Trading is a losing game: an audit of deceptive choice architecture in demo-mode Contract for Difference (CFD) trading apps
Maira Andrade et al.
What the paper says
Mobile-based trading apps have made investing easier than ever before, but this includes enabling access to risky investments that many investors may not be able to trade safely. The UK financial regulator thereby requires Contract for Difference (CFD) trading apps to make disclosures such as, ‘89% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs with this provider’. However, these disclosures might be counteracted by either their suboptimal implementation, or by other aspects of these apps’ deceptive choice architecture. Therefore, the present study audited choice architecture characteristics of demo-modes of the 14 most-popular CFD trading apps in the UK. A content analysis found for example that 31.6% of risk warnings did not comply with the regulator’s standards, and that only 35.7%% of apps contained risk warnings within the app’s main tabs. A thematic analysis suggested that apps’ educational resources could instil users with the hope of winning, by emphasising practice, strategies and psychological mindset – instead of acknowledging luck as the predominant factor underlying CFD trading profitability. Overall, this study added to previous research highlighting the similarities between certain high-risk investments and gambling, and added to the behavioural public policy literature on deceptive choice architecture.
3 citations
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.32 × 0.4 = 0.13 |
| M · momentum | 0.57 × 0.15 = 0.09 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.