Liquid markets where agents have limited capacity to sign exclusive contracts, as well as imperfect knowledge of previous transactions by others, raise the following risk: An agent can promise the same asset to multiple counterparties and subsequently default. I show that in such markets an exchange can arise as a very simple type of intermediary that improves welfare. In particular, the only role of the exchange here is to set limits on the number of contracts that agents can report to it. Furthermore, reporting can be voluntary, i.e., pairs of agents can enter contracts without reporting them to the exchange and the exchange cannot observe whether agents enter such contracts. Interestingly, to implement an equilibrium in which agents report all their trades (voluntarily), the exchange may need to set position limits that are non-binding in equilibrium. In addition, the exchange must not make reported trades public (i.e., it is not a bulletin board). An alternative to an exchange is collateralized trade, but this alternative is costly because of the opportunity cost of collateral. I also show that the gains from an exchange increase when markets are more liquid (in the sense that the fixed costs per trade are lower) or when agents have more intangible capital (i.e., reputation)
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
Tano Santos & José A. Scheinkman, 2000.
"Competition Among Exchanges,"
CRSP working papers
514, Center for Research in Security Prices, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago.
[Downloadable!]
Stewart C. Myers & Raghuram G. Rajan, 1998.
"The Paradox of Liquidity,"
CRSP working papers
339, Center for Research in Security Prices, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago.
Bizer, David S & DeMarzo, Peter M, 1992.
"Sequential Banking,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(1), pages 41-61, February.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Matthew O. Jackson & Sandro Brusco, 1997.
"The Optimal Design of a Market,"
Discussion Papers
1186, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
[Downloadable!]