[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/chu/wpaper/11-03.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Transparency, Efficiency and the Distribution of Economic Welfare in Pass-Through Investment Trust Games

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas A. Rietz

    (Henry B. Tippie College of Business, University of Iowa)

  • Roman M. Sheremeta

    (Argyros School of Business and Economics, Chapman University)

  • Timothy W. Shields

    (Argyros School of Business and Economics, Chapman University)

  • Vernon L. Smith

    (Economic Science Institute, Chapman University)

Abstract
We design an experiment to examine welfare and behavior in a multi-level trust game representing a pass through investment in an intermediated market. In a repeated game, an Investor invests via an Intermediary who lends to a Borrower. A pre-experiment one-shot version of the game serves as a baseline and to type each subject. We alter the transparency of exchanges between non-adjacent parties. We find transparency of the exchanges between the investor and intermediary does not significantly affect welfare. However, transparency regarding exchanges between the intermediary and borrower promotes trust on the part of the investor, increasing welfare. Further, this has asymmetric effects: borrowers and intermediaries achieve greater welfare benefits than investors. We discuss implications for what specific aspects of financial market transparency may facilitate more efficiency.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas A. Rietz & Roman M. Sheremeta & Timothy W. Shields & Vernon L. Smith, 2011. "Transparency, Efficiency and the Distribution of Economic Welfare in Pass-Through Investment Trust Games," Working Papers 11-03, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:chu:wpaper:11-03
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.chapman.edu/ESI/wp/Sheremeta-Shields-Trust_Intermediary.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Buchner, Susanne & Gonzalez, Luis G. & Guth, Werner & Levati, M. Vittoria, 2004. "Incentive contracts versus trust in three-person ultimatum games: an experimental study," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 673-694, September.
    2. Werner G³th & Manfred K÷nigstein & NadÞge Marchand & Klaus Nehring, 2001. "Trust and Reciprocity in the Investment Game with Indirect Reward," Homo Oeconomicus, Institute of SocioEconomics, vol. 18, pages 241-262.
    3. Burnham, Terence & McCabe, Kevin & Smith, Vernon L., 2000. "Friend-or-foe intentionality priming in an extensive form trust game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 57-73, September.
    4. Timothy N. Cason & Charles R. Plott, 2005. "Forced Information Disclosure and the Fallacy of Transparency in Markets," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 43(4), pages 699-714, October.
    5. Noussair, Charles & Porter, David, 1992. "Allocating priority with auctions: An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 169-195, October.
    6. Greiner, Ben & Vittoria Levati, M., 2005. "Indirect reciprocity in cyclical networks: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 711-731, October.
    7. Roman M. Sheremeta & Jingjing Zhang, 2014. "Three-Player Trust Game With Insider Communication," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 52(2), pages 576-591, April.
    8. Shakun D. Mago & Anya C. Savikhin & Roman M. Sheremeta, 2012. "Facing Your Opponents: Social identification and information feedback in contests," Working Papers 12-15, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    9. Martin Dufenberg & Uri Gneezy & Werner G³th & Eric Van Demme, 2001. "Direct versus Indirect Reciprocity: An Experiment," Homo Oeconomicus, Institute of SocioEconomics, vol. 18, pages 19-30.
    10. Roman M. Sheremeta, 2010. "Expenditures and Information Disclosure in Two-Stage Political Contests," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 54(5), pages 771-798, October.
    11. M.A. Nowak & K. Sigmund, 1998. "Evolution of Indirect Reciprocity by Image Scoring/ The Dynamics of Indirect Reciprocity," Working Papers ir98040, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    12. Ryan O. Murphy & Amnon Rapoport & James E. Parco, 2004. "Population Learning of Cooperative Behavior in a Three-Person Centipede Game," Rationality and Society, , vol. 16(1), pages 91-120, February.
    13. Mary L. Rigdon & Kevin A. McCabe & Vernon L. Smith, 2007. "Sustaining Cooperation in Trust Games," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(522), pages 991-1007, July.
    14. Fama, Eugene F & MacBeth, James D, 1973. "Risk, Return, and Equilibrium: Empirical Tests," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(3), pages 607-636, May-June.
    15. Rapoport, Amnon & Stein, William E. & Parco, James E. & Nicholas, Thomas E., 2003. "Equilibrium play and adaptive learning in a three-person centipede game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 239-265, May.
    16. Seinen, Ingrid & Schram, Arthur, 2006. "Social status and group norms: Indirect reciprocity in a repeated helping experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 581-602, April.
    17. Berg Joyce & Dickhaut John & McCabe Kevin, 1995. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 122-142, July.
    18. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Grytten, Ola Honningdal, 2020. "Weber revisited: A literature review on the possible Link between Protestantism, Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 8/2020, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    2. Jingnan (Cecilia) Chen & Daniel Houser, 2013. "Promises and Lies: An Experiment on Detecting Deception," Working Papers 1038, George Mason University, Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science, revised Feb 2013.
    3. Erik O. Kimbrough & Alexander Vostroknutov, 2012. "Rules, Rule-Following, and Cooperation," Discussion Papers dp12-15, Department of Economics, Simon Fraser University.
    4. Lunawat, Radhika & Shields, Timothy W. & Waymire, Gregory, 2021. "Financial reporting and moral sentiments," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(1).
    5. Shakun D. Mago & Anya C. Savikhin & Roman M. Sheremeta, 2012. "Facing Your Opponents: Social identification and information feedback in contests," Working Papers 12-15, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    6. Sheremeta, Roman & Smith, Vernon, 2017. "The Impact of the Reformation on the Economic Development of Western Europe," MPRA Paper 87220, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Francesco Bogliacino & Laura Jiménez & Gianluca Grimalda, 2015. "Consultative, Democracy and Trust," Documentos de Trabajo, Escuela de Economía 12696, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, FCE, CID.
    8. Gianna Lotito & Matteo Migheli & Guido Ortona, 2020. "Transparency, asymmetric information and cooperation," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 267-294, October.
    9. Cicognani, Simona & Romagnoli, Giorgia & Soraperra, Ivan, 2024. "Fostering trust: When the rhetoric of sharing can backfire," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    10. Jingnan Chen & Daniel Houser, 2017. "Promises and lies: can observers detect deception in written messages," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(2), pages 396-419, June.
    11. Banuri’s, Sheheryar & de Oliveira, Angela C.M. & Eckel, Catherine C., 2019. "Care provision: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 615-630.
    12. Bogliacino, Francesco & Jiménez Lozano, Laura & Grimalda, Gianluca, 2018. "Consultative democracy and trust11We thank Vanessa Carrillo, Jairo Paéz and Daniel Reyes for their help during the experiments. A special thanks to Franci Beltrán, Jairo Paéz and Alfonso Peña for prov," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 55-67.
    13. Bogliacino, Francesco & Grimalda, Gianluca & Jimenez, Laura, 2017. "Consultative Democracy & Trust," MPRA Paper 82138, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Jacob LaRiviere & Matthew McMahon & William Neilson, 2018. "Shareholder Protection and Agency Costs: An Experimental Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(7), pages 3108-3128, July.
    15. Cooper, David J. & Ioannou, Christos A. & Qi, Shi, 2018. "Endogenous incentive contracts and efficient coordination," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 78-97.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Roman M. Sheremeta & Jingjing Zhang, 2014. "Three-Player Trust Game With Insider Communication," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 52(2), pages 576-591, April.
    2. Stanca, Luca, 2009. "Measuring indirect reciprocity: Whose back do we scratch?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 190-202, April.
    3. Lilia Zhurakhovska, 2014. "Strategic Trustworthiness via Unstrategic Third-party Reward – An Experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2014_06, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, revised Jan 2017.
    4. Wayne E. Baker & Nathaniel Bulkley, 2014. "Paying It Forward vs. Rewarding Reputation: Mechanisms of Generalized Reciprocity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 1493-1510, October.
    5. Luca Stanca & Luigino Bruni & Marco Mantovani, 2011. "The effect of motivations on social indirect reciprocity: an experimental analysis," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(17), pages 1709-1711.
    6. Luca Stanca, 2011. "Social science and neuroscience: how can they inform each other?," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 58(3), pages 243-256, September.
    7. Charness, Gary & Du, Ninghua & Yang, Chun-Lei, 2011. "Trust and trustworthiness reputations in an investment game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 361-375, June.
    8. Engelmann, Dirk & Fischbacher, Urs, 2009. "Indirect reciprocity and strategic reputation building in an experimental helping game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 399-407, November.
    9. Shakun D. Mago & Anya C. Savikhin & Roman M. Sheremeta, 2012. "Facing Your Opponents: Social identification and information feedback in contests," Working Papers 12-15, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    10. Becchetti, Leonardo & Castriota, Stefano & Conzo, Pierluigi, 2017. "Disaster, Aid, and Preferences: The Long-run Impact of the Tsunami on Giving in Sri Lanka," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 157-173.
    11. Ori Weisel & Ro'i Zultan, 2013. "Social motives in intergroup conflict," Jena Economics Research Papers 2013-033, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    12. Song, Fei & Zhong, Chen-Bo, 2015. "You scratch his back, he scratches mine and I’ll scratch yours: Deception in simultaneous cyclic networks," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 98-111.
    13. Banuri’s, Sheheryar & de Oliveira, Angela C.M. & Eckel, Catherine C., 2019. "Care provision: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 615-630.
    14. Boero, Riccardo & Bravo, Giangiacomo & Castellani, Marco & Squazzoni, Flaminio, 2009. "Reputational cues in repeated trust games," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 871-877, December.
    15. Cassandra R. Chambers & Wayne E. Baker, 2020. "Robust Systems of Cooperation in the Presence of Rankings: How Displaying Prosocial Contributions Can Offset the Disruptive Effects of Performance Rankings," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 287-307, March.
    16. Redzo Mujcic & Andreas Leibbrandt, 2018. "Indirect Reciprocity and Prosocial Behaviour: Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(611), pages 1683-1699, June.
    17. Schnedler, Wendelin, 2022. "The broken chain: evidence against emotionally driven upstream indirect reciprocity," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 136, pages 542-558.
    18. David Hugh-Jones & Itay Ron & Ro'i Zultan, 2017. "Humans reciprocate intentional harm by discriminating against group peers," University of East Anglia School of Economics Working Paper Series 2017-03, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    19. Mitzkewitz, Michael & Neugebauer, Tibor, 2020. "Can intermediaries assure contracts? Experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 354-368.
    20. Pinghan Liang & Juanjuan Meng, 2023. "Paying it forward: an experimental study on social connections and indirect reciprocity," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 27(2), pages 387-417, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    financial intermediation; financial market transparency; pass through securities; multi-level trust games; experiments;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • G14 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Information and Market Efficiency; Event Studies; Insider Trading
    • G21 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Banks; Other Depository Institutions; Micro Finance Institutions; Mortgages

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:chu:wpaper:11-03. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Megan Luetje (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esichus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.