Hubbry Logo
SpeculationSpeculationMain
Open search
Speculation
Community hub
Speculation
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Speculation
Speculation
Speculation
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
1914 billboard criticizing speculation on land, which cites Henry George
Financial market participants
Organisations
Terms
Part of a series on
Capitalism
Concepts
Systems
Theories
Ideologies
Origins
Development
Intellectuals
Related topics

In finance, speculation is the purchase of an asset (a commodity, goods, or real estate) with the hope that that asset will become more valuable in a brief amount of time.[1] The term can also refer to short sales, in which the speculator hopes for a decline in value.

Many speculators pay little attention to the fundamental value of a security and instead focus purely on price movements.[2][citation needed] In principle, speculation can involve any tradable good or financial instrument. Speculators are particularly common in the markets for stocks, bonds, commodity futures, currencies, cryptocurrency, fine art, collectibles, real estate, and financial derivatives.

Speculators play one of the four primary roles in financial markets, along with:

  • hedgers, who engage in transactions to offset some other pre-existing risk
  • arbitrageurs, who seek to profit from situations where fungible instruments trade at different prices in different market-segments
  • investors, who seek profit through long-term ownership of an instrument's underlying attributes

History

[edit]

With the appearance of the stock ticker machine in 1867, which removed the need for traders to be physically present on the stock exchange floor, stock speculation underwent a dramatic expansion through the end of the 1920s. The number of shareholders increased, perhaps, from 4.4 million in 1900 to 26 million in 1932.[3]

Speculation vs. investment

[edit]

The view of what distinguishes investment from speculation and speculation from excessive speculation varies widely among pundits, legislators and academics. Some sources note that speculation is simply a higher-risk form of investment. Others define speculation more narrowly as positions not characterized as hedging.[4] The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission defines a speculator as "a trader who does not hedge, but who trades with the objective of achieving profits through the successful anticipation of price movements".[5] The agency emphasizes that speculators serve important market functions, but defines excessive speculation as harmful to the proper functioning of futures markets.[6]

According to Benjamin Graham in The Intelligent Investor, the prototypical defensive investor is "one interested chiefly in safety plus freedom from bother". He adds that "some speculation is necessary and unavoidable, for, in many common-stock situations, there are substantial possibilities of both profit and loss, and the risks therein must be assumed by someone." Thus, many long-term investors, even those who buy and hold for decades, may be classified as speculators, excepting only the rare few who are primarily motivated by income or safety of principal and not eventually selling at a profit.[7]

Economic benefits

[edit]

Sustainable consumption level

[edit]
Speculation usually involves more risks than investment.

Nicholas Kaldor[8] has long argued for the price-stabilizing role of speculators, who tend to even out "price-fluctuations due to changes in the conditions of demand or supply", by possessing "better than average foresight". This view was later echoed by the speculator Victor Niederhoffer, in "The Speculator as Hero",[9] who describes the benefits of speculation:

Let's consider some of the principles that explain the causes of shortages and surpluses and the role of speculators. When a harvest is too small to satisfy consumption at its normal rate, speculators come in, hoping to profit from the scarcity by buying. Their purchases raise the price, thereby checking consumption so that the smaller supply will last longer. Producers encouraged by the high price further lessen the shortage by growing or importing to reduce the shortage. On the other side, when the price is higher than the speculators think the facts warrant, they sell. This reduces prices, encouraging consumption and exports and helping to reduce the surplus.

Another service provided by speculators to a market is that by risking their own capital in the hope of profit, they add liquidity to the market and make it easier or even possible for others to offset risk, including those who may be classified as hedgers and arbitrageurs.

Market liquidity and efficiency

[edit]

If any market, such as pork bellies, had no speculators, only producers (hog farmers) and consumers (butchers, etc.) would participate. With fewer players in the market, there would be a larger spread between the current bid and the asking price of pork bellies. Any new entrant in the market who wanted to trade pork bellies would be forced to accept this illiquid market and might trade at market prices with large bid–ask spreads or even face difficulty finding a co-party to buy or sell to.

By contrast, a commodity speculator may profit from the difference in the spread and, in competition with other speculators, reduce the spread. Some schools of thought argue that speculators increase the liquidity in a market, and therefore promote an efficient market.[10] This efficiency is difficult to achieve without speculators. Speculators take information and speculate on how it affects prices, producers and consumers, who may want to hedge their risks, needing counterparties if they could find each other without markets it certainly would happen as it would be cheaper. A very beneficial by-product of speculation for the economy is price discovery.

On the other hand, as more speculators participate in a market, underlying real demand and supply can diminish compared to trading volume, and prices may become distorted.[10]

Bearing risks

[edit]

Speculators perform a risk-bearing role that can be beneficial to society. For example, a farmer might consider planting corn on unused farmland. However, he might not want to do so because he is concerned that the price might fall too far by harvest time. By selling his crop in advance at a fixed price to a speculator, he can now hedge the price risk and plant the corn. Thus, speculators can increase production through their willingness to take on risk (not at the loss of profit).

Finding environmental and other risks

[edit]

Speculative hedge funds that do fundamental analysis "are far more likely than other investors to try to identify a firm's off-balance-sheet exposures" including "environmental or social liabilities present in a market or company but not explicitly accounted for in traditional numeric valuation or mainstream investor analysis". Hence, they make the prices better reflect the true quality of operation of the firms.[11]

Shorting

[edit]

Shorting may act as a "canary in a coal mine" to stop unsustainable practices earlier and thus reduce damages and form market bubbles.[11]

Economic disadvantages

[edit]

Winner's curse

[edit]

Auctions are a method of squeezing out speculators from a transaction, but they may have their own perverse effects by the winner's curse. The winner's curse is, however, not very significant to markets with high liquidity for both buyers and sellers, as the auction for selling the product and the auction for buying the product occur simultaneously, and the two prices are separated only by a relatively small spread. That mechanism prevents the winner's curse phenomenon from causing mispricing to any degree greater than the spread.

Economic bubbles

[edit]

Speculation is often associated with economic bubbles.[12] A bubble occurs when the price for an asset exceeds its intrinsic value by a significant margin,[13] although not all bubbles occur due to speculation.[14] Speculative bubbles are characterized by rapid market expansion driven by word-of-mouth feedback loops, as initial rises in asset price attract new buyers and generate further inflation.[15] The growth of the bubble is followed by a precipitous collapse fueled by the same phenomenon.[13][16] Speculative bubbles are essentially social epidemics whose contagion is mediated by the structure of the market.[16] Some economists link asset price movements within a bubble to fundamental economic factors such as cash flows and discount rates.[17]

In 1936, John Maynard Keynes wrote: "Speculators may do no harm as bubbles on a steady stream of enterprise. But the situation is serious when enterprise becomes the bubble on a whirlpool of speculation. (1936:159)"[18] Keynes himself enjoyed speculation to the fullest, running an early precursor of a hedge fund. As the Bursar of the Cambridge University King's College, he managed two investment funds, one of which, called Chest Fund, invested not only in the then "emerging" market US stocks, but to a smaller extent periodically included commodity futures and foreign currencies (see Chua and Woodward, 1983). His fund was profitable almost every year, averaging 13% per year, even during the Great Depression, thanks to very modern investment strategies, which included inter-market diversification (it invested in stocks, commodities and currencies) as well as shorting (selling borrowed stocks or futures to profit from falling prices), which Keynes advocated among the principles of successful investment in his 1933 report: "a balanced investment position... and if possible, opposed risks".[19]

It is controversial whether the presence of speculators increases or decreases short-term volatility in a market. Their provision of capital and information may help stabilize prices closer to their true values. On the other hand, crowd behavior and positive feedback loops in market participants may also increase volatility.

Government responses and regulation

[edit]

The economic disadvantages of speculation have resulted in a number of attempts over the years to introduce regulations and restrictions to try to limit or reduce the impact of speculators. States often enact such financial regulation in response to a crisis. Note for example the Bubble Act 1720, which the British government passed at the height of the South Sea Bubble to try to stop speculation in such schemes. It remained in place for over a hundred years until repealed in 1825. The Glass–Steagall Act passed in 1933 during the Great Depression in the United States provides another example; most of the Glass-Steagall provisions were repealed during the 1980s and 1990s. The Onion Futures Act bans the trading of futures contracts on onions in the United States, after speculators successfully cornered the market in the mid-1950s; it remains in effect as of 2021.

The Soviet Union regarded any form of private trade with the intent of gaining profit as speculation (Russian: спекуляция) and a criminal offense and punished speculators accordingly with fines, imprisonment, confiscation and/or corrective labor. Speculation was specifically defined in article 154 of the Penal Code of the USSR.[20]

Regulations

[edit]

In the United States, following passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has proposed regulations aimed at limiting speculation in futures markets by instituting position limits. The CFTC offers three basic elements for their regulatory framework: "the size (or levels) of the limits themselves; the exemptions from the limits (for example, hedged positions) and; the policy on aggregating accounts for purposes of applying the limits".[21] The proposed position limits would apply to 28 physical commodities traded in various exchanges across the US.[22]

Another part of the Dodd-Frank Act established the Volcker Rule, which deals with speculative investments of banks that do not benefit their customers. Passed on 21 January 2010, it states that those investments played a key role in the 2008 financial crisis.[23]

Proposals

[edit]
See also: Speculative attack, Currency crisis, Black Wednesday, Fictitious capital, Financial transaction tax, Land value tax, Currency transaction tax, Tobin tax, and Spahn tax

Proposals made in the past to try to limit speculation – but never enacted – included:

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Books

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Speculation

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Speculation entails engaging in financial transactions with the intent to profit from anticipated short-term fluctuations in assets such as , commodities, or currencies, rather than from their intrinsic value, dividends, or long-term productive returns. This practice contrasts with , which prioritizes fundamental economic , and hedging, which aims to mitigate ; speculators instead assume additional to capitalize on perceived mispricings or trends. In market operations, speculation facilitates by providing counterparties for hedgers and aids through the aggregation of diverse expectations about future conditions. Empirical analyses of futures markets indicate that speculative activity often dampens volatility rather than amplifying it, as speculators absorb or demand shocks that would otherwise distort prices. However, excessive speculation has been linked to asset bubbles, such as the Dutch Tulip Mania of the 1630s and the South Sea Bubble of 1720, where detached expectations from fundamentals led to sharp corrections. Critics argue it diverts resources from real economic activity, yet causal evidence remains mixed, with some studies attributing instability more to leverage and than speculation per se.

Definition and Scope

Core Concepts and Distinctions

Speculation entails the purchase or sale of assets, such as securities, commodities, or currencies, with the primary objective of generating profits from anticipated short-term fluctuations in their market prices rather than from intrinsic value or dividends. This activity inherently involves assuming substantial , as participants wager on directional price movements driven by factors like supply-demand imbalances, releases, or geopolitical events, often without a commitment to holding the asset long-term. Empirical studies indicate that speculative trading volumes can amplify market volatility, with from U.S. equity markets showing intraday speculation accounting for up to 20-30% of daily trading activity in high-frequency environments as of 2023. A core distinction lies between speculation and : the former prioritizes exploiting price discrepancies or over brief horizons, frequently employing leverage or to magnify outcomes, whereas allocates capital toward assets anticipated to yield returns through fundamental productivity, such as corporate growth or rental income, typically over years or decades. For instance, a speculator might short a based on technical chart patterns expecting a rapid decline, while an investor purchases shares in a with strong balance sheets for sustained appreciation; historical analyses of market returns, including data from 1926 to 2023, reveal that long-term holding strategies outperform short-term speculative timing in aggregate, with annualized returns of approximately 10% versus frequent underperformance in speculative trades. Speculation also differs from gambling in its reliance on informational edges and probabilistic assessments rather than pure randomness. Gambling constitutes zero-sum games where outcomes hinge on chance events, such as lottery draws, with house edges ensuring long-term losses for participants; in contrast, speculation can exhibit positive expected value when informed by economic analysis, as evidenced by arbitrage opportunities or predictive models that exploit inefficiencies, though empirical overlaps exist in behavioral patterns like overconfidence leading to losses. Unlike hedging, which deploys positions to offset existing exposures—such as a producer locking in commodity prices via futures to mitigate downside—speculation affirmatively embraces unhedged risk to capitalize on volatility, often in directional bets absent underlying operational needs. These boundaries, while conceptual, blur in practice, as leveraged speculation in options or cryptocurrencies mirrors gambling's risk profile, with 2022 crypto market data showing over 70% of retail participants incurring net losses amid hype-driven trades.

Forms of Speculation

Speculation occurs across diverse and instruments, where participants engage in transactions driven by anticipated price changes rather than intrinsic value or productive use. Primary forms include equity, commodity, currency, derivatives, , and emerging digital assets, each characterized by varying degrees of leverage, , and volatility. These activities often rely on short-term market predictions, with speculators assuming risks to capitalize on inefficiencies or trends. Equity Speculation involves trading shares of publicly listed companies, typically focusing on volatile like or growth equities. Smaller speculative stocks, such as penny stocks, typically feature low liquidity, extreme volatility, and high risk, contributing to their appeal for short-term traders despite elevated potential for losses. Prices can fluctuate rapidly due to news, earnings reports, or sentiment shifts. Stocks with poor fundamentals can experience short-term price surges due to theme speculation (e.g., regional policy concepts like free trade zones), sector cycle rebounds (e.g., commodity prices), and rumors of debt restructuring or asset injections, driven by speculative capital seeking high-risk, high-reward plays rather than intrinsic value. Day traders and swing traders exemplify this form, entering and exiting positions within hours or days to profit from intraday or short-term swings, often using or momentum indicators. For instance, speculation in technology surged during the dot-com era, leading to sharp valuations detached from fundamentals. This form enhances but can amplify bubbles, as seen in the 2021 meme frenzy involving , where retail speculators drove prices up over 1,500% in weeks before corrections. Commodity Speculation centers on futures contracts for physical goods such as , , agricultural products, or metals, allowing bets on supply disruptions, geopolitical events, or demand cycles without physical delivery. Speculators provide counter-parties to hedgers, absorbing price risk in exchanges like the , where positions can be highly leveraged—often 10:1 or more—amplifying gains or losses. Historical examples include the 2008 oil price spike to $147 per barrel, partly fueled by speculative long positions amid perceived shortages, before crashing with demand signals. This form aids by incorporating global information but has drawn scrutiny for exacerbating volatility, as evidenced by CFTC reports on position limits to curb excessive speculation. Currency Speculation, or forex trading, entails buying or selling currency pairs like EUR/USD based on differentials, economic data releases, or policies, with daily global turnover exceeding $7.5 trillion as of 2022. Leverage ratios up to 500:1 enable outsized positions, making it accessible yet perilous; George Soros's 1992 short of the British pound netted over $1 billion by anticipating from ERM pressures. Speculators here exploit carry trades—borrowing low-yield currencies to fund high-yield ones—but face risks from sudden interventions, as in the 2015 unpegging that wiped out leveraged accounts. Derivatives Speculation encompasses , , and swaps, which derive value from underlying assets and permit directional bets or volatility plays without principal ownership. trading, for example, allows premium payments for rights to buy/sell at strike prices, profiting asymmetrically from correct volatility forecasts; the Chicago Board Options Exchange handles billions in notional value daily. This form's leverage—where a 1% asset move can yield 100% option returns—facilitates hedging support but contributed to events like the 1998 LTCM collapse from failed models. Regulators monitor it via bodies like the SEC to prevent systemic risks from over-leveraged exposures. Real Estate Speculation involves acquiring properties or land anticipating appreciation from urban growth, , or , often with leverage magnifying returns. Unlike financial markets, it ties to tangible assets with illiquidity and holding costs; the U.S. boom pre-2008 saw speculators buy multiple homes, inflating prices by 80% in some regions before the subprime crash exposed over-leveraged bets. This form influences local economies by signaling development but can distort supply, as in Vancouver's foreign-driven speculation prompting 2016 taxes on empty homes. Cryptocurrency Speculation represents a high-volatility extension into digital assets like or altcoins, traded on platforms such as with 24/7 access and minimal regulation. Prices swing wildly— rose from $4,000 to $69,000 between 2019 and 2021 on adoption hype before halving—driven by retail frenzy, whale manipulations, or macroeconomic flights to alternatives. With leverage up to 100:1 on futures exchanges, it mirrors trading but lacks physical backing, leading to events like the 2022 collapse from speculative overexposure. While innovative for , it exhibits casino-like traits, with studies showing 70-80% of trading volume from short-term speculators rather than long-term holders.

Historical Development

Early Commodity and Trade Speculation

Early forms of speculation emerged in ancient civilizations through forward contracts, where merchants agreed to buy or sell goods at predetermined prices for future delivery, exposing parties to price risk for potential profit. In ancient around 1750 BC, the included provisions regulating sales and loans that facilitated such agreements on agricultural produce and , allowing traders to speculate on outcomes or costs. Similarly, Greek and Phoenician merchants in the classical era used forward contracts for shipping , wine, and grains across the Mediterranean, betting on favorable price differentials between ports or seasonal variations. These practices, while primarily hedging tools for producers, enabled speculation by intermediaries who anticipated market shifts without physical possession of goods. In medieval , commodity speculation intensified during international trade fairs, such as the Champagne fairs in from the 12th to 13th centuries, where merchants negotiated forward contracts for wool, spices, and textiles based on expected future prices. Italian city-states like and further developed these into standardized contracts traded at emerging bourses, with speculators arbitraging price discrepancies across regions or goods to influence markets. For instance, Venetian traders in the speculated on pepper and imports from the East, leveraging bills of exchange to positions that profited from delays or shortages. These activities, though often condemned by the Church as usury-adjacent, provided liquidity to trade routes and reflected causal links between supply disruptions—such as Crusades-induced scarcities—and price volatility exploited by savvy participants. The 17th-century marked a pivotal expansion in organized commodity speculation, exemplified by from 1634 to 1637, when contracts for rare tulip bulbs—traded as futures and options on the exchange—saw prices surge up to 20-fold before collapsing, with single bulbs fetching equivalents of 10 annual skilled wages at peak. This bubble arose from viral demand for status symbols amid economic prosperity, fueled by notarial contracts allowing leveraged bets without bulb delivery, highlighting how speculation amplified scarcity signals into self-reinforcing price spirals. Concurrently, the (VOC), chartered in 1602, introduced tradable shares tied to spice and commodity voyages, enabling public speculation on long-term trade outcomes, with initial offerings raising 6.4 million guilders from diverse investors anticipating monopoly profits from Asian goods. These innovations laid groundwork for modern exchanges by institutionalizing through speculative participation.

Modern Financial Expansion

The modern phase of financial speculation expanded significantly in the mid-20th century, transitioning from primarily commodity-based activities to sophisticated instruments tied to currencies, interest rates, and equities. This shift was catalyzed by the end of the in 1971, which ended fixed exchange rates and enabled currency speculation through futures contracts. The (CME), originally founded in 1898 as the Chicago Butter and Egg Board, launched the world's first financial futures contracts on foreign currencies in 1972, marking a pivotal expansion into non-commodity speculation. Concurrent innovations in pricing models further propelled this growth. In 1973, and published their options pricing formula, which used to value European call and put options under assumptions of constant volatility and risk-free rates, enabling systematic trading and hedging. This model underpinned the establishment of the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE) in 1973, the first dedicated options market, which standardized contracts and attracted speculative volume. By providing a replicable hedging strategy via dynamic portfolio adjustment, the Black-Scholes framework reduced perceived risks, drawing institutional and retail participants into options speculation. Deregulatory measures in the 1980s amplified and leverage. The U.S. Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 phased out ceilings on deposits, allowing banks to compete more aggressively and fostering speculative lending practices. In the UK, the "" reforms on October 27, 1986, abolished fixed commissions, introduced , and ended single-capacity trading rules on the London , boosting cross-border speculation and globalizing financial flows. These changes, combined with technological advances like computerized trading systems, led to exponential growth in derivatives markets; by the early , the notional value of over-the-counter derivatives exceeded $20 trillion, reflecting heightened speculative activity. This era also saw the proliferation of interest rate and equity index futures, with the CME introducing futures in 1981 to speculate on short-term rates. Such instruments allowed bets on macroeconomic variables, contributing to but also episodes of volatility, as evidenced by the 1987 where program trading and portfolio insurance strategies—rooted in —exacerbated declines. Overall, these developments transformed speculation from niche trading to a cornerstone of global finance, with annual futures and options volume surpassing billions of contracts by the late 20th century.

Theoretical Framework

Speculation Versus Investment

Investment operations, as defined by value investing pioneer in his 1949 book , require thorough analysis promising safety of principal and adequate returns, whereas operations lacking these elements constitute speculation. This framework emphasizes of an asset's intrinsic value—derived from earnings, assets, and cash flows—over short-term market fluctuations, positioning investment as a disciplined pursuit of long-term wealth preservation and growth with controlled risk. Speculation diverges by prioritizing anticipated movements, often short-term, without equivalent reliance on underlying fundamentals, resulting in elevated levels comparable to . Speculators typically employ strategies like trading or leverage to amplify potential gains from volatility, accepting the possibility of substantial principal loss in exchange for outsized returns, as evidenced in or options betting where outcomes hinge more on timing than valuation. Key differentiators include time horizon, analytical depth, and risk tolerance: investments favor extended holding periods (often years) grounded in models or strength, while speculation targets rapid turnover (days or weeks) via technical indicators or sentiment shifts. Although no universal regulatory boundary exists—per U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission practices—speculative activities frequently involve or illiquid assets, heightening systemic exposure absent in diversified, value-oriented portfolios. Empirical studies, such as those analyzing 20th-century market returns, show investors outperforming speculators on a risk-adjusted basis when adhering to criteria, underscoring the causal link between rigorous analysis and sustained performance.

Contributions to Market Mechanisms

In economic theory, speculation contributes to market mechanisms primarily through enhancing , where prices reflect aggregated information from diverse market participants. emphasized that prices serve as signals conveying dispersed that no single actor possesses, and speculative trading accelerates the incorporation of this knowledge by rewarding those who anticipate future conditions accurately. This process enables markets to coordinate economic activities efficiently without central planning, as speculators exploit discrepancies between current prices and expected fundamentals. Milton Friedman argued that profitable speculation inherently stabilizes prices by counteracting deviations from equilibrium values, as speculators buy undervalued assets and sell overvalued ones, thereby narrowing spreads between spot and expected future prices. This stabilizing effect arises because unprofitable speculation leads to losses, selecting for trades that align prices closer to fundamentals over time. Traditional speculative theory, as outlined by Holbrook Working in 1960, similarly posits that speculators smooth price fluctuations by storing commodities during surpluses and releasing them during shortages, reducing intertemporal volatility. Speculation also facilitates risk allocation by allowing hedgers—such as producers and consumers—to transfer price risk to speculators willing to bear it for potential gains, thereby enabling smoother production and consumption decisions. This mechanism improves overall market , as speculators' willingness to absorb uncorrelated risks diversifies systemic exposure and supports hedging activities essential for real economic transactions. Furthermore, speculative corrects mispricings across related assets or markets, promoting informational and reducing opportunities for persistent deviations from rational valuations.

Economic Benefits

Liquidity Provision and Price Discovery

Speculators enhance by serving as counterparties to hedgers and other traders seeking to manage , thereby increasing trading volume and . In futures markets, where hedgers aim to lock in prices against adverse movements, speculators absorb the offsetting positions, which would otherwise face limited takers. This activity narrows bid-ask spreads and reduces transaction costs; for instance, analysis of crude oil futures shows that speculative participation provides essential , enabling hedgers to execute trades efficiently without significant price concessions. Empirical data from exchanges further demonstrate that periods of elevated speculative trading correlate with higher turnover and lower implied premiums, as measured by metrics like the Amihud illiquidity . In addition to , speculation facilitates by incorporating forward-looking information into current prices through active trading based on expectations of future conditions. Unlike hedgers focused on transfer, speculators analyze supply-demand fundamentals, macroeconomic signals, and other to form price forecasts, bidding up or selling down assets accordingly. This process accelerates the reflection of new information in market prices; studies on agricultural futures reveal that greater speculative involvement improves the speed and accuracy of price adjustments to shocks, such as events or policy changes, outperforming markets with minimal speculation. For example, in markets, speculative flows have been shown to reduce errors relative to markets, where discovery relies more on physical transactions. While some analyses find short-term liquidity consumption during intense speculative episodes, long-term evidence supports net benefits, with speculative activity smoothing price paths and enhancing overall efficiency per theoretical models like those of , validated in empirical tests on futures data. These mechanisms collectively promote capital allocation toward productive uses, as prices better signal or abundance to producers and consumers.

Risk Allocation and Hedging Support

Speculators facilitate allocation by willingly assuming price s that hedgers—such as producers or consumers—seek to transfer away from their core operations. In futures markets, hedgers establish positions to offset exposures in the underlying asset, effectively locking in prices and mitigating , while speculators take the opposing side to profit from anticipated movements. This dynamic enables efficient distribution, as speculators often possess superior diversification opportunities or tolerance compared to hedgers focused on production or consumption. The presence of speculators enhances hedging support by providing necessary and counterparties, without which hedgers might face wider bid-ask spreads or incomplete offsets. For instance, in agricultural commodities like or soybeans, producers hedge short positions against future declines, relying on speculators to absorb the long-side ; empirical analysis of Commitment of Traders reports shows that increased speculative net long positions correlate with improved , allowing hedgers to execute larger volumes at lower costs. This transfer aligns with theories positing that speculators earn a premium for bearing systematic risks, as articulated in Keynes' concept of normal backwardation, where prices average below expected spot prices to compensate speculators. Studies of futures, including , , and grains, provide evidence that speculative participation reduces overall price volatility, thereby strengthening hedging efficacy rather than undermining it. For example, data from pre- and post-financialization periods indicate that speculators' diversification across assets dampens localized shocks, enabling hedgers to achieve more stable outcomes; one of five commodity markets validated dynamic interactions where speculative flows support spot-futures convergence, benefiting hedgers' utility gains. Without speculators, hedging demands could go unmet, forcing hedgers into costlier alternatives like physical storage or forward contracts with limited .

Information Generation and Mispricing Correction

Speculators contribute to information generation by allocating resources to and analyze dispersed on asset fundamentals, such as earnings prospects and economic indicators, then trading on these insights to realize profits. This process incentivizes the production and incorporation of private or superior interpretations of into market prices, as uninformed trading alone cannot sustain such efforts without the prospect of gain from informed speculation. In financial markets, short sellers exemplify this mechanism by identifying overvaluations or fraud, thereby disseminating corrective signals through downward price pressure. For example, short positions taken by investors like in 2001 highlighted Enron's accounting irregularities ahead of its collapse, accelerating the reflection of adverse information in prices. Similarly, efforts by against monoline insurers in the mid-2000s uncovered risks tied to subprime exposure, aiding broader market awareness. Empirical evidence supports that short selling enhances pricing efficiency by mitigating overpricing persistence. Boehmer and Wu (2010) analyzed U.S. equities from 1988 to 2005 and found that higher short interest correlates with reduced post-earnings announcement drift—a proxy for slow incorporation—indicating speculators accelerate the adjustment of prices to new . Restrictions on short selling, conversely, amplify mispricings; Jones and Lamont (2002) examined U.S. from 1926 to 1933 and documented that constraints lead to significant overpricing relative to fundamentals, with affected underperforming by up to 19% annually post-relaxation. Arbitrage-oriented speculation further corrects deviations by exploiting temporary discrepancies, such as between and futures prices or across correlated assets, forcing convergence toward intrinsic values informed by fundamentals. Theoretical models and event studies of regulatory bans, like those in , confirm that limiting such activity increases volatility and delays correction, as prices detach further from efficient levels without countervailing trades. Overall, these dynamics underscore speculation's role in aggregating and validating , though effectiveness depends on low and sufficient capital.

Potential Drawbacks and Criticisms

Volatility Amplification Claims

Critics of speculation, including some post-Keynesian economists, argue that increased speculative activity in financialized markets leads to heightened volatility by distorting fundamental values through , excessive leverage, and feedback loops between trading and spot prices. For instance, during periods of , speculative positions in commodities are claimed to amplify swings beyond supply-demand fundamentals, as seen in alleged contributions to spikes around , where futures trading volume surged alongside volatility. Such views often attribute volatility amplification to speculators' short-term focus, which purportedly exacerbates mispricings and rapid reversals, particularly in leveraged instruments like futures contracts. Empirical evidence, however, provides limited support for these amplification claims across major . A comprehensive review of studies on futures finds mixed results, with no consistent demonstration that speculation raises prices or volatility; instead, many analyses indicate speculators respond to rather than cause volatility, entering markets during turbulent periods to provide . In grain futures markets during the at the , increased speculator participation correlated with existing volatility but did not statistically elevate it, suggesting attraction to high-volatility environments rather than causation. Similarly, a U.S. analysis of futures markets concluded that speculative trading is not destabilizing and often reduces overall volatility by absorbing risks from hedgers. In energy markets, investigations into price dynamics amid geopolitical risks reveal only weak links between speculative net positions and volatility transmission, with fundamentals like supply disruptions dominating price movements. Exceptions appear in niche cases, such as day-trading speculators in expiring futures contracts, where unpredictable trades can temporarily heighten intraday volatility due to thin . Broader peer-reviewed assessments, including meta-analyses, underscore that while speculation may contribute to short-term fluctuations in illiquid segments, it does not systematically amplify long-term volatility in well-functioning markets, countering narratives from sources prone to anti-financial . These findings align with causal analyses showing speculators' role in dampening rather than exacerbating deviations from efficient pricing.

Behavioral Errors and Overconfidence

Speculators often exhibit cognitive biases that deviate from rational , leading to systematic errors in assessing risks and opportunities. These behavioral errors, rooted in psychological tendencies rather than informational asymmetries, include overconfidence, where individuals overestimate their predictive abilities and underestimate in asset price movements. Empirical studies demonstrate that such biases are particularly pronounced in speculative trading, where high-stakes, short-term bets amplify the tendency to ignore probabilistic outcomes. Overconfidence manifests in financial markets through inflated self-attribution of , where traders personal for gains while attributing losses to external factors, fostering excessive risk-taking in speculative positions. This correlates with higher trading frequency, as overconfident individuals perceive private information as superior, prompting more trades than warranted by available . For instance, of brokerage data from the revealed that individual investors who traded most actively underperformed benchmarks by approximately 6.5% annually, net of fees, attributable in part to overconfidence-driven effects and overtrading. Market-wide, overconfidence contributes to elevated trading volumes that exceed levels explainable by liquidity needs or . Research on emerging markets, such as from 2002 to 2007, found that periods of rising stock returns heightened investor overconfidence, resulting in trading volumes up to 20% above baseline predictions, independent of fundamentals. Similarly, cross-sectional studies link overconfidence proxies—like analyst forecast dispersion—to increased market turnover, with overconfident cohorts exhibiting 15-30% higher activity than calibrated peers. Gender differences further underscore overconfidence's role, with male traders displaying greater and trading 45% more frequently than females, yielding net returns 1.4% lower per year after costs, as evidenced in large-scale U.S. discount brokerage datasets spanning 1991-1996. In speculative contexts like cryptocurrencies or options, this error exacerbates volatility, as overconfident participants chase without adequate diversification, leading to amplified drawdowns during corrections. While some argue overconfidence aids entrepreneurial risk-taking, empirical returns data consistently show net welfare losses for retail speculators, with transaction costs alone eroding 1-2% of annual performance for frequent traders. Particularly in high-risk, short-term trading aimed at quick income, such as day trading stocks, futures contracts, or cryptocurrencies, empirical data reveals that while instances of rapid capital appreciation occur, the majority of retail speculators—typically 70-97% according to various studies—sustain net losses over time, attributable to factors including high volatility, leverage, transaction costs, and behavioral errors. Critics of behavioral explanations, including those from efficient market proponents, contend that apparent overconfidence may reflect unobservable heterogeneity rather than , yet longitudinal tracking of trader reveals persistence in underperformance, undermining such rationalizations. Interventions like mandatory cooling-off periods or bias-awareness have shown modest reductions in overtrading in experimental settings, suggesting malleability but limited in high-speculation environments. Overall, these s highlight speculation's vulnerability to human psychology, where overconfidence not only impairs individual outcomes but also contributes to aggregate market inefficiencies.

Associations with Bubbles and Systemic Risks

Speculation is frequently implicated in the formation of asset price bubbles, defined as episodes where prices deviate substantially from intrinsic values due to heightened trading activity and expectations of continued appreciation. Studies employing statistical tests, such as the supremum augmented Dickey-Fuller procedure, have identified bubble-like patterns in equity markets, with evidence of periodically collapsing bubbles in approximately 74% of examined over specific periods. However, these detections do not conclusively establish speculation as the causal , as bubbles may arise from coordinated optimism among investors rather than speculative trading alone. Theoretical frameworks highlight how rational speculators can inadvertently amplify bubbles under certain conditions. In models incorporating noise traders—irrational participants who trade on sentiment—rational arbitrageurs may face limits to short-selling or , allowing deviations from fundamentals to persist or overshoot. For example, introducing rational speculators into equilibrium models can destabilize prices, causing them to exceed fundamental values temporarily before correction. This dynamic underscores a key association: while speculation aims to exploit mispricings, it can prolong bubbles if arbitrage capital is constrained, as seen in simulations where speculator entry exacerbates volatility rather than immediately resolving it. Critics of the speculation-bubble link argue that such associations often conflate with causation, attributing bubbles primarily to exogenous factors like expansive or low rates that fuel expansion, rather than endogenous speculative flows. Empirical challenges persist, as standard bubble tests struggle to distinguish speculative fervor from rational responses to uncertain fundamentals, with existing theories failing to fully explain observed price patterns like gradual run-ups followed by crashes. In commodity markets, for instance, investigations into 2006-2008 price surges found mixed ; while speculative positions correlated with peaks, econometric analyses indicated that supply-demand imbalances and geopolitical factors were more proximate causes, undermining claims of speculation as the dominant bubble trigger. Beyond bubbles, speculation is linked to systemic risks through mechanisms like leverage and interconnectedness, where concentrated speculative bets amplify market-wide shocks during . Leveraged speculation, often hedged by institutions, can create fragile balance sheets vulnerable to correlated losses, as positions unwind en masse under stress, propagating distress across counterparties. This was evident in analyses of , where speculative demand for new assets increases tail risks without proportionally enhancing risk-sharing efficiency. Nonetheless, empirical measures of , such as those based on marginal , show that speculative activity contributes to but does not uniquely originate interconnected vulnerabilities, which more fundamentally stem from undercapitalization and procyclical lending. Speculators can mitigate systemic risks by facilitating risk transfer and providing during stress, though this role reverses in herd-driven panics. Evidence from art markets, where speculative trading correlates with volume spikes and short-term flips during high-price episodes, suggests speculators both inflate and eventually deflate bubbles, acting as catalysts for correction once overvaluation becomes unsustainable. Overall, while associations exist, rigorous evidence favors viewing speculation as an amplifier of underlying disequilibria rather than their root cause, with responses targeting leverage limits proving more effective than curbing speculation outright.

Empirical Assessments

Evidence of Efficiency Improvements

Empirical studies in commodity futures markets demonstrate that speculative trading enhances informational efficiency by improving and reducing noise in pricing. In analyses of agricultural commodities such as corn, soybeans, live cattle, and , measures of speculative activity, including total speculation and excessive speculation via Working's T-index, were found to increase the information leadership shares of futures markets relative to spot markets. This effect persists across varying levels of , with futures markets typically dominating (information leadership shares exceeding 50%), particularly in less liquid segments where speculators incorporate new information more rapidly than hedgers, who tend to diminish this function by prioritizing price locks. Similar patterns emerge in energy markets, where hedge funds acting as speculators contribute positively to price formation. Using daily data from August 2003 to August 2004 in crude oil and futures, researchers applied analysis to return processes derived from CFTC Large Trader Reporting System data, revealing that trading enhances the role of futures markets by integrating disparate information flows effectively. This aligns with broader findings that speculative positions, often held by non-commercial traders, lead to faster convergence between futures and underlying prices, thereby correcting deviations from fundamental values. In equity markets, evidence indicates that speculation, including trades motivated by perceived opportunities, supports by challenging mispricings and aiding information aggregation. A 2025 study analyzing U.S. trading data found that such speculative investors improve market , countering prior assumptions of purely destabilizing effects and suggesting their role in refining price signals through active participation. Additionally, speculative activity has been linked to increased , which empirically correlates with better informational across , as higher trading volumes from speculators narrow bid-ask spreads and facilitate quicker price adjustments to news. These results, drawn from trader classification and high-frequency data, underscore speculation's capacity to amplify market responsiveness without necessitating long-term holding.

Case Studies from Market Events

The Hunt brothers' attempt to corner the silver market in the late 1970s exemplifies destabilizing speculation through concentrated positions. and , along with associates, accumulated over 200 million ounces of silver by early 1980 via futures contracts and physical holdings, driving prices from approximately $6 per ounce in 1979 to a peak of $49.45 per ounce on January 18, 1980. This surge reflected not underlying supply-demand fundamentals but leveraged bets on continued appreciation, culminating in "" on March 27, 1980, when exchanges raised margin requirements and imposed liquidation rules, causing prices to plummet over 50% in days and inflicting $1.7 billion in losses on the Hunts. Empirical analysis of the event underscores how unchecked speculative hoarding can distort prices temporarily, but regulatory responses—including CFTC position limits implemented in 1981—prevented recurrence, with subsequent studies indicating such corners are outliers in liquid markets where arbitrageurs eventually counteract distortions. In contrast, the 1987 Black Monday crash highlights speculation's role in amplifying volatility via mechanical strategies, yet also its contribution to rapid recovery. On October 19, 1987, the fell 22.6%—the largest single-day percentage drop in history—triggered by overvaluation (P/E ratios exceeding 20), trade deficits, and computerized program trading tied to portfolio insurance, where speculators dynamically hedged by selling futures, exacerbating downward spirals as $10-15 billion in automated sell orders executed. Empirical investigations, including Brady Commission findings, attributed 30-40% of the decline to these speculative feedback loops rather than fundamental shifts, as no major ensued and markets rebounded 15% within two days due to bargain-hunting speculators providing . Post-event reforms like circuit breakers reduced future tail risks, with econometric models showing that speculative depth in futures markets mitigated broader contagion compared to less liquid eras. The 1998 collapse of (LTCM) illustrates systemic risks from highly leveraged speculative . The fund, employing Nobel-winning models for convergence trades across bonds and , amassed $100 billion in positions with 25:1 leverage by mid-1998; Russia's default triggered divergences, yielding $4.6 billion in losses and eroding capital to 3% of assets. Empirical evidence from the episode reveals model failures under extreme covariance breakdowns—spreads widened 10-fold beyond historical norms—prompting a Federal Reserve-coordinated $3.65 billion by 14 banks to avert fire sales destabilizing global credit markets. While LTCM's strategies aimed at mispricing correction, excessive leverage amplified shocks, but resolution studies confirm minimal long-term spillovers, as speculator unwindings were contained, reinforcing arguments for private risk-bearing over s. The 2021 GameStop short squeeze demonstrates retail speculation's capacity to correct perceived over-shorting while generating frenzy-driven volatility. Coordinated via Reddit's , retail traders bought shares and calls, propelling GameStop's price from $17.25 on to $483 intraday on —a 2,700% rise—forcing short sellers like to cover $6.65 billion in losses amid 140% short interest. Brokerage halts on platforms like Robinhood, citing clearinghouse collateral strains, fueled claims of intervention, but empirical brokerage data reveal participants as young, inexperienced speculators chasing momentum rather than fundamentals, with trading volumes spiking 20-fold. Analyses indicate the event exposed hedging inefficiencies—short rebate rates had signaled over-pessimism—but also transient mispricings, as shares reverted 90% by mid-year, underscoring speculation's dual role in provision and behavioral excess without .

Insights from Contemporary Markets

Prediction markets, where participants speculate on event outcomes with real financial stakes, have demonstrated superior forecasting accuracy compared to traditional polls in recent elections. For the 2024 U.S. presidential election, platforms like Polymarket provided probabilities that closely aligned with final results, outperforming polling aggregates which underestimated the winner's margin. This edge arises from speculators' incentives to incorporate dispersed information efficiently, as trading volumes on these platforms exceeded prior records by October 2025. In markets, speculative activity on and unregulated exchanges drives the majority of for assets like . Analysis of trading data shows that futures contracts and offshore platforms contribute over 70% of information incorporation into spot prices, enabling rapid adjustments to new data despite high volatility. When markets segment, such as during regulatory crackdowns, speculative venues maintain and prevent larger deviations from fundamentals. Retail speculation in meme stocks, exemplified by the January 2021 , highlights speculators' capacity to exploit and correct institutional imbalances. Coordinated buying by retail traders, facilitated by online forums, forced hedge funds with heavy short positions to cover, resulting in a 1,500% stock price surge over two weeks and exposing over-leveraged bets. While this event amplified short-term volatility, subsequent studies indicate that informed retail participation can enhance overall market quality by challenging persistent mispricings. Empirical research across these venues confirms that speculative trading volumes predict underlying fundamentals, fostering efficiency in contemporary markets characterized by high-frequency data and global participation. However, periods of excessive speculation, as in crypto derivatives dominance, can lead to temporary price disconnects from real economic signals, underscoring the need for balanced provision.

Regulation and Policy Debates

Evolution of Regulatory Measures

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, U.S. regulatory efforts against speculation primarily occurred at the state level, targeting practices deemed akin to , such as shops that enabled off-exchange speculation without actual delivery of commodities. These entities proliferated in the 1880s and 1890s, prompting bans in states like New York by 1900 and federal scrutiny through anti- statutes, though enforcement was inconsistent due to jurisdictional limits. State "blue sky" securities laws, beginning with in 1911, required licensing and disclosure for securities sales to combat speculative fraud, influencing over 40 states by the 1920s but failing to prevent the speculative bubble preceding the 1929 crash. The 1929 stock market crash, attributed in part to rampant margin speculation and manipulation, catalyzed comprehensive federal regulation. The Securities Act of 1933 mandated registration and prospectus disclosure for new securities to reduce speculative hype by ensuring investors received material information. Complementing this, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 created the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to supervise exchanges, enforce anti-fraud rules under Section 10(b), and curb manipulative speculation through measures like prohibiting wash sales, matched orders, and excessive short-selling via the uptick rule implemented in 1938. In parallel, the Grain Futures Act of 1922 regulated grain exchanges by requiring board approval and prohibiting manipulation, evolving into the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936, which extended oversight to additional commodities, imposed federal position limits on speculators, and banned futures trading in onions by 1958 to address specific speculative abuses. Mid-century developments unified and expanded commodity regulation amid growing futures speculation. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act of 1974 established the (CFTC) as an independent agency, granting it exclusive jurisdiction over futures trading, anti-fraud authority, and tools like position limits to mitigate excessive speculation's impact on prices. This addressed prior fragmentation, where over 200 congressional bills from the 1880s to 1920s had sought to ban or tax futures without success, reflecting a shift from outright prohibition to structured oversight. Deregulatory trends emerged in the 1980s under the Reagan administration, including the 1982 Futures Trading Act legalizing options on futures and easing some restrictions, though core anti-speculation measures like margin requirements persisted. The late 20th century saw deregulation accelerate with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 repealing Glass-Steagall separations, enabling banks to engage in investment activities including speculation, and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 exempting over-the-counter from CFTC/SEC regulation, fostering unchecked speculative growth in swaps and credit default obligations. The , linked to speculative excesses in housing , prompted re-regulation via the Dodd-Frank Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, which mandated central clearing and reporting for to enhance transparency and limit systemic speculation risks, while the restricted banks' to curb federally insured speculation. Post-Dodd-Frank adjustments, including 2018 rollbacks under the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, raised thresholds for enhanced oversight, reflecting ongoing tensions between curbing speculation and preserving . Recent measures, such as temporary short-selling bans during 2020 market volatility and CFTC proposals for stricter position limits in energy commodities as of 2021, underscore persistent efforts to balance speculation's role in against risks of amplification.

Impacts and Critiques of Interventions

Regulatory interventions designed to mitigate excessive speculation, such as financial transaction taxes (FTTs), short-selling bans, position limits in futures markets, and circuit breakers, have been implemented across various jurisdictions with the aim of reducing volatility and stabilizing prices. Empirical analyses of FTTs, including the 2012 French implementation, indicate reductions in trading volumes but ambiguous effects on volatility, with some studies finding no decrease or even slight increases due to widened bid-ask spreads and slower price discovery. Similarly, position limits in commodity futures, intended to curb speculative accumulation, show no consistent dampening of volatility and often reduce market liquidity, potentially harming hedgers by limiting risk transfer mechanisms. These measures frequently lead to market distortions, such as shifts in trading activity to untaxed venues or reduced participation by informed traders, undermining overall efficiency. Short-selling bans, enacted during crises like the 2008 financial turmoil and the 2020 market crash, exemplify interventions that fail to achieve their stabilizing objectives. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's 2008 temporary ban on short sales of financial did not halt declines—in fact, affected fell markedly during the ban period—and impaired and efficiency without evidence of volatility reduction. European bans in 2020 similarly decreased trading volumes and while showing no protective effect against downturns, with critiques highlighting how such restrictions hinder informed selling, exacerbate information asymmetries, and prolong mispricing. Multiple studies across these events conclude that short-selling bans impose net costs on market participants by distorting supply-demand dynamics essential for accurate . Circuit breakers, which halt trading upon extreme price movements to curb panic-driven speculation, also face substantial critiques for . China's 2016 market-wide circuit breakers accelerated price limit hits and induced "magnet effects" where trading intensified toward thresholds, amplifying volatility rather than mitigating it. U.S. implementations, while credited with brief pauses during severe declines, have been shown in simulations and empirical reviews to depress overall stock levels and alter price dynamics unfavorably if thresholds are too sensitive, potentially encouraging behavior among speculators. Critics argue these mechanisms interfere with natural , delaying resolution of imbalances and fostering uncertainty, as evidenced by post-1987 crash reforms that improved design but did not eliminate volatility spillovers. Broader critiques of these interventions emphasize their frequent failure to address root causes of speculative excesses, such as leverage or information failures, while imposing collateral damage on legitimate hedging and activities that enhance . Peer-reviewed evidence consistently points to reduced informational efficiency and higher transaction costs as common outcomes, with interventions like FTTs generating revenue at the expense of long-term capital allocation. Proponents' claims of reduced speculation often rely on volume drops as proxies, but causal analyses reveal these stem more from behavioral shifts than diminished excess, underscoring the challenges of targeted in complex, adaptive financial systems.

Arguments for Minimalist Approaches

Speculation facilitates efficient by incentivizing traders to act on new information, thereby aligning asset prices more closely with underlying fundamentals without the need for heavy regulatory oversight. Economists in the Austrian tradition, such as , argue that speculators serve as risk bearers, absorbing uncertainties that hedgers seek to offload, which improves and . This process enhances economic welfare by enabling producers and consumers to manage risks at lower costs, as speculative activity bridges gaps between divergent expectations and actual supply-demand dynamics. Empirical analyses of futures markets reveal that speculative positions correlate with reduced volatility, contradicting claims that such trading inherently destabilizes markets. A study by the U.S. examined trading data and found that increases in speculative activity were associated with lower volatility, suggesting that speculators stabilize prices through rather than exacerbate swings. Similarly, theoretical models demonstrate how speculation contributes to hedging feasibility and informational , with from agricultural markets showing speculators enabling farmers to prices amid . Proponents of minimalism contend that regulatory restrictions, such as position limits or transaction taxes, distort these mechanisms by deterring participation and raising , ultimately harming and . For example, limits on speculative trading can suppress views essential for correcting overvaluations, as noted by scholars who warn that such interventions foster complacency among investors and amplify systemic errors during downturns. Historical episodes, including deregulated periods in markets, indicate no clear link between reduced oversight and increased , with post-regulation compliance costs often exceeding measurable reductions. Critics of expansive rules highlight that markets self-correct through profit-loss incentives, rendering broad prohibitions inefficient and prone to capture by incumbents who benefit from barriers to speculative competition.

References

  1. https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/64282/theoriesofspecul00tiro.pdf
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5370364/
  3. https://people.duke.edu/~charvey/Research/Chapters/C5_The_contribution_of.pdf
  4. https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/%40swaps/documents/file/plstudy_03_cftc.pdf
  5. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/brief-history-financial-bubbles
  6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1059056023004100
  7. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/speculation.asp
  8. https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/topics/speculation
  9. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/career-map/sell-side/capital-markets/speculation/
  10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1057521924005647
  11. https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/insideinvesting/2013/02/27/what-is-the-difference-between-investing-and-speculation-2/
  12. https://www.bankrate.com/investing/what-is-speculation/
  13. https://solidaritywealth.com/speculating-vs-investing-key-differences/
  14. https://www.ebc.com/forex/difference-between-investment-and-speculation-how-to-tell
  15. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042715/what-difference-between-speculation-and-gambling.asp
  16. https://highstrike.com/hedging-vs-speculation/
  17. https://www.cfainstitute.org/insights/articles/investing-vs-gambling
  18. https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jms/article/download/0/0/41866/43506
  19. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/speculativestock.asp
  20. https://www.cmegroup.com/education/courses/introduction-to-futures/understanding-the-role-of-speculators.html
  21. https://www.avatrade.com/education/trading-for-beginners/what-is-speculation
  22. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/12/art-of-speculation.asp
  23. https://library.ulethbridge.ca/speculation_financial_risk_taking/speculative_market_practices
  24. https://www.exclusivemarkets.com/blog/speculative-trading
  25. https://www.stockgro.club/blogs/stock-market-101/speculation-speculative-trading/
  26. https://www.sfu.ca/~poitras/heinz_%2524%2524.pdf
  27. https://www.cmegroup.com/education/courses/introduction-to-futures/midwest-grain-trade-history-of-futures-exchanges.html
  28. https://bebusinessed.com/history/history-futures-trading/
  29. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/senior_theses/48/
  30. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/europesince1600revised/chapter/chapter-3-trade-empires/
  31. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dutch_tulip_bulb_market_bubble.asp
  32. https://www.history.com/articles/tulip-mania-financial-crash-holland
  33. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/first-company-issue-stock-dutch-east-india.asp
  34. https://sites.duke.edu/thefinregblog/2021/10/25/the-dutch-east-india-company-at-the-dawn-of-modern-capitalism-civilized-dispossession-on-the-banda-islands/
  35. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cme.asp
  36. https://tiomarkets.com/en/article/chicago-mercantile-exchange-guide
  37. https://www.polytechnique-insights.com/en/columns/economy/black-scholes-the-formula-at-the-origin-of-wall-street/
  38. https://gregorygundersen.com/blog/2024/09/28/black-scholes/
  39. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/monetary-control-act-of-1980
  40. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bigbang.asp
  41. https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/quarterly_review/1992v17/v17n4article2.pdf
  42. https://www.quantifiedstrategies.com/history-of-derivatives-trading/
  43. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/stock-market-crash-of-1929
  44. https://www.nber.org/digest/jan05/economics-derivatives
  45. https://fundamentalinvestinginstitute.com/investment-vs-speculation-investing-defined/
  46. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/difference-between-investing-speculating.asp
  47. https://www.bankrate.com/investing/investing-vs-speculating/
  48. https://www.sofi.com/learn/content/speculation-vs-investing/
  49. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/investing.asp
  50. https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/10.1257/jep.31.3.215
  51. https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/quarles20191101a.htm
  52. https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/50371/1/__Libfile_repository_Content_Bronk%252C%2520R_Bronk_%2520Hayek_%2520wisdom%2520_%2520prices_2013_Bronk_%2520Hayek_%2520wisdom%2520_%2520prices_2013.pdf
  53. https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/internal/media/dispatcher/215149/full
  54. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/the-stabilizing-role-of-speculators/
  55. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378475405000650
  56. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521922000072
  57. https://mitsloan.mit.edu/shared/ods/documents?DocumentID=4286
  58. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/31543/1/508790573.pdf
  59. https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/%40swaps/documents/file/plstudy_19_cftc.pdf
  60. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301420717305603
  61. https://crawford.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/2025-01/42_2019_bohl_siklos_stefan_wellenreuther.pdf
  62. https://openaccess.nhh.no/nhh-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/164189/dpfor2012-12.pdf?sequence=1
  63. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w16875/w16875.pdf
  64. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2449315
  65. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521923002077
  66. https://www.ice.com/insights/exchanges/why-financial-participants-matter-to-the-commodity-markets/exposing-speculation-myths
  67. https://jpmcc-gcard.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/4.25.17-Page-50-55_GCARD-Spring-2017-Contributing-Editors-Collection-Economic.pdf
  68. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1386418115000476
  69. https://www.isda.org/a/6SiDE/speculationrn.pdf
  70. http://ssrn.com/abstract=972620
  71. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1412844
  72. https://capmktsreg.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/CCMR-Statement-on-Short-Selling-1.pdf
  73. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3752&context=etd
  74. https://journalofbusiness.org/index.php/GJMBR/article/download/101451/15135
  75. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2405851316300162
  76. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2405851320300258
  77. https://academic.oup.com/ereh/article-abstract/29/1/1/7756855
  78. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/economic-bulletin/focus/2024/html/ecb.ebbox202402_01~b3d857ae05.en.html
  79. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2405851325000029
  80. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.29.4.61
  81. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w21945/w21945.pdf
  82. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23647632_Overconfidence_And_Trading_Volume_Evidence_From_An_Emergent_Market
  83. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167268124000167
  84. https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/2024-11/Retail_Traders_Futures_V2_new_ada.pdf
  85. https://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/odean/papers/Day%20Traders/Day%20Trading%20and%20Learning%20110217.pdf
  86. https://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/odean/papers/gender/boyswillbeboys.pdf
  87. https://www.emerald.com/imds/article/119/7/1431/391381/Understanding-speculative-investment-behavior-in
  88. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267774018_Overconfidence_and_Excessive_Trading_Behavior_An_Experimental_Study
  89. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0186104217300748
  90. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp1345.pdf
  91. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29917/w29917.pdf
  92. https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/%40swaps/documents/file/plstudy_24_ism.pdf
  93. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6363
  94. https://www.nber.org/papers/w17506
  95. https://academic.oup.com/rfs/article/30/1/2/2682977
  96. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/pdf/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4088
  97. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2405851318300941
  98. https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/@swaps/documents/file/plstudy_03_cftc.pdf
  99. https://anderson-review.ucla.edu/why-the-stock-market-needs-gamblers/
  100. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/optioninvestor/09/silver-thursday-hunt-brothers.asp
  101. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2405851322000459
  102. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/stock-market-crash-of-1987
  103. https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2007/200713/200713pap.pdf
  104. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.13.2.189
  105. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/ltcm-near-failure
  106. https://www.chicagofed.org/-/media/publications/working-papers/2002/wp2002-11-pdf.pdf
  107. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S154461232100221X
  108. https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2021/gamestop-episode-what-happened-what-does-it-mean
  109. https://arxiv.org/html/2507.08921
  110. https://www.uc.edu/news/articles/2024/12/election-results-show-potential-of-prediction-markets.html
  111. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-10-21/prediction-markets-boom-anew-as-volumes-surpass-2024-election
  112. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1572308920300759
  113. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pandp.20191020
  114. https://personal.lse.ac.uk/makarov1/index_files/PriceDiscoveryCrypto.pdf
  115. https://bclawreview.bc.edu/articles/39/files/6399d325885db.pdf
  116. https://academic.oup.com/rof/article-abstract/21/2/583/2670100
  117. https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-35
  118. https://www.cftc.gov/About/HistoryoftheCFTC/history_precftc.html
  119. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/secbeginning.asp
  120. https://dfi.wi.gov/Pages/Securities/Filings/SecuritiesRegulationHistory.aspx
  121. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/securities_law_history
  122. https://www.sechistorical.org/museum/timeline/
  123. https://eh.net/encyclopedia/a-history-of-futures-trading-in-the-united-states/
  124. https://www.cftc.gov/About/AboutTheCommission
  125. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2021051pap.pdf
  126. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326015964_The_evolution_of_financial_regulation_before_and_after_the_crisis
  127. https://www.sidedrawer.com/blog/the-history-of-usa-financial-regulation
  128. https://www.rahmanravelli.co.uk/expertise/market-manipulation-investigations/articles/market-manipulation-in-the-us-explained/
  129. https://ntanet.org/wp-content/uploads/proceedings/2017/NTA2017-55.pdf
  130. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/78181/2000634-financial-transaction-taxes-in-theory-and-practice.pdf
  131. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4291752
  132. https://www.cmegroup.com/education/files/studies-highlighting-impacts-of-ftt.pdf
  133. https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues/ci18-5.html
  134. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/short-selling-bans-are-a-mistake/
  135. https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2024-01/ESMA50-524821-3002_Working_Paper_-_Market_impacts_of_the_2020_short_selling_bans.pdf
  136. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jfir.12355
  137. https://www.statestreet.com/web/insights/articles/documents/short-selling-ban-whitepaper.pdf
  138. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927538X19305347
  139. https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/dark-side-stock-market-circuit-breakers
  140. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4397958
  141. https://efmaefm.org/0efmameetings/efma%2520annual%2520meetings/2018-Milan/papers/EFMA2018_0026_fullpaper.pdf
  142. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304405X22000940
  143. https://economics.ecu.edu/wp-content/pv-uploads/sites/165/2019/04/LiZhang.pdf
  144. https://www.ici.org/faqs/faq/taxation/faqs_ftt
  145. https://americancompass.org/no-need-to-speculate/
  146. https://mises.org/mises-daily/speculation
  147. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/should-financial-speculators-be-stopped
  148. https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/regulation-without-reason/
  149. https://bestwritingservice.com/essays/economics/arguments-for-and-against-financial-regulations.html
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.