掠夺性交易:伦理判断、合法性判断和投资意图

IF 1.9 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE Review of Behavioral Finance Pub Date : 2022-05-13 DOI:10.1108/rbf-09-2021-0184
Daphne Sobolev, J. Clunie
{"title":"掠夺性交易:伦理判断、合法性判断和投资意图","authors":"Daphne Sobolev, J. Clunie","doi":"10.1108/rbf-09-2021-0184","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposePredatory trading is a stock market trading technique in which certain market participants exploit information about other market participants' need to trade. Predatory trading often harms others. Hence, this paper examines the determinants and effects of financial practitioners' and lay people's judgments of predatory trading. Specifically, it investigates how the public availability and reliability of the exploited information affect their ethics and legality judgments and how the latter influence their behavioral intentions and regulation support.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conducted two scenario judgment studies. In the first study, participants were financial practitioners, and in the second – lay people.FindingsPractitioners often judge predatory trading to be ethical. Practitioners and lay people incorporate in their ethics and legality judgments the public availability of the exploited information but tend to discount the legal reliability criterion. Lay people justify their ethics judgments using harm, legal or profit maximization principles. Practitioners' intentions to engage in predatory trading and lay people's intentions to let predatory fund managers invest their money depend on their judgments, which influence their regulation support.Originality/valueThis paper is the first to explore people's judgments of predatory trading. It highlights that despite the harm that predatory trading involves, practitioners often judge it to be ethical. Although law tends to lag behind financial innovation, people base their judgments and hence also behavioral intentions on their interpretation of the regulation. Hence, it reveals a dark aspect of the relationship between ethics and legality judgments.","PeriodicalId":44559,"journal":{"name":"Review of Behavioral Finance","volume":"112 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Predatory trading: ethics judgments, legality judgments and investment intentions\",\"authors\":\"Daphne Sobolev, J. Clunie\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/rbf-09-2021-0184\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposePredatory trading is a stock market trading technique in which certain market participants exploit information about other market participants' need to trade. Predatory trading often harms others. Hence, this paper examines the determinants and effects of financial practitioners' and lay people's judgments of predatory trading. Specifically, it investigates how the public availability and reliability of the exploited information affect their ethics and legality judgments and how the latter influence their behavioral intentions and regulation support.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conducted two scenario judgment studies. In the first study, participants were financial practitioners, and in the second – lay people.FindingsPractitioners often judge predatory trading to be ethical. Practitioners and lay people incorporate in their ethics and legality judgments the public availability of the exploited information but tend to discount the legal reliability criterion. Lay people justify their ethics judgments using harm, legal or profit maximization principles. Practitioners' intentions to engage in predatory trading and lay people's intentions to let predatory fund managers invest their money depend on their judgments, which influence their regulation support.Originality/valueThis paper is the first to explore people's judgments of predatory trading. It highlights that despite the harm that predatory trading involves, practitioners often judge it to be ethical. Although law tends to lag behind financial innovation, people base their judgments and hence also behavioral intentions on their interpretation of the regulation. Hence, it reveals a dark aspect of the relationship between ethics and legality judgments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44559,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Behavioral Finance\",\"volume\":\"112 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Behavioral Finance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/rbf-09-2021-0184\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Behavioral Finance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/rbf-09-2021-0184","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

掠夺性交易是一种股票市场交易技术,其中某些市场参与者利用有关其他市场参与者交易需求的信息。掠夺性交易往往会伤害他人。因此,本文考察了金融从业者和非专业人士对掠夺性交易判断的决定因素和影响。具体而言,研究了被利用信息的公开可得性和可靠性如何影响他们的伦理和合法性判断,以及后者如何影响他们的行为意图和监管支持。设计/方法/方法作者进行了两项情景判断研究。在第一项研究中,参与者是金融从业人员,而在第二项研究中,参与者是非专业人士。从业者通常认为掠夺性交易是合乎道德的。从业人员和非专业人员在他们的道德和合法性判断中纳入了被利用信息的公共可得性,但往往忽视了法律可靠性标准。非专业人士用伤害最大化、法律最大化或利润最大化原则来为他们的道德判断辩护。从业人员从事掠夺性交易的意图和非专业人员让掠夺性基金经理投资的意图取决于他们的判断,这影响了他们的监管支持。原创性/价值本文首次探讨了人们对掠夺性交易的判断。它强调,尽管掠夺性交易涉及伤害,但从业者往往认为它是道德的。虽然法律往往落后于金融创新,但人们的判断以及行为意图都建立在对法规的解释之上。因此,它揭示了伦理与合法性判断关系的阴暗面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Predatory trading: ethics judgments, legality judgments and investment intentions
PurposePredatory trading is a stock market trading technique in which certain market participants exploit information about other market participants' need to trade. Predatory trading often harms others. Hence, this paper examines the determinants and effects of financial practitioners' and lay people's judgments of predatory trading. Specifically, it investigates how the public availability and reliability of the exploited information affect their ethics and legality judgments and how the latter influence their behavioral intentions and regulation support.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conducted two scenario judgment studies. In the first study, participants were financial practitioners, and in the second – lay people.FindingsPractitioners often judge predatory trading to be ethical. Practitioners and lay people incorporate in their ethics and legality judgments the public availability of the exploited information but tend to discount the legal reliability criterion. Lay people justify their ethics judgments using harm, legal or profit maximization principles. Practitioners' intentions to engage in predatory trading and lay people's intentions to let predatory fund managers invest their money depend on their judgments, which influence their regulation support.Originality/valueThis paper is the first to explore people's judgments of predatory trading. It highlights that despite the harm that predatory trading involves, practitioners often judge it to be ethical. Although law tends to lag behind financial innovation, people base their judgments and hence also behavioral intentions on their interpretation of the regulation. Hence, it reveals a dark aspect of the relationship between ethics and legality judgments.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Review of Behavioral Finance
Review of Behavioral Finance BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: Review of Behavioral Finance publishes high quality original peer-reviewed articles in the area of behavioural finance. The RBF focus is on Behavioural Finance but with a very broad lens looking at how the behavioural attributes of the decision makers influence the financial structure of a company, investors’ portfolios, and the functioning of financial markets. High quality empirical, experimental and/or theoretical research articles as well as well executed literature review articles are considered for publication in the journal.
期刊最新文献
Deciphering CEO disclosure tone inconsistency: a behavioural exploration Lottery stocks in Brazil: investigating risk premium and investor behavior Do executive facial trustworthiness have impact on IPO underpricing in the Indonesia stock exchange? Mental time travel and the valuation of financial investments: analysing five biases that cause pricing anomalies Price delay and herding: evidence from the cryptocurrency market
×
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