's perceptions and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing. 1998;74(3):353-372. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-4359(99)80100-6

[5] DelVecchio D, Krishnan HS, Smith DC. Cents or percent? The effects of promotion framing on price expectations and choice. Journal of Marketing. 2007;17:158-170. DOI: 10.1509/jmkg.71.3.158

[6] Gourville JT. Pennies-a-day: The effect of temporal reframing on transaction evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research. 1998;24:395-408. DOI: 10.1086/209517

[7] McKechnie S, Devlin J, Ennew C, Smith A. Framing effects and price promotions: An examination of the influence of discount presentation format on consumers' evaluations and behavioural intentions. In: Australia and New Zealand Marketing Conference; Dunedin, New Zealand; 2007. pp. 1438-1445

[8] Sinha I, Smith MF. Consumer's perceptions of promotional framing of price. Psychology and Marketing. 2000; 17(3):257-275. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)

1520-6793(200003)17:3<257::AID-MAR4>3.0.CO;2-P

Journal. 1997;53(2):62-66. DOI: 10.2469/

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86617

The Role of Wealth in Gain and Loss Perception: An Empirical Analysis

products. The Journal of Social

10.3200/SOCP.147.4.413-422

10.1080/13546780500145652

Psychology. 2007;147(4):413-422. DOI:

[27] Li S, Xie X. A new look at the 'Asian disease' problem: A choice between the best possible outcomes or between the worst possible outcomes? Thinking and Reasoning. 2006;12(2):129-143. DOI:

[28] Lichtenstein DR, Burton S, Karson EJ. The effects of semantic cues on consumer perceptions of reference price ads. Journal of Consumer Research. 1991;18:380-391. DOI: 10.1086/209267

[29] Liefeld J, Heslop LA. Reference prices and deception in newspaper advertising. Journal of Consumer Research. 1985;11:868-876. DOI:

[30] McKechnie S, Devlin J, Ennew C, Smith A. The impact of semantic cues in

advertisements. In: The Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Conference; London: Kingston Business School; 2007

[31] Thaler RH, Johnson E. Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: The effects of prior

outcomes on risky choice. Management Science. 1990;36(6):643-660. DOI:

[32] Wallace SW. Decision making under uncertainty: Is sensitivity analysis of any use? Operations Research. 2000; 48(1):20-25. DOI: 10.1287/opre.48.1.20.

[33] Shirai M, Bettman JR. Consumer expectations concerning timing and depth on the next deal. Psychology and

[34] Lippi A. A proposed value function for private clients. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting. 2013;42(157): 39-61. DOI: 10.1080/02102412.2013.

Marketing. 2005;22(6):457-472

10.1086/209022

former price comparison

10.1287/mnsc.36.6.643

12441

10779739

[18] Olsen RA. Prospect theory as an explanation of risky choice by

professional investors: Some evidence. Review of Financial Economics. 1997; 6(2):225-232. DOI: 10.1016/S1058-3300

[19] Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, values and frames. The American Psychologist. 1984;39(4):341-350

[20] Sonnemans J, Schram A, Offerman T. Public good provision and public bad prevention. The effect of framing. Working Paper. University of

[21] Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Tahler E. Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 1991;5(1): 193-206. DOI: 10.1257/jep.5.1.193

[22] Tversky A, Kahneman D. Advances

[23] Grewall D, Marmorstein H, Sharma A. Communicating price information through semantic cues: The moderating effects of situation and discount size. Journal of Consumer Research. 1996;23:

in prospect theory. Cumulative representation under uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 1992;5: 297-323. DOI: 10.1007/BF00122574

148-155. DOI: 10.1086/209473

[25] Berkowitz EN, Walton JR. Contextual influences on consumer price responses: An experimental analysis. Journal of Marketing Research. 1980;XVII:349-358. DOI: 10.1177/

002224378001700308

2000;2(2):1-9

139

[24] Ricciardi V, Simon HK. What is behavioral finance? Business, Education and Technology Journal.

[26] Li S, Sun Y, Wang Y. 50% off or buy one get one free? Frame preference as a function of consumable nature in dairy

faj.v53.n2.2073

(97)90008-2

Amsterdam; 1994

[9] Tombu M, Mandel DR. When does framing influence preferences, risk perceptions, and risk attitudes? The explicated valence account. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2015;28: 464-476. DOI: 10.1002/bdm.1863

[10] Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211(4481): 453-458. DOI: 10.1126/science.7455683

[11] DelVecchio D. Deal-prone consumers' response to promotion: The effects of relative and absolute promotion value. Psychology and Marketing. 2005;22(5):373-391. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20064

[12] Kahneman D. A psychological point of view: Violations of rational rules as a diagnostic of mental processes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2000; 23(5):681-683

[13] Kahneman D. Experienced utility and objective happiness: A momentbased approach. In: Kahneman D, Tversky A, editors. Choices, Values, and Frames. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2000. DOI: 10.1142/<PHONE_NUMBER>358\_0016

[14] Mellers B. Choice and the relative pleasure of consequences. Psychological Bulletin. 2000;126(6):910-924. DOI: 10.1037/0033-29<IP_ADDRESS>0

[15] Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory. An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47(2):263-292

[16] Kühberger A. The influence of framing on risky decisions: A metaanalysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1998;75(1): 23-55. DOI: 10.1006/obhd.1998.2781

[17] Olsen RA. Investment risk: The experts' perspectives. Financial Analysts The Role of Wealth in Gain and Loss Perception: An Empirical Analysis DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86617

Journal. 1997;53(2):62-66. DOI: 10.2469/ faj.v53.n2.2073

References

57-70

[1] Kahneman D, Knetsch JL. Valuing public goods. The purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 1992;22:

Application of Decision Science in Business and Management

1520-6793(200003)17:3<257::AID-

[10] Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211(4481): 453-458. DOI: 10.1126/science.7455683

[11] DelVecchio D. Deal-prone

effects of relative and absolute promotion value. Psychology and Marketing. 2005;22(5):373-391. DOI:

diagnostic of mental processes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2000;

Frames. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2000. DOI: 10.1142/

9789814417358\_0016

10.1002/mar.20064

23(5):681-683

consumers' response to promotion: The

[12] Kahneman D. A psychological point of view: Violations of rational rules as a

[13] Kahneman D. Experienced utility and objective happiness: A momentbased approach. In: Kahneman D, Tversky A, editors. Choices, Values, and

[14] Mellers B. Choice and the relative pleasure of consequences. Psychological Bulletin. 2000;126(6):910-924. DOI: 10.1037/0033-29<IP_ADDRESS>0

[15] Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory. An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47(2):263-292

[16] Kühberger A. The influence of framing on risky decisions: A metaanalysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1998;75(1): 23-55. DOI: 10.1006/obhd.1998.2781

[17] Olsen RA. Investment risk: The experts' perspectives. Financial Analysts

[9] Tombu M, Mandel DR. When does framing influence preferences, risk perceptions, and risk attitudes? The explicated valence account. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2015;28: 464-476. DOI: 10.1002/bdm.1863

MAR4>3.0.CO;2-P

[3] Levin PI, Gaeth GJ, Schreiber J. A

Distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2002;88(1): 411-429. DOI: 10.1006/obhd.2001.2983

[4] Chen SS, Monroe KB, Lou Y. The effects of framing price promotion messages on consumer's perceptions and

[5] DelVecchio D, Krishnan HS, Smith DC. Cents or percent? The effects of

[6] Gourville JT. Pennies-a-day: The effect of temporal reframing on transaction evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research. 1998;24:395-408.

[7] McKechnie S, Devlin J, Ennew C, Smith A. Framing effects and price promotions: An examination of the influence of discount presentation format on consumers' evaluations and behavioural intentions. In: Australia and New Zealand Marketing Conference; Dunedin, New Zealand; 2007.

[8] Sinha I, Smith MF. Consumer's perceptions of promotional framing of price. Psychology and Marketing. 2000; 17(3):257-275. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)

purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing. 1998;74(3):353-372. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-4359(99)80100-6

promotion framing on price expectations and choice. Journal of Marketing. 2007;17:158-170. DOI:

10.1509/jmkg.71.3.158

DOI: 10.1086/209517

pp. 1438-1445

138

[2] Thaler RH. Quasi Rational Economics. New York: Russell Sage

new look at framing effects:

Foundations; 1991

[18] Olsen RA. Prospect theory as an explanation of risky choice by professional investors: Some evidence. Review of Financial Economics. 1997; 6(2):225-232. DOI: 10.1016/S1058-3300 (97)90008-2

[19] Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, values and frames. The American Psychologist. 1984;39(4):341-350

[20] Sonnemans J, Schram A, Offerman T. Public good provision and public bad prevention. The effect of framing. Working Paper. University of Amsterdam; 1994

[21] Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Tahler E. Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 1991;5(1): 193-206. DOI: 10.1257/jep.5.1.193

[22] Tversky A, Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory. Cumulative representation under uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 1992;5: 297-323. DOI: 10.1007/BF00122574

[23] Grewall D, Marmorstein H, Sharma A. Communicating price information through semantic cues: The moderating effects of situation and discount size. Journal of Consumer Research. 1996;23: 148-155. DOI: 10.1086/209473

[24] Ricciardi V, Simon HK. What is behavioral finance? Business, Education and Technology Journal. 2000;2(2):1-9

[25] Berkowitz EN, Walton JR. Contextual influences on consumer price responses: An experimental analysis. Journal of Marketing Research. 1980;XVII:349-358. DOI: 10.1177/<PHONE_NUMBER>01700308

[26] Li S, Sun Y, Wang Y. 50% off or buy one get one free? Frame preference as a function of consumable nature in dairy

products. The Journal of Social Psychology. 2007;147(4):413-422. DOI: 10.3200/SOCP.147.4.413-422

[27] Li S, Xie X. A new look at the 'Asian disease' problem: A choice between the best possible outcomes or between the worst possible outcomes? Thinking and Reasoning. 2006;12(2):129-143. DOI: 10.1080/13546780500145652

[28] Lichtenstein DR, Burton S, Karson EJ. The effects of semantic cues on consumer perceptions of reference price ads. Journal of Consumer Research. 1991;18:380-391. DOI: 10.1086/209267

[29] Liefeld J, Heslop LA. Reference prices and deception in newspaper advertising. Journal of Consumer Research. 1985;11:868-876. DOI: 10.1086/209022

[30] McKechnie S, Devlin J, Ennew C, Smith A. The impact of semantic cues in former price comparison advertisements. In: The Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Conference; London: Kingston Business School; 2007

[31] Thaler RH, Johnson E. Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: The effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management Science. 1990;36(6):643-660. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.36.6.643

[32] Wallace SW. Decision making under uncertainty: Is sensitivity analysis of any use? Operations Research. 2000; 48(1):20-25. DOI: 10.1287/opre.48.1.20. 12441

[33] Shirai M, Bettman JR. Consumer expectations concerning timing and depth on the next deal. Psychology and Marketing. 2005;22(6):457-472

[34] Lippi A. A proposed value function for private clients. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting. 2013;42(157): 39-61. DOI: 10.1080/02102412.2013. 10779739

Chapter 9

Abstract

Saving Time in Portfolio

and Miroslav Dimitrov Vladimirov

Todor Atanasov Stoilov, Krasimira Petrova Stoilova

cases where time in explicit way influences the portfolio problem.

automation in information systems

1. Introduction

141

Keywords: data driven analysis, real-time portfolio optimization, decision making,

The time management is important part for tasks in real time operation of systems, automation systems, optimization in complex system, taking explicit consideration in time constraints, scheduling of tasks and operations, making with incomplete data, time management in different practical cases. The limits in time for taking appropriate decisions for management and control is a strong constraints for the implementation of autonomic functionalities as self-configuration, selfoptimization, self-healing, self-protection in computer systems, transportation sys-

The time management in financial domain is a prerequisite for high competitiveness and increase of the quality of the investment activities. It is the popular phrase that "time is money" and particularly the portfolio optimization targets its

tems, distributed systems. Time is an important and expensive resource.

Optimization on Financial Markets

The time management is important part for tasks in real-time operation of systems, automation systems, optimization in complex system, taking explicit consideration in time constraints, scheduling of tasks and operations, making with incomplete data, and time management in different practical cases. The limit in time for taking appropriate decisions for management and control is a strong constraint for the implementation of autonomic functionalities as self-configuration, self-optimization, self-healing, self-protection in computer systems, transportation systems, and distributed systems. Time is an important and expensive resource. The time management in financial domain is a prerequisite for high competitiveness and an increase in the quality of the investment activities. It is the popular phrase that time is money, and particularly, the portfolio optimization targets its implementation in real cases. This research targets the identification of portfolio parameters, which are strongly influenced by time. We restrict our considerations only on portfolio optimization task, and we identify cases, which are strongly influenced by time constraints. Thus, the portfolio optimization problem is discussed on position how the time can influence the portfolio characteristics and solutions. This chapter starts with the description of the object portfolio management, which provides the

## Chapter 9