IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v154y2018icp286-320.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Information (non)aggregation in markets with costly signal acquisition

Author

Listed:
  • Corgnet, Brice
  • Deck, Cary
  • DeSantis, Mark
  • Porter, David

Abstract

Markets are often viewed as a tool for aggregating disparate private knowledge, a stance supported by past laboratory experiments. However, traders' acquisition cost of information has typically been ignored. Results from a laboratory experiment involving six treatments varying the cost of acquiring signals of an asset's value suggest that when information is costly, markets do not succeed in aggregating it. At an individual level, having information improves trading performance, but not enough to offset the cost of obtaining the information. Although males earn more through trading than females, this differential is offset by the greater propensity of males to buy information such that total profit is similar for males and females. Looking at individual skills, we find that higher theory of mind is associated with greater trading profit, greater overall profit, and an increased likelihood of acquiring information while cognitive reflection is associated with greater profit but not a greater propensity to acquire information.

Suggested Citation

  • Corgnet, Brice & Deck, Cary & DeSantis, Mark & Porter, David, 2018. "Information (non)aggregation in markets with costly signal acquisition," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 286-320.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:154:y:2018:i:c:p:286-320
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2018.08.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268118302105
    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. Jacobsen, Ben & Potters, Jan & Schram, Arthur & van Winden, Frans & Wit, Jorgen, 2000. "(In)accuracy of a European political stock market: The influence of common value structures," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 205-230, February.
    2. Lintner, John, 1969. "The Aggregation of Investor's Diverse Judgments and Preferences in Purely Competitive Security Markets," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(04), pages 347-400, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Plott, Charles R & Sunder, Shyam, 1988. "Rational Expectations and the Aggregation of Diverse Information in Laboratory Security Markets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(5), pages 1085-1118, September.
    5. Sunder, Shyam, 1992. "Market for Information: Experimental Evidence," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(3), pages 667-695, May.
    6. Cary Deck & David Porter, 2013. "Prediction Markets In The Laboratory," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 589-603, July.
    7. Florian Hauser & Jürgen Huber & Bob Kaempff, 2015. "Costly Information in Markets with Heterogeneous Agents: A Model with Genetic Programming," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 46(2), pages 205-229, August.
    8. Brice Corgnet & Roberto Hernán-González & Praveen Kujal & David Porter, 2015. "The Effect of Earned Versus House Money on Price Bubble Formation in Experimental Asset Markets," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 19(4), pages 1455-1488.
    9. Oechssler, Jörg & Roider, Andreas & Schmitz, Patrick W., 2009. "Cognitive abilities and behavioral biases," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 147-152, October.
    10. 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.
    11. Darrell Duffie & Semyon Malamud & Gustavo Manso, 2009. "Information Percolation With Equilibrium Search Dynamics," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(5), pages 1513-1574, September.
    12. Peter Bossaerts & Cary Frydman & John Ledyard, 2014. "The Speed of Information Revelation and Eventual Price Quality in Markets with Insiders: Comparing Two Theories," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 18(1), pages 1-22.
    13. Lucy F. Ackert & Bryan K. Church & Richard Deaves, 2002. "Bubbles in experimental asset markets: Irrational exuberance no more," FRB Atlanta Working Paper 2002-24, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
    14. Cabrales, Antonio & Gossner, Olivier & Serrano, Roberto, 2017. "A normalized value for information purchases," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 266-288.
    15. repec:ucp:jpolec:doi:10.1086/692714 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Antoine J. Bruguier & Steven R. Quartz & Peter Bossaerts, 2010. "Exploring the Nature of "Trader Intuition"," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 65(5), pages 1703-1723, October.
    17. Hanson, Robin & Oprea, Ryan & Porter, David, 2006. "Information aggregation and manipulation in an experimental market," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 449-459, August.
    18. Bruno Biais & Denis Hilton & Karine Mazurier & Sébastien Pouget, 2005. "Judgemental Overconfidence, Self-Monitoring, and Trading Performance in an Experimental Financial Market," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 72(2), pages 287-312.
    19. repec:spr:infosf:v:5:y:2003:i:1:d:10.1023_a:1022002107255 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Anderson, Lisa R & Holt, Charles A, 1997. "Information Cascades in the Laboratory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(5), pages 847-862, December.
    21. Ernan Haruvy & Charles N. Noussair, 2006. "The Effect of Short Selling on Bubbles and Crashes in Experimental Spot Asset Markets," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 61(3), pages 1119-1157, June.
    22. Emmanuel Dechenaux & Dan Kovenock & Roman Sheremeta, 2015. "A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(4), pages 609-669, December.
    23. Camerer, Colin & Dreber, Anna & Forsell, Eskil & Ho, Teck-Hua & Huber, Jurgen & Johannesson, Magnus & Kirchler, Michael & Almenberg, Johan & Altmejd, Adam & Chan, Taizan & Heikensten, Emma & Holzmeist, 2016. "Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in Economics," MPRA Paper 75461, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    24. Noussair, C.N. & Tucker, S. & Xu, Yilong, 2014. "A Future Market Reduces Bubbles but Allows Greater Profit for More Sophisticated Traders," Discussion Paper 2014-051, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    25. 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.
    26. Helena Veiga & Marc Vorsatz, 2010. "Information aggregation in experimental asset markets in the presence of a manipulator," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(4), pages 379-398, December.
    27. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    28. Forsythe, Robert & Lundholm, Russell, 1990. "Information Aggregation in an Experimental Market," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(2), pages 309-347, March.
    29. 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.
    30. Robin Hanson & Ryan Oprea, 2009. "A Manipulator Can Aid Prediction Market Accuracy," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 76(302), pages 304-314, April.
    31. Andreas Hefti & Steve Heinke & Frédéric Schneider, 2016. "Mental capabilities, trading styles, and asset market bubbles: theory and experiment," ECON - Working Papers 234, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    32. Brice Corgnet & Mark DeSantis & David Porter, 2015. "Revisiting Information Aggregation in Asset Markets: Reflective Learning & Market Efficiency," Working Papers 15-15, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    33. Jürgen Huber & Martin Angerer & Michael Kirchler, 2011. "Experimental asset markets with endogenous choice of costly asymmetric information," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(2), pages 223-240, May.
    34. repec:reg:rpubli:460 is not listed on IDEAS
    35. Kirchler, Michael, 2010. "Partial knowledge is a dangerous thing - On the value of asymmetric fundamental information in asset markets," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 643-658, August.
    36. Page, Lionel & Siemroth, Christoph, 2017. "An experimental analysis of information acquisition in prediction markets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 354-378.
    37. 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.
    38. Huber, Jurgen, 2007. "`J'-shaped returns to timing advantage in access to information - Experimental evidence and a tentative explanation," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 31(8), pages 2536-2572, August.
    39. Hauser, Florian & Huber, Jürgen, 2012. "Short-selling constraints as cause for price distortions: An experimental study," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 1279-1298.
    40. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Prediction markets; Information acquisition; Laboratory experiments; Behavioral finance;

    JEL classification:

    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
    • 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:jeborg:v:154:y:2018:i:c:p:286-320. 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/jebo .

    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.