This paper demonstrates the incentives for an oligopolist to obfuscate by deliberately increasing the cost with which consumers can locate its product and price. Consumers are allowed to choose the optimal order in which to search firms and firms are able to influence this order through their choice of search costs and prices. Competition does not ensure market transparency -equilibrium search costs are positive and asymmetric across firms. Intuitively, an obfuscating firm can soften the competition for consumers with low time costs by inducing the remaining consumers to optimally first search its rival.

Cyber-attacks on financial institutions and financial market infrastructures are becoming more common and more sophisticated. Risk awareness has been increasing, firms actively manage cyber risk and invest in cybersecurity, and to some extent transfer and pool their risks through cyber liability insurance policies. This paper considers the properties of cyber risk, discusses why the private market can fail to provide the socially optimal level of cybersecurity, and explore how systemic cyber risk interacts with other financial stability risks. Furthermore, this study examines the current regulatory frameworks and supervisory approaches, and identifies information asymmetries and other inefficiencies that hamper the detection and management of systemic cyber risk. The paper concludes discussing policy measures that can increase the resilience of the financial system to systemic cyber risk.

It is well known that search costs and switching costs can create market power by constraining the ability of consumers to change suppliers. While previous research has examined each cost in isolation, this paper demonstrates the benefits of examining the two types of friction in unison. The paper shows how subtle distinctions between the two costs can provide important differences in their effects upon consumer behaviour, competition and welfare. In addition, the paper also illustrates a simple empirical methodology for estimating separate measures of both costs, while demonstrating a potential bias that can arise if only one cost is considered.

This paper reviews tools used to identify and measure interconnectedness and raises the awareness of policymakers as to potential cross-sectional implications of prudential tools aimed at controlling interconnectedness. The paper examines two sets of tools-developed at the IMF and externally-to identify the implications of interconnectedness in systemic risk and how these tools have been applied in IMF surveillance. The paper then proposes a preliminary framework to analyze some key internationally-agreed-upon and national prudential tools and finds that while many prudential tools are effective in reducing interconnectedness, the interaction among these tools is far less clear cut.

Liberalisation of the British household electricity market, in which previously monopolised regional markets were exposed to large-scale entry, is used as a natural experiment on oligopolistic nonlinear pricing. Each oligopolist offered a single two-part electricity tariff, but inconsistent with current theory, the two-part tariffs were heterogeneous in ways that cannot be attributed to explanations such as asymmetric costs or variations in brand loyalty. Instead, the evidence suggests that firms deliberately differentiated their tariff structures, resulting in market segmentation according to consumers’ usage.