Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increased competition in the stock exchange industry, intensified by globalization and technological advancements, has motivated a number of changes in the stock exchange industry including demutualization and mergers.This thesis studies stock exchange demutualization and mergers in three separate but related essays.Essay one 1 investigates the stock market and product market effects of stock exchange mergers, which have been facilitated by demutualization.We find that shareholders of targets and shareholders of the combined exchanges realize significant positive abnormal returns.Additionally, we find that shareholders of competitors from countries in the same geographical region and competitors at the same stage of development also realize significant abnormal returns.We also find that on the product market, the merging exchanges increase their market share and experience reductions in bid-ask spreads while rivals experience decreased market share and increased bid-ask spreads.We contend that stock exchange mergers have resulted in significant wealth creation on the stock market and substantial value creation on the product market for the merging entities.Essay two examines the market quality implications of stock exchange demutualization.We find that exchanges undertaking demutualization (especially developed stock exchanges) achieve significant reductions in transaction costs and volatility.Although the demutualized exchanges see improvements in market quality, a controlled group of mutual rival stock exchanges have experienced increases in spreads and volatility in the post-demutualization period, and have, as a result, seen deterioration in market quality.Essay three explores the market power consequences of stock exchange mergers.We find that stock exchange mergers have not resulted in the exercise of market power.Instead, the mergers have led to efficiency gains for the merging exchanges and efficiency losses for rivals.Our findings are insensitive to several robustness checks.1 Essay one has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Financial Studies.iii Thanks to Greg Schmidt for the friendship and all the help with my hardware and other computing needs.I would also like to
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".