IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buhirw/v85y2011i01p113-150_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

J. P. Morgan in London and New York before 1914

Author

Listed:
  • Hannah, Leslie

Abstract

Before 1914, London had a stock exchange that was larger and qualitatively more developed than New York's. Yet the London Stock Exchange has received a bad press from historians, while the New York Exchange has achieved star billing. This forensic reexamination of J. P. Morgan–a player in both markets–suggests that such a historiography is egregiously biased. Morgan's higher profi ts in New York derived partly from insider deals and partly from monopolistic exactions that U.S. protectionism facilitated but that proved more problematic in the U.K.'s open, competitive markets. Morgan's contributions to the impressive catch-up process by the New York Exchange are more plausibly viewed as successful emulation of European securities-market precedents on routine matters than of the allegedly path-breaking “information-signaling” innovations of more Panglossian accounts.

Suggested Citation

  • Hannah, Leslie, 2011. "J. P. Morgan in London and New York before 1914," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(1), pages 113-150, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:buhirw:v:85:y:2011:i:01:p:113-150_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007680511000055/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carola Frydman & Eric Hilt, 2014. "Investment Banks as Corporate Monitors in the Early 20th Century United States," NBER Working Papers 20544, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Mary A. O'Sullivan, 2015. "Yankee Doodle went to London: Anglo-American breweries and the London securities market, 1888–92," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 68(4), pages 1365-1387, November.
    3. Sibylle H. Lehmann, 2014. "Taking firms to the stock market: IPOs and the importance of large banks in imperial Germany, 1896–1913," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 67(1), pages 92-122, February.
    4. Burhop, Carsten & Chambers, David & Cheffins, Brian, 2014. "Regulating IPOs: Evidence from going public in London, 1900–1913," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 60-76.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:buhirw:v:85:y:2011:i:01:p:113-150_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bhr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.