IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/gre/wpaper/2020-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Zero-Intelligence vs. Human Agents: An Experimental Analysis of the Efficiency of Double Auctions and Over-the-Counter Markets of Varying Sizes

Author

Listed:
  • Giuseppe Attanasi

    (Université Côte d'Azur
    CNRS, GREDEG, France)

  • Samuele Centorrino

    (Stony Brook University)

  • Elena Manzoni

    (University of Verona)

Abstract

We study two well-known electronic markets: an over-the-counter (OTC) market, in which each agent looks for the best counterpart through bilateral negotiations, and a double auction (DA) market, in which traders post their quotes publicly. We focus on the DA-OTC efficiency gap and show how it varies with different market sizes (10, 20, 40, and 80 traders). We compare experimental results from a sample of 6,400 undergraduate students in Economics with zero-intelligent (ZI) agent-based simulations. Simulations with ZI traders show that the traded quantity (with respect to the efficient one) increases with market size under both DA and OTC. Experimental results with human traders confirm the same tendency under DA, while the share of periods in which the traded quantity is higher (lower) than the efficient one decreases (increases) with market size under OTC, ultimately leading to a DA-OTC efficiency gap increasing with market size. We rationalize these results by putting forward a novel game-theoretical model of OTC market as a repeated bargaining procedure under incomplete information on buyers' valuations and sellers' costs, showing how efficiency decreases slightly with size due to two counteracting effects: acceptance rates in earlier periods decrease with size, and earlier offers increase, but not always enough to compensate the decrease in acceptance rates.

Suggested Citation

  • Giuseppe Attanasi & Samuele Centorrino & Elena Manzoni, 2020. "Zero-Intelligence vs. Human Agents: An Experimental Analysis of the Efficiency of Double Auctions and Over-the-Counter Markets of Varying Sizes," GREDEG Working Papers 2020-10, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
  • Handle: RePEc:gre:wpaper:2020-10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.gredeg.cnrs.fr/working-papers/GREDEG-WP-2020-10.pdf
    File Function: First version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Duffie, Darrell & Malamud, Semyon & Manso, Gustavo, 2014. "Information percolation in segmented markets," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 1-32.
    2. Adam B. Ashcraft & Darrell Duffie, 2007. "Systemic Illiquidity in the Federal Funds Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(2), pages 221-225, May.
    3. Camerer, Colin F & Hogarth, Robin M, 1999. "The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 7-42, December.
    4. Nicholas Bardsley & Robin Cubitt & Graham Loomes & Peter Moffatt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2009. "Experimental Economics: Rethinking the Rules," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 9074, October.
    5. Dhananjay K. Gode & Shyam Sunder, 1997. "What Makes Markets Allocationally Efficient?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 112(2), pages 603-630.
    6. Gode, Dhananjay (Dan) K. & Sunder, Shyam, 2004. "Double auction dynamics: structural effects of non-binding price controls," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 28(9), pages 1707-1731, July.
    7. Darrell Duffie & Semyon Malamud & Gustavo Manso, 2009. "Information Percolation With Equilibrium Search Dynamics," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(5), pages 1513-1574, September.
    8. Raymond Deneckere & Meng-Yu Liang, 2006. "Bargaining with Interdependent Values," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(5), pages 1309-1364, September.
    9. Vernon L. Smith, 1962. "An Experimental Study of Competitive Market Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 70, pages 322-322.
    10. Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), 2008. "Handbook of Experimental Economics Results," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 7, March.
    11. Gresik, Thomas A. & Satterthwaite, Mark A., 1989. "The rate at which a simple market converges to efficiency as the number of traders increases: An asymptotic result for optimal trading mechanisms," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 304-332, June.
    12. Wilson, Robert B, 1985. "Incentive Efficiency of Double Auctions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(5), pages 1101-1115, September.
    13. Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), 2008. "Handbook of Experimental Economics Results," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 4, March.
    14. Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), 2008. "Handbook of Experimental Economics Results," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 2, March.
    15. Olivier Bochet & Simon Siegenthaler, 2018. "Better Later Than Never? An Experiment On Bargaining Under Adverse Selection," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(2), pages 947-971, May.
    16. Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), 2008. "Handbook of Experimental Economics Results," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1, March.
    17. Darrell Duffie & Gustavo Manso, 2007. "Information Percolation in Large Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(2), pages 203-209, May.
    18. Andrew Muller, R. & Mestelman, Stuart & Spraggon, John & Godby, Rob, 2002. "Can Double Auctions Control Monopoly and Monopsony Power in Emissions Trading Markets?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 70-92, July.
    19. Mark A. Satterthwaite & Steven R. Williams, 1989. "The Rate of Convergence to Efficiency in the Buyer's Bid Double Auction as the Market Becomes Large," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 56(4), pages 477-498.
    20. Terrence Hendershott & Ananth Madhavan, 2015. "Click or Call? Auction versus Search in the Over-the-Counter Market," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 70(1), pages 419-447, February.
    21. Kalyan Chatterjee & William Samuelson, 1983. "Bargaining under Incomplete Information," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(5), pages 835-851, October.
    22. 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.
    23. Giuseppe Attanasi & Kene Boun My & Andrea Guido & Mathieu Lefevbre, 2019. "Controlling Monopoly Power in a Classroom Double-Auction Market Experiment," Working Papers of BETA 2019-08, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    24. Gode, Dhananjay K & Sunder, Shyam, 1993. "Allocative Efficiency of Markets with Zero-Intelligence Traders: Market as a Partial Substitute for Individual Rationality," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(1), pages 119-137, February.
    25. Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), 2008. "Handbook of Experimental Economics Results," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 3, March.
    26. Guala,Francesco, 2005. "The Methodology of Experimental Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521618618.
    27. Kyungmin Kim, 2012. "Endogenous market segmentation for lemons," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 43(3), pages 562-576, September.
    28. Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), 2008. "Handbook of Experimental Economics Results," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 8, March.
    29. Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), 2008. "Handbook of Experimental Economics Results," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 5, March.
    30. Bradley J. Ruffle, 2003. "Competitive Equilibrium and Classroom Pit Markets," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(2), pages 123-137, January.
    31. Charles A. Holt, 1996. "Classroom Games: Trading in a Pit Market," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 10(1), pages 193-203, Winter.
    32. Charles A. Holt, 1999. "Teaching Economics with Classroom Experiments: A Symposium," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 65(3), pages 603-610, January.
    33. Darrell Duffie, 2010. "Presidential Address: Asset Price Dynamics with Slow‐Moving Capital," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 65(4), pages 1237-1267, August.
    34. Darrell Duffie, 2012. "Dark Markets: Asset Pricing and Information Transmission in Over-the-Counter Markets," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 9623, October.
    35. Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), 2008. "Handbook of Experimental Economics Results," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 6, March.
    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. Attanasi, Giuseppe & Centorrino, Samuele & Moscati, Ivan, 2016. "Over-the-counter markets vs. double auctions: A comparative experimental study," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 22-35.
    2. Sean Crockett, 2013. "Price Dynamics In General Equilibrium Experiments," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 421-438, July.
    3. Hennig-Schmidt, Heike & Selten, Reinhard & Wiesen, Daniel, 2011. "How payment systems affect physicians' provision behaviour--An experimental investigation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 637-646, July.
    4. Ronald M. Harstad, 2014. "Efficiency Measurement via Revealed Thresholds, Without Knowing Valuations," Working Papers 1405, Department of Economics, University of Missouri, revised 01 Mar 2016.
    5. Oren Bar-Gill & Christoph Engel, 2016. "Bargaining in the Absence of Property Rights: An Experiment," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(2), pages 477-495.
    6. Teemu Pennanen, 2020. "Efficient allocations in double auction markets," Papers 2001.02071, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2021.
    7. Justyna Brzezicka & Radosław Wisniewski, 2014. "Homo Oeconomicus and Behavioral Economics," Contemporary Economics, University of Economics and Human Sciences in Warsaw., vol. 8(4), December.
    8. Alen Nosić & Martin Weber, 2010. "How Riskily Do I Invest? The Role of Risk Attitudes, Risk Perceptions, and Overconfidence," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 282-301, September.
    9. Döring Thomas, 2013. "John Maynard Keynes als Verhaltensökonom – illustriert anhand seiner Analyse des Versailler Vertrags / John Maynard Keynes as Behavioral Economist – Represented by his Analysis of the Treaty of Versai," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 64(1), pages 27-52, January.
    10. Gustavo Caballero, "undated". "Information Effect Regarding Inequality of Opportunities on Redistribution: A Lab Experiment," Working Papers 2014-75, Department of Economics, University of Calgary, revised 15 Oct 2014.
    11. Helland, Leif & Moen, Espen R. & Preugschat, Edgar, 2017. "Information and coordination frictions in experimental posted offer markets," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 53-74.
    12. Mengel, F. & Peeters, R.J.A.P., 2015. "Do markets encourage risk-seeking behaviour?," Research Memorandum 042, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    13. Markstädter, Andreas & Keser, Claudia, 2014. "Informational Asymmetries in Laboratory Asset Markets with State Dependent Fundamentals," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100359, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    14. Thieme, Lutz & Winkelhake, Olaf & Hartmann, Ulrich, 2014. "Fairness als universelle Norm? Empirische Evidenz ohne Manna [Fairness as a universal norm? Empiric evidence without manna]," Working Papers of the European Institute for Socioeconomics 12, European Institute for Socioeconomics (EIS), Saarbrücken.
    15. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2015. "Behavioral political economy: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 395-417.
    16. William Quinn, 2019. "Squeezing the bears: cornering risk and limits on arbitrage during the ‘British bicycle mania’, 1896–8," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 72(4), pages 1286-1311, November.
    17. Paul J. Healy & Sera Linardi & J. Richard Lowery & John O. Ledyard, 2010. "Prediction Markets: Alternative Mechanisms for Complex Environments with Few Traders," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(11), pages 1977-1996, November.
    18. Gregory J Kimmel & Philip Gerlee & Philipp M Altrock, 2019. "Time scales and wave formation in non-linear spatial public goods games," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-22, September.
    19. Anthony Newell & Lionel Page, 2017. "Countercyclical risk aversion and self-reinforcing feedback loops in experimental asset markets," QuBE Working Papers 050, QUT Business School.
    20. Dino J Levy & Amalie C Thavikulwat & Paul W Glimcher, 2013. "State Dependent Valuation: The Effect of Deprivation on Risk Preferences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Market Design; Classroom Experiment; Agent-based Modelling; Game-theoretic Modelling;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • D41 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Perfect Competition
    • D47 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Market Design

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:gre:wpaper:2020-10. 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: (Patrice Bougette). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/credcfr.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 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.