IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/dui/wpaper/0901.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Efficiency versus Robustness of Markets - Why improving market efficiency should not be the only objective of market regulation

Author

Listed:
  • Christoph Weber

    (Chair for Management Sciences and Energy Economics, University of Duisburg-Essen)

Abstract

The efficiency of capital markets has been questioned almost as long as the efficient market hypothesis had been worked out. Numerous critics have been formulated against this hypothesis, questioning notably the behavioural assumptions underlying the efficient market hypothesis. The present contribution does not focus on the behavioural assumptions but rather looks at the implications of focusing purely on the objective of market efficiency when considering market design questions. Hence it aims at discussing the following, possibly rather fundamental issue: Is the objective of efficiency, which has guided most of the market reforms in the last decades, sufficient? Or has it to be complemented by the objective of robustness? Mathematical and engineering control theory has developed the concept of robust control (e.g. Zhou and Doyle, 1998) and it has been shown that there is always a trade-off between the efficiency of a control system and its robustness (cf. e.g. Safonov, 1981, Doyle et al., 1988). The efficiency of the system describes its reactions to disturbance signals. The lower the integral loss function over the so-called transfer or sensitivity function, the less a system is affected by disturbances such as demand fluctuations, and the more efficient is the control. The economic equivalent clearly is the maximisation of welfare, which results in an efficient economic system. Robustness by contrast is defined as stability of the control system in the presence of model uncertainty (deviations in the model parameters or misperceptions of the underlying system). These concepts are applied to the financial markets in their interaction with the real economy. The financial markets being understood as the controllers of real world activity through investments, the implications of misperceptions in the financial sphere are analysed both theoretically and in an application example. From the theory it may readily derived that financial markets providing efficient, i.e. welfare-optimal solutions, must have limitations with respect to robustness. Also in the application example it turns out that in the presence of potential misperception a reduction of irreversible cost shares in investments may lead to an increase in overall expected system costs. Hence improvements in (conventional) market efficiency may be counter-productive by facilitating misallocation of capital as a consequence of misperceptions in the financial markets. This leads to the conclusion that a sole focus on the efficiency objective in market design is problematic and some of the recent turmoil in financial markets may be explained by the lack of consideration given to robustness issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Christoph Weber, 2009. "Efficiency versus Robustness of Markets - Why improving market efficiency should not be the only objective of market regulation," EWL Working Papers 0901, University of Duisburg-Essen, Chair for Management Science and Energy Economics, revised May 2009.
  • Handle: RePEc:dui:wpaper:0901
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.wiwi.uni-due.de/fileadmin/fileupload/BWL-ENERGIE/Arbeitspapiere/RePEc/pdf/wp0901_Weber_Robustness_vs_Efficiency_May2009.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2009
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kent Daniel & David Hirshleifer & Avanidhar Subrahmanyam, 1998. "Investor Psychology and Security Market Under- and Overreactions," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 53(6), pages 1839-1885, December.
    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. Berg, Joyce E. & Rietz, Thomas A., 2019. "Longshots, overconfidence and efficiency on the Iowa Electronic Market," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 271-287.
    2. David Hirshleifer & Danling Jiang, 2010. "A Financing-Based Misvaluation Factor and the Cross-Section of Expected Returns," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 23(9), pages 3401-3436.
    3. Bryce, Cormac & Dowling, Michael & Lucey, Brian, 2020. "The journal quality perception gap," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    4. Siddiqi, Hammad, 2015. "Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic: A Unified Explanation for Equity Puzzles," MPRA Paper 68729, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Daniel Konku & Vivek Bhargava, 2012. "IPO underpricing and their determinants: penny stocks versus non-penny stocks," Afro-Asian Journal of Finance and Accounting, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(1), pages 69-88.
    6. repec:dau:papers:123456789/2256 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Tobias J. Moskowitz & Mark Grinblatt, 2002. "What Do We Really Know About the Cross-Sectional Relation Between Past and Expected Returns?," Yale School of Management Working Papers ysm259, Yale School of Management.
    8. John H. Cochrane, 1999. "New facts in finance," Economic Perspectives, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, vol. 23(Q III), pages 36-58.
    9. Herz, Holger & Schunk, Daniel & Zehnder, Christian, 2014. "How do judgmental overconfidence and overoptimism shape innovative activity?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 1-23.
    10. Chue, Timothy K. & Gul, Ferdinand A. & Mian, G. Mujtaba, 2019. "Aggregate investor sentiment and stock return synchronicity," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    11. Hou, Yang & Meng, Jiayin, 2018. "The momentum effect in the Chinese market and its relationship with the simultaneous and the lagged investor sentiment," MPRA Paper 94838, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Jonathan F Schulz & Christian Thöni, 2016. "Overconfidence and Career Choice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-8, January.
    13. Malay K. Dey & B. Radhakrishna (Radha), 2007. "Who Trades Around Earnings Announcements? Evidence from TORQ Data," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1‐2), pages 269-291, January.
    14. Mohamed KHALED, 2018. "apport du biais d’excès de confiance à l’explication de la volatilité des rendements du marché des actions algérien," Journal of Academic Finance, RED research unit, university of Gabes, Tunisia, vol. 9(2), pages 36-46, December.
    15. Sheridan Titman & Chishen Wei. Wei & Bin Zhao, 2021. "Corporate Actions and the Manipulation of Retail Investors in China: An Analysis of Stock Splits," NBER Working Papers 29212, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Kobana Abukari & Isaac Otchere, 2020. "Dominance of hybrid contratum strategies over momentum and contrarian strategies: half a century of evidence," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 34(4), pages 471-505, December.
    17. Halim, Edward & Riyanto, Yohanes Eko & Roy, Nilanjan, 2016. "Price Dynamics and Consumption Smoothing in Experimental Asset Markets," MPRA Paper 71631, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. repec:esx:essedp:770 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Stefano DellaVigna & Joshua M. Pollet, 2005. "Attention, Demographics, and the Stock Market," NBER Working Papers 11211, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. repec:dau:papers:123456789/11681 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Chen, Zhuo & Lu, Andrea, 2017. "Slow diffusion of information and price momentum in stocks: Evidence from options markets," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 98-108.
    22. Chris Stivers & Licheng Sun, 2013. "Market Cycles and the Performance of Relative Strength Strategies," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 42(2), pages 263-290, June.
    23. Gao, Bin & Liu, Xihua, 2020. "Intraday sentiment and market returns," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 48-62.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    market efficiency; robustness; optimal control; stochastic dynamic growth;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • E20 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Consumption, Saving, Production, Employment, and Investment - - - General (includes Measurement and Data)
    • G14 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Information and Market Efficiency; Event Studies; Insider Trading
    • Q40 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - General

    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:dui:wpaper:0901. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fwessde.html .

    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: Andreas Fritz (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fwessde.html .

    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.