Cheap Talk, Fraud and Adverse Selection in Financial Markets: Some Experimental Evidence
The Review of Financial Studies
- 1,417Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage1,417
- Abstract Views1,417
- 1,417
Paper Description
We examine communication in two-player games that represent simplified financial markets with asymmetric information. In each game, a seller knows the true quality of an asset while the potential buyer knows only the ex ante quality distribution. First we document the degree of adverse selection in this setting by precluding any communication from the seller to the buyer. Then we examine how well two different communication regimes mitigate the adverse selection. In the "cheap talk"; treatment the seller can make any statement (even a fraudulent one) about the asset's quality to the buyer. The "anti-fraud" treatment imposes an anti-fraud rule where the seller's statement can be vague, but must include the asset's true quality. We find that both communication regimes significantly improve the efficiency of the market, but in very different ways. When sellers can cheap talk, buyers tend to over-rely on the sellers' often exaggerated claims and bid too much for the asset. The assets trade, but the efficiency gains come at the buyers' expense. This occurs even though subjects communicate anonymously, meet each other only once, and alternate between the role of buyer and seller in different subject pairings. Thus, the same subjects who are dishonest sellers are themselves gullible buyers. Adding the anti-fraud rule to the sellers' communications further improves efficiency and eliminates the wealth transfer from buyers to sellers.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know