The Ultimatum Game
In 1982, 3 economists created an experiment on economic theory.
The rules are simple:
* Player 1 has the money and proposes how to utilise.
* Player 2 can accept or reject the proposal.
Traditional Economic theory says that Player 2 should accept any amount as far as it adds to money in to his pocket. But when real people played, many of them consistently rejected the proposal when they seemed unfair to them!
This theory reveals profound about human behavior. Player 2 literally deny opportunity at his own expense to enforce fairness norms.
One particular conversation worth to mention on how deeply — the Ultimatum Game – shapes investor behavior.
It was a Tuesday morning when one investor, Mr. Shah walked into our office. A successful businessman just sold a property and wanted to invest the proceeds—Rs. 2 crore—in mutual funds. We talked about his investment suitability, risk appetite, investment horizon, diversification and not following past performance for scheme selection.
But Mr. Shah leaned back and said, “That’s all okay. I need at least 18%. I’ve heard of funds giving 20%+. I’m the one taking the risk.” He became Player 1.
His “offer” demanding 18% returns felt like a split that ignored the realities of the market, the effort behind strategy, and the principles of sustainable returns. As player 2 of the Ultimatum game, I had to deny his terms of high expectations. I replied, “we must follow fundamental investing. I can’t offer you which compromise your capital’s long-term wealth. I’d rather walk away from this proposal than put us both in a misaligned position.”
In investing, fairness trumps greed. At Shalibhadra, our role isn’t to agree to every demand—but to protect the integrity of the every transaction, even if it means risking rejection. Because in the long run, trust is built not on maximum gains, but on mutual respect.
Nishit Siddharth Shah