EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Predatory trading: ethics judgments, legality judgments and investment intentions

Daphne Sobolev and James Clunie

Review of Behavioral Finance, 2022, vol. 15, issue 3, 275-291

Abstract: Purpose - Predatory 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/approach - The authors conducted two scenario judgment studies. In the first study, participants were financial practitioners, and in the second – lay people. Findings - Practitioners 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/value - This 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.

Keywords: Predatory trading; Ethics judgment; Legal judgment (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.110 ... d&utm_campaign=repec (text/html)
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.110 ... d&utm_campaign=repec (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eme:rbfpps:rbf-09-2021-0184

DOI: 10.1108/RBF-09-2021-0184

Access Statistics for this article

Review of Behavioral Finance is currently edited by Professor Gulnur Muradoglu

More articles in Review of Behavioral Finance from Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Emerald Support ().

 
Page updated 2025-03-19
Handle: RePEc:eme:rbfpps:rbf-09-2021-0184