Three points should be made concerning "The big bad board?" (Finance, Apr. 26). First, we spend a considerable sum to make market data widely available to the academic world, regardless of the points of view of the recipients, and we work to present that data in as useful a form as possible.
Second, it is widely recognized that we invite all manner of academic scrutiny, for the good of the nation's equity markets. When we see a study factually way off the mark, we work with the authors in the interest of accuracy.
Third, we're deeply disappointed that you would conclude from the comments of two individuals with apparent axes to grind that there is anything but a full commitment to points one and two.
James L. Cochrane
Research and Planning
New York Stock Exchange Inc.
As a board member of the Institute for the Study of Security Markets and a consultant to the NYSE, I would like to comment on your article alleging tensions between the two organizations.
First, the New York Stock Exchange's decision to distribute its data on compact disks was motivated by technological considerations. Second, the NYSE's decision preceded the critical paper you mentioned. Finally, James Cochrane and James Shapiro have provided access to NYSE data, facilities, and personnel to exchange critics and supporters alike. The NYSE has established a pattern of openness that is without peer in the securities industry.
Stern School of Business
New York University