IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/inn/wpaper/2008-20.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Bubbles and information: An experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Matthias Sutter
  • Jürgen Huber
  • Michael Kirchler

Abstract

We study whether information about imminent future dividends can abate bubbles in experimental asset markets. Using the seminal design of Smith et al. (1988) we find that markets where traders are asymmetrically informed about future dividends have smaller, and shorter, bubbles than markets with symmetrically informed or uninformed traders. Hence, fundamental values are better reflected in market prices - implying higher market efficiency - when some traders know more than others about the future prospects of an asset. We also find that asymmetric information has a similar abating impact on bubbles as when uninformed traders accumulate experience, though for different reasons.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthias Sutter & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler, 2008. "Bubbles and information: An experiment," Working Papers 2008-20, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
  • Handle: RePEc:inn:wpaper:2008-20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www2.uibk.ac.at/downloads/c4041030/wpaper/2008-20.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lei, Vivian & Noussair, Charles N & Plott, Charles R, 2001. "Nonspeculative Bubbles in Experimental Asset Markets: Lack of Common Knowledge of Rationality vs. Actual Irrationality," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(4), pages 831-859, July.
    2. Bloomfield, Robert & O'Hara, Maureen & Saar, Gideon, 2005. "The "make or take" decision in an electronic market: Evidence on the evolution of liquidity," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 165-199, January.
    3. Beck, Nathaniel & Katz, Jonathan N., 1995. "What To Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(3), pages 634-647, September.
    4. Ernan Haruvy & Yaron Lahav & Charles N. Noussair, 2007. "Traders' Expectations in Asset Markets: Experimental Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1901-1920, December.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Charles Noussair & Steven Tucker, 2006. "Futures Markets And Bubble Formation In Experimental Asset Markets," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 11(2), pages 167-184, June.
    8. Fama, Eugene F, 1970. "Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 25(2), pages 383-417, May.
    9. Porter, David P & Smith, Vernon L, 1995. "Futures Contracting and Dividend Uncertainty in Experimental Asset Markets," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 68(4), pages 509-541, October.
    10. Kyle, Albert S, 1985. "Continuous Auctions and Insider Trading," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(6), pages 1315-1335, November.
    11. Charles R. Schnitzlein, 2002. "Price Formation and Market Quality When the Number and Presence of Insiders Is Unknown," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 15(4), pages 1077-1109.
    12. Martin Dufwenberg & Tobias Lindqvist & Evan Moore, 2005. "Bubbles and Experience: An Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1731-1737, December.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Harrison Hong & Jeremy C. Stein, 1999. "A Unified Theory of Underreaction, Momentum Trading, and Overreaction in Asset Markets," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 54(6), pages 2143-2184, December.
    16. Robert Bloomfield & Maureen O'Hara & Gideon Saar, 2009. "How Noise Trading Affects Markets: An Experimental Analysis," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(6), pages 2275-2302, June.
    17. Thomas Stöckl & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler, 2010. "Bubble measures in experimental asset markets," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(3), pages 284-298, September.
    18. Charles Noussair & Stephane Robin & Bernard Ruffieux, 2001. "Price Bubbles in Laboratory Asset Markets with Constant Fundamental Values," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 4(1), pages 87-105, June.
    19. Greiner, Ben, 2004. "An Online Recruitment System for Economic Experiments," MPRA Paper 13513, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Van Boening, Mark V. & Williams, Arlington W. & LaMaster, Shawn, 1993. "Price bubbles and crashes in experimental call markets," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 179-185.
    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. Michael Kirchler & Jurgen Huber & Thomas Stockl, 2012. "Thar She Bursts: Reducing Confusion Reduces Bubbles," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(2), pages 865-883, April.
    2. Oechssler, Jörg & Schmidt, Carsten & Schnedler, Wendelin, 2011. "On the ingredients for bubble formation: Informed traders and communication," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 1831-1851.
    3. Bousselmi, Wael & Sentis, Patrick & Willinger, Marc, 2019. "How do markets react to (un)expected fundamental value shocks? An experimental analysis," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 90-113.
    4. Cheung, Stephen L. & Hedegaard, Morten & Palan, Stefan, 2014. "To see is to believe: Common expectations in experimental asset markets," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 84-96.
    5. Huan Xie & Jipeng Zhang, 2016. "Bubbles and experience: An experiment with a steady inflow of new traders," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(4), pages 1349-1373, April.
    6. Thomas Stöckl & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler, 2015. "Multi-period experimental asset markets with distinct fundamental value regimes," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 314-334, June.
    7. Utz Weitzel & Christoph Huber & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler & Florian Lindner & Julia Rose & Lauren Cohen, 2020. "Bubbles and Financial Professionals [Margin, short sell, and lotteries in experimental asset markets]," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 33(6), pages 2659-2696.
    8. Fischbacher, Urs & Hens, Thorsten & Zeisberger, Stefan, 2013. "The impact of monetary policy on stock market bubbles and trading behavior: Evidence from the lab," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 2104-2122.
    9. Kirchler, Michael, 2009. "Underreaction to fundamental information and asymmetry in mispricing between bullish and bearish markets. An experimental study," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 491-506, February.
    10. Enrica Carbone & John Hey & Tibor Neugebauer, 2021. "An Experimental Comparison of Two Exchange Economies: Long-Lived Asset vs. Short-Lived Asset," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(11), pages 6946-6962, November.
    11. Nuzzo, Simone & Morone, Andrea, 2017. "Asset markets in the lab: A literature review," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 42-50.
    12. Halim, Edward & Riyanto, Yohanes E. & Roy, Nilanjan, 2022. "Sharing idiosyncratic risk even though prices are “wrong”," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    13. Eizo Akiyama & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Ryuichiro Ishikawa, 2017. "It is Not Just Confusion! Strategic Uncertainty in An Experimental Asset Market," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(605), pages 563-580, October.
    14. Razen, Michael & Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael, 2017. "Cash inflow and trading horizon in asset markets," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 359-384.
    15. Zhengyang Bao & Andreas Leibbrandt & ple391, 2019. "Thar she resurges: The case of assets that lack positive fundamental value," Monash Economics Working Papers 12-19, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    16. Keser, Claudia & Markstädter, Andreas, 2014. "Informational asymmetries in laboratory asset markets with state-dependent fundamentals," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 207 [rev.], University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    17. Baghestanian, Sascha & Walker, Todd B., 2015. "Anchoring in experimental asset markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 15-25.
    18. Michael Razen & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler, 2016. "Cash Inflow and Trading Horizon in Asset Markets," Working Papers 2016-06, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    19. Marquardt, Philipp & Noussair, Charles N & Weber, Martin, 2019. "Rational expectations in an experimental asset market with shocks to market trends," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 116-140.
    20. Stephen L. Cheung & Andrew Coleman, 2014. "Relative Performance Incentives and Price Bubbles in Experimental Asset Markets," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 81(2), pages 345-363, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Bubbles; information; experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    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:inn:wpaper:2008-20. 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: Janette Walde (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fuibkat.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.