The purpose of this paper is to evaluate how markets in financial instruments directive (MiFID) and regulation national market system (Reg NMS) affect the competition for order…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to evaluate how markets in financial instruments directive (MiFID) and regulation national market system (Reg NMS) affect the competition for order flow among trading venues in, respectively, Europe and the USA.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper examines the differences between MiFID and Reg NMS and provides, based on market microstructure principles, insights as to their likely impact on European and the US securities markets.
Findings
Although MiFID and Reg NMS share the common objective of enhancing competition in securities markets, they adopt different provisions with respect to three issues that strongly influence the competition for order flow among trading venues. Specifically, some of the provisions set forth by the US regulation with respect to the best execution duty, the consolidation of market data and the disclosure of execution quality information appear to be more effective, compared to the European Union ones, in strengthening competition for order flow among trading venues.
Research limitations/implications
Regulatory factors can only partly explain the current structure of the European and US securities markets. Technology and heterogeneity in traders' demand are other important factors that concur in shaping the European and US markets.
Practical implications
The degree of competition for order flow among trading venues depends on how regulations define the best execution duty, the availability of updated and consolidated pre‐trade (i.e. quotations) and post‐trade (i.e. transactions) information and the efficiency of post‐trading infrastructures.
Originality/value
The paper addresses issues not yet investigated and provides valuable insights for financial intermediaries, incumbent and prospective exchanges as to the competition in the securities industry, and to regulators as to the likely impact of the new regulations.
Details
Keywords
Casper Hendrik Claassen, Eric Bidet, Junki Kim and Yeanhee Choi
This study aims to assess the alignment of South Korea’s government-certified social enterprises (GCSEs) with prevailing social enterprise (SE) models, notably the entrepreneurial…
Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to assess the alignment of South Korea’s government-certified social enterprises (GCSEs) with prevailing social enterprise (SE) models, notably the entrepreneurial nonprofit, social cooperative and social business models delineated in the “Emergence of Social Enterprises in Europe” (Defourny and Nyssens, 2012, 2017a, 2017b) and the “principle of interest” frameworks (Defourny et al., 2021). Thereby, it seeks to situate these enterprises within recognized frameworks and elucidate their hybrid identities.
Design/methodology/approach
Analyzing panel data from 2016 to 2020 for 259 GCSEs, this study uses tslearn for k-means clustering with dynamic time warping to assess their developmental trajectories and alignment with established SE models, which echoes the approach of Defourny et al. (2021). We probe the “fluid” identities of semi-public sector SEs, integrating Gordon’s (2013) notion that they tend to blend various SE traditions as opposed to existing in isolation.
Findings
Results indicate that GCSEs do align with prevalent SE frameworks. Furthermore, they represent a spectrum of SE models, suggesting the versatility of the public sector in fostering diverse types of SEs.
Originality/value
The concept of a semi-public sector SE model has been relatively uncharted, even though it holds significance for research on SE typologies and public sector entrepreneurship literature. This study bridges this gap by presenting empirical evidence of semi-public SEs and delineating the potential paths these enterprises might take as they amalgamate various SE traditions.