IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/finmar/v4y2001i2p185-208.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An experimental study of circuit breakers: The effects of mandated market closures and temporary halts on market behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Ackert, Lucy F.
  • Church, Bryan
  • Jayaraman, Narayanan

Abstract

This paper analyzes the effect of circuit breakers on price behavior, trading volume, and profit-making ability in a market setting. We conduct nine experimental asset markets to compare behavior across three regulatory regimes: market closure, temporary halt, and no interruption. The presence of a circuit breaker rule does not affect the magnitude of the absolute deviation in price from fundamental value or trading profit. The primary driver of behavior is information asymmetry in the market. By comparison, trading activity is significantly affected by the presence of a circuit breaker. Mandated market closures cause market participants to advance trades.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Ackert, Lucy F. & Church, Bryan & Jayaraman, Narayanan, 2001. "An experimental study of circuit breakers: The effects of mandated market closures and temporary halts on market behavior," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 185-208, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:finmar:v:4:y:2001:i:2:p:185-208
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386-4181(00)00020-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Forsythe, Robert & Palfrey, Thomas R & Plott, Charles R, 1984. " Futures Markets and Informational Efficiency: A Laboratory Examination," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 39(4), pages 955-981, September.
    2. Cason, Timothy N. & Friedman, Daniel, 1996. "Price formation in double auction markets," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 20(8), pages 1307-1337, August.
    3. Subrahmanyam, Avanidhar, 1994. " Circuit Breakers and Market Volatility: A Theoretical Perspective," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 49(1), pages 237-254, March.
    4. Sunder, Shyam, 1992. "Market for Information: Experimental Evidence," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(3), pages 667-695, May.
    5. Christopher K. Ma & Ramesh P. Rao & R. Stephen Sears, 1989. "Limit moves and price resolution: The case of the treasury bond futures market," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(4), pages 321-335, August.
    6. Greenwald, Bruce C & Stein, Jeremy C, 1991. "Transactional Risk, Market Crashes, and the Role of Circuit Breakers," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 64(4), pages 443-462, October.
    7. Ackert, Lucy F. & Church, Bryan K., 1998. "Information dissemination and the distribution of wealth: Evidence from experimental asset markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 357-371, November.
    8. Grossman, Sanford J & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1980. "On the Impossibility of Informationally Efficient Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 393-408, June.
    9. Grossman, Sanford J & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1976. "Information and Competitive Price Systems," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 66(2), pages 246-253, May.
    10. Isaac, R Mark & Plott, Charles R, 1981. "Price Controls and the Behavior of Auction Markets: An Experimental Examination," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(3), pages 448-459, June.
    11. Smith, Vernon L & Williams, Arlington W, 1981. "On Nonbinding Price Controls in a Competitive Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(3), pages 467-474, June.
    12. Williams, Arlington W, 1980. "Computerized Double-Auction Markets: Some Initial Experimental Results," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(3), pages 235-258, July.
    13. G. J. Santoni & Tung Liu, 1993. "Circuit breakers and stock market volatility," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(3), pages 261-277, May.
    14. Gerety, Mason S & Mulherin, J Harold, 1992. " Trading Halts and Market Activity: An Analysis of Volume at the Open and the Close," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 47(5), pages 1765-1784, December.
    15. Copeland, Thomas E & Friedman, Daniel, 1992. "The Market Value of Information: Some Experimental Results," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(2), pages 241-266, April.
    16. Forsythe, Robert & Palfrey, Thomas R & Plott, Charles R, 1982. "Asset Valuation in an Experimental Market," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(3), pages 537-567, May.
    17. Kyle, Albert S, 1985. "Continuous Auctions and Insider Trading," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(6), pages 1315-1335, November.
    18. Ackert, Lucy F. & Church, Bryan K. & Shehata, Mohamed, 1997. "Market behavior in the presence of costly, imperfect information: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 61-74, May.
    19. Subrahmanyam, Avanidhar, 1995. "On rules versus discretion in procedures to halt trade," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 1-16, February.
    20. Smith, Vernon L & Suchanek, Gerry L & Williams, Arlington W, 1988. "Bubbles, Crashes, and Endogenous Expectations in Experimental Spot Asset Markets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(5), pages 1119-1151, September.
    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. Lucy F. Ackert & Bryan K. Church & Narayanan Jayaraman, 2002. "Circuit breakers with uncertainty about the presence of informed agents: I know what you know . . . I think," FRB Atlanta Working Paper 2002-25, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
    2. James Brugler & Oliver Linton, 2014. "Circuit Breakers on the London Stock Exchange: Do they improve subsequent market quality?," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1453, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    3. Hai-Chuan Xu & Wei Zhang & Yi-Fang Liu, 2013. "Short-term Market Reaction after Trading Halts in Chinese Stock Market," Papers 1309.1138, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2014.
    4. Xu, Hai-Chuan & Zhang, Wei & Liu, Yi-Fang, 2014. "Short-term market reaction after trading halts in Chinese stock market," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 401(C), pages 103-111.
    5. James Brugler & Oliver Linton, 2014. "Single stock circuit breakers on the London Stock Exchange: do they improve subsequent market quality?," CeMMAP working papers CWP07/14, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    6. Michael A. Goldstein & Kenneth A. Kavajecz, "undated". "Liquidity Provision during Circuit Breakers and Extreme Market Movements," Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research Working Papers 1-00, Wharton School Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research.
    7. Daphne Yan Du & Qianqiu Liu & S. Ghon Rhee, 2009. "An Analysis of the Magnet Effect under Price Limits-super-," International Review of Finance, International Review of Finance Ltd., vol. 9(1-2), pages 83-110.
    8. Dean Johnson & Patrick Joyce, 2012. "Bubbles and Crashes Revisited," Review of Economics & Finance, Better Advances Press, Canada, vol. 2, pages 29-42, August.
    9. Darren Duxbury, 2005. "Experimental evidence on trading behavior, market efficiency and price formation in double auctions with unknown trading duration," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(8), pages 475-497.
    10. Hsieh, Ping-Hung & Kim, Yong H. & Yang, J. Jimmy, 2009. "The magnet effect of price limits: A logit approach," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 830-837, December.

    More about this item

    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:finmar:v:4:y:2001:i:2:p:185-208. 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/finmar .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.