Thoughts about Bonds and Transparency

Debt is traded very differently from most corporate equity. The secondary market for bonds gets along without the big listed exchanges that provide a central narrative in the world of corporate stock. Indeed, for a long time trades were negotiated and agreed upon through telephone calls. In the 1990s, it occurred to various pioneers that “we could use the internet for this” and they tried to create an exchange-like model, an anonymous central limit order book (CLOB). A company called Trading Edge created BondLink for this purpose.

Perhaps a related development: in 1998, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission at the time, Arthur Levitt, said in a speech at the Media Studies Center in New York, “Investors have a right to know the prices at which bonds are being bought and sold. Transparency will help investors make better decisions, and it will increase confidence in the fairness of the markets.”

Well, more transparency is always greater than less if the difference is costless. But if the difference is costless, and there are people who want the greater transparency, then the problem solves itself. The problem is that such differences always do have costs. At any rate, there was no great market demand for BondLink, and Trading Edge itself disappeared in 2002.

By that time, though a second wave of entrepreneurs had decided on a more incremental approach to changing the bond markets. They created the electronic request-for-quote model (RfQ), which lowered execution cost and increased efficiency vis-à-vis the old Graham-Bell based system, but kept allowed the bond world to keep its decentralized feel. The RfQ was a click-to-trade billboard system, and sufficiently successful to allow for steadily growing volume over the next ten years.

Comments

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog