Knowledge that Transforms

We consider a model in which the market period is divided into T rounds of trading, with the arrival of consumers determined exogenously. A monopolistic market maker sets the bid-price and the ask-price in each round, accepting all trades at the stated prices. Optimal prices remain constant when the aggregate supply and demand are known to the market maker, even if supplies and demands within individual rounds are not known. Examples illustrate the endogenous determination of inventory holding costs. The viability of a market-maker system is compared to an auction market with and without a “sophisticated” trader.

When information is sold, there is often a reliability problem since anyone can claim to have superior knowledge. Optimal strategies which allow a seller to establish that he is informed are considered in a standard one-period, two-asset model. When risk aversion is unobservable, an information market is viable and both the seller and the buyers are better off participating. However, the seller cannot obtain the full value of his information because of the reliability problem. This provides an opportunity for intermediation since an intermediary may be able to capture some of the remaining value.

We examine delivery systems that disseminate market timing information either through newsletters or by setting up timing funds in which investors can invest. Absent market imperfections, both systems produce the same result. With restrictions on borrowing, or with other nonlinearities, the newletter system is superior. This result does not depend on the cost of obtaining information or uncertainty about, or the manipulation of, the quality of the information. Institutional restrictions on borrowing, and preferences that lead to nonlinear responses to information signals, provide one explanation for the plethora of market timing newsletters and the paucity of market timing funds.

This paper considers a securities market in which orders are channeled through professional broker-dealers such as London's market makers or the large banks operating on continental exchanges. If these dual-capacity dealers can judge the motives behind their customers' orders, they can trade profitably on their own account (even if they cannot “front run,” that is, trade on their own account before executing a customer order). It is shown that the dealers have an incentive to satisfy roughly half of their customers' orders from their own inventory if they are sure that orders are liquidity-motivated and not based on inside information. As a result of dual-capacity dealing, transaction costs for liquidity-motivated traders in the aggregate fall, but they rise for those traders who are unable to convince any dealer that they have no inside information. The liquidity of the main market worsens, even though its effective liquidity for customers whose orders are partly filled from broker-dealer inventories improves.

We examine a general equilibrium model of asset prices in the presence of a simple informational imperfection. Assets are productive only when combined with managerial services. A manager “controls” an asset; he can conceal some of the output at a cost. This limits the extent to which managers can shed risk by issuing claims. Incentive compatibility drives a wedge, the “value of control”, between physical and financial asset values. Equilibrium allocations can be supported by alternative specifications of the right to “name the next manager”. If this right is assigned to holders of claims, then financial asset prices exhibit “excess volatility.”

The algorithms of three automated trade execution systems are compared with respect to price discovery and quantity determination in markets for futures, options, and stocks. Efficiency of these systems is measured using the classical benchmark of Walrasian equilibrium pricing; welfare is measured in terms of trader and customer surplus. Floor trading is analyzed similarly and provides another benchmark for comparison of system performance. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Number: 314.

Recent theories of corporate organization hold that mutually owned firms arise to remedy agency problems associated with ownership by a separate class of stockholders. We propose an alternative theory of mutuality, in which mutuals arise endogenously as a self-selection mechanism to cope with adverse selection and systematic risk. This theory makes predictions about the nature of customer contracts and the pattern of dividend payments adopted by mutuals. We do not systematically test this theory against others. But the behavior of the Farm Credit System, a large financial mutual, is shown to be more in accord with our theory.