2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfi.2006.08.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Raising rival's costs in the securities settlement industry

Abstract: Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
43
0
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(44 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
43
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition, given the prominent role of CSDs in sub-custodian chains (see Table 1), we also study the decision to delegate the safe-keeping duties to a central securities depository in the first place rather than a custodian bank. Given the significant scale effects (Schmiedel et al (2006) and van Cayseele and Wuyts (2007)) and the potential competitive price setting of CSDs for cross-border activities suggested by Holthausen and Tapking (2004), we postulate that larger banks are less likely to rely on CSDs in their sub-custodian chains.…”
Section: Empirical Analysismentioning
confidence: 92%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…In addition, given the prominent role of CSDs in sub-custodian chains (see Table 1), we also study the decision to delegate the safe-keeping duties to a central securities depository in the first place rather than a custodian bank. Given the significant scale effects (Schmiedel et al (2006) and van Cayseele and Wuyts (2007)) and the potential competitive price setting of CSDs for cross-border activities suggested by Holthausen and Tapking (2004), we postulate that larger banks are less likely to rely on CSDs in their sub-custodian chains.…”
Section: Empirical Analysismentioning
confidence: 92%
“…In this subsection, we thus examine the choice of a CSD as a first sub-custodian in greater detail. Given the significant scale effects (Schmiedel et al (2006) and van Cayseele and Wuyts (2007)) and the potential competitive price setting of CSDs for cross-border activities suggested by Holthausen and Tapking (2004), we postulate that larger banks are less likely to rely on CSDs in their sub-custodian chains. Therefore, we include a proxy for the size of the bank in order to capture potential scale and scope effects which may impact the choice of a CSD.…”
Section: Who Chooses Csds As First Sub-custodian?mentioning
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…They conclude that vertical silos can prevent efficient consolidation on a horizontal level. In contrast, Holthausen andTapking (2007) andRochet (2005) model the vertical relation between custodian banks and a CSD. In Holthausen and Tapking (2007) the CSD is input provider and competitor simultaneously.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast, Holthausen andTapking (2007) andRochet (2005) model the vertical relation between custodian banks and a CSD. In Holthausen and Tapking (2007) the CSD is input provider and competitor simultaneously. They show that the CSD leverages its monopoly power to compete for customers at the custodian level by raising it rivals' costs.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%