IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/cfripp/v1y2011i2p133-151.html

The effect of differentiated margin on futures market investors' behavior and structure

Author

Listed:
  • Jin‐hui Luo
  • Di‐fang Wan
  • Yang Yang
  • Guang Yang

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to empirically analyze the role of differentiated margin system in leading investors' investing behavior and then optimize investor structure in futures markets. Design/methodology/approach - Using economic experimental research method, this paper designs and conducts a futures market experiment according to experimental research's basic norms, thus acquiring needed and credible empirical data. Findings - By analyzing the experimental data, it is found that compared with situations in futures markets that implement uniform margin system, investors' (especially speculators') futures open position and the ratio of their open position and futures turnover are both significantly higher, in futures markets that implement differentiated margin system. On the other hand, differentiated margin system has no effects on hedgers' futures turnover, but significantly reduces speculators' futures turnover. Research limitations/implications - The findings suggest that compared with uniform margin system, differentiated margin system is beneficial to effectively restrict both speculators' and hedgers' speculating behavior and lead hedgers' market participation. Practical implications - In order to resolve the problem of unreasonable investor structure in China's futures market, i.e. lack of hedgers and over‐speculating, China's futures market's regulators should reform the margin system and adopt differentiated margin system to lead investors' rational behavior and optimize investor structure. Originality/value - This paper empirically analyzes and verifies, for the first time, the roles of differentiated margin system in affecting investors' investing behavior. The futures market experiment designed and used in this study is a pioneering and exploratory experiment.

Suggested Citation

  • Jin‐hui Luo & Di‐fang Wan & Yang Yang & Guang Yang, 2011. "The effect of differentiated margin on futures market investors' behavior and structure," China Finance Review International, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 1(2), pages 133-151, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eme:cfripp:v:1:y:2011:i:2:p:133-151
    DOI: 10.1108/20441391111100723
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/20441391111100723/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/20441391111100723/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/20441391111100723?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. S. Berninghaus & W. Güth, 2007. "Experimental Economics," Chapters, in: Horst Hanusch & Andreas Pyka (ed.), Elgar Companion to Neo-Schumpeterian Economics, chapter 66, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. 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.
    3. Kimball, Miles S & Sahm, Claudia R & Shapiro, Matthew D, 2008. "Imputing Risk Tolerance From Survey Responses," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 103(483), pages 1028-1038.
    4. Friedman,Daniel & Sunder,Shyam, 1994. "Experimental Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521456821, Enero-Abr.
    5. Reinhard Selten & Michael Mitzkewitz & Gerald R. Uhlich, 1997. "Duopoly Strategies Programmed by Experienced Players," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 517-556, May.
    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. Ubeda, Paloma, 2014. "The consistency of fairness rules: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 88-100.
    2. Matthew McGinty & Garrett Milam & Alejandro Gelves, 2012. "Coalition Stability in Public Goods Provision: Testing an Optimal Allocation Rule," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 52(3), pages 327-345, July.
    3. Dufwenberg, Martin & Gächter, Simon & Hennig-Schmidt, Heike, 2011. "The framing of games and the psychology of play," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 459-478.
    4. Catherine Roux & Christian Thöni, 2015. "Do control questions influence behavior in experiments?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 185-194, June.
    5. Lisa Bruttel & Werner Güth & Ulrich Kamecke, 2012. "Finitely repeated prisoners’ dilemma experiments without a commonly known end," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 41(1), pages 23-47, February.
    6. Bennouri, Moez & Gimpel, Henner & Robert, Jacques, 2011. "Measuring the impact of information aggregation mechanisms: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 302-318, May.
    7. Matthew Embrey & Friederike Mengel & Ronald Peeters, 2019. "Strategy revision opportunities and collusion," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(4), pages 834-856, December.
    8. Andrea Morone & Pasquale Marcello Falcone & Simone Nuzzo & Piergiuseppe Morone, 2020. "Does a ‘financial transaction tax’ drive out information mirages? An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 15(4), pages 793-820, October.
    9. Argenton, Cédric & Ivanova-Stenzel, Radosveta & Müller, Wieland, 2024. "Cournot meets Bayes-Nash: A discontinuity in behavior in finitely repeated duopoly games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 1-12.
    10. Martin Dufwenberg & Simon Gaechter & Heike Hennig-Schmidt, 2006. "The Framing of Games and the Psychology of Strategic Choice," Discussion Papers 2006-20, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    11. Matthew W. McCarter & Anya C. Samak & Roman M. Sheremeta, 2014. "Divided Loyalists or Conditional Cooperators? Creating Consensus about Cooperation in Multiple Simultaneous Social Dilemmas," Working Papers 14-16, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    12. Hironori Otsubo, 2013. "Do campaign spending limits diminish competition? An experiment," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 33(3), pages 2223-2234.
    13. Ernesto Reuben & Sigrid Suetens, 2018. "Instrumental Reciprocity as an Error," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-9, September.
    14. Ding, Shuze & Lugovskyy, Volodymyr & Puzzello, Daniela & Tucker, Steven & Williams, Arlington, 2018. "Cash versus extra-credit incentives in experimental asset markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 19-27.
    15. Cason, Timothy N. & Mui, Vai-Lam, 2019. "Individual versus group choices of repeated game strategies: A strategy method approach," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 128-145.
    16. Bigoni, Maria & Fort, Margherita, 2013. "Information and learning in oligopoly: An experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 192-214.
    17. Ernesto Reuben & Sigrid Suetens, 2012. "Revisiting strategic versus non-strategic cooperation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(1), pages 24-43, March.
    18. Matthew Embrey & Friederike Mengel & Ronald Peeters, 2016. "Strategy Revision Opportunities and Collusion," Working Paper Series 8716, Department of Economics, University of Sussex.
    19. Nuriddin Ikromov & Abdullah Yavas, 2012. "Cash Flow Volatility, Prices and Price Volatility: An Experimental Study," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 203-229, January.
    20. Gerhardt, Holger & Schildberg-Hörisch, Hannah & Willrodt, Jana, 2017. "Does self-control depletion affect risk attitudes?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 463-487.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eme:cfripp:v:1:y:2011:i:2:p:133-151. 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: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.