Reaction to Public Information in Markets: How much does Ambiguity Matter?
In real world situations the fundamental value of an asset is ambiguous. Recent theory has incorporated ambiguity in the dividend process and the information observed by investors, and studied its effect on asset prices. In this paper we experimentally study trader reaction to ambiguity when dividend information is revealed sequentially. Price changes are consistent with news revelation regarding the dividend regardless of subject experience and the degree of ambiguity. Further, there is no under or over price reactions to news. Regardless of experience, market reaction to news moves in line with fundamentals. Also, no significant differences are observed in the control versus ambiguity treatments regarding prices, price volatility and volumes for experienced subjects. Our results indicate that the role of ambiguity aversion in explaining financial anomalies is limited.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 123 (2013)
Issue (Month): 569 (06)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: +44 1334 462479
Web page: http://www.res.org.uk/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.blackwellpublishers.co.uk/asp/journal.asp?ref=0013-0133|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Kip Smith & John Dickhaut & Kevin McCabe & José V. Pardo, 2002. "Neuronal Substrates for Choice Under Ambiguity, Risk, Gains, and Losses," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(6), pages 711-718, June.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecj:econjl:v:123:y:2013:i:569:p:699-737. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)or (Christopher F. Baum)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.