Centralized vs decentralized markets in the laboratory: The role of connectivity

Alfarano, Simone and Banal-Estanol, Albert and Camacho-Cuena, Eva and Iori, Giulia and Kapar, Burcu (2020): Centralized vs decentralized markets in the laboratory: The role of connectivity.

Abstract

This paper compares the performance of centralized and decentralized markets experimentally. We constrain trading exchanges to happen on an exogenously predetermined network, representing the trading relationships in markets with differing levels of connectivity. Our experimental results show that, despite having lower trading volumes, decentralized markets are not necessarily less efficient. Although information can propagate quicker through highly connected markets, we show that higher connectivity also induces informed traders to trade faster and exploit further their information advantages before the information becomes fully incorporated into prices. This not only reduces market efficiency, but it also increases wealth inequality. We show that, in more connected markets, informed traders trade not only relatively quicker, but also more, in the right direction, despite not doing it at better prices.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Experiments, financial markets, diffusion of information, decentralized trading.
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments > C92 - Laboratory, Group Behavior; D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty > D82 - Asymmetric and Private Information ; Mechanism Design; G - Financial Economics > G1 - General Financial Markets > G14 - Information and Market Efficiency ; Event Studies ; Insider Trading

References

[1]Asparouhova, E. and P. Bossaerts, 2017. Experiments on Percolation of Information in Dark Markets. The Economic Journal 127 (605), 518-544.

[2] Attanasi, G., S. Centorrino and I. Moscati, 2016. Over-the-counter Markets vs. Double Auctions: A Comparative Experimental Study. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 63 (C), 22-35.

[3] Biais, B., D. Hilton, K. Mazurier and S. Pouget, 2005. Judgemental Over-Confidence, Self- Monitoring and Trading Performance in an Experimental Financial Market. The Review of Economic Studies 72, 287-312.

[4] Bikhchandani, S., D. Hirshleifer and I. Welch, 1998. Learning from the Behavior of Others: Conformity, Fads, and Informational Cascades. Journal of Economic Perspectives 12 (3), 151-170.

[5] Bossaerts, P., C. Frydman and J. Ledyard, 2013. The Speed of Information Revelation and Eventual Price Quality in Markets with Insiders: Comparing Two Theories. Review of Finance 18, 1-22.

[6] Cason, T. N., and D. Friedman, 1996. Price Formation in Double Auction Markets. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 20(8), 1307-1337.

[7] Colla, P. and A. Mele, 2010. Information Linkages and Correlated Trading. Review of Financial Studies 23, 203-246.

[8] Corgnet, B., M. DeSantis and D. Porter, 2015. Revisiting Information Aggregation in Asset Markets: Reflective Learning & Market Efficiency. Technical Report, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.

[9] Glode, V. and C. Opp, 2017. Asymmetric Information and Intermediation Chains. American Economic Review 106 (9), 2699-2721.

[10] Gould, M. D., A. P. Mason and S. D. Howison , 2017. Quasi-centralized Limit Order Books, Quantitative Finance 17(6), 831-853.

[11] Halim, E., Y. E. Riyanto and N. Roy, 2019. Costly Information Acquisition, Social Networks and Asset Prices: Experimental Evidence. The Journal of Finance 74 (4), 1975-2010.

[12] Hanson, R., R. Oprea, and D. Porter, 2006. Information Aggregation and Manipulation in an Experimental Market. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 60, 449-459.

[13] Huber, J., M. Angerer and M. Kirchler, 2011. Experimental Asset Markets with Endogenous Choice of Costly Asymmetric Information. Experimental Economics 14, 223-240.

[14] Kirman, A. and N. Vriend, 2001. Evolving Market Structure: An ACE Model of Price Dispersion and Loyalty. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 25 (3-4), 459-502.

[15] Lionel P. and C. Siemroth, 2018. How much Information is Incorporated in Financial Asset Prices? Experimental Evidence. QuBE Working Papers 054, QUT Business School.

[16] Malamud, S. and M. Rostek, 2017. Decentralized Exchange. American Economic Review 107 (11), 3320-3362.

[17] Morone, A., and S. Nuzzo, 2015. Market Efficiency, Trading Institutions and Information Mirages: Evidence from an Experimental Asset Market. EERI Research Paper Series EERI RP 2016/17, Economics and Econometrics Research Institute (EERI),Brussels.

[18] Ruiz-Buforn, A., S. Alfarano and E. Camacho-Cuena, 2016. An Experimental Study on Overweighting of Public Information. Technical Report 1.3, Financial Distortions and Macroeconomic Performance: Expectations, Constraints and Interaction of Agents.

[19] Schnitzlein, C. R., 1996. Call and Continuous Trading Mechanisms Under Asymmetric Information: An Experimental Investigation. The Journal of Finance 51(2), 613-636.

[20] Theissen, E., 2000. Market Structure, Informational Efficiency and Liquidity: An Experimental Comparison of Auction and Dealer Markets. Journal of Financial Markets 3, 333 - 363.

[21] Topol, R., 1991, Bubbles and Volatility of Stock-Prices - Effect of Mimetic Contagion, Economic Journal 101, 786-800.

[22] Veiga, H. and M. Vorsatz, 2010. Information Aggregation in Experimental Asset Markets in the Presence of a Manipulator. Experimental Economics 13, 379-398.