IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/frd/wpaper/dp2015-01erdp2015-01.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Risk Premia and Knightian Uncertainty in an Experimental Market Featuring a Long-Lived Asset

Author

Listed:
  • John Griffin

    (U.S. Department of Defense)

Abstract

Objectives: I examine risk premia and the influence of Knightian uncertainty in a laboratory market featuring a long-lived asset. Methods: I employ an experimental asset market, utilizing features which are designed to forestall bubbles and crashes. I alter the riskiness of the asset from market to market along two dimensions— expected variance and upside/downside potential. Furthermore, I include a treatment which introduces uncertainty with respect to the expected value of the asset. Results: Bubbles and crashes are absent. Positive, statistically significant risk premia emerge. The risk premia are not sensitive to expected variance, but do vary positively with the magnitude of potential loss. The introduction of Knightian uncertainty does not appear to influence market prices, however it does increase trading volume. Conclusions: When speculative activity is tempered, risk aversion is manifest in market prices. Subjects appear to view risk in the context of potential loss rather than volatility. Return premia for uncertainty are absent, suggesting a lack of uncertainty aversion. Increased trading activity in the presence of uncertainty may be due to differing opinions with regards to the value of the asset or to divergent levels of uncertainty aversion.

Suggested Citation

  • John Griffin, 2015. "Risk Premia and Knightian Uncertainty in an Experimental Market Featuring a Long-Lived Asset," Fordham Economics Discussion Paper Series dp2015-01er:dp2015-01, Fordham University, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:frd:wpaper:dp2015-01er:dp2015-01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://archive.fordham.edu/ECONOMICS_RESEARCH/PAPERS/dp2015_01_griffin.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fama, Eugene F & French, Kenneth R, 1992. "The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 47(2), pages 427-465, June.
    2. Vivian Lei & Filip Vesely, 2009. "Market Efficiency: Evidence From A No-Bubble Asset Market Experiment," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(2), pages 246-258, May.
    3. Milo Bianchi & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2014. "Ambiguity Preferences and Portfolio Choices: Evidence from the Field," Post-Print halshs-01109655, HAL.
    4. R. Mark Isaac & Duncan James, 2000. "Asset Markets: How They Are Affected by Tournament Incentives for Individuals," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 995-1004, September.
    5. Plott, Charles R & Sunder, Shyam, 1982. "Efficiency of Experimental Security Markets with Insider Information: An Application of Rational-Expectations Models," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 90(4), pages 663-698, August.
    6. Füllbrunn, Sascha & Rau, Holger A. & Weitzel, Utz, 2014. "Does ambiguity aversion survive in experimental asset markets?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 810-826.
    7. Hans P. Binswanger, 1980. "Attitudes Toward Risk: Experimental Measurement in Rural India," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 62(3), pages 395-407.
    8. Peter Bossaerts & Charles Plott, 2004. "Basic Principles of Asset Pricing Theory: Evidence from Large-Scale Experimental Financial Markets," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 8(2), pages 135-169.
    9. Thomas B. Astebro & Luís Santos-Pinto & J. Mata, 2009. "Preferences for Skew," Post-Print hal-00654369, HAL.
    10. Richard H. Thaler & Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman & Alan Schwartz, 1997. "The Effect of Myopia and Loss Aversion on Risk Taking: An Experimental Test," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 647-661.
    11. Stephen Cheung & Stefan Palan, 2012. "Two heads are less bubbly than one: team decision-making in an experimental asset market," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(3), pages 373-397, September.
    12. Robin M. Hogarth & Hillel J. Einhorn, 1990. "Venture Theory: A Model of Decision Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(7), pages 780-803, July.
    13. Sujoy Mukerji & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2001. "Ambiguity Aversion and Incompleteness of Financial Markets," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 68(4), pages 883-904.
    14. Taylor Jaworskiy & Erik O. Kimbrough, 2012. "An Experimental Examination of Asset Pricing Under Market Uncertainty," Discussion Papers dp12-21, Department of Economics, Simon Fraser University.
    15. Brice Corgnet & Praveen Kujal & David Porter, 2013. "Reaction to Public Information in Markets: How much does Ambiguity Matter?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 123(569), pages 699-737, June.
    16. Carmela Mauro, 2008. "Uncertainty Aversion Vs. Competence: An Experimental Market Study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 301-331, March.
    17. Craig R. Fox & Amos Tversky, 1995. "Ambiguity Aversion and Comparative Ignorance," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(3), pages 585-603.
    18. Jonathan E. Alevy, 2011. "Ambiguity in Individual Choice and Market Environments: On the Importance of Comparative Ignorance," Working Papers 2011-04, University of Alaska Anchorage, Department of Economics.
    19. Nicholas Barberis & Ming Huang, 2008. "Stocks as Lotteries: The Implications of Probability Weighting for Security Prices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(5), pages 2066-2100, December.
    20. Mark van Boening & Vernon L. Smith & Charissa P. Wellford, 2000. "Dividend timing and behavior in laboratory asset markets," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 16(3), pages 567-583.
    21. Raman Uppal & Tan Wang, 2003. "Model Misspecification and Underdiversification," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 58(6), pages 2465-2486, December.
    22. Dar-Hsin Chen & Chun-Da Chen & Jianguo Chen, 2009. "Downside risk measures and equity returns in the NYSE," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(8), pages 1055-1070.
    23. Guth, Werner & Krahnen, Jan P. & Rieck, Christian, 1997. "Financial markets with asymmetric information: A pilot study focusing on insider advantages," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 18(2-3), pages 235-257, April.
    24. Cheung, Stephen L. & Hedegaard, Morten & Palan, Stefan, 2014. "To see is to believe: Common expectations in experimental asset markets," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 84-96.
    25. Santos-Pinto, Luís & Astebro, Thomas & Mata, José, 2009. "Preference for Skew in Lotteries: Evidence from the Laboratory," MPRA Paper 17165, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    26. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    27. Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael & Stefan, Matthias, 2014. "Experimental evidence on varying uncertainty and skewness in laboratory double-auction markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 798-809.
    28. Markus K. Brunnermeier & Jonathan A. Parker & Christian Gollier, 2007. "Optimal Beliefs, Asset Prices, and the Preference for Skewed Returns," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(2), pages 159-165, May.
    29. Breaban, A.G. & Noussair, C.N., 2014. "Fundamental Value Trajectories and Trader Characteristics in an Asset Market Experiment," Other publications TiSEM 3103cf69-bc46-42bf-a9a5-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    30. Milo Bianchi & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2014. "Ambiguity Preferences and Portfolio Choices: Evidence from the Field," Post-Print halshs-01109655, HAL.
    31. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    32. Charles N. Noussair & Steven Tucker, 2016. "Cash Inflows And Bubbles In Asset Markets With Constant Fundamental Values," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(3), pages 1596-1606, July.
    33. Lin, Shengle & Rassenti, Stephen, 2012. "Are under- and over-reaction the same matter? Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 39-61.
    34. Garrett, Thomas A. & Sobel, Russell S., 1999. "Gamblers favor skewness, not risk: Further evidence from United States' lottery games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 85-90, April.
    35. Harry Markowitz, 1952. "Portfolio Selection," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 7(1), pages 77-91, March.
    36. Brice Corgnet & Roberto Hernán González & Praveen Kujal & David Porter, 2013. "The Effect of Earned vs. House Money on Price Bubble Formation in Experimental Asset Markets," Working Papers 13-04, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    37. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    38. William F. Sharpe, 1964. "Capital Asset Prices: A Theory Of Market Equilibrium Under Conditions Of Risk," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 19(3), pages 425-442, September.
    39. Ang, James S & Schwarz, Thomas, 1985. "Risk Aversion and Information Structure: An Experimental Study of Price Variability in the Securities Markets," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 40(3), pages 825-844, July.
    40. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    41. Harlow, W. V. & Rao, Ramesh K. S., 1989. "Asset Pricing in a Generalized Mean-Lower Partial Moment Framework: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(3), pages 285-311, September.
    42. Markowitz, Harry, 2014. "Mean–variance approximations to expected utility," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(2), pages 346-355.
    43. Porter, David P & Smith, Vernon L, 1995. "Futures Contracting and Dividend Uncertainty in Experimental Asset Markets," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 68(4), pages 509-541, October.
    44. Camerer, Colin & Kunreuther, Howard, 1989. "Experimental Markets for Insurance," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 265-299, September.
    45. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:3:p:214-235 is not listed on IDEAS
    46. Eugene F. Fama & Kenneth R. French, 2004. "The Capital Asset Pricing Model: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 18(3), pages 25-46, Summer.
    47. Lundblad, Christian, 2007. "The risk return tradeoff in the long run: 1836-2003," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 123-150, July.
    48. Heath, Chip & Tversky, Amos, 1991. "Preference and Belief: Ambiguity and Competence in Choice under Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 5-28, January.
    49. Merton, Robert C., 1980. "On estimating the expected return on the market : An exploratory investigation," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 323-361, December.
    50. Thomas Åstebro & José Mata & Luís Santos-Pinto, 2015. "Skewness seeking: risk loving, optimism or overweighting of small probabilities?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 78(2), pages 189-208, February.
    51. Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler, 2012. "The impact of instructions and procedure on reducing confusion and bubbles in experimental asset markets," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(1), pages 89-105, March.
    52. Katerina Straznicka, 2012. "Bubbles and Incentives," Post-Print halshs-00697499, HAL.
    53. Black, Fischer, 1972. "Capital Market Equilibrium with Restricted Borrowing," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(3), pages 444-455, July.
    54. Stefan Palan, 2013. "A Review Of Bubbles And Crashes In Experimental Asset Markets," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 570-588, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John Griffin, 2015. "Risk Premia and Knightian Uncertainty in an Experimental Market Featuring a Long-Lived Asset," Fordham Economics Discussion Paper Series dp2015-01, Fordham University, Department of Economics.
    2. Griffin, John, 2017. "Risk premia and ambiguity in an experimental market featuring a long-lived asset," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 21-27.
    3. Corgnet, Brice & Hernán-González, Roberto & Kujal, Praveen, 2020. "On booms that never bust: Ambiguity in experimental asset markets with bubbles," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    4. Füllbrunn, Sascha & Rau, Holger A. & Weitzel, Utz, 2014. "Does ambiguity aversion survive in experimental asset markets?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 810-826.
    5. Zhengyang Bao & Andreas Leibbrandt & ple391, 2019. "Thar she resurges: The case of assets that lack positive fundamental value," Monash Economics Working Papers 12-19, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    6. Shinichi Hirota & Juergen Huber & Thomas Stock & Shyam Sunder, 2018. "Speculation and Price Indeterminacy in Financial Markets: An Experimental Study," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2134, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    7. Cheung, Stephen L. & Hedegaard, Morten & Palan, Stefan, 2014. "To see is to believe: Common expectations in experimental asset markets," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 84-96.
    8. Thomas Stöckl & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler, 2015. "Multi-period experimental asset markets with distinct fundamental value regimes," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 314-334, June.
    9. Ciril Bosch-Rosa & Thomas Meissner & Antoni Bosch-Domènech, 2018. "Cognitive bubbles," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 132-153, March.
    10. Stéphane Robin & Kateřina Strážnická & Marie Claire Villeval, 2021. "Bubbles and incentives: an experiment on asset markets," Economic and Political Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 68-89, January.
    11. Stefan Palan, 2014. "A Software for Asset Market Experiments," Working Paper Series, Social and Economic Sciences 2014-01, Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences, Karl-Franzens-University Graz.
    12. Giovanni Giusti & Janet Hua Jiang & Yiping Xu, 2014. "Interest on Cash, Fundamental Value Process and Bubble Formation on Experimental Asset Markets," Staff Working Papers 14-18, Bank of Canada.
    13. Stefan Palan, 2013. "A Review of Research into Smith, Suchanek and Williams Markets," Working Paper Series, Social and Economic Sciences 2013-04, Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences, Karl-Franzens-University Graz.
    14. Hirota, Shinichi & Huber, Juergen & Stöckl, Thomas & Sunder, Shyam, 2022. "Speculation, money supply and price indeterminacy in financial markets: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 1275-1296.
    15. Bousselmi, Wael & Sentis, Patrick & Willinger, Marc, 2019. "How do markets react to (un)expected fundamental value shocks? An experimental analysis," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 90-113.
    16. Baghestanian, S. & Lugovskyy, V. & Puzzello, D., 2015. "Traders’ heterogeneity and bubble-crash patterns in experimental asset markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 82-101.
    17. Anita Kopányi-Peuker & Matthias Weber & Lauren Cohen, 2021. "Experience Does Not Eliminate Bubbles: Experimental Evidence," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 34(9), pages 4450-4485.
    18. Eizo Akiyama & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Ryuichiro Ishikawa, 2017. "It is Not Just Confusion! Strategic Uncertainty in An Experimental Asset Market," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(605), pages 563-580, October.
    19. Christoph Huber & Julia Rose, 2019. "Do individual attitudes towards imprecision survive in experimental asset markets?," Working Papers 2019-06, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    20. Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael & Stefan, Matthias, 2014. "Experimental evidence on varying uncertainty and skewness in laboratory double-auction markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 798-809.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Risk Premia; Risk Aversion; Loss Aversion; Ambiguity; Uncertainty;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
    • G12 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Asset Pricing; Trading Volume; Bond Interest Rates

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:frd:wpaper:dp2015-01er:dp2015-01. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Fordham Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edforus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.