We test the no-trade theorem in a laboratory financial market where subjects can trade an asset whose value is unknown. Subjects receive clues on the asset value and then set a bid and an ask at which they are willing to buy or to sell from the other participants. In treatments with no gains from trade, theory predicts no trading activity, whereas, in treatments with gains, trade becomes theoretically possible. Our experimental results show that subjects fail to reach the no-trade equilibrium by pure introspection, but they learn to approach it over time, through market feedback and learning.
AbstractOwnership of a bank account is an objective measure and should be relatively easy to elicit via survey questions. Yet, depending on the interview mode, the wording of the question and its placement within the survey may influence respondents' answers. The Health and Retirement Study (HRS) asset module, as administered online to members of the Understanding America Study (UAS), yielded substantially lower rates of reported bank account ownership than either a single question on ownership in the Current Population Survey (CPS) or the full asset module administered to HRS panelists (both interviewer-administered surveys). We designed and implemented an experiment in the UAS comparing the original HRS question eliciting bank account ownership with two alternative versions that were progressively simplified. We document strong evidence that the original question leads to systematic underestimation of bank account ownership. In contrast, the proportion of bank account owners obtained from the simplest alternative version of the question is very similar to the population benchmark estimate. We investigate treatment effect heterogeneity by cognitive ability and financial literacy. We find that questionnaire simplification affects responses of individuals with higher cognitive ability substantially less than those with lower cognitive ability. Our results suggest that high-quality data from surveys start from asking the right questions, which should be as simple and precise as possible and carefully adapted to the mode of interview.
AbstractWe investigate the determinants of the racial/ethnic gap in financial literacy in the general population and within income classes, with a focus on childhood family circumstances and neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics. Our model explains 48% and 57% of the observed gap for Blacks and Hispanics, respectively. For both groups, differences in individual characteristics and neighborhood socioeconomic status contribute the most to the explained gap. The White–Minority gap narrows when moving from low‐ to high‐income classes, but the ability of the model to explain it decreases monotonically. Identifying which additional barriers put minorities at a disadvantage is key to improve financial literacy.
We construct laboratory financial markets in which subjects can trade an asset whose value is unknown. Subjects receive private clues about the asset value and then set bid and ask prices at which they are willing to buy or to sell from the other participants. In some of our markets (experimental treatments), there are gains from trade, while in others there are no gains: trade is zero sum. Celebrated no-trade theorems state that differences in private information alone cannot explain trade in the zero sum case. We study whether purely informational trade is eliminated in our experimental markets with no gains. The comparison of our results for gains and no-gains treatments shows that subjects fail to reach the no-trade outcome by pure introspection, but they approach it over time through market feedback and learning. Furthermore, the less noisy the clue-asset relationship is, the closer trade comes to being eliminated entirely.
