Les taux de commission sur les transactions boursières au Canada : Acte II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is the second part of a study about what could be called an economic play or drama: the deregulation of commission rates on stock exchange transactions. This article presents an economic analysis of the long-standing policy in Canada of charging minimum commission on stock transaction. The discussion draws heavily on the arguments put forward by the Montreal Exchange as a part of its recent ongoing defense of fixed commission. The arguments fall into three categories: (1) the economic approach to the analysis of the brokerage business (uncertainty in product quality) (2) the information produce by the brokerage industry are public goods because of externalities and (3) the structure of the brokerage industry. According to the Exchange's logic, the elimination of the practice of price fixing would lead to a less efficient capital market because of the reduction in the production of information and to an increase in the concentration in the brokerage business. The analysis presented in this article leads to the conclusion that the Exchange's case is faulty in terms of both its theory and its empirical proofs and that minimum commission rates on stock exchange transactions cannot be justified on economic grounds.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".