Uses of futures contract highlight the importance of existence of future markets. However, from the beginning, manipulation is rampant in a futures market (Markham, 1991). Manipulation is blamed since it disturbs two primary functions of futures market, which are risk transfer and price discovery. Manipulation distorts price discovery by forcing improper motive other than legitimate demand and supply. As a result, manipulation reduces the efficiency in futures market. Regulators, therefore, are set to prevent the spread of manipulation but it turned out that the regulators were not able to stop the manipulation. The main reason for unsuccessfulness was that neither regulations nor acts have clear definition of manipulation. The most frequently discussed among the market manipulation is “long” market power manipulation also known as a “corner” or a “squeeze” (Pirrong, 2010). These occurs when a trader buy a vast number of future contracts. The trader, therefore, is able to influence the price artificially through controlling supply of the commodity of the future contract. This could affect to short sellers. In the futures market, the shorts sell more contracts than quantity available that actually can be delivered at maturity. It is because the contracts are used as hedgers and speculators to transfer risks. These contracts can be offset between the shorts and longs. The short have to either provide the commodity or pay differences between spot price and futures price at maturity unless the contracts are offset between the long and the short. However, if the large long acts like a monopolist through controlling over the supply, the shorts would be cornered and pay distorted amount to the monopolist, meaning that artificial price w... ... middle of paper ... ...es limited level of commodity that non-hedgers can hold in the month of supply up to 25 percent. This could prevent market power manipulation such as the corner. When a trader buys large quantity of derivatives so taking large position, the trader is able to exert his power to move price as his power would be increased with his position.Thus this rule restricts position held by the trader as well as ability to manipulate. Furthermore, this prevention helps to make the futures market more efficient. (Gwilym and Ebrahim, 2013).On the other hand, Pirrong (2007) agreed to a certain extent but Pirrong argued that the speculative position limit had a negative effect on market efficiency as it ‘actually reduce welfare’. As speculators are restricted in quantity, hedgers are not able to transfer price risk to speculators and speculators are not able to absorb the price risk.
Greed and incentives are two terms that each play a role in the other. Incentives are sometimes rewarding and sometimes punishing. Greed is intense and selfish, but is it really bad? By looking at it from an economical perspective, one can see how forms of greed and incentives play a crucial role in the free market society.
We all hear the term “monopoly” before. If somebody doesn't apprehend a monopoly is outlined as “The exclusive possession or management of the provision or change a artifact or service.” but a natural monopoly could be a little totally different in which means from its counterpart. during this paper we'll be wanting into the question: whether or not the govt. ought to read telephones, cable, or broadcasting as natural monopolies or not; and may they be regulated or not?
The power of a government-created monopoly over the market depends on the existence of close substitute products. If people view emeralds, rubies and sapphires as quite worthy substitutes diamonds over the market power of a relatively limited. In this case, any attempt to achieve increase of diamond prices will lead to the fact that consumers will switch to the acquisition of other precious stones. But if people believe that these stones are considerably inferior diamonds, the company is able to significantly affect the market price of the latter.
The market revolution was a time of change, liberation, growth, and of course American ingenuity. This new kind of revolution brought about many changes in the lives of Americans everywhere. New technology from the steamboat to the telegraph connected the country in a new way. The emergence of factories (and the factory system) brought the growth of commerce, specialization of products, and many jobs to a rapidly growing nation. The market revolution benefited our country by impacting the social groups of the slaves and the middle class, generating a change in laws of the economy and warranting the redefining of freedom.
In the world everything seems to have a monetary value to it, and it is surprising what people would do for money. Michael Sandel’s “Market and Morals” delves into just how far people would go to make money. Sandel explains the logistics of money by appealing to people through logos, ethos, and pathos as well. This conversation lead by Sandel makes the reader wonder why people would spend their money so frivolously, or do something as unnecessary as renting out their forehead to obtain money.
The market revolution caused the decline in small-scale production for local use into a rise in large-scale production in manufacturing. The market revolution is the expansion of the marketplace that occurred in early nineteenth century, the construction of new roads and canals that interconnected for the first time. The Erie Canal provided a successful source of transportation, states got involved and spent money into the transportation networks that stimulated economic growth. With the rise of the economic growth there comes problems. Although changes brought by the market revolution helped strengthen the United States economy, there were many effects from the market revolution that caused boom-bust cycles, class division, struggle in upward
The Standard Oil case illustrates how a vertical relationship can create horizontal market power. Granitz and Klein argue that in such a case, the vertical relationship should not be the central aspect of concern for antitrust agencies. It was the explicit horizontal conspiracy by the railroads with the help of Standard that jointly fixed rail rates and railroad market shares. “Such horizontal collusive behavior is clearly anticompetitive, and would be anticompetitive even if there were no vertical connection between Standard and the railroads” (Granitz and Klein 1996, p. 45). They conclude their article by stating that their detailed analysis did not support any new antitrust policy that would condemn a vertical relationship in the absence of a horizontal conspiracy.
Marshall’s explanation of how producers decide is divided in two decision making functions: 1) the price bidding function and 2) the production level start up function. Producers do not impose prices; they propose list prices and buyers decide how much to buy at prices proposed, of course after some possible bargaining. All the same producers do not impose production levels, they invest with a production level target that sometime later may succeed or not. Both price and production follow demand in the same direction; if demand grows then producers observe that their individual inventories decrease and hence they, acting in cooperation or huge competition among them, raise their own prices and production levels. Next, each producer decide whether to accept the amount sold and keep the selling prices or to change bid prices and production levels again until a satisfactory, or inevitable, solution comes about. This satisfactory solution looks ...
Price gouging is increasing the price of a product during crisis or disaster. The price is increased due to temporal increase in demand while supply remains constrained. In many jurisdictions, price gauging is widely considered as immoral and is illegal. However, from a market point of view, price gouging is a correct outcome of an efficient market.
Predatory pricing “is alleged to occur when a firm sets a price for its product that is below some measure of cost and forfeits revenues in the short run to put competitors out of business” (Sheffet p.163-164). The reason firms take the short term loss is because they hope to drive out competitors and raise prices to monopolistic levels. By doing this, they covered their short term loss to make even greater profits in the long term than they would have by not using predatory tactics (Sheffert). Predatory pricing became illegal under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. It has remained one of the more difficult allegations for prosecutors to prove, due to the complexity of determining the company’s actual intent and whether or not it the strategy is competitive pricing. According to Areeda and Turner, there are three ways to determine if a firm is implementing predatory pricing. First, a price above marginal cost is presumed lawful; second, a price below marginal cost is considered unlawful, except when there is strong demand; and third, average variable cost is considered a good proxy for marginal cost. This is a reason predatory pricing is still important today. The courts must decide whether or not companies are engaging in competitive prices for the good of the consumers or are using predatory tactics for the good of their own company. The purpose of this paper is to focus on the current legislation regarding predatory pricing, determining when there is predation in an industry and the cause and effect relationship it has on an industry.
Agreeing with other industry members what price to charge is known as collusion. Collusion is defined as “Action in concert without any formal agreement… [it] is common when anti-monopoly legislation makes explicit agreements illegal or unenforceable. Its existence is [sometimes] extremely difficult to prove” Black et al (2012). Within this analysis, I will explain what collusion is, the different types, why firms may enter into this agreement, then outline a past example and finally explain why this silent or spoken agreement may break down. Collusive agreements or cartels may however be created by governments to protect and positively influence markets, examples of this are the US sugar manufacturing cartel (operating between 1934-74) and OPEC which is still in operation today.
Our large purchasing power allows us the opportunity to consolidate our purchases and create futures contracts for a better price. This can help sustain our margins in a weaker economy, or hedge against a great increase in coffee purchases driving the demand and price of beans up.
of USD, it would need to put more weight in long futures contracts as much as they believe in by
A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of returns to previous investors from funds paid by new investors.With little or no legal earnings, Ponzi schemes require a consistent flow of money from new investors to operate. Ponzi schemes tend to collapse when the operator is unable to recruit new investors ,when a large number of investors ask to cash out or if the operator disappears.These types of financial fraud have had a tremendous affect on the accounting profession, in the form of forensic accounting.
Although it might seem that Christina Rossetti’s poem Goblin Market, supports the theme of sisterly love and relationships, in fact, a careful study of Laura’s unhealthy appetite and forceful temptations uncovers the bitter controversy over the roles of women that took place during the Victorian times, when women were often symbolized as pure and treated like domestic commodities.