IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/not/notcdx/2005-12.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Option Pricing by Students and Professional Traders: A Behavioural Investigation

Author

Listed:
  • KLAUS ABBINK

    (School of Economics, The University of Nottingham)

  • BETTINA ROCKENBACH

    (Lehrstuhl fuer Mikrooekonomie, Universitaet Erfurt)

Abstract

We compare the behaviour of students and professional traders from an influential German bank in an experiment involving financial options. The arbitrage free option price is independent of the probability distribution of the underlying asset. The experimental data uncover a probability dependent option valuation of the students, however, they learn to exploit more arbitrage as they gain experience. The professional traders exhibit a less probability sensitive valuation, but their overall performance is lower than the students’. We offer the explanation that the professional traders choose a more intuitive and less analytic pattern of behaviour than the students, despite their superior knowledge in financial market theory and practice. At real financial markets, traders are typically not confronted with given and known exact probability distributions, but they must rather rely on their intuitive calibration of the prospects.

Suggested Citation

  • Klaus Abbink & Bettina Rockenbach, 2005. "Option Pricing by Students and Professional Traders: A Behavioural Investigation," Discussion Papers 2005-12, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    • Handle: RePEc:not:notcdx:2005-12
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dyer, Douglas & Kagel, John H & Levin, Dan, 1989. "A Comparison of Naive and Experienced Bidders in Common Value Offer Auctions: A Laboratory Analysis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 108-115, March.
    2. C. Bram Cadsby & Elizabeth Maynes, 1998. "Laboratory experiments in corporate and investment finance: a survey," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(4-5), pages 277-298.
    3. S. Siegel & D. L. Harnett, 1964. "Bargaining Behavior: A Comparison Between Mature Industrial Personnel and College Students," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 334-343, April.
    4. Banks Jeffrey & Camerer Colin & Porter David, 1994. "An Experimental Analysis of Nash Refinements in Signaling Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 1-31, January.
    5. Forsythe, Robert & Palfrey, Thomas R & Plott, Charles R, 1984. "Futures Markets and Informational Efficiency: A Laboratory Examination," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 39(4), pages 955-981, September.
    6. Dejong, Douglas V. & Forsythe, Robert & Uecker, Wilfred C., 1988. "A note on the use of businessmen as subjects in sealed offer markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 87-100, January.
    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. 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.
    2. Fox, John A. & Buhr, Brian L. & Shogren, Jason F. & Kliebenstein, James B. & Hayes, Dermot J., 1995. "A Comparison of Preferences for Pork Sandwiches Produced from Animals With and Without Somatotropin Administration," ISU General Staff Papers 199504010800001009, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    3. Davis, Douglas & Korenok, Oleg, 2011. "Nominal shocks in monopolistically competitive markets: An experiment," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(6), pages 578-589.
    4. Potters, J.J.M. & van Winden, F.A.A.M., 1996. "The Performance of Professionals and Students in an Experimental Study of Lobbying," Other publications TiSEM e3bfe910-863f-46e8-b9aa-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    5. Wagner, Alexander F. & Gibson Brandon, Rajna & Sohn, Matthias & Tanner, Carmen, 2018. "Earnings Management and Managerial Honesty: The Investors’ Perspectives," CEPR Discussion Papers 13207, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Enrique Fatás & Tibor Neugebauer & Pilar Tamborero, 2004. "How politicians make decisions under risk: a political choice experiment," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2004/58, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    7. C.Mónica Capra & Tomomi Tanaka & ColinF. Camerer & Lauren Feiler & Veronica Sovero & CharlesN. Noussair, 2009. "The Impact of Simple Institutions in Experimental Economies with Poverty Traps," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(539), pages 977-1009, July.
    8. Offerman, T.J.S. & Potters, J.J.M., 2000. "Does Auctioning of Entry Licences Affect Consumers Prices? An Experimental Study," Discussion Paper 2000-53, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    9. Beck, Adrian & Kerschbamer, Rudolf & Qiu, Jianying & Sutter, Matthias, 2014. "Car mechanics in the lab––Investigating the behavior of real experts on experimental markets for credence goods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 166-173.
    10. Enrique Fatas & Tibor Neugebauer & Pilar Tamborero, 2007. "How Politicians Make Decisions: A Political Choice Experiment," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 92(2), pages 167-196, October.
    11. van der Heijden, E. C. M. & Nelissen, J. H. M. & Potters, J. J. M. & Verbon, H. A. A., 1998. "Transfers and the effect of monitoring in an overlapping-generations experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(7), pages 1363-1391, July.
    12. Potters, Jan & van Winden, Frans, 2000. "Professionals and students in a lobbying experiment: Professional rules of conduct and subject surrogacy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 499-522, December.
    13. Gibson, Rajna & Sohn, Matthias & Tanner, Carmen & Wagner, Alexander F., 2021. "Earnings Management and Managerial Honesty: The Investors' Perspectives," LawFin Working Paper Series 7, Goethe University, Center for Advanced Studies on the Foundations of Law and Finance (LawFin).
    14. R. M. Harstad & R. Selten, 2014. "Bounded-rationality models:tasks to become intellectually competitive," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, issue 5.
    15. B Kelsey Jack, 2009. "Auctioning Conservation Contracts in Indonesia - Participant Learning in Multiple Trial Rounds," CID Working Papers 35, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    16. Gary E Bolton & Axel Ockenfels & Ulrich Thonemann, 2008. "Managers and Students as Newsvendors - How Out-of-Task Experience Matters," Working Paper Series in Economics 39, University of Cologne, Department of Economics.
    17. Dominiak, Adam & Lee, Dongwoo, 2023. "Testing rational hypotheses in signaling games," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    18. Alejandro Arrieta & Ariadna García‐Prado & Paula González & José Luis Pinto‐Prades, 2017. "Risk attitudes in medical decisions for others: An experimental approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S3), pages 97-113, December.
    19. Christoph Huber & Christian König-Kersting & Matteo M. Marini, 2022. "Experimenting with Financial Professionals," Working Papers 2022-07, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck, revised Jun 2024.
    20. Cabrales, Antonio & Charness, Gary & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2006. "Competition, hidden information, and efficiency : an experiment," UC3M Working papers. Economics we071909, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Experiment; Option Pricing; Arbitrage; Bounded Rationality;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • G12 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Asset Pricing; Trading Volume; Bond Interest Rates
    • G14 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Information and Market Efficiency; Event Studies; Insider Trading

    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:not:notcdx:2005-12. 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: Jose V Guinot Saporta (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cdnotuk.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.