Post-Reform Market-Order Execution Quality: Multidimensional Comparisons Across Market Centers

We use market‐order data to determine execution quality on the NYSE, four regional stock exchanges, and the Nasdaq InterMarket. We examine a sample period after the reduction in the minimum price variation and after the SEC imposed new order‐handling rules, and analyze dimensions of execution quality in addition to trade prices. We find that in the postreform environment, the NYSE offers execution prices that are more favorable to the investor. However, the regional exchanges and the InterMarket offer executions that are faster and that more frequently allow investors to execute orders with sizes exceeding the quoted depth at the quoted price.     

All else equal?: a multidimensional analysis of retail,market order execution quality

The extant execution quality literature generally suggests that brokers routing orders away from the NYSE might not fulfill their fiduciary best execution responsibility. This conclusion is drawn by comparing execution prices across trading venues and presumes that other execution-quality characteristics are equivalent. Using order audit-trail data, we find evidence that retail market orders obtain better trade prices on the NYSE but faster executions, more depth improvement, and order-flow payment at Trimark Securities, a Nasdaq dealer. Thus, non-price dimensions of execution quality are not equivalent across trading venues. Furthermore, considering order flow payments, brokers obtain better net prices with Trimark. If brokers pass enough of these payments through to investors in the form of lower commissions and/or better services, then investors also obtain better net prices with Trimark. Our results suggest that it may be misleading to evaluate execution quality or to base policy decisions on comparisons focusing on only execution prices.     

Execution Costs of Institutional Equity Orders

We compare institutional execution costs across the major U.S. exchanges using a sample of institutional equity orders in firms that switch exchanges. Execution costs including commissions are essentially indistinguishable across these exchanges. We also find the fraction of trading volume from momentum traders is greater on the NYSE than on either the Nasdaq or AMEX and that orders are more likely to be worked by an institution's trading desk on the NYSE than on the Nasdaq. These results suggest that institutions actively manage execution strategies, taking into account characteristics of the markets in which they trade.Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: G10, G19, G20, G23.     

Spreads, Depths, and Quote Clustering on the NYSE and Nasdaq: Evidence after the 1997 Securities and Exchange Commission Rule Changes

This paper examines liquidity and quote clustering on the NYSE and Nasdaq using data after the two market reforms—the 1997 order–handling rule and minimum tick size changes. We find that Nasdaq–listed stocks exhibit wider spreads and smaller depths than NYSE–listed stocks and stocks with higher proportions of even–eighth and even–sixteenth quotes have wider quoted, effective, and realized spreads on both the NYSE and Nasdaq. This result differs from the findings by Bessembinder (1999, p. 404) that "trade execution costs on Nasdaq in late 1997 are no longer significantly explained by a tendency for liquidity providers to avoid odd–eighth quotations," and "odd–sixteenth avoidance has little relevance for explaining post–reform Nasdaq trading costs."     

The Post-Reform Bid-Ask Spread Disparity between Nasdaq and the NYSE

We report further evidence of the difference in execution costs between Nasdaq and the NYSE before and after the 1997 market reforms. We find that informed trading costs are consistently higher on Nasdaq both before and after the reforms. In the pre‐reform period the Nasdaq‐NYSE disparity in bid‐ask spreads cannot be completely attributed to the difference in informed trading costs. However, in the post‐reform period the spread difference between these two markets becomes insignificant with the effect of informed trading costs controlled. Our findings are consistent with the contention that the reforms have largely reduced noninformation trading costs and dealers' rents.     

Institutional Equity Trading Costs: NYSE Versus Nasdaq

We compare execution costs (market impact plus commission) on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and Nasdaq for institutional investors. The differences in cost generally conform to each market's area of specialization. Controlling for firm size, trade size, and the money management firm's identity, costs are lower on Nasdaq for trades in comparatively smaller firms, while costs for trading the larger stocks are lower on NYSE. The cost differences estimated from a regression model are, however, sensitive to the choice of time period.     

Intraday time and order execution quality dimensions

We examine intraday execution quality patterns on Nasdaq stocks using proprietary order-level data from a US broker dealer. Orders submitted midday execute slower than orders submitted around the open and close. However, midday orders have lower execution costs. Our results indicate that execution speed and execution cost exhibit offsetting intraday time-dependent patterns and these patterns appear to be induced by variations in informed trading levels. While some traders concentrate their trading activity around the open and close, others prefer to trade midday. Traders have varying preferences for when to trade, and offsetting patterns exist between speed and cost. These factors highlight the complexity in defining an optimal trading time, which, among other things, is dependent on the dimensional preferences of individual traders.     

Intraday Variation in the Bid-Ask Spread: Evidence after the Market Reform

In this article we show that intraday variation in spreads for Nasdaq‐listed stocks has converged to intraday variation in spreads for NYSE‐listed stocks after the implementation of the new order‐handling rules. We attribute this convergence to the Limit Order Display Rule, which requires that limit orders be displayed in Nasdaq best bid and offer when they are better than quotes posted by market makers. Our findings suggest that the different patterns of intraday spreads between NYSE and Nasdaq stocks reported in prior studies can largely be attributed to the different treatment of limit orders between the NYSE and Nasdaq before the market reform.     

Cost of Transacting and Expected Returns in the Nasdaq Market

This article empirically examines the liquidity premium predicted by the Amihud and Mendelson (1986) model using Nasdaq data over the 1973–1990 period. The results support the model and are much stronger than for the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), as reported by Chen and Kan (1989) and Eleswarapu and Reinganum (1993) . I conjecture that the stronger evidence on the Nasdaq is due to the dealers' inside spreads on the Nasdaq being a better proxy for the actual cost of transacting than the quoted spreads on the NYSE, since the Nasdaq dealers do not face competition from limit orders or floor traders.     

Trades outside the quotes: Reporting delay,trading option,or trade size?

In the period 1993 through 2002 examined in this study, quoted and effective spreads declined substantially on Nasdaq and to a lesser degree on the NYSE. At the same time, however, trades outside the quotes increased dramatically on Nasdaq. Because investors would prefer to trade at the quotes rather than outside the quotes, we examine why trades outside the quotes are observed. We focus on how the continuous market mechanism itself influences the outcome of orders and the reporting of trades, and we conclude that slippage exists in the market mechanism. Outside-trades occur on Nasdaq, first, because of delays in reporting trades, second, because the ability of dealers to delay execution of trades creates a look-back option, which when exercised results in outside-trades, and third, because large trades can take place at prices outside the quotes. Outside-trades are rarely observed on the NYSE because the market is more centralized. While the pattern of trading on the NYSE is not inconsistent with the presence of a look-back option, our tests provide no direct evidence that specialists are exercising such an option.     

Does the Limit Order Routing Decision Matter?

We examine the impact deciding to route limit orders away fromthe New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) has on three dimensions ofexecution quality with methodologies controlling for marketconditions and order submission strategies. Overall differencesin limit order execution quality between regional stock exchangesand the NYSE are small, suggesting that the order routing decisionmay not affect retail limit order traders substantively. Conditioningon the distance between the limit order's price and prevailingquotes, however, reveals systematic differences in executionquality. This implies that brokers can strategically route limitorders to improve retail limit order execution quality.     

Stock Splits, Tick Size, and Sponsorship

A traditional explanation for stock splits is that they increase the number of small shareholders who own the stock. A possible reason for the increase is that the minimum bid-ask spread is wider after a split and brokers have more incentive to promote a stock. I document a large number of small buy orders following Nasdaq and NYSE/AMEX splits during 1993 to 1994. I also find strong evidence that trading costs increase, and weak evidence that costs of market making decline following splits. This is consistent with splits acting as an incentive to brokers to promote stocks.     

Investor Recognition, Liquidity, and Exchange Listings in the Reformed Markets

We examine multiple facets of firms' descisions to list on the NYSE. Although the average Nasdaq spreads are now comparable to the average NYSE spreads, we find that firms continue to switch from Nasdaq to the NYSE, and that they experience positive cumulative abnormal returns on listing. Using a simultaneous ststem of equations approach, we establish that enhanced investor recognition mainly explains this phenomenon. A logistic regression suggesrts that corporate listing choice is consistent with these findings, since eligible unlisted firms already have high volumes and recognition and might not benefit as much as do firms that actually switch.     

Competition on the Nasdaq and the Impact of Recent Market Reforms

This paper examines the effect of recent market reforms on the competitive structure of the Nasdaq. Our results show that changes in inventory and information costs cannot explain the post-reform decrease in bid-ask spreads. We interpret this as evidence that the reforms have reduced Nasdaq dealers' rents. Additionally, we find that the difference between NYSE and Nasdaq spreads have been greatly diminished with the new rules. Further, the reforms have resulted in an exit, ceteris paribus , from the industry for market making. Overall, our results provide strong evidence that the reforms have improved competition on the Nasdaq.     

Transactions Costs and Holding Periods for Common Stocks

Amihud and Mendelson (1986) and Constantinides (1986) provide a theoretical basis for the proposition that assets with higher transactions costs are held by investors for longer holding periods, and vice versa. We examine average holding periods and bid-ask spreads for Nasdaq stocks from 1983 through 1991 and for New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) stocks from 1975 through 1989 and find strong evidence that, as predicted, the length of investors' holding periods is related to bid-ask spreads. We also find that the relation between holding periods and bid-ask spreads is much stronger on Nasdaq, where spreads are larger, than on the NYSE, where spreads are smaller.     

Is the Adverse Selection Component Really Higher on the NYSE/Amex than on the Nasdaq?

Affleck–Graves, Hegde and Miller (1994) find that the adverse selection component of the bid–ask spread is higher for NYSE and Amex stocks than for Nasdaq stocks. Using the model of Huang and Stoll (1997), we revisit their study and find the opposite to be true – the adverse selection component is actually higher for Nasdaq stocks than for NYSE and Amex stocks. The economic magnitude of this additional adverse selection cost is very significant. Our results have important implications for the understanding of information production in dealer versus auction markets, and the costs of trading on such markets.     

The Impact of the Reduction in Tick Increments in Major U.S. Markets on Spreads,Depth, and Volatility

This study presents an analysis of the impact of the introduction of quotes in sixteenths of a dollar on the AMEX, Nasdaq, and NYSE in mid-1997 on select market characteristics such as spreads, effective spreads, quoted depth, and volume. The findings of the study document reductions in the bid-ask spread, effective spread, and a statistically significant increase in the number of quotes. Interestingly, we find that liquidity, as measured by the total depth at the bid and ask, declines significantly on the AMEX and NYSE, but increases on the Nasdaq. Trading volume increases on the NYSE, but remains unchanged for the AMEX and Nasdaq. We also find that the proportion of even-increment quotes is a relevant factor affecting percentage spreads for Nasdaq both before and after and for the NYSE only after the change in quoting increments.     

Order submission strategies,liquidity supply,and trading in pennies on the New York Stock Exchange

We use NYSE system order data to conduct a controlled experiment examining changes in trader behavior, displayed liquidity supply, and execution quality around the reduction in the minimum price variation to $0.01. Although traders do not substantially reduce their use of traditional limit orders in favor of market orders or non-displayed orders, they do decrease limit order size and cancel limit orders more frequently after decimals than before. These changes in order submission strategy appear to result in less displayed liquidity throughout the limit order book more than 15 cents from the quote midpoint. This reduction in displayed liquidity, however, does not manifest itself in poor execution quality. Even for large system orders, traditional execution quality is not worse with decimals than with fractions.     

A comparison of transaction costs on Xetra and on Nasdaq

Abstract

In today's financial world, providing high quality of order execution at low transaction costs is vitally important to the competitiveness of trading platforms; thus the stock market's microstructure has become a subject of fierce debate and models for computing transaction costs have been needed for quite a while. Capital market synergetics is appropriate to investigate the market microstructure's effectiveness and is implemented in the computer program KapSyn.

In this paper we compare transaction costs for small, medium-size and block-size orders on each exchange, examining different market scenarios. By investigating the peculiarities of Xetra and of Nasdaq we point out their comparative advantages: calculation results clearly show the high operating efficiency of Nasdaq's small-order execution system and Xetra's favourable execution of medium-size and block-size orders. Investors' trading decisions may benefit from taking these results into account. For policy makers and academics these findings contribute to the debate about the optimal design of a market microstructure by highlighting the areas of high performance.     

How common are common return factors across the NYSE and Nasdaq?

We entertain the possibility of pervasive factors that are not common across two (or more) groups of securities. We propose and implement a general procedure to estimate the space spanned by common and group-specific pervasive factors. In our empirical analysis, we study the factor structure of excess returns on stocks traded on the NYSE and Nasdaq using our methodology. We find that there are only two common pervasive factors that govern the returns for both NYSE and Nasdaq. At the same time, the NYSE and Nasdaq each have one more group-specific factor that is not the same across the two exchanges. Our results point to the absence of complete similarity between the factors driving the returns on these exchanges.