Macroeconomic fluctuations and the narratives that shape them form a mutually reinforcing cycle: public discourse can spur behavioural changes leading to economic shifts, which then result in changes in the stories that propagate. We show that shifts in semantic embedding space can be causally linked to financial market shocks -- deviations from the expected market behaviour. Furthermore, we show how partisanship can influence the predictive power of text for market fluctuations and shape reactions to those same shocks. We also provide some evidence that text-based signals are particularly salient during unexpected events such as COVID-19, highlighting the value of language data as an exogenous variable in economic forecasting. Our findings underscore the bidirectional relationship between news outlets and market shocks, offering a novel empirical approach to studying their effect on each other.

We study the profit-maximization problem of a monopolistic market-maker who sets two-sided prices in an asset market. The sequential decision problem is hard to solve because the state space is a function. We demonstrate that the belief state is well approximated by a Gaussian distribution. We prove a key monotonicity property of the Gaussian state update which makes the problem tractable, yielding the first optimal sequential market-making algorithm in an established model. The algorithm leads to a surprising insight: an optimal monopolist can provide more liquidity than perfectly competitive market-makers in periods of extreme uncertainty, because a monopolist is willing to absorb initial losses in order to learn a new valuation rapidly so she can extract higher profits later.

We study the behavior of an economic platform (e.g., Amazon, Uber Eats, Instacart) under shocks, such as COVID-19 lockdowns, and the effect of different regulation considerations imposed on a platform. To this end, we develop a multi-agent Gym environment of a platform economy in a dynamic, multi-period setting, with the possible occurrence of economic shocks. Buyers and sellers are modeled as economically-motivated agents, choosing whether or not to pay corresponding fees to use the platform. We formulate the platform's problem as a partially observable Markov decision process, and use deep reinforcement learning to model its fee setting and matching behavior. We consider two major types of regulation frameworks: (1) taxation policies and (2) platform fee restrictions, and offer extensive simulated experiments to characterize regulatory tradeoffs under optimal platform responses. Our results show that while many interventions are ineffective with a sophisticated platform actor, we identify a particular kind of regulation -- fixing fees to optimal, pre-shock fees while still allowing a platform to choose how to match buyer demands to sellers -- as promoting the efficiency, seller diversity, and resilience of the overall economic system.

We study the profit-maximization problem of a monopolistic market-maker who sets two-sided prices in an asset market. The sequential decision problem is hard to solve because the state space is a function. We demonstrate that the belief state is well approximated by a Gaussian distribution. We prove a key monotonicity property of the Gaussian state update which makes the problem tractable, yielding the first optimal sequential market-making algorithm in an established model. The algorithm leads to a surprising insight: an optimal monopolist can provide more liquidity than perfectly competitive market-makers in periods of extreme uncertainty, because a monopolist is willing to absorb initial losses in order to learn a new valuation rapidly so she can extract higher profits later.

Ensuring sufficient liquidity is one of the key challenges for designers of prediction markets. Various market making algorithms have been proposed in the literature and deployed in practice, but there has been little effort to evaluate their benefits and disadvantages in a systematic manner. We introduce a novel experimental design for comparing market structures in live trading that ensures fair comparison between two different microstructures with the same trading population. Participants trade on outcomes related to a two-dimensional random walk that they observe on their computer screens. They can simultaneously trade in two markets, corresponding to the independent horizontal and vertical random walks. We use this experimental design to compare the popular inventory-based logarithmic market scoring rule (LMSR) market maker and a new information based Bayesian market maker (BMM). Our experiments reveal that BMM can offer significant benefits in terms of price stability and expected loss when controlling for liquidity; the caveat is that, unlike LMSR, BMM does not guarantee bounded loss. Our investigation also elucidates some general properties of market makers in prediction markets. In particular, there is an inherent tradeoff between adaptability to market shocks and convergence during market equilibrium.