Computational Economics

, Volume 51, Issue 4, pp 991–1020 | Cite as

Trading Volume and Price Distortion: An Agent-Based Model with Heterogenous Knowledge of Fundamentals

  • Vivien Lespagnol
  • Juliette Rouchier


This paper investigates whether trading volume and price distortion can be explained by the investor’s bounded rationality. Assuming that agents are bounded by their information access and processing, what are the consequences on market dynamics? We expose the result of simulations in an ABM that considers the liquidity as an endogenous characteristic of the market and allows to design investors as bounded rational. In a call auction market, where two risky assets are exchanged, traders are defined as a mix between fundamentalist and trend-follower outlook. Each one differs as to behaviour, order-placement strategy, mood, knowledge, risk-aversion and investment horizon. We place agents in a context of evolving fundamental values and order placement strategy; they perceive the fundamental but they also have some heterogeneous belief perseverance; and they adapt their orders to the market depth so as to maximise their execution probability and their profit. By adding bounded rationality in their information processing, we show that (1) usual features as trend-follower outlook and heterogeneous investment horizon are important features to generate excess volatility of asset prices and market inefficiency; (2) the learning fundamental value stabilises the market price and the trading volume; (3) the order-placement strategy increases trading volume, but reduces market efficiency and stability; (4) the agent’s mood prevents illiquid market and weakly increases the market volatility as classical noise trader agents; (5) the impatience to sell of traders is always present in the market: the market sell orders are always more numerous than the market buy orders.


Agent-based modelling Market microstructure Fundamental value Trading volume Efficient market 

JEL Classification

C63 D44 G12 G14 


  1. Acharyaa, V. V., & Pedersen, L. H. (2005). Asset pricing with liquidity risk. Journal of Financial Economics, 77, 375–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amihud, Y. (2002). Illiquidity and stock returns: Illiquidity and stock returns: Cross-section and time-series effects. Journal of Financial Markets, 5, 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amihud, Y., Mendelson, H., & Perdersen, L. H. (2005). Liquidity and asset prices. Foundations and trends in finance, 1(4), 269–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arthur, W. B., Holland, J., LeBaron, B., Parlmer, R., & Tayler, P. (1997). Asset pricing under endogenous expectations in an artificial stock market. In W. B. Arthur, D. Lane, & S. N. Durlauf (Eds.), The economy as an evolving complex system. II (pp. 15–44). Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  5. Bao, T., Hommes, C., Sonnemans, J., & Tuinstra, J. (2012). Individual expectations, limited rationality and aggregate outcomes. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 36, 1101–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barber, B. M., & Odean, T. (2000). Trading is hazardous to your wealth: The common stock investment performance of individual investors. The Journal of Finance, 55(2), 773–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barberis, N., & Thaler, R. (2003). A survey of behavioral finance. In: G. M. Constantinides, M. Harris, & R. M. Stulz (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of finance (Chap. 18, 1st ed., Vol. 1, Part 2, pp. 1053–1128). Elsevier.Google Scholar
  8. Beja, A., & Goldman, M. B. (1980). On the dynamic behavior of prices in disequilibrium. The Journal of Finance, 35(2), 235–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bloomfield, R., O’Hara, M., & Saar, G. (2009). How noise trading affects markets: An experimental analysis. Review of Financial Studies, 22(6), 2275–2302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brock, W., & Hommes, C. (1998). Heterogeneous beliefs and routes to chaos in a simple asset pricing model. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 33(8–9), 1235–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Camerer, C. F., & Ho, T. H. (1999). Experience-weighted attraction learning in a normal form games. Econometrica, 67, 827–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chiarella, C. (1992). The dynamics of speculative behaviour. Annals of Operations Research, 37, 101–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chiarella, C., & Iori, G. (2002). A simulation analysis of the microstructure of double auction markets. Quantitative Finance, 2, 346–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chiarella, C., Dieci, R., & He, X. Z. (2007). Heterogeneous expectations and speculative behavior in a dynamic multi-asset framework. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 62, 408–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chiarella, C., Iori, G., & Perello, J. (2009). The impact of heterogeneous trading rules on the limit order book and order flows. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 33, 525–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chowdry, B., & Nanda, V. (1991). Multimarket trading and market liquidity. The Review of Financial Studies, 4(3), 483–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Long, J. B., Shleifer, A., Summers, L. H., & Waldman, R. J. (1990). Positive feedback investment strategies and destabilizing rational speculation. Journal of Finance, 45(2), 379–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DeMiguel, V., Garlappi, L., & Uppal, R. (2009). Optimal versus naive diversification: How inefficient is the 1/n portfolio strategy? The Review of Financial Studies, 22(5), 1915–1953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Domowitz, I. (1993). A taxonomy of automated trade execution systems. Journal of International Money and Finance, 12, 607–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fama, E. F. (1970). Efficient capital markets: A review of theory and empirical work. Journal of Finance, 25(2), 383–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fischoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Knowing with certainty: The appropriateness of extreme confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 552–564.Google Scholar
  22. Foucault, T., Kadan, O., & Kandel, E. (2005). Limit order book as a market for liquidity. The Review of Financial Studies, 18(4), 1171–1217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gode, D. K., & Sunder, S. (1993). Allocative efficiency of markets with zero-intelligence traders: Market as a partial substitute for individual rationality. The Journal of Political Economy, 101, 119–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grossman, S. J., & Miller, M. H. (1988). Liquidity and market structure. The Journal of Finance, 43(3), 617–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Handa, P., Schwartz, R. A., & Tiwari, A. (2003). Quote setting and price formation in an order drivern market. Journal of Financial Markets, 6, 461–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harras, G., & Sornette, D. (2011). How to grow a bubble: A model of myopic adapting agents. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 80, 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hommes, C. (2006). Heterogeneous agent models in economics and finance. In: L. Tesfatsion, & K. L. Judd (Eds.) Handbook of computational economics (Chap. 23, 1st ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1109–1186). Elsevier.Google Scholar
  28. Hommes, C., Huang, H., & Wang, D. (2005a). A robust rational route to randomness in a simple asset pricing model. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 29, 1043–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hommes, C., Sonnemans, J., Tuinstra, J., & van de Velden, H. (2005b). Coordination of expectations in asset pricing experiments. Review of Financial Studies, 18(3), 955–980
  30. Hommes, C., Boswijk, P., & Manzan, S. (2007). Behavioral heterogneity in stock prices. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 31, 1938–1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Iori, G. (2002). A microsimulation of traders activity in the stock market: The role of heterogeneity, agents’ interactions and trade frictions. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 49, 269–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jacob-Leal, S. (2014). Fundamentalists, chartists and asset pricing anomalies. Quantitative Finance, 15(11), 1837–1850. doi: 10.1080/14697688.2014.972434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kovaleva, P., & Iori, G. (2015). The impact of reduced pre-trade transparency regimes on market quality. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 57, 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kyle, A. S. (1985). Continuous auctions and insider trading. Econometrica, 53(6), 1315–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. LeBaron, B. (2006). Agent-based computational finance. In: Handbook of computational economics (Vol. 2(B), pp. 1187–1227).Google Scholar
  36. LeBaron, B., Arthur, W. B., & Parlmer, R. (1999). Time series properties of an artificial stock market. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 23, 1487–1516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lux, T. (1995). Herd behaviour, bubbles and crashes. The Economic Journal, 105(431), 881–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lux, T., Marchesi, M., & Chen, S. H. (2001). Testing for non linear structure in an artificial financial market. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 46(3), 327–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Muranaga, J., & Shimizu, T. (1999). Market microstructure and market liquidity, Vol. 11. Bank for International Settlements.
  41. Murphy, J. J. (1999). Technical analysis of the financial markets. New York: Institute of Finance.Google Scholar
  42. O’Hara, M., & Easley, D. (1995). Market microstructure. In: R. Jarrow, V. Maksimovic, & W. Ziemba (Eds.), Handbooks in operations research and management science: Finance. North Holland.Google Scholar
  43. Orléan, A. (2011). L’Empire de la valeur. Refonder l’économie. La couleur des idées (p. 352). Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  44. Parlour, C. A. (1998). Price dynamics in limit order markets. The Review of Financial Studies, 11(4), 789–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pouget, C. (2000). L’efficience informationnelle revisitée sous l’angle de l’efficience allocative. GDR: In Colloque GDR.Google Scholar
  46. Salle, I., & Yildizoglu, M. (2012). Efficient sampling and metamodeling for computational economic models., cahier du GREThA.
  47. Shiller, R. J. (2003). From efficient markets theory to behavioral finance. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(1), 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Simon, H. A. (1982). Models of bounded rationality: Behavioral economics and business organization. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  49. Tedeschi, G., Iori, G., & Gallegati, M. (2012). Herding effects in order driven markets: The rise and fall of gurus. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 81, 82–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuritics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vriend, N. J. (2006). Ace models of endogenous interactions. In: L. Tesfatsion, & K. L. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of computational economics (Chap. 21, 1st ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1047–1079). Elsevier.Google Scholar
  52. Walter, C., & Brian, E. (2008). Critique de la valeur fondamentale. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Westerhoff, F. H. (2004). Multi-asset market dynamics. Macroeconomic Dynamics, 8, 596–616.Google Scholar
  54. Yamamoto, R. (2011). Order aggressiveness, pre-trade transparency, and long memory in an order-driven market. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 35, 1938–1963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yamamoto, R., & LeBaron, B. (2010). Order-splitting and long-memory in an order-driven market. The European Physical Journal B, 73, 51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aix-Marseille University (Aix-Marseille School of Economics)CNRS, EHESS and Centrale MarseilleMarseilleFrance
  2. 2.Université Paris-DauphinePSL Research University, CNRS and LAMSADEParisFrance

Personalised recommendations