Fee Effects

Kathryn Judge
{"title":"Fee Effects","authors":"Kathryn Judge","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2270072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Intermediaries are a pervasive feature of modern economies. This article draws attention to an under-theorized cost arising from the use of specialized intermediaries — a systematic shift in the mix of transactions consummated. The interests of intermediaries are imperfectly aligned with the parties to a transaction. Intermediaries seek to maximize their fees, a transaction cost from the perspective of the parties. Numerous factors, including the requirement that a transaction create value in excess of the associated fees to proceed and an intermediary’s interest in maintaining a good reputation, constrain an intermediary’s tendency to use its influence in a self-serving manner. Nonetheless, these constraints are generally imperfect. As a result, when parties rely upon influential intermediaries, there is often a shift in the total mix of transactions consummated toward the transaction type that yields the greatest fee for the intermediary involved. This “fee effect” does more than influence the allocation of gains from trade. The primary cost takes the form of a foregone gain, that is, the difference between the welfare gains produced by the transaction actually consummated and the greater gains that would have been produced had the transaction type not been biased by the intermediary’s self interest. Moreover, reliance upon financial intermediaries can give rise to externalities, altering how capital is allocated in socially costly ways. The article’s contributions are two-fold. First, it provides a theoretical framework for assessing an intermediary’s tendency and capacity to use its influence in a way that affects the type of transaction consummated. This enables parallels to be drawn across disparate settings. Second, applying that framework, the article shows why fee effects may be particularly great in financial markets. In addition, the article considers ways to address fee effects. As a first step, the article suggests that policymakers and market participants should “follow the fees” to better understand the effects of intermediary influence.","PeriodicalId":10506,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Law School","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Columbia Law School","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2270072","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Intermediaries are a pervasive feature of modern economies. This article draws attention to an under-theorized cost arising from the use of specialized intermediaries — a systematic shift in the mix of transactions consummated. The interests of intermediaries are imperfectly aligned with the parties to a transaction. Intermediaries seek to maximize their fees, a transaction cost from the perspective of the parties. Numerous factors, including the requirement that a transaction create value in excess of the associated fees to proceed and an intermediary’s interest in maintaining a good reputation, constrain an intermediary’s tendency to use its influence in a self-serving manner. Nonetheless, these constraints are generally imperfect. As a result, when parties rely upon influential intermediaries, there is often a shift in the total mix of transactions consummated toward the transaction type that yields the greatest fee for the intermediary involved. This “fee effect” does more than influence the allocation of gains from trade. The primary cost takes the form of a foregone gain, that is, the difference between the welfare gains produced by the transaction actually consummated and the greater gains that would have been produced had the transaction type not been biased by the intermediary’s self interest. Moreover, reliance upon financial intermediaries can give rise to externalities, altering how capital is allocated in socially costly ways. The article’s contributions are two-fold. First, it provides a theoretical framework for assessing an intermediary’s tendency and capacity to use its influence in a way that affects the type of transaction consummated. This enables parallels to be drawn across disparate settings. Second, applying that framework, the article shows why fee effects may be particularly great in financial markets. In addition, the article considers ways to address fee effects. As a first step, the article suggests that policymakers and market participants should “follow the fees” to better understand the effects of intermediary influence.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
费用的影响
中介机构是现代经济的一个普遍特征。本文提请注意使用专业中介机构所产生的未被理论化的成本——已完成交易组合的系统性转变。中介机构的利益与交易各方的利益并不完全一致。中介机构寻求最大限度地提高他们的费用,从各方的角度来看,这是一种交易成本。许多因素,包括交易创造的价值必须超过相关费用的要求,以及中介人维护良好声誉的利益,限制了中介人以自私自利的方式利用其影响力的倾向。尽管如此,这些约束通常是不完善的。因此,当各方依赖有影响力的中介机构时,完成的交易总量往往会向为所涉中介机构带来最大费用的交易类型转变。这种“费用效应”不仅仅影响贸易收益的分配。主要成本以放弃收益的形式出现,即实际完成的交易所产生的福利收益与如果交易类型不受中介自身利益的影响而产生的更大收益之间的差额。此外,对金融中介机构的依赖可能会产生外部性,以社会成本高昂的方式改变资本的配置方式。这篇文章的贡献是双重的。首先,它提供了一个理论框架,用于评估中介利用其影响力影响已完成交易类型的倾向和能力。这使得可以在不同的设置中绘制相似之处。其次,运用这一框架,本文说明了为什么费用效应在金融市场中可能特别大。此外,本文还考虑了解决收费影响的途径。作为第一步,本文建议政策制定者和市场参与者应该“跟随费用”,以更好地理解中介影响的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Economic Impact of Laws that Weaken Encryption Antitrust Compliance: Collusion Corporate Law and the Theory of the Firm: Reconstructing Corporations, Directors, Owners, and Investors Some Issues on the Law of Direct Damages (US and UK) Unconventional Monetary Policy Tools: Evolutionary Developments Since the General Financial Crisis (Presentation Slides)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1