The Impact of E-Commerce on Competition in the Retail Brokerage Industry
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes the impact of e-commerce on markets where established firms face competition from Internet-based entrants with focused offerings. In particular, we study the retail brokerage sector where the growth of online brokerages and the availability of alternate sources of information and research services have challenged the dominance of traditional brokerages. We develop a stylized game-theoretic model to analyze the impact of competition between an incumbent full-service brokerage firm with a bundled offering of research services and trade execution and an online entrant offering just trade execution. We find that as consumers’ willingness to pay for research declines, the incumbent finds it optimal to unbundle its offering when competing with the online entrant. We also find that the online entrant chooses a lower quality of trade execution when faced with direct competition from the incumbent’s unbundled offering. The analytical model motivates a unique field experiment placing actual simultaneous trades with traditional full-service and online brokers, to compare order handling practices and the quality of trade execution. In keeping with our analytical results, our empirical findings show a significant difference in the quality of execution between online brokerages and their full-service counterparts. We discuss the relevance of our findings for quality differentiation, price convergence, and profit decline in a variety of markets where traditional incumbents are faced with changes in the competitive landscape as a result of e-commerce.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it