IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Why prediction markets work : The role of information acquisition and endogenous weighting

Listed author(s):
  • Siemroth, Christoph

In prediction markets, investors trade assets whose values are contingent on the occurrence of future events, like election outcomes. Prediction market prices have been shown to be consistently accurate forecasts of these outcomes, but we don't know why. I formally illustrate an information acquisition explanation. Traders with more wealth to invest have stronger incentives to acquire information about the outcome, thus tend to have better forecasts. Moreover, their trades have larger weight in the market. The interaction implies that a few well-endowed traders can move the asset price toward the true value. One implication for institutions aggregating information is to put more weight on votes of agents with larger stakes, which improves on equal weighting, unless prior distribution accuracy and stakes are negatively related.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: https://ub-madoc.bib.uni-mannheim.de/35257/1/Christoph_Siemroth_14-02.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University of Mannheim, Department of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 14-02.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 2014
Handle: RePEc:mnh:wpaper:35257
Contact details of provider: Postal:
68131 Mannheim

Phone: +49 621 181 1776
Fax: +49 621 181 1774
Web page: http://www2.vwl.uni-mannheim.de/10.1.html
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  1. Manski, Charles F., 2006. "Interpreting the predictions of prediction markets," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 425-429, June.
  2. Forsythe, Robert & Forrest Nelson & George R. Neumann & Jack Wright, 1992. "Anatomy of an Experimental Political Stock Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(5), pages 1142-1161, December.
  3. Verrecchia, Robert E, 1982. "Information Acquisition in a Noisy Rational Expectations Economy," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(6), pages 1415-1430, November.
  4. Erik Snowberg & Justin Wolfers, 2010. "Explaining the Favorite-Long Shot Bias: Is it Risk-Love or Misperceptions?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 118(4), pages 723-746, 08.
  5. John K.H. Quah, 2003. "The Law of Demand and Risk Aversion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(2), pages 713-721, March.
  6. Gadi Barlevy & Pietro Veronesi, 2000. "Information Acquisition in Financial Markets," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 67(1), pages 79-90.
  7. Ali, Mukhtar M, 1977. "Probability and Utility Estimates for Racetrack Bettors," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 85(4), pages 803-815, August.
  8. Forsythe, Robert & Rietz, Thomas A. & Ross, Thomas W., 1999. "Wishes, expectations and actions: a survey on price formation in election stock markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 83-110, May.
  9. Grossman, Sanford J & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1980. "On the Impossibility of Informationally Efficient Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 393-408, June.
  10. Etemadi, Nasrollah, 1983. "On the laws of large numbers for nonnegative random variables," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 187-193, March.
  11. Robin Hanson & Ryan Oprea, 2009. "A Manipulator Can Aid Prediction Market Accuracy," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 76(302), pages 304-314, 04.
  12. Bruno Jullien & Bernard Salanie, 2000. "Estimating Preferences under Risk: The Case of Racetrack Bettors," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(3), pages 503-530, June.
  13. Radner, Roy, 1979. "Rational Expectations Equilibrium: Generic Existence and the Information Revealed by Prices," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(3), pages 655-678, May.
  14. repec:reg:rpubli:460 is not listed on IDEAS
  15. Marco Ottaviani & Peter Norman Sørensen, 2009. "Surprised by the Parimutuel Odds?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(5), pages 2129-2134, December.
  16. Lawrence Blume & David Easley, 2006. "If You're so Smart, why Aren't You Rich? Belief Selection in Complete and Incomplete Markets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(4), pages 929-966, 07.
  17. Martin Spann & Bernd Skiera, 2009. "Sports forecasting: a comparison of the forecast accuracy of prediction markets, betting odds and tipsters," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 55-72.
  18. Alison Hubbard Ashton & Robert H. Ashton, 1985. "Aggregating Subjective Forecasts: Some Empirical Results," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(12), pages 1499-1508, December.
  19. Georgios Tziralis & Ilias Tatsiopoulos, 2007. "Prediction Markets: An Extended Literature Review," Journal of Prediction Markets, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 1(1), pages 75-91, February.
  20. Berg, Joyce E. & Nelson, Forrest D. & Rietz, Thomas A., 2008. "Prediction market accuracy in the long run," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 285-300.
  21. Thaler, Richard H & Ziemba, William T, 1988. "Parimutuel Betting Markets: Racetracks and Lotteries," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 2(2), pages 161-174, Spring.
  22. Joël Peress, 2004. "Wealth, Information Acquisition, and Portfolio Choice," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 17(3), pages 879-914.
  23. Aumann, Robert J., 1976. "An elementary proof that integration preserves uppersemicontinuity," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 15-18, March.
  24. Lionel Page & Robert T. Clemen, 2013. "Do Prediction Markets Produce Well‐Calibrated Probability Forecasts?-super-," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 123(568), pages 491-513, 05.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mnh:wpaper:35257. 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: (Katharina Rautenberg)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.