Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-v2ckm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T08:32:55.263Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Corrigendum to: Multi-period experimental asset markets with distinct fundamental value regimes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Thomas Stöckl ,
Jürgen Huber  and
Michael Kirchler
Thomas Stöckl*
Affiliation:
Department of Banking and Finance, Innsbruck University School of Management, Universitätsstrasse 15, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
Jürgen Huber*
Affiliation:
Department of Banking and Finance, Innsbruck University School of Management, Universitätsstrasse 15, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
Michael Kirchler*
Affiliation:
Department of Banking and Finance, Innsbruck University School of Management, Universitätsstrasse 15, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria Department of Economics, Centre for Finance, University of Gothenburg, P.O. Box 600, 40530 Gothenburg, Sweden
*
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Type
Erratum
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 2015 , pp. 756 - 759
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 Economic Science Association

Corrigendum to: Exp Econ (2015) 18:314–334 DOI 10.1007/s10683-014-9404-1

In the original version of the paper (currently available online first) we report incorrect values of RAD, RD, SPREAD, VOLA, and ST for one out of five treatments, namely R 5 ( N ) . In this corrigendum we present the corrected values in the respective tables and detail changes in the reported results. Note that we only update those tables containing incorrect values and that only values concerning R 5 ( N ) are subject to changes. Overall, the values of RAD and RD reveal that markets are more efficient than previously reported, while values of SPREAD, VOLA, and ST are close to the values previously reported. The changes necessitate small correction in the results section listed in Table 1.Footnote 1

Table 1 Corrections, highlighted in bold face, in the results sections

Original paper

Correction

Third paragraph

In particular, RAD (mispricing) with 43.2 percent is significantly higher in R1(\) than in regimes R2(—), R3(/), and R4(tri)

In particular, RAD (mispricing) with 43.2 percent is significantly higher in R1(\) than in each of the other regimes

Fifth paragraph

In particular, in R4(tri) and R 5 ( N ) mispricing is at an intermediate level between R1(\) and R2(—) with values between 8.1 and 16.5 percent for the aggregate of paths A and B. In markets with path A, FVs are on average higher than the unconditional expected value of 45 Taler and undervaluation equals 5.8 percent (R4(tri)) and 3.6 percent ( R 5 ( N ) ) , respectively. The opposite holds for markets with path B where FVs are on average lower than the unconditional expected value. These markets exhibit overvaluation of 11.5 and 15.8 percent for R4(tri) and R 5 ( N ) , respectively

In particular, in R4(tri) and R 5 ( N ) mispricing is at an intermediate level between R1(\) and R2(—) with values between 8.1 and 15.8 percent for the aggregate of paths A and B. In markets with path A, FVs are on average higher than the unconditional expected value of 45 Taler and undervaluation equals 5.8 percent (R4(tri)) and 3.1 percent ( R 5 ( N ) ) , respectively. The opposite holds for markets with path B where FVs are on average lower than the unconditional expected value. These markets exhibit overvaluation of 11.5 and 15.1 percent for R4(tri) and R 5 ( N ) , respectively

Sixth paragraph

Average values for ST range from 2.63 to 3.83 for different regimes

Average values for ST range from 2.63 to 3.98 for different regimes

Table 2 Regime averages for RAD, RD, SPREAD, VOLA and ST

Regime

Path

RAD (%)

RD (%)

SPREAD (%)

VOLA (%)

ST

R1(\)

43.2

39.9

16.6

9.7

3.67

R2(—)

1.5

1.3

2.1

1.4

2.63

R3(/)

15.9

−15.2

5.1

2.8

2.86

R4(tri)

Path A

8.1

−5.8

2.3

1.2

2.48

Path B

11.7

11.5

6.8

2.7

4.08

R 5 ( N )

Path A

7.8

−3.1

10.0

5.7

3.68

Path B

15.8

15.1

6.2

2.6

3.98

Table 3 Differences between regime averages (column minus row) in percentage points for RAD, RD, SPREAD, VOLA, and ST

RAD

R2(—)

R3(/)

R4(tri)

R 5 ( N )

R1(\)

−41.7 %***

−27.3 %**

−33.3 %**

−31.4 %**

R2(—)

14.4 %***

8.4 %***

10.3 %***

R3(/)

−5.9 %

−4.1 %

R4(tri)

1.9 %

RD

R2(—)

R3(/)

R4(tri)

R 5 ( N )

R1(\)

−38.6 %***

−55.0 %***

−37.0 %**

−33.9 %*

R2(—)

−16.5 %***

1.5 %

4.7 %

R3(/)

18.0**

21.2*

R4(tri)

3.2

SPREAD

R2(—)

R3(/)

R4(tri)

R 5 ( N )

R1(\)

−14.5 %***

−11.5 %***

−12.1 %***

−8.5 %*

R2(—)

3.0 %**

2.4 %*

6.0 %**

R3(/)

−0.6 %

3.0 %

R4(tri)

3.6 %*

VOLA

R2(—)

R3(/)

R4(tri)

R 5 ( N )

R1(\)

−8.3 %***

−6.9 %**

−7.7 %***

−5.5 %**

R2(—)

1.4 %*

0.6 %

2.8 %**

R3(/)

−0.9 %

1.4 %

R4(tri)

2.0 %*

ST

R2(—)

R3(/)

R4(tri)

R 5 ( N )

R1(\)

−1.04

−0.81

−0.39

0.16

R2(—)

0.23

0.65

1.21

R3(/)

0.42

0.97

R4(tri)

0.55

*, **, *** and denote the 10 %, 5 % and 1 % significance levels, derived from double-sided Mann–Whitney U-tests

Table 5 Individual market results for RAD, RD, SPREAD, VOLA and ST for regimes R1(\) to R 5 ( N )

Regime

Market

RAD (%)

RD (%)

SPREAD (%)

VOLA (%)

ST

R1(\)

1

25.6

16.7

16.2

16.1

2.08

2

44.7

44.4

15.9

11.2

5.79

3

54.9

54.5

36.0

5.5

3.28

4

8.5

1.2

8.0

5.0

3.36

5

65.9

62.9

13.4

7.8

3.65

6

59.4

59.4

10.3

12.6

3.87

Mean

43.2

39.9

16.6

9.7

3.67

R2(—)

1

0.1

0.0

0.4

0.2

2.60

2

0.9

0.6

5.1

4.6

3.04

3

0.9

0.2

2.7

1.6

1.30

4

5.9

5.9

1.4

0.6

2.13

5

0.5

0.5

1.5

0.7

4.30

6

0.7

0.7

1.6

0.8

2.41

Mean

1.5

1.3

2.1

1.4

2.63

R3(/)

1

7.1

−5.6

5.1

2.6

2.01

2

16.2

−15.2

3.9

1.5

2.32

3

1.1

−0.6

2.2

1.5

4.70

4

22.6

−22.3

4.8

1.8

1.20

5

28.0

−28.0

9.1

7.0

3.57

6

20.1

−19.2

5.7

2.5

3.40

Mean

15.9

−15.2

5.1

2.8

2.86

R4(tri)

1 (A)

7.2

−6.8

1.5

1.0

3.53

3 (A)

5.0

1.3

2.0

0.9

1.88

5 (A)

12.0

−12.0

3.3

1.7

2.05

Mean

8.1

−5.8

2.3

1.2

2.48

2 (B)

14.1

13.7

7.2

3.7

7.94

4 (B)

9.4

8.9

3.1

1.5

2.29

6 (B)

11.7

11.7

10.1

2.9

2.01

Mean

11.7

11.5

6.8

2.7

4.08

R 5 ( N )

1 (A)

6.2

−2.9

4.5

2.5

4.78

3 (A)

8.4

−7.8

8.3

4.6

1.44

5 (A)

9.0

1.4

17.2

10.0

4.81

Mean

7.8

−3.1

10.0

5.7

3.68

2 (B)

18.9

18.9

10.2

3.7

2.80

4 (B)

20.1

20.1

4.5

2.0

6.15

6 (B)

8.3

6.2

3.9

2.2

3.00

Mean

15.8

15.1

6.2

2.6

3.98

Footnotes

The online version of the original article can be found under doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-014-9404-1.

The online version of the original article can be found at 10.1007/s10683-014-9404-1.

References

Notes

1 We thank Owen Powell for pointing us at the mistakenly reported values.

Figure 0

Table 1 Corrections, highlighted in bold face, in the results sections

Figure 1

Table 2 Regime averages for RAD, RD, SPREAD, VOLA and ST

Figure 2

Table 3 Differences between regime averages (column minus row) in percentage points for RAD, RD, SPREAD, VOLA, and ST

Figure 3

Table 5 Individual market results for RAD, RD, SPREAD, VOLA and ST for regimes R1(\) to R5(N)