Basic Prerequisites: Adverse Selection & Glosten–Milgrom (why informed flow widens a spread) and Inventory Management & Quote Skewing (the single-dealer inventory view). (these are the folder-level prerequisites for pages 02–06; page 01 states its own, smaller, entry requirements)


1. Intuition & Practical Objective

Not every market is an exchange. The most important markets in the world by notional volume - corporate bonds, interest-rate swaps, credit default swaps, FX, mortgage-backed securities, repo, emerging-market debt, bank loans - do not have a central order book. They are over-the-counter: a buyer phones (or messages) a dealer, negotiates a price for a customized trade, and the dealer - a bank - takes the other side onto its own balance sheet. There is no ticker, no tape, no continuous auction. There is a dealer and a negotiation.

This folder is the dealer-banks and OTC markets topic-folder for Pillar 6. It is a hub: it (a) gives you the fast formula-and-model lookup below for the search-and-bargaining equilibrium, and (b) routes you to six sub-pages that walk from zero intuition through the search model, dealer capacity, the failure modes, and the post-2008 clearing architecture. Primary verified sources: Duffie, Gârleanu & Pedersen (2005), Over-the-Counter Markets, Econometrica 73(6) - the anchor model, read from the primary PDF and re-derived here; Duffie (2010), Presidential Address: Asset Price Dynamics with Slow-Moving Capital, JF 65(4) - the dealer-capacity/beltway view; and Duffie (2012), Dark Markets - the book-length capstone. Cross-checked against Hasbrouck Empirical Market Microstructure (Ch 1–2, dealer and search markets).

The one-sentence essence. “An OTC market is a search market: an investor who wants to trade must find a counterparty, and when two meet they bargain - so the price depends not only on fundamentals but on each side’s outside option (how easily each can find someone else), and the bid-ask spread is the price of immediacy a dealer sells.”


2. Mathematical Ground Truth & Derivations

Quick-Reference Lookup (job #1). Formulas are transcribed from Duffie–Gârleanu–Pedersen (2005), Theorem 2 (eqs 14–16) and eq (19), and re-derived in the folder. Every number in the check column was re-executed and reproduced exactly (§3 and the sub-pages).

Notation: discount rate; the dividend loss of a low intrinsic type; the investor-to-investor meeting intensity (search ability); the investor-to-dealer meeting intensity (dealer accessibility); the intensities of switching from low to high / high to low intrinsic type; asset supply per capita; the seller’s bargaining power vs another investor; the dealer’s bargaining power vs an investor; the value function of type ; the seller’s gain from trading, the buyer’s.

QuantityFormulaVerified check
Steady-state high-type mass
Condition 1 (which side is rationed) ✓
Ask (investors buy from dealer)
Bid (investors sell to dealer)
Interinvestor price
Common denominator-
Bid-ask spread (the frictionless fundamental surplus is ; search discounts it to ); ✓
Monopolist spread () (the full above; the search terms do not drop out) at
Nash price between investorseq (11)
Dealer quotes from bargainingeqs (12)–(13); = interdealer price
Walrasian limit
Heterogeneous-investor spread (same ; eq 19 is the -weighted case of the general spread)eq (19)

Critical caveat (the result that surprises everyone). With competing dealers (), faster contact between investors and dealers () tightens the spread to zero and prices converge to Walrasian. With a monopolistic dealer (), faster contact widens the spread - the investor’s threat to find another investor is worth less once the dealer has already absorbed everyone. The whole comparative statics hinges on , the bargaining power, not on the level of the friction.


3. Computational Implementation - the DGP equilibrium engine

Standard library only. This reproduces the headline numbers above: the Theorem-2 prices, the convergence to Walrasian under fast search, and the competing-vs-monopolist divergence. Ran and verified (§3 of 03 · The Search-and-Bargaining Model).

The spread vanishes as search gets fast (competition) but widens under a monopolist - the paper’s central, counterintuitive comparative static, reproduced.


4. Failure Modes & First-Principles Breakdowns

Hub signposts - the full analysis lives in 05 · Failure Modes & Practice. In one line each:

  1. Search frictions are a tax on liquidity. When the spread is bounded only by the discount rate - an investor with a liquidity need pays a huge concession (the OTC “illiquidity discount” ).
  2. Dealer capacity is finite and procyclical. A dealer absorbs a supply shock only up to its balance-sheet capacity; shock size relative to capital sets the price impact, which reverses as capital arrives (04 · Dealer Capacity).
  3. Contagion runs through the dealer network. Bilateral OTC exposures chain defaults: a shock to one dealer can cascade through the interdealer web (Duffie 2010; the 2008 crisis) - the reason central clearing was mandated.
  4. Bargaining power, not fundamentals, can dominate the price. In a search market the “price” is a bilateral split; two identical assets can trade at different prices in the same instant.
  5. Opacity compounds everything. No public tape means no mark-to-market, so balance-sheet losses are discovered late and fire sales feed back into prices.

5. References

  • Duffie, Gârleanu & Pedersen (2005), Over-the-counter markets, Econometrica 73(6), 1815–1847
  • Duffie (2010), Presidential address: Asset price dynamics with slow-moving capital, Journal of Finance 65(4), 1237–1267
  • Duffie (2012), Dark Markets: Asset Pricing and Information Transmission in Over-the-Counter Markets, Princeton University Press
  • Duffie (2012), Over-the-counter markets, in Handbook of Financial Econometrics
  • Hasbrouck (2007), Empirical Market Microstructure, OUP
  • Bao, Pan & Wang (2011), The illiquidity of corporate bonds, Journal of Finance 66(3), 911–946

6. Connected Graph Bridges

Beginner: start at 01 · Practitioner: start at 05