IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bie/wpaper/702.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Belief-neutral efficiency in financial markets

Author

Listed:
  • Beißner, Patrick

    (Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University)

  • Riedel, Frank

    (Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University)

Abstract

Heterogeneous beliefs among market participants can lead to questionable speculative trading that goes beyond any risk-sharing motives. We demonstrate that such unwarranted betting behavior in market equilibrium can be mitigated by introducing nonlinear pricing for ambiguous contracts, without compromising legitimate risk-hedging activities. While Arrow-Debreu equilibria generally fail to achieve belief-neutral efficiency, we establish a modified version of the first welfare theorem in which equilibria with nonlinear prices uphold belief-neutral efficiency. Moreover, we show that belief-neutral efficiency can be ensured by introducing suitable transaction costs for ambiguous financial assets.

Suggested Citation

  • Beißner, Patrick & Riedel, Frank, 2025. "Belief-neutral efficiency in financial markets," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 702, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    • Handle: RePEc:bie:wpaper:702
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/download/3001086/3001087
    File Function: First Version, 2025
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kenneth L. Judd & Felix Kubler & Karl Schmedders, 2003. "Asset Trading Volume with Dynamically Complete Markets and Heterogeneous Agents," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 58(5), pages 2203-2217, October.
    2. Blume, Lawrence E. & Cogley, Timothy & Easley, David A. & Sargent, Thomas J. & Tsyrennikov, Viktor, 2018. "A case for incomplete markets," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 191-221.
    3. David Easley & Maureen O'Hara, 2009. "Ambiguity and Nonparticipation: The Role of Regulation," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(5), pages 1817-1843, May.
    4. Markus K. Brunnermeier & Alp Simsek & Wei Xiong, 2014. "A Welfare Criterion For Models With Distorted Beliefs," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 129(4), pages 1753-1797.
    5. Terrance Odean., 1996. "Volume, Volatility, Price and Profit When All Trader Are Above Average," Research Program in Finance Working Papers RPF-266, University of California at Berkeley.
    6. repec:bla:jfinan:v:58:y:2003:i:5:p:2203-2218 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. repec:bla:jfinan:v:53:y:1998:i:6:p:1887-1934 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Ani Guerdjikova & John Quiggin, 2019. "Market Selection With Differential Financial Constraints," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(5), pages 1693-1762, September.
    2. Eric Danan & Thibault Gajdos & Brian Hill & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2016. "Robust Social Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(9), pages 2407-2425, September.
    3. Carsten Krabbe Nielsen, 2018. "Rational overconfidence and social security: subjective beliefs, objective welfare," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 65(2), pages 179-229, March.
    4. Buss, Adrian & Dumas, Bernard & Uppal, Raman & Vilkov, Grigory, 2016. "The intended and unintended consequences of financial-market regulations: A general-equilibrium analysis," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 25-43.
    5. Daniela Cagno & Daniela Grieco, 2023. "Insurance Choices and Sources of Ambiguity," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 9(1), pages 295-319, March.
    6. Tarek A. Hassan & Thomas M. Mertens, 2017. "The Social Cost of Near-Rational Investment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(4), pages 1059-1103, April.
    7. Johannes Brumm & Michael Grill & Felix Kubler & Karl Schmedders, 2023. "Re-use of collateral: Leverage, volatility, and welfare," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 47, pages 19-46, January.
    8. Heimer, Rawley & Simsek, Alp, 2019. "Should retail investors’ leverage be limited?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(3), pages 1-21.
    9. Steven D Baker & Burton Hollifield & Emilio Osambela, 2020. "Preventing Controversial Catastrophes," The Review of Asset Pricing Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 10(1), pages 1-60.
    10. Kaname Miyagishima, 2022. "Efficiency, equity, and social rationality under uncertainty," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 73(1), pages 237-255, February.
    11. Patrick Beissner & Frank Riedel, 2016. "Knight--Walras Equilibria," Papers 1605.04385, arXiv.org.
    12. Philippe Mongin & Marcus Pivato, 2020. "Social preference under twofold uncertainty," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 70(3), pages 633-663, October.
    13. Crès, Hervé & Tvede, Mich, 2018. "Regulation of trades based on differences in beliefs," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 133-141.
    14. Guerdjikova, A. & Quiggin, J., 2020. "Financial market equilibrium with bounded awareness," Working Papers 2020-10, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    15. Steven D. Baker & Burton Hollifield & Emilio Osambela, 2018. "Preventing Controversial Catastrophes," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2018-052, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    16. Christian Heyerdahl-Larsen & Johan Walden, 2023. "On efficiency in disagreement economies," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(4), pages 763-799, November.
    17. Takashi Hayashi & Michele Lombardi, 2019. "Fair social decision under uncertainty and belief disagreements," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 67(4), pages 775-816, June.
    18. ÅžimÅŸek, Alp, 2021. "The Macroeconomics of Financial Speculation," CEPR Discussion Papers 15733, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Snehal Banerjee & Jesse Davis & Naveen Gondhi, 2024. "Choosing to Disagree: Endogenous Dismissiveness and Overconfidence in Financial Markets," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 79(2), pages 1635-1695, April.
    20. Rawley Z. Heimer & Alp Simsek, 2017. "Should Retail Investors' Leverage Be Limited?," NBER Working Papers 24176, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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:bie:wpaper:702. 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: Bettina Weingarten (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/imbiede.html .

    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.