1,720,991 research outputs found

    Information sales and insider trading

    No full text
    CEPR Discussion Papers 466

    Giffen goods and market making

    No full text
    This paper shows that information effects per se are not responsible for the Giffen goods anomaly affecting traders’ demands in multi asset noisy, rational expectations equilibrium markets. The role that information plays in traders’ strategies also matters. In a market with risk averse, uninformed traders, informed agents have a dual trading motive: speculation and market making. The former entails using prices to assess the effect of error terms; the latter requires employing them to disentangle noise traders’ demands within aggregate orders. In a correlated environment this complicates the signal extraction problem and may generate upward sloping demand curves. Assuming (i) that competitive, risk neutral market makers price the assets or that (ii) uninformed traders’ risk tolerance coefficient grows unboundedly, removes the market making component from informed traders’ demands rendering them well behaved in prices. Copyright Springer-Verlag Berlin/Heidelberg 2005Giffen goods, Financial economics, Asset pricing, Information and market efficiency.,

    A comparison of stock market mechanisms

    No full text
    A comparison of stock market mechanism

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Get PDF
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore