TY - JOUR
T1 - Do traders learn to select efficient market institutions?
AU - Alós-Ferrer, Carlos
AU - Buckenmaier, Johannes
AU - Kirchsteiger, Georg
N1 - Funding Information:
Open Access funding provided by Universität Zürich. Financial support from the German Research Foundation (DFG) through project AL-1169/5-1 is gratefully acknowledged.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, The Author(s).
PY - 2022/2
Y1 - 2022/2
N2 - When alternative market institutions are available, traders have to decide both where and how much to trade. We conducted an experiment where traders decided first whether to trade in an (efficient) double-auction institution or in a posted-offers one (favoring sellers), and second how much to trade. When sellers face decreasing returns to scale (increasing production costs), fast coordination on the double-auction occurs, with the posted-offers institution becoming inactive. In contrast, under constant returns to scale, both institutions remain active and coordination is slower. The reason is that sellers trade off higher efficiency in a market with dwindling profits for biased-up profits in a market with vanishing customers. Hence, efficiency alone might not be sufficient to guarantee coordination on a single market institution if the surplus distribution is asymmetric. Trading behavior approaches equilibrium predictions (market clearing) within each institution, but switching behavior across institutions is explained by simple rules of thumb, with buyers chasing low prices and sellers considering both prices and trader ratios.
AB - When alternative market institutions are available, traders have to decide both where and how much to trade. We conducted an experiment where traders decided first whether to trade in an (efficient) double-auction institution or in a posted-offers one (favoring sellers), and second how much to trade. When sellers face decreasing returns to scale (increasing production costs), fast coordination on the double-auction occurs, with the posted-offers institution becoming inactive. In contrast, under constant returns to scale, both institutions remain active and coordination is slower. The reason is that sellers trade off higher efficiency in a market with dwindling profits for biased-up profits in a market with vanishing customers. Hence, efficiency alone might not be sufficient to guarantee coordination on a single market institution if the surplus distribution is asymmetric. Trading behavior approaches equilibrium predictions (market clearing) within each institution, but switching behavior across institutions is explained by simple rules of thumb, with buyers chasing low prices and sellers considering both prices and trader ratios.
KW - Constant returns to scale
KW - Experiment
KW - Market clearing
KW - Market selection
KW - Posted offer market
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85104867149&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85104867149&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10683-021-09710-1
DO - 10.1007/s10683-021-09710-1
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85104867149
SN - 1386-4157
VL - 25
SP - 203
EP - 228
JO - Experimental Economics
JF - Experimental Economics
IS - 1
ER -