Advertisement

Natural Selection, Random Shocks, and Market Efficiency in a Futures Market

  • Guo Ying Luo
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Economic Theory book series (ECON.THEORY, volume 28)

Abstract

This chapter adds a random shock to the futures market to see if an informationally efficient equilibrium would still occur. In this chapter, the prices are modeled as continuous variables and traders can buy or sell with a single submission of their quotes. The conclusion is that,with probability one, if the volatility of the underlying spot market is sufficiently small, then the proportion of time that the futures price is sufficiently close to the fundamental value converges to one. However, the interval containing the fundamental value, where the futures price eventually lies, is influenced by the underlying volatility generated from the spot market. In other words, the accuracy of the information for which the market can eventually select, depends on the volatility generated from the random shock in the spot market. The more volatile the spot market, the more noisy is the information that gets selected for. As a result, the futures market moves further away from informational efficiency. Numerical examples are used to illustrate the cause of the convergence and how the wealth is redistributed among traders.

Keywords

Prediction Error Accurate Information Future Market Future Price Future Contract 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Becker, G.S. 1962. Irrational behavior and economic theory. Journal of Political Economy. LXX:1–13.Google Scholar
  2. Billingsley, P. 1995. Probability and measure. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  3. Camerer, C.F. 1987. Do biases in probability judgment matter in markets? American Economic Review 77:981–997.Google Scholar
  4. Cootner, P.H. 1967. The random character of stock market prices. Rev. ed. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  5. Feiger, G.M. 1978. Divergent rational expectations equilibrium in a dynamic model of a futures market. Journal of Economic Theory 17:164–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Figlewski, S. 1978. Market ‘efficiency’ in a market with heterogeneous information. Journal of Political Economy 86(4):581–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Figlewski, S. 1982. Information diversity and market behavior. Journal of Finance 37:87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gode, D.K., and S. Sunder. 1993. Allocative efficiency of markets with zero-intelligence traders: market as a partial substitute for individual rationality Journal of Political Economy 101(1):119–137.Google Scholar
  9. Gode, D.K., and S. Sunder. 1997. What makes markets allocationally efficient. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(2):603–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grossman, S.J. 1976. On the efficiency of competitive stock markets where traders have diverse information. Journal of Finance 31:573–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grossman, S.J. 1978. Further results on the informational efficiency of competitive stock markets. Journal of Economic Theory 18:81–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hayek, F.A. 1945. The uses of knowledge in society. American Economic Review 35:519–530.Google Scholar
  13. Hellwig, M.F. 1980. On the aggregation of information in competitive markets. Journal of Economic Theory 22:477–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Luo, G.Y. 1995. Evolution and market competition. Journal of Economic Theory 67(1):223–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Luo, G.Y. 1998. Market efficiency and natural selection in a commodity futures market. Review of Financial Studies 11(3):647–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nozick, R. 1994. Invisible-hand explanations. American Economic Review 84(2):314–318.Google Scholar
  17. Patel, J., R. Zeckhauser, and D. Hendricks. 1991. The rationality struggle: illustrations from financial markets. American Economic Review 81(2):232–236.Google Scholar
  18. Simon, H. 1959. Theories of decision-making in economic and behavioral science. American Economic Review 49:253–283.Google Scholar
  19. Simon, H. 1986. Rationality in psychology and economics. Journal of Business 59:S209–S224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Smith, V.L. 1982. Markets as economizers of information: experimental examination of the “Hayek hypothesis”. Economic Inquiry 20(2):165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vriend, N.J. 1996. Rational behavior and economic theory. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 29:263–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DeGroote School of BusinessMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations