English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Pro

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Presents AI Discovery search usage as a premium feature

AI Discovery

Presents AI Discovery explain and summary usage as a premium feature

Content Analysis

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

1500 Top-up

3000 Top-up

Zendy Basic

2500 Top-up

Zendy Unlimited

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

In analyzing regulatory experiments, a fundamental assumption is that the control group is unaffected. However, in many settings, this assumption may not hold. Generally, the total effect of a regulatory change consists of direct and indirect effects, but the standard difference-in-difference approach measures only direct effects. We apply our methods to the 2007 repeal of the uptick rule by the SEC. The indirect effects are substantial, because unlike the 2005 partial repeal, total repeal enables aggressive portfolio shorting. The 2007 repeal causes increased price efficiency and slightly worse liquidity. We conclude that regulatory pilot designers should carefully consider potential spillovers.

Potential pilot problems: Treatment spillovers in financial regulatory experiments