An Analysis of the Price Formation Process at a HUD Auction

2000 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 279-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcus Allen ◽  
Judith Swisher
2008 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 232-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henk Berkman ◽  
Paul D. Koch

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bing Liang ◽  
Charles Cao ◽  
Yong Chen ◽  
William N. Goetzmann

2010 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-34
Author(s):  
Matthew L. Cypher ◽  
Darren K. Hayunga

We investigate the potential competition between multifamily and condominium developers for raw land throughout the U.S. When considering the entire sample period, we find evidence that condominium developers paid, on average, more for land than their multifamily counterparts. Alternatively, when we separate the sample into low versus high‐growth locations and two time subperiods, we observe that the premium is not entirely consistent. The average premiums appear to be largely a result of the high‐growth locations from 2004 to mid‐2008. Indeed, the results demonstrate that condominium developers paid over 60 percent more for land in high‐growth states during the later subperiod. This extraordinary premium calls into question the price formation process in these locations. Santruka Savo darbe nagrinejame potencialia konkurencija tarp daugiabučiu namu ir kooperatiniu namu vystytoju del žemes sklypu visoje JAV teritorijoje. Nagrinedami visa imties laikotarpi, aptinkame irodymu, kad kooperatiniu namu vystytojai už sklypus vidutiniškai mokejo daugiau nei ju kolegos, statantys daugiabučius namus. Kita vertus, suskirsčius imti i letai ir sparčiai besivystančias vietoves bei du laikotarpius, pastebima, kad priemoka ne visiškai pastovi. Regis, priemoku vidurki iš esmes lemia sparčiai besivystančios vietoves ir laikotarpis nuo 2004 m. iki 2008 m. vidurio. Iš tiesu rezultatai rodo, kad per ši laikotarpi kooperatiniu namu vystytojai sparčiai besivystančiose valstijose už sklypus mokejo per 60 proc. daugiau. Tokia neitiketina priemoka verčia abejoti tose vietovese taikomu kainodaros procesu.


Author(s):  
Fox Merritt B

This chapter provides a U.S. perspective on the MiFID II equity trading regulation. The author concludes that a comparison of the EU and U.S. market structure rules, and the concerns that generated them, suggests four three key differences. Relative to the United States, the EU shows (i) more concern with having an effective price formation process, (ii) more concern with the possibility that HFTs contribute to price instability and engage in market abuse, (iii) less concern with promoting competition among trading venues. These differences have characterized the MiFID I era and are reflected in MiFID II as well, although MiFID II does evince somewhat greater concern about competition among trading venues than was true before.


1992 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 233-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen R. Koontz ◽  
Michael A. Hudson ◽  
Matthew W. Hughes

AbstractThe efficiency of livestock futures markets continues to receive attention, particularly with regard to their forward pricing or forecasting ability. The purpose of this paper is to present a more general theory that encompasses the forward pricing concept. It is argued that futures contract prices for competitively produced nonstorable commodities, such as live cattle and live hogs, follow a rational formation process. Futures contract prices reflect expected market conditions when contracts are sufficiently close to the delivery month that the supply of the underlying commodity cannot be changed. However, prior to the period when future supplies are relatively fixed, futures contract prices should adjust to reflect the competitive equilibrium, where output price equals average costs of production. Presented evidence suggests that live cattle and live hog futures markets support the rational price formation hypothesis: prices for distant contracts reflect average costs of feeding. Implications for risk management strategies are considered.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 141
Author(s):  
Hendri Hermawan Adinugraha

<p>The sale and purchase of the “Janda Bolong” plant which was busy in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic at a very fantastic price, which was then suspected to contain monkey business practices. So this study aims to describe a review of the Islamic economic philosophy of monkey business practices in the “Janda Bolong” plants sale and purchase transaction. The research method used is a qualitative research method with the type of library research using a deductive approach. The results of this study indicate that the practice of buying and selling that occurs in the object of the plant “Janda Bolong” is a type of monkey business with objects that are not commonly practiced. The “Janda Bolong” plant sale and purchase transaction contains a <em>fasid</em> (damaged) contract, where the contract is in accordance with the Sharia but in the nature of the contract there is a problem. The price formation process that occurs in it is also unfair, so it is not in accordance with Islamic law. In Islamic economic philosophy, the practice of monkey business in buying and selling the “Janda Bolong” plant is not allowed. Because it denotes the essence of the creation of humans on earth, namely as a caliphate by processing the available resources in order to achieve happiness in this world and the hereafter.</p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document