Screen-based trading conversations forbid price negotiation entirely.

Evidence

A third rule of interest with regard to economic theory and auction, bazaar, and other markets where the price is negotiable (Smith 1990; Geertz 1978; DeLaPradelle 1995; Clark and Pinch 1995; see also Callon 1998, pp. 264–66), is that the price is nonnegotiable within a trading interaction; all a counterpart can do is forgo the trade and hope for a better price to be offered either at a later time or somewhere else. Conversationally, this means that there are no turns allowed that challenge a price range—other than a turn that ends the conversation prematurely, without a deal. — Karin Knorr Cetina & Urs Bruegger, Global Microstructures, 114

Categorization

  • XREF: Directly relevant to my ethnography-of-traders work; contrasts sharply with Geertz’s bazaar negotiation and classical auction theory. — connects to: Screen-based trading recreated rather than abolished trader sociality and mutual anticipation. — Aris Komporozos-Athanasiou, Speculative Communities: Living with…, 427; Screen-based trading platforms mechanically enforce non-overlapping turn-taking among traders. — Karin Knorr Cetina & Urs Bruegger, Global Microstructures: The Virtual…, 111; Diamond dealers’ secrecy about trading partners blocks efficient resale markets. — Lisa Bernestein, Opting out of the Legal System, 220 (+2 more)
  • SEED: The 2-second price-commitment window and nonnegotiation rule could anchor an essay on how speed transforms interactional ethics in finance.

Broader Connections