Price Manipulation, Price Discovery and Transaction Costs in the Crossing Network

Author(s):  
Mao Ye
2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamshed Y. Uppal

In many countries, capital markets are often served by multiple stock exchanges, typically with one national or dominant exchange and several regional or satellite exchanges. While multiple exchanges create a competitive landscape, they also lead to fragmented liquidity and diseconomies in operations. This paper examines the role of the Lahore Stock Exchange (LSE) in comparison with the country’s dominant exchange, the Karachi Stock Exchange (KSE), in four areas: (i) market efficiency in processing information, (ii) transaction costs, (iii) contribution to price discovery, and (iv) market integration. A comparative analysis of the exchange performance indicates the two exchanges to be at par in terms of informational efficiency and transaction costs. There is evidence of informational linkages and interdependencies between the two exchanges; the LSE appears to contribute to price discovery and competes to an appreciable extent. Against the background of proposals to merge the country’s three stock exchanges, a major consideration in evaluating public policy is the relative performance of the LSE and its viability as an effective competitor. Eliminating interexchange competition by merging the stock exchanges is predicted to lead to higher transaction costs, lower incentives for regulatory compliance, and diminished motivation for promoting capital market development.


2003 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 139-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Frino ◽  
Andrew West

2020 ◽  
pp. 51-81
Author(s):  
D. P. Frolov

The transaction cost economics has accumulated a mass of dogmatic concepts and assertions that have acquired high stability under the influence of path dependence. These include the dogma about transaction costs as frictions, the dogma about the unproductiveness of transactions as a generator of losses, “Stigler—Coase” theorem and the logic of transaction cost minimization, and also the dogma about the priority of institutions providing low-cost transactions. The listed dogmas underlie the prevailing tradition of transactional analysis the frictional paradigm — which, in turn, is the foundation of neo-institutional theory. Therefore, the community of new institutionalists implicitly blocks attempts of a serious revision of this dogmatics. The purpose of the article is to substantiate a post-institutional (alternative to the dominant neo-institutional discourse) value-oriented perspective for the development of transactional studies based on rethinking and combining forgotten theoretical alternatives. Those are Commons’s theory of transactions, Wallis—North’s theory of transaction sector, theory of transaction benefits (T. Sandler, N. Komesar, T. Eggertsson) and Zajac—Olsen’s theory of transaction value. The article provides arguments and examples in favor of broader explanatory possibilities of value-oriented transactional analysis.


2013 ◽  
pp. 151-159
Author(s):  
O. Krasilnikov ◽  
E. Krasilnikova

The article discusses the development of non-public monetary systems (NPMS), defined as a specific economic institution. It presents their comparison with public money systems depending on the size of transaction costs. The authors come to the conclusion that in conditions of the information economy on the basis of Internet-technologies NPMS receive a new impetus to their development and can make serious competition in regard to public monetary systems.


2018 ◽  
pp. 52-69
Author(s):  
A. N. Oleinik

The article develops a transactional approach to studying science. Two concepts play a particularly important role: the institutional environment of science and scientific transaction. As an example, the North-American and Russian institutional environments of science are compared. It is shown that structures of scientific transactions (between peers, between the scholar and the academic administrator, between the professor and the student), transaction costs and the scope of academic freedom differ in these two cases. Transaction costs are non-zero in both cases, however. At the same time, it is hypothesized that a greater scope of academic freedom in the North American case may be a factor contributing to a higher scientific productivity.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document