We consider an economy in which long-lived experts are matched with short-lived clients. Experts choose the type of client with whom they match, unobserved by the market. The interaction outcome depends on both the expert’s and the client’s type. We study the effects of supplying information about otherwise unobservable outcomes, such as “medical report cards,” to help clients identify better experts. Such information can lead to inefficient matches, as experts reject risky clients to build their reputation. Hence, information can reduce welfare. Withholding information can mitigate these perverse incentives at the cost of misallocating experts known to be inept.

We experimentally study decentralized one-to-one matching markets with transfers. We vary the information available to participants, complete or incomplete, and the surplus structure, supermodular or submodular. Several insights emerge. First, while markets often culminate in efficient matchings, stability is more elusive, reflecting the difficulty of arranging attendant transfers. Second, incomplete information and submodularity present hurdles to efficiency and especially stability; their combination drastically diminishes stability's likelihood. Third, matchings form ``from the top down'' in complete-information supermodular markets, but exhibit many more and less-obviously ordered offers otherwise. Last, participants' market positions matter far more than their dynamic bargaining styles for outcomes.