IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rje/bellje/v8y1977ispringp128-150.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Regulation of National Securities Exchanges: A Test of the Capture Hypothesis

Author

Listed:
  • G. William Schwert

Abstract

This paper tests the hypothesis that members of national securities exchanges have received net benefits from the regulatory activities of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The prices of stock exchange seats are analyzed in time periods of major changes in the regulation of the securities industry during the 1926-1972 period. Time series regression models are used to identify changes in seat prices which are unrelated to changes in stock prices or share trading volume. Empirical analysis of the unexpected changes in seat prices indicates that the most important regulatory change occurred in March, 1934, when the Securities and Exchange Act was first considered by Congress; both New York and American Stock Exchange seat prices fell unexpectedly by about 50 percent in one month. There is no evidence that this capital loss was ever recouped after March, 1934. There is also evidence that recent changes in the fixed commission rate structure of the brokerage industry have had a negative impact on seat prices. Thus, there is evidence which contradicts the hypothesis that securities brokers have benefited by capturing control of the regulators of the securities industry.

Suggested Citation

  • G. William Schwert, 1977. "Public Regulation of National Securities Exchanges: A Test of the Capture Hypothesis," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 8(1), pages 128-150, Spring.
    • Handle: RePEc:rje:bellje:v:8:y:1977:i:spring:p:128-150
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0361-915X%28197721%298%3A1%3C128%3APRONSE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y&origin=repec
    File Function: full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to JSTOR subscribers. See http://www.jstor.org for details.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lance E. Davis & Larry Neal & Eugene N. White, 2005. "The Highest Price Ever: The Great NYSE Seat Sale of 1928-1929 and Capacity Constraints," NBER Working Papers 11556, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Jingyun Ma & Fengming Song & Zhishu Yang, 2010. "The dual role of the government: securities market regulation in China 1980‐2007," Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 18(2), pages 158-177, May.
    3. Dongmin Kong & Junyi Xiang & Jian Zhang & Yiyang Lu, 2019. "Politically connected independent directors and corporate fraud in China," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 58(5), pages 1347-1383, March.
    4. Battalio, Robert & Hatch, Brian & Loughran, Tim, 2011. "Who benefited from the disclosure mandates of the 1964 Securities Acts Amendments?," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 1047-1063, September.
    5. Lawrence J. White, "undated". "Technological Change, Financial Innovation, and Financial Regulation: The Challenges for Public Policy," Center for Financial Institutions Working Papers 97-33, Wharton School Center for Financial Institutions, University of Pennsylvania.
    6. Muhammad Zubair Mumtaz & Zachary Alexander Smith, 2021. "Analyzing the duration of IPOs from offering to listing using the Cox proportional hazards model," Portuguese Economic Journal, Springer;Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestao, vol. 20(1), pages 5-43, January.
    7. Barry Weingast, 1984. "The congressional-bureaucratic system: a principal agent perspective (with applications to the SEC)," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 147-191, January.
    8. Raymond Brastow & David Rystrom, 1988. "Wealth Effects of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 32(2), pages 59-65, October.
    9. Dino Falaschetti, 2008. "Can Lobbying Prevent Anticompetitive Outcomes? Evidence On Consumer Monopsony In Telecommunications," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 1065-1096.
    10. William McEachern, 1987. "Federal advisory commissions in an economic model of representative democracy," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 41-62, January.
    11. Harold Mulherin, J., 2007. "Measuring the costs and benefits of regulation: Conceptual issues in securities markets," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 13(2-3), pages 421-437, June.
    12. Richard Barke & William Riker, 1982. "A political theory of regulation with some observations on railway abandonments," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 73-106, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rje:bellje:v:8:y:1977:i:spring:p:128-150. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.rje.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.