Search results

This paper investigates the strategic behavior of algorithmic trading firms from an innovation economics perspective. The authors seek to uncover the sources of competitive advantage these firms develop to make markets inefficient for them and enable their survival.

First, the authors review expected capability, a quantitative behavioral model of the sustainable, or reliable, profits that lead to survival. Second, they present qualitative data gathered from semi-structured interviews with industry professionals as well as from the academic and industry literatures. They categorize this data into first-order concepts and themes of opportunity-, advantage- and meta-seeking behaviors. Associating the observed sources of competitive advantages with the components of the expected capability model allows us to describe the economic rationale these firms have for developing those sources and explain how they survive.

The data reveals ten sources of competitive advantages, which the authors label according to known ones in the strategic management literature. We find that, due to the dynamically complex environments and their bounded resources, these firms seek heuristic compromise among these ten, which leads to satisficing. Their application of innovation methodology that prescribes iterative ex post hypothesis testing appears to quell internal conflict among groups and promote organizational survival. The authors believe their results shed light on the behavior and motivations of algorithmic market actors, but also of innovative firms more generally.

Based upon their review of the literature, this is the first paper to provide such a complete explanation of the strategic behavior of algorithmic trading firms.

In this study, three models were empirically compared, the DeLone and McLean model, the Seddon model and the Modified Seddon model, by measuring the impact of a business intelligence system (BIS) in companies in Peru. After that, the mediators and dependent constructs were analysed to determine if they were behaving properly (a good level of variance explanation and significant relations with others constructs). The study used a sample of 104 users of the BIS, from companies in several important economic sectors, in a quasi-voluntary context and with six constructs: information quality, system quality, service quality, system dependence (system use), user satisfaction and perceived usefulness (individual impact).

To interpret the results, the authors used structural equations. The idea was to look for the best fit and explanations for the outcomes. The main difference in these models is that the DeLone and McLean model considers system dependence (system use) as a part of information system success, but in the Seddon model, it is a consequence of it.

The Seddon model seems to show the best fit and explanation for the outcomes. After that, a review of the system use construct was realised, because of its limited variance explained and the few significant relations with other constructs, to improve its explanation power in future research.

It is estimated that the sample includes more than 15 per cent of all the companies that use a BISs in Peru, so the size of the sample is adequate, but it is not entirely random and therefore limits the generalizability of outcomes. Besides that, a sample size that is bigger could be better for the sake of making a more detailed analysis, permitting the use of some items with less power, or the use of another statistical procedure for structural equations such as the Asymptotical Distribution Free, permitting a more detailed analysis (Hair et al., 2006).

Business intelligence (BI), one of the most important components of information systems (IS), is playing a very relevant role in business in this time of high competition, high amounts of data and new technology. Currently, companies feel pressured to respond quickly to change and complicated conditions in the market, needing to make the correct tactical, operational and strategic decisions (Chugh and Grandhi, 2013). BI is one of the most important drivers of the decade (Gartner, 2013). Big companies of IS are creating special units specialised in BI, helping companies become more efficient and effective in daily operations.

This study aims to problematize current calls for a “public health” approach to governing illicit drugs and the people who use them.

It draws on a range of historical sources to describe how drugs became a problem for governments, in order to critically diagnose the present and investigate the origins of current perspectives on drugs.

It is argued that there are currently two authoritative drug discourses. The first discourse is the dominant one and is eradicative, with blame and punishment as its primary responses. The second discourse is subauthoritative, but growing in importance, and is sanitorial, with care and cure as its primary responses.

While these two discourses have often been thought of as distinct, this historical exploration demonstrates that the eradicative and sanitorial discourses are both based on similar principles.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.