Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-03T17:32:07.103Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Price of Disclosure in the Thoroughbred Yearling Market

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Emily J. Plant  and
C. Jill Stowe
Emily J. Plant
Affiliation:
School of Business Administration, The University of Montana, Missoula, Montana
C. Jill Stowe
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky
Get access

Extract

In this article, we examine disclosure as a tool to mitigate the effects of asymmetric information in a Thoroughbred yearling market. If disclosures influence market price, information contained therein must be valuable to buyers and hence diminish asymmetric information. Using public auction data, we find that disclosures do not influence price in a segment of the auction in which an implicit quality certification is available. However, in the other segment, we find evidence that some disclosures may provide valuable information to buyers.

Keywords

asymmetric informationmandatory disclosurevoluntary disclosureThoroughbred industryauctiondisclosureQ13D82L82
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , May 2013 , pp. 243 - 257
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akerlof, G.A. “The Market for ‘Lemons’: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 84(1970):488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagnoli, M., and Lipman, B.L.. “Stock Price Manipulation through Takeover Bids.” The Rand Journal of Economics 27(1996):124–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buzby, J.C., and Jessup, E.L.. “The Relative Impact of Macroeconomic and Yearling-Specific Variables in Determining Thoroughbred Yearling Price.” Applied Economics 26(1994):1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chezum, B., and Wimmer, B.. “Roses or Lemons: Adverse Selection in the Market for Thoroughbred Yearlings.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 79(1997):521–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commer, M. Jr. “The Effect of Non-Phenotypic Data on Thoroughbred Prices in the Midatlantic Market.” The Professional Animal Scientist 7(1991):18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishman, M.J., and Hagerty, K.M.. “The Mandatory Disclosure of Trades and Market Liquidity.” Review of Financial Studies 8(1995):637–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jovanovic, B. “The Truthful Disclosure of Information.” The Bell Journal of Economics 13(1982):36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karungu, P., Reed, M., and Tvedt, D.. “Macro-economic Factors and the Thoroughbred Industry.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 25(1993):165–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeneland Association, Inc. Conditions of This Sale. 2008 September Yearling Sale, Volume 1. Lexington, KY: Keeneland Association Inc., 2008a.Google Scholar
Keeneland Association, Inc. 2008 September Yearling Sale. Keeneland Association Inc. Sales Catalog. Lexington, KY: Keeneland Association Inc., 2008b.Google Scholar
Keeneland Association, Inc. 2008 September Yearling Sale Repository System Report. Lexington, KY: Keeneland Association Inc., 2008c.Google Scholar
Kiesel, K., Buschena, D., and Smith, V.. “Do Voluntary Biotechnology Labels Matter to the Consumer? Evidence from the Fluid Milk Market.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87(2005):378–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiesel, K., McCluskey, J.J., and Villas-Boas, S.B.. “Nutritional Labeling and Consumer Choices.” Annual Review of Resource Economics 3(2011):141–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathios, A.D. “The Impact of Mandatory Disclosure Laws on Product Choices: An Analysis of the Salad Dressing Market.” The Journal of Law & Economics 43(2000):651–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard, L.J., and Stoeppel, K.M.. “Hedonic Price Analysis of Thoroughbred Broodmares in Foal.” Journal of Agribusiness 25(2007):181–95.Google Scholar
Mikkelson, W.H., and Ruback, R.S.. “An Empirical Analysis of the Interfirm Equity Investment Process.” Journal of Financial Economics 14(1985):523–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nayga, R.M. “On Consumers' Perception about the Reliability of Nutrient Content Claims on Food Labels.” Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing 11(2000):43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neibergs, J.S. “A Hedonic Price Analysis of Thoroughbred Broodmare Characteristics.” Agribusiness 17(2001):299–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neibergs, J.S., and Thalheimer, R.. “Price Expectation and Supply Response in the Thoroughbred Yearling Market.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 29(1997):419–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, C, and Smith, I.. “The Price of Thoroughbred Yearlings in Britain.” Journal of Sports Economics 9(2008):43–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poerwanto, D., and Stowe, C.J.. “The Relationship between Sire Representation and Average Yearling Price in the Thoroughbred Industry.” Journal of Agribusiness 28(2010):61–74.Google Scholar
Robbins, M., and Kennedy, P.E.. “Buyer Behavior in a Regional Thoroughbred Yearling Market.” Applied Economics 33(2001):969–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spence, M. “Job Market Signaling.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 87(1973):355–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiglitz, J.E. “The Theory of ‘Screening,’ Education, and the Distribution of Income.” The American Economic Review 65(1975):283–300.Google Scholar
Thoroughbred Times. Thoroughbred ttmes Buyer's Guide (Vol. 1-8). Lexington, KY: Thoroughbred Times Co. Inc., 2008.Google Scholar
Vickner, S., and Koch, S.I.. “Hedonic Pricing, Information, and the Market for Thoroughbred Yearlings.” Journal of Agribusiness 19(2001):173–89.Google Scholar
Wimmer, B.S., and Chezum, B.. “An Empirical Examination of Quality Certification in a ‘Lemon's Market’.” Economic Inquiry 41(2003):279–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar