No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Comment: Stock Market Reforms
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 October 2009
Extract
My remarks are divided into two sections. The first section briefly summarizes the major points of the two papers. I should acknowledge that I agree with almost all of the conclusions by Farrar and Mendelson regarding the reforms which have taken place and the beneficial effects of these reforms. The second section briefly discusses one adverse effect of the institutional market not remedied by the reforms. This adverse consequence is only briefly mentioned by Farrar, while it is discussed by Mendelson, but the full implications are not considered.
- Type
- Reform of Financial Institutions and Markets: A Progress Evaluation
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1974
References
REFERENCES
[1]Bleakley, Fred. “Illiquidity: Is It Becoming a Problem Again?” Institutional Investor, vol. 6, no. 9 (September 1972), pp. 42–45.Google Scholar
[2]Evans, J. L., and Archer, S. H.. “Diversification and the Reduction of Dispersion: An Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Finance, vol. 23, no. 5 (December 1968), pp. 769–779.Google Scholar
[3]Farrar, Donald E. “The Coming Reform on Wall Street.” Harvard Business Review, vol. 50, no. 5 (September–October 1972), pp. 108–117.Google Scholar
[4]Fisher, Lawrence, and Lorie, James H.. “Some Studies of Variability of Returns on Investments in Common Stocks.” The Journal of Business, vol. 43, no. 2 (April 1970), pp. 99–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Fiske, Heide. “Can the Specialist Cope with the Age of Block Trading?” Institutional Investor, vol. 3, no. 8 (August 1969), pp. 29–34.Google Scholar
[6]Freund, William C., and Minor, David F.. “Institutional Activity on NYSE: 1975 and 1980.” Perspectives on Planning No. 10, New York Stock Exchange, Inc., June 1972.Google Scholar
[7]Gaumnitz, Jack E. “Maximal Gains from Diversification and Implications for Portfolio Management.” Mississippi Valley Journal of Business and Economics, vol. 6, no. 3 (Spring 1971), pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
[8]Klemkosky, Robert C., and Scott, David F. Jr. “Withdrawal of the Individual Investor from the Equity Markets.” MSU Business Topics, vol. 21, no. 2 (Spring 1973), pp. 7–14.Google Scholar
[9]Loomis, Carol J. “How the Terrible Two–Tier Market Came to Wall Street.” Fortune July 1973), pp. 82–88, 186, 188–90.Google Scholar
[10]Lyons, John F. “What Happens When Liquidity Disappears?” Institutional Investor, vol. 3, no. 11 (November 1969), pp. 29–36, 98.Google Scholar
[ll]McClintick, David. “Illiquid Stocks—Lack of Ready Buyers and Sellers Imperils the Stock Market.” Wall Street Journal (December 10, 1971), p. 1.Google Scholar
[12]New York Stock Exchange Fact Book, 1973. New York: New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 1973.Google Scholar
[13]Rosenberg, Marvin. “Institutional Investors: Holdings, Prices and Liquidity.” Financial Analysts Journal, vol. 30, no. 2 (March–April 1974), pp. 53–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Seligman, Daniel. “The Terrible Two-Tier Market (cont.).” Fortune (October 1973), pp. 105–106, 111.Google Scholar
[15]Smidt, Seymour. “Which Road to an Efficient Stock Market?” Financial Analysts Journal, vol. 27, no. 5 (September–October 1971), pp. 18–20, 64–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]Soldofsky, Robert M.Institutional Holdings of Common Stock, 1900–2000. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Bureau of Business Research, University of Michigan, 1971.Google Scholar
[17]“The Two-Tier Market Lingers On, Sort of.” Fortune (February 1974), pp. 41, 44, 45.Google Scholar
[18]U.S. Congress, House, Securities and Exchange Commission. Institutional Investory Study Report, H. Doc. 92–64, 92nd Cong., 1st sess., 1971.Google Scholar
[19]West, Richard R. “Institutional Trading and the Changing Stock Market.” Financial Analysts Journal, vol. 27, no. 3 (May–June 1971), pp. 17–24, 71, 72, 78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar