Loans and Mortgage Tips

The empirical evidence on the effects of transparency, obtained both with field data and experimental works, is also mixed.1 Madhavan, Porter and Weaver (2005) found that execution costs and volatility increased on the Toronto Stock Exchange when the real-time information on the limit order book was made public; Boehmer, Saar and Yu (2005), instead, reported the results of the OpenBook experiment conducted by the NYSE in January 2002, showing that when traders were allowed to observe the depth of the NYSE book in real time, execution costs decreased. We now tackle these topics with the help of the models developed in previous articles, so that we can present the recent contributions to the discussion of transparency. As evidence show, to model transparency it is necessary to specify what information can be obtained ex ante and who can get it. Recall from Figure 1.3 that information can involve order size and direction as well as traders’ identity. Recall also that this information may involve all market participants or only some. Admati and Pfleiderer (1991) analyse the case in which the pre-announcement of orders reveals information on their size and the type of agent making the announcement. Röell (1990) discusses the case of dual trading, where the information on order size and agent type is accessible only to some intermediaries, and Foster and George (1992) and Madhavan (1996) discuss transparency in financial markets more generally. More recent contributions (Foucault, Moinas and Theissen, 2007; Rindi, 2008) take into account the role of market structure and show how greatly the effects of transparency on market quality can differ, depending on the type of information released. For instance, disclosure of the limit order book generally increases liquidity, whereas that of traders’ identities may reduce it.

Shoestring Budget™ inventing does not mean cost-free inventing. If only that were the case! It means that you must contribute, at least some of your own money, to the project. You may be saying, “But, I don’t have any money!” If that is the case, then you might as well stop now. Almost anyone can tap into savings or plan for future expenditures by saving small amounts as they can for something that is really important to them. As we mentioned in an earlier chapter, an inventing project does not require that you have the entire amount at the start. It is very possible to pay for your invention in segments as you move through the steps. In fact, that is the way it must be done since product development, protection and marketing take place over a somewhat extended period of time and the expenditures are made in different areas, such as prototyping, legal, and so on.

When we were first inventing our product, Ghostline ®, we were the epitome of Shoestring Budget™ inventors. We were a couple of wives and mothers who were working full time jobs and we did not have a lot of expendable income. We did have faith in our idea; enough faith to dip into our savings to get our first prototypes made. We did it in bits and pieces.

First, we each contributed about $200, when that money was exhausted we each dipped into our savings again to replenish our “company fund” in order to have the money to continue the prototyping process. Thankfully, our first visits to patent attorneys were free (we interviewed several patent attorneys before selecting one) but when the time came to start the patent application we each dipped into our family savings again. If you truly have faith in the potential of your idea, you will be willing to invest at least some of your own money. If you do not have enough faith in your idea to put your money, even if it is limited, where your mouth is, stop now. Do not waste your time or anyone else’s.