Perspectives on mental accounting: An exploration of budgeting and investing

This article provides an overview of recent advances in the literature on mental accounting within the context of consumer financial decision‐making. We first discuss the categorization process that underlies mental accounting and the methods people use to categorize funds. We then highlight some of the notable work that examines how mental accounting influences budgeting, spending, and investment decisions. The article concludes by proposing an agenda for future research, focusing on current gaps in our knowledge and promising areas to explore.

How to Price Effectively: A Guide for Managers and Entr…

Pricing decisions are among the most important and impa…

Revenue Models (2026): 19 Different Ways to Make Money [B2B & B2C] - Gust de Backer

So many different revenue models... But, which one fits your business? Over the past few decades, many new revenue models have proven to be profitable. That's why I'm going to show you 16 different revenue models so you can evaluate if there might be a better way to monetize the value you deliver to your customer. Let's start... What is…

ServiceTitan and the Software-vs-PE Race

Plus! Devaluation; Browsers; Slicing Up the Capital Structure; Who Audits the Auditors; International

A Structural Model of Mental Accounting

We construct and estimate a formal economic model of mental accounting where utility maximizing consumers facing rationality constraints infrequently update the

Pacing the Frontier

A statement from over 1000 employees of frontier AI companies

What Investing in Software Looks Like in 2026

In case you quietly filed Point Nine under “boring SaaS investor” … well, first of all, I’m not going to blame you. We’ve been investing in…

The Coholding Puzzle: New Evidence from Transaction-Level Data

Abstract Why do individuals pay debt interest when they could use their savings to pay down the debt? We explore why individuals “cohold” debt and savings using detailed and highly disaggregated daily-level data on household finances. We find that coholding mostly occurs in short spells within the month and the level of coholding is typically modest. Periods of coholding are not associated with shocks at the individual level. We show that mental accounting has a role to play in explaining coholding, in particular how individuals allocate different categories of expenditure to accounts in credit and debit.

Effects of mental accounting on purchase decision processes: A systematic review and research agenda

Abstract This paper aims to systematically analyze and synthesize the existing research published on mental accounting and purchase decision processes by conducting a systematic literature review. Specifically, the paper aims to answer the question: “What are the effects of mental accounting on purchase decision processes?” Therefore, it identified 110 papers which contribute to achieving the research objective and which were selected using the same data collection, data analysis, and quality standards. After reviewing the identified publications, the paper finds that the existing literature can be structured along four main themes impacting purchase decision‐making processes: (1) source of funds, (2) intended use of funds, (3) pricing, and (4) payments. The paper shows that for each of the four themes there are multiple mental accounting effects with an impact on for example willingness to pay, the experienced pain of paying or the ultimate purchase decision. Further, the paper identifies potential directions for future research in mental accounting, including the influence of product categories on mental accounting, flexibility in budget setting and its impact on mental accounting behavior, long‐term effects of mental budgeting on financial wealth, integration–segregation behavior in the context of pricing, the role of consumer characteristics on mental accounting behavior, and the impact of increased financial transparency through technology on mental accounting.

The Productivity Mirage

What I once thought about programming productivity was wrong

A game of co-opetition: exploring the benefits of asset owner collaboration - Thinking Ahead Institute

It may seem like a hidden truth but the reality is that asset owners are in competition with each other. They are in competition for the best alpha ideas, the best manager products and the best research – all with the aim of improving risk-return trade-offs to increase the likelihood of meeting their liabilities. As a result, many asset owners find it difficult to collaborate, even in initiatives that may prove mutually beneficial. At the Thinking Ahead Institute’s recent Sydney roundtable event, asset owner attendees highlighted the top three barriers to successful peer collaboration: (1) difficulties being transparent; (2) lack of time and resources available; and (3) difficulties in aligning interests. At the same time, attendees agreed on the value to funds of collaborating productively on industry structure and regulation, and on a universal owner / alignment of interest agenda. 

A Theory of Narrow Thinking

Abstract Unlike in standard models, decision makers often narrowly bracket and make each decision in isolation. I develop a new approach, which I term narrow thinking, to systematically model narrow bracketing. The definition of narrow thinking is that different decisions are based on different, non-nested, information. As a result, the narrow thinker makes each decision with imperfect knowledge of other decisions and faces difficulties coordinating her multiple decisions. The narrow thinker effectively cares less about her other decisions when making each decision. The main application of narrow thinking is to provide a smooth model of mental accounting without requiring the decision maker to have explicit budgets. My approach generates unique predictions about how the degree of mental accounting depends on expenditure shares and cognitive limitations. It also illustrates how narrow bracketing and mental accounting can be explained by the same underlying friction.

Misperception of Exponential Growth: Are People Aware of Their Errors?

Previous research shows that individuals make systematic errors when judging exponential growth, which has harmful effects for their financial well-being. This study analyzes how far individuals are aware of their errors and how these errors are shaped by arithmetic and conceptual problems. Whereas arithmetic problems could be overcome using computational assistance like a pocket calculator, this is not the case for conceptual problems, a term we use to subsume other error drivers like a general misunderstanding of exponential growth or overwhelming task complexity. In an incentivized experiment, we find that participants strongly overestimate the accuracy of their intuitive judgment. At the same time, their willingness to pay for arithmetic assistance is too high on average, often much above the actual benefits a calculator provides. Using a multitier system of task complexity we can show that the willingness to pay for arithmetic assistance is hardly related to its benefits, indicating that participants do not really understand how the interplay of arithmetic and conceptual problems shape their errors in exponential growth tasks. Our findings are relevant for policymaking and financial advisory practice and can help to design effective approaches to mitigate the detrimental effects of misperceived exponential growth.