Financial
services decisions can have enormous consequences for household well-being.
Households need a range of financial services-to conduct basic transactions, such
as receiving their income, storing it, and paying bills; to save for emergency
needs and long-term goals; to access credit; and to insure against life’s key
risks. But the financial services system is exceedingly complicated and often
not well-designed to optimize household behavior. In response to the complexity
of our financial system, there has been a long-running debate about the
appropriate role and form of regulation. Regulation is largely stuck in two
competing models-disclosure, and usury or product restrictions. This paper
explores a different approach, based on insights from behavioral economics on
the one hand, and an understanding of industrial organization on the other. At
the core of the analysis is the interaction between individual psychology and
market competition. This is in contrast to the classic model, which relies on
the interaction between rational choice and market competition. The introduction
of richer psychology complicates the impact of competition. It helps us
understand that firms compete based on how individuals will respond to products
in the marketplace, and competitive outcomes may not always and in all contexts
closely align with improved decisional choice and increased consumer welfare.
The
paper adopts a behavioral economic framework that considers firm incentives to
respond to regulation. Under this framework, outcomes are an equilibrium
interaction between individuals with specific psychologies and firms that
respond to those psychologies within specific market contexts. Regulation must
then address failures in this equilibrium. The model suggests, for example,
that in some contexts market participants seek to overcome common human
failings (as for example, with under-saving) while in other contexts market
participants seek to exploit these failings (as for example, with
over-borrowing). Behaviorally informed regulation needs to take account of these
different contexts. The paper discusses the specific application of these forces
to the case of mortgage, credit card, and banking markets. The purpose of this
paper is not to champion policies, but to illustrate how a behaviorally
informed regulatory analysis would lead to a deeper understanding of the costs
and benefits of specific policies. To further that understanding, in
particular, the paper discusses ten ideas:
- Full information disclosure to debias home mortgage borrowers.
- A
new standard for truth in lending. - A “sticky”
opt-out home mortgage system. - Restructuring the relationship between brokers and borrowers.
- Using framing and salience to improve credit card disclosures.
- An
opt-out payment plan for credit cards. - An
opt-out credit card. - Regulating of credit card late fees.
- A
tax credit for banks offering safe and affordable accounts. - An opt-out bank account for tax refunds.
The full text of this paper is available below as a PDF. Click here for a short video of the authors discussing their findings, or see the Oct. 17 event for additional information.
More About the Authors
