IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/finlet/v23y2017icp174-178.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of transaction costs on state-contingent claims mispricing

Author

Listed:
  • Restocchi, Valerio
  • McGroarty, Frank
  • Gerding, Enrico
  • Johnson, Johnnie E.V.

Abstract

We analyze the impact that transaction costs have on asset mispricing in state-contingent claims markets. In particular, we examine betting markets, in which, it has been argued, transaction costs cause the favorite-longshot bias, a pricing anomaly analogous to the volatility smile in options markets. By using a heterogeneous agents model, we prove that transaction costs alone cannot cause mispricing. Also, we run agent-based simulations to character- ize the response of market prices to increments in transaction costs. We find that transaction costs have a significant impact on market inefficiency, by amplifying existing mispricing both directly, influencing market prices, and indirectly, inducing a non-linear response from the agents.

Suggested Citation

  • Restocchi, Valerio & McGroarty, Frank & Gerding, Enrico & Johnson, Johnnie E.V., 2017. "The impact of transaction costs on state-contingent claims mispricing," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 174-178.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:finlet:v:23:y:2017:i:c:p:174-178
    DOI: 10.1016/j.frl.2017.02.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1544612317300648
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.frl.2017.02.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leighton Vaughan Williams & David Paton, 1998. "Why are some favourite-longshot biases positive and others negative?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(11), pages 1505-1510.
    2. Hurley, William & McDonough, Lawrence, 1996. "The favourite-longshot bias in parimutuel betting: A clarification of the explanation that bettors like to bet longshots," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 275-278, September.
    3. Justin Wolfers & Eric Zitzewitz, 2004. "Prediction Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 18(2), pages 107-126, Spring.
    4. Michael A. Smith & David Paton & Leighton Vaughan Williams, 2006. "Market Efficiency in Person‐to‐Person Betting," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 73(292), pages 673-689, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chengxiao Feng & Zhubo Li & Zhen Peng, 2021. "The Impact of Banking Competition on Firm Credit Risk and Leverage," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, November.

    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. Nikolaos Vlastakis & George Dotsis & Raphael N. Markellos, 2009. "How efficient is the European football betting market? Evidence from arbitrage and trading strategies," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(5), pages 426-444.
    2. Stekler, H.O. & Sendor, David & Verlander, Richard, 2010. "Issues in sports forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 606-621, July.
      • Herman O. Stekler & David Sendor & Richard Verlander, 2009. "Issues in Sports Forecasting," Working Papers 2009-002, The George Washington University, Department of Economics, H. O. Stekler Research Program on Forecasting.
    3. William Hurley & Lawrence McDonough, 2007. "Imperfect Market-Maker Competition, Heterogeneous Expectations, and The Favourite-Longshot Bias in Wagering Markets," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 1(1), pages 3-12, February.
    4. Jaiho Chung & Joon Ho Hwang, 2010. "An Empirical Examination of the Parimutuel Sports Lottery Market versus the Bookmaker Market," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 76(4), pages 884-905, April.
    5. Marshall Gramm & Douglas H. Owens, 2006. "Efficiency in Pari‐Mutuel Betting Markets across Wagering Pools in the Simulcast Era," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(4), pages 926-937, April.
    6. Franck, Egon & Verbeek, Erwin & Nüesch, Stephan, 2010. "Prediction accuracy of different market structures -- bookmakers versus a betting exchange," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 448-459, July.
    7. Egon Franck & Erwin Verbeek & Stephan Nüesch, 2013. "Inter-market Arbitrage in Betting," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 80(318), pages 300-325, April.
    8. Karen Croxson & J. James Reade, 2011. "Exchange vs Dealers: A High-Frequency Analysis of In-Play Betting Prices," Discussion Papers 11-19, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
    9. Sung, Ming-Chien & McDonald, David C.J. & Johnson, Johnnie E.V. & Tai, Chung-Ching & Cheah, Eng-Tuck, 2019. "Improving prediction market forecasts by detecting and correcting possible over-reaction to price movements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(1), pages 389-405.
    10. Smith, Michael A. & Paton, David & Williams, Leighton Vaughan, 2009. "Do bookmakers possess superior skills to bettors in predicting outcomes?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 539-549, August.
    11. David Paton & Donald S. Siegel & Leighton Vaughan Williams, 2009. "The Growth of Gambling and Prediction Markets: Economic and Financial Implications," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 76(302), pages 219-224, April.
    12. Alistair C. Bruce & Johnnie E. V. Johnson & John D. Peirson & Jiejun Yu, 2009. "An Examination of the Determinants of Biased Behaviour in a Market for State Contingent Claims," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 76(302), pages 282-303, April.
    13. Page, Lionel, 2009. "Is there an optimistic bias on betting markets?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 70-72, February.
    14. Meirowitz, Adam, 2005. "Deliberative Democracy or Market Democracy: Designing Institutions to Aggregate Preferences and Information," Papers 03-28-2005, Princeton University, Research Program in Political Economy.
    15. Siemroth, Christoph, 2014. "Why prediction markets work : The role of information acquisition and endogenous weighting," Working Papers 14-02, University of Mannheim, Department of Economics.
    16. Coleman, S., 2010. "Russian Election Reform and the Effect of Social Conformity on Voting and the Party System: 2007 and 2008," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, issue 5, pages 73-90.
    17. Kitsul, Yuriy & Wright, Jonathan H., 2013. "The economics of options-implied inflation probability density functions," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(3), pages 696-711.
    18. Martin Kukuk & Stefan Winter, 2008. "An Alternative Explanation of the Favorite-Longshot Bias," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 2(2), pages 79-96, September.
    19. John Peirson & Michael A. Smith, 2010. "Expert Analysis and Insider Information in Horse Race Betting: Regulating Informed Market Behavior," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 76(4), pages 976-992, April.
    20. Egon Franck & Erwin Verbeek & Stephan Nüesch, 2011. "Sentimental Preferences and the Organizational Regime of Betting Markets," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 78(2), pages 502-518, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Transaction costs; Pricing anomalies; Heterogeneous agents; State-contingent claims; Favorite-longshot bias;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D4 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design
    • G1 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets

    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:eee:finlet:v:23:y:2017:i:c:p:174-178. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/frl .

    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.