![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
"In an efficient market there is only one price." ... Where is this from? I do not recall market efficiency to be the unique determinant of no-arbitrage. Rather the efficiency talked about assures a zero-value epsilon in the bid-ask spread. Law of One Price is not about transaction costs, but about unique pricing and the absence of arbitrage. Right? So whoever added the "efficient markets" brackets should add some reference. Thanks. (Jerrey_Ward, 2009)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerrey Ward ( talk • contribs) 10:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
"After merging in 1907, (...) This discrepancy disappeared with their final merger in 2005." I seriously doubt that a merger took more then one hundred years to complete. Rphb ( talk) 18:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Isn't this the same as the No Arbitrage condition that quants speak of? 71.139.161.9 ( talk) 21:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I know we're not supposed to write about the subjects per se here, but I can't stop noting that this "law" (not theory) is false -- or else the description has confused me. Even removing the stated exceptions, there are too many examples that I see all the time. If nothing else, valuation (as well as information) can substantially influence price. If most people in one location don't like, say, coarse bread because of the their upbringing, but people in another do, the prices are not likely to be the same unless some monolithic seller is "blindly" applying the same price. 64.53.191.77 ( talk) 17:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
In particular "The law also need not apply if buyers have less than perfect information about where to find the lowest price." means that this law applies exactly nowhere in the real world. 66.62.244.4 ( talk) 17:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)