Consumers generally seek to choose alternatives with high purchase value. That is, they seek to purchase products perceived as having more attractive prices through price comparisons with other alternatives (Dodds, Monroe, and Grewal 1991; Janiszewski and Lichtenstein 1999; Lichtenstein, Bloch, and Black 1988). Accordingly, many marketing practitioners have devised various methods to present the most attractive price conditions to consumers, a representative example being the use of price presentation frames (Tversky and Kahneman 1981). The Pennies-a-Day (PAD) strategy is one such approach. Unlike the interpretation of value proposed by Mental Accounting, which is grounded in Prospect Theory, PAD is based on the argument that when losses are negligible, people do not respond sensitively to the loss. Even when the total amount is identical, if the emphasis is placed on the fact that the daily payment amount is minimal, consumers perceive this as an attractive condition even if the payment period is somewhat longer. In other words, dividing the total price by the total number of payment days and presenting it as a small daily payment amount is perceived as a more attractive purchase condition compared to paying the total amount at once, thereby increasing the probability of purchase. Reviewing prior research on PAD, studies have focused on the magnitude of the presented price or the attractiveness of the price at the point of purchase. That is, the focus has been solely on the point of purchase within the purchase decision-making process. However, since purchase decision-making is not a single point but a process, this study was initiated with this observation in mind. This study was conducted through two experiments. Experiment 1 was conducted in a purchase-point situation, and Experiment 2 was conducted at the post-purchase stage. Experiment 1 reconfirmed prior research findings and examined how actual decision-making (purchase/non-purchase) occurs. The results showed that, regardless of product type, consumers preferred the case where prices were presented in a disaggregated manner using PAD, and more respondents indicated they would "purchase" compared to when prices were presented in an aggregated manner. These results support prior research findings. Experiment 2 was conducted with respondents who chose to purchase in a situation where losses continue (disaggregated price presentation), examining satisfaction with the purchase decision and attitudes toward the product at the post-purchase stage. Experiment 2 represents the main purpose of this study, which was to determine whether the purchase value that the PAD pricing strategy provides to customers at the point of purchase remains significant during the post-purchase process when losses continue. In particular, it was hypothesized that regret, which can emerge in situations where losses persist, would negatively affect satisfaction with the purchase decision and attitudes toward the product. Because such regret plays an important role in the post-purchase process, this study considered the asymmetric direction between the financial loss period and product consumption period as a variable that could moderate the magnitude of regret, and examined how positive (+) asymmetry (financial loss period < product consumption period) and negative (-) asymmetry (financial loss period > product consumption period) each affect regret. The results showed that the degree of regret was greater in the case of negative asymmetry compared to positive asymmetry, and it was confirmed that satisfaction with the purchase decision and attitudes toward the product changed more negatively compared to the point of purchase.