This paper investigates the existence and extent of economies of scale in depository and settlement systems. Evidence from 16 settlement institutions across different regions for the years 1993–2000 indicates the existence of significant economies of scale. The degree of such economies, however, differs by size of settlement institution and region. While smaller settlement service providers reveal a high potential of economies for scale, larger institutions show an increasing trend toward cost effectiveness. Clearing and settlement systems in countries in Europe and Asia report substantially larger economies of scale than those of the US system. European cross-border settlement seems to be more cost intensive than that on a domestic level, reflecting chiefly complexities of EU international securities settlement systems and differences in the scope of international settlement service providers. The evidence also reveals that investments in implementing new systems and upgrades of settlement technology continuously improved cost effectiveness over the sample period.

This paper investigates the existence and extent of economies of scale and scope among the stock exchanges. Evidence from 38 exchanges in 32 countries and 4 continents around the world for the years 1989–1998 portrays the existence of significant economies of scale and scope. The degree of such scale and scope however differs across size and regions. The largest exchanges show an increasing trend of cost effectiveness. The exchanges in North America and Europe report substantially higher economies of scale relative to the exchanges in the Asia-Pacific regions.

This paper stresses the importance of understanding operational choices, strategies, and performances of stock exchanges as regular operating firms [J. Finance 52 (1999) 655; J. Financial Markets 2 (1999) 329]. Using unbalanced panel data on 49 stock exchanges over the period 1989–1998, the paper traces the productivity of stock exchanges over time and across different types and groups of exchanges. We find significant variability in productivity – revenue and cost efficiency – across these exchanges. On average, North American exchanges are found to be most cost and revenue efficient. However, our findings also indicate that European exchanges have improved the most, in respect of cost efficiency, while exchanges in South America and Asia-Pacific are found to be lagging as regards both cost and revenue estimations. Evidence also indicates that investment in technology-related developments effectively influenced cost and revenue efficiency. Moreover, organisational structure and market competition are found to be significantly associated with both cost and revenue efficiency for the exchanges studied, whereas market size and quality are related only to revenue efficiency.