EVALUATING THE PROSPECTS FOR ALTERNATIVE ELECTRONIC SECURITIES MARKETS
1991
- 67Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage67
- Downloads53
- Abstract Views14
Article Description
Two alternative trading mechanisms for securities markets are compared using laboratory experimentation and computer simulation. One mechanism is the floor-based specialist auction in place in most U.S. stock exchanges today, and the other is an electronic alternative employing automatic order matching. We conclude that transition from the established floor-based exchanges to potentially superior electronic alternatives is possible, despite the inertia resulting from the experience of benefits investors trading in active markets, and that current proposals for electronic markets are not demonstrably superior on generally accepted criteria used to assess market quality. This has clear implications for established stock exchanges, market regulators, and vendors of electronic trading systems.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know