Market or limit orders?

In this paper we investigate the problem of optimal order placement of an asset listed on an exchange using both market and limit orders in a simple model of market dynamics. We seek to understand under which settings it is optimal to place limit or market orders. Limit orders typically lower transaction costs but increase the risk of incomplete order execution, whereas market orders typically have higher transaction costs but are guaranteed to be executed. Rather than considering order book dynamics to determine if a limit order is executed we rely on price dynamics for this. We look at implementation shortfall in this setup with market impact of trading and propose a dynamic program to find the optimal placement of both market and limit orders for risk-neutral and risk-averse traders. With this we find a bound on the expected cost of trading and show that a trader who behaves optimally should always expect to pay less to trade less. We then solve the dynamic program numerically and examine optimal order placement strategies. We find that the decision between market and limit orders is sensitive to price volatility, risk aversion, and trading costs.     

Order dynamics: Recent evidence from the NYSE

We examine investor order choices using evidence from a recent period when the NYSE trades in decimals and allows automatic executions. We analyze the decision to submit or cancel an order or to take no action. For submitted orders, we distinguish order type (market vs. limit), order side (buy vs. sell), execution method (auction vs. automatic), and pricing aggressiveness. We find that the NYSE exhibits positive serial correlation in order type on an order-by-order basis, which suggests that follow-on order strategies dominate adverse selection or liquidity considerations at a moment in time. Aggregated levels of order flow also exhibit positive serial correlation in order type, but appear to be non-stationary processes. Overall, changes in aggregated order flow have an order-type serial correlation that is close to zero at short aggregation intervals, but becomes increasingly negative at longer intervals. This implies a liquidity exhaustion–replenishment cycle. We find that small orders routed to the NYSE's floor auction process are sensitive to the quoted spread, but that small orders routed to the automatic execution system are not. Thus, in addition to foregoing price improvement, traders selecting the speed of automatic executions on the NYSE do so with little regard for the quoted cost of immediacy. As quoted depth increases, traders respond by competing on price via limit orders that undercut existing bid and ask prices. Limit orders are more likely and market sells are less likely late in the trading day. These results are helpful in understanding the order arrival process at the NYSE and have potential applications in academics and industry for optimizing order submission strategies.     

Traders’ choice between limit and market orders: evidence from NYSE stocks

In this paper, we examine a trader's order choice between market and limit orders using a sample of orders submitted through NYSE SuperDot. We find that traders place more limit orders relative to market orders when: (1) the spread is large, (2) the order size is large, and (3) they expect high transitory price volatility. A rise in informational volatility appears neither to increase nor decrease the placement of limit orders. We also find that a rise in lagged price volatility decreases the size of spread, which is driven by the increase in the placement of limit orders.     

Liquidity,information, strategic trading in an electronic order book: New insights from the European carbon markets

The electronic limit order book (LOB hereafter) has rapidly become the primary way of trading European carbon assets over the 4 years of the EU ETS programme (2008–2012). In this first attempt of examining the informational content of an electronic order book, we evidence that order flow imbalances have a moderate capacity to predict short term price changes. However, we find that both LOB slope and immediacy costs help to forecast quote improvements and volatility in the next 30 min. Further, we explain why informed trading is highly influential and show that it consists in mixing order splitting strategies and posting fleeting orders once the asymmetric information is reduced (Rosu, 2009). Overall, the consolidated status of the order book mirrors a high level of market uncertainty and a low degree of informational efficiency. In this way, strategic trading can in itself explain some of order book properties, independently of the degree of traders’ sophistication and market competition.     

Can order exposure be mandated?

In this paper, we examine whether the hidden portion of limit orders represents depth that would be revealed if traders were not allowed to hide it, and the associated market quality implications. Specifically, we examine the decisions by the Toronto Stock Exchange to first abolish the use of hidden limit orders in 1996, and then reintroduce them in 2002. We find that quoted depth does not change following either decision, suggesting that the hidden portion of orders represents depth that would otherwise not be exposed. Using confidential order data for the period following the reintroduction of hidden limit orders, we find that total inside depth increases. For both events, volume does not change and the usage of the limit order book increases if hidden limit orders are allowed. This suggests that if traders are required to expose their orders they will not exit the market, but instead will switch to using market orders. We also find evidence to suggest that informed traders use hidden limit orders to minimize price impact if the probability of non-execution is small.     

The price impact of order book events: market orders,limit orders and cancellations

While the long-ranged correlation of market orders and their impact on prices has been relatively well studied in the literature, the corresponding studies of limit orders and cancellations are scarce. We provide here an empirical study of the cross-correlation between all these different events, and their respective impact on future price changes. We define and extract from the data the ‘bare’ impact these events would have if they were to happen in isolation. For large tick stocks, we show that a model where the bare impact of all events is permanent and non-fluctuating is in good agreement with the data. For small tick stocks, however, bare impacts must contain a history-dependent part, reflecting the internal fluctuations of the order book. We show that this effect can be accurately described by an autoregressive model of the past order flow. This framework allows us to decompose the impact of an event into three parts: an instantaneous jump component, the modification of the future rates of the different events, and the modification of the jump sizes of future events. We compare in detail the present formalism with the temporary impact model that was proposed earlier to describe the impact of market orders when other types of events are not observed. Finally, we extend the model to describe the dynamics of the bid–ask spread.     

More on a statistical analysis of log-periodic precursors to financial crashes

In this paper, we extend the existing empirical evidence on the relationship between the state of the limit order book (LOB) and order choice. Our contribution is twofold: first, we propose a sequential ordered probit (SOP) model which allows studying patient and impatient traders’ choices separately; second, we consider two pieces of LOB information, the best quotes and the book beyond the best quotes. We find that both pieces of LOB information explain the degree of patience of an incoming trader and, afterwards, its order choice. Nonetheless, the best quotes concentrate most of the explanatory power of the LOB. The shape of the book beyond the best quotes is crucial in explaining the aggressiveness of patient (limit order) traders, while impatient (market order) traders base their decisions primarily on the best quotes. Patient traders’ choices depend more on the state of the LOB on the same side of the market, while impatient traders mostly look at the state of the LOB on the opposite side. The aggressiveness of both types of traders augments with the inside spread. However, patient (impatient) traders submit more (less) aggressive limit (market) orders when the depth of the own (opposite) best quote and the length of the own (opposite) side of the book increase. We also find that higher depth away from the best ask (bid) quote may signal that this quote is ‘too low (high)’, causing incoming impatient buyers (sellers) to be more aggressive and incoming patient sellers (buyers) to be more conservative.     

Specialist participation and limit orders

We present a market microstructure model to examine specialist's strategic participation decisions in a security market where there are noise traders, limit order traders, an insider and a specialist. We argue that the specialist's participation rate depends on the depth of the limit book and its uncertainty. In particular, the specialist has incentives to trade against the market trend when the limit book depth is low and to trade with the market trend when the depth is high. Moreover, the specialist's participation rate is positively related to the limit book depth uncertainty and the asset price volatility, but is negative related to the average trading volume. We also discuss the specialist's participation strategies under the NYSE regulation that prohibits the specialist from trading with the market trend.     

Optimal high-frequency trading with limit and market orders

We propose a framework for studying optimal market-making policies in a limit order book (LOB). The bid–ask spread of the LOB is modeled by a tick-valued continuous-time Markov chain. We consider a small agent who continuously submits limit buy/sell orders at best bid/ask quotes, and may also set limit orders at best bid (resp. ask) plus (resp. minus) a tick for obtaining execution order priority, which is a crucial issue in high-frequency trading. The agent faces an execution risk since her limit orders are executed only when they meet counterpart market orders. She is also subject to inventory risk due to price volatility when holding the risky asset. The agent can then also choose to trade with market orders, and therefore obtain immediate execution, but at a less favorable price. The objective of the market maker is to maximize her expected utility from revenue over a short-term horizon by a trade-off between limit and market orders, while controlling her inventory position. This is formulated as a mixed regime switching regular/impulse control problem that we characterize in terms of a quasi-variational system by dynamic programming methods. Calibration procedures are derived for estimating the transition matrix and intensity parameters for the spread and for Cox processes modelling the execution of limit orders. We provide an explicit backward splitting scheme for solving the problem and show how it can be reduced to a system of simple equations involving only the inventory and spread variables. Several computational tests are performed both on simulated and real data, and illustrate the impact and profit when considering execution priority in limit orders and market orders.     

Undisclosed orders and optimal submission strategies in a limit order market

Reserve orders enable traders to hide a portion of their orders and now appear in most electronic limit order markets. This paper outlines a theory to determine an optimal submission strategy in a limit order book, in which traders choose among limit, market, and reserve orders and simultaneously set price, quantity, and exposure. We show that reserve orders help traders compete for the provision of liquidity and reduce the friction generated by exposure costs. Therefore, total gains from trade increase. Large traders always benefit from reserve orders, whereas small traders benefit only when the tick size is large.     

Limit order books and trade informativeness

In the microstructure literature, information asymmetry is an important determinant of market liquidity. The classic setting is that uninformed dedicated liquidity suppliers charge price concessions when incoming market orders are likely to be informationally motivated. In limit order book (LOB) markets, however, this relationship is less clear, as market participants can switch roles, and freely choose to immediately demand or patiently supply liquidity by submitting either market or limit orders. We study the importance of information asymmetry in LOBs based on a recent sample of 30 German Deutscher Aktienindex (DAX) stocks. We find that Hasbrouck's (1991) measure of trade informativeness Granger causes book liquidity, in particular that required to fill large market orders. Picking-off risk due to public news-induced volatility is more important for top-of-the book liquidity supply. In our multivariate analysis, we control for volatility, trading volume, trading intensity and order imbalance to isolate the effect of trade informativeness on book liquidity.     

Splitting orders

A standard presumption of market microstructure models is thatcompetition between risk-neutral market makers inevitably leadsto price schedules that leave market makers zero expected profitsconditional on the order flow. This article documents an importantlack of robustness of this zero-profit result. In particular,we show that if traders can split orders between market makers,then market makers set less-competitive price schedules thatearn them strictly positive profits and hence raise tradingcosts. Thus, this article can explain why somebody might willinglymake a market for a stock when there are fixed costs to doingso. The analysis extends to a limit order book, which by itsnature is split against incoming market orders: equilibriumlimit order schedules necessarily yield those agents positiveexpected profits.     

Do Japanese candlesticks help solve the trader’s dilemma?

In this paper, we investigate whether Japanese candlesticks can help traders to find the best trade-off between market timing and market impact costs. Based on fixed-effect panel regressions on a sample of 81 European stocks, we show that implicit transaction costs are better characterized by using specific Japanese candlesticks patterns. Although market timing costs are not lower when Hammer-like and Doji configurations occur, market impact costs are significantly lower when and after a Doji structure occurs. We further check the potential gains through order submission simulations and find that submission strategies based on the occurrence of Doji result in significantly lower market impact cost than random submission strategies. These findings are of great interest for investors who look for occasional liquidity pools to execute their orders inexpensively such as institutional traders or hedgers.     

Characteristics of the order flow through an electronic open limit order book

We estimate and examine certain characteristics of the order flow through an electronic open limit order book, using order (not trade) data. In doing this, we bring out new evidence on order flow from a market with microstructure different from that of the NYSE. We find that the proportion of informed orders is less than 10%, lower than previous estimates. Informed traders choose smaller orders than uninformed traders, but do not materially differ in their choice of limit or market orders. The proportion of informed investors is similar between good and bad news days. Finally, there are U-shaped intraday patterns in order arrival, and the information content of the order flow appears to follow this pattern across the day.     

The next tick on Nasdaq

The Nasdaq stock market provides information about buying and selling interest in its limit order book. Using a vector autoregressive model of trades and returns, I assess the effect of the entire order book on the next tick. I also determine the influence of individual market makers and electronic networks and find evidence that the identity of market participants can be useful information. Finally, I produce a set of dynamic market price responses to buy and sell orders, and I find that these estimates vary with standard measures of liquidity.     

Hybrid markets, tick size and investor trading costs

This paper shows how the tick size affects equilibrium outcomes in a hybrid stock market such as the NYSE that features both a specialist and a limit order book. Reducing the tick size facilitates the specialist's ability to step ahead of the limit order book, resulting in a reduction in the cumulative depth of the limit order book at prices above the minimum tick. If market demand is price-sensitive, and there are costs of limit order submission, the limit order book can be destroyed by tick sizes that are either too small or too large. We show that trading cost is minimized at larger tick sizes for larger market orders, creating an incentive to submit smaller orders when tick size is reduced. With a smaller tick size, specialist participation increases and specialist profit increases slightly for small market orders, and considerably for large market orders.     

DYNAMIC ORDER SUBMISSION AND HERDING BEHAVIOR IN ELECTRONIC TRADING

I analyze the dynamic trading behavior of market participants by developing a bivariate modeling framework for describing the arrival process of buy and sell orders in a limit order book. The model contains an extended autoregressive conditional duration model with a flexible generalized Beta distribution to explain the duration process, combined with a dynamic logit model to capture the traders' order submission strategy. I find that the state of the order book as well as the speed of the order arrival have a significant influence on the order placement, inducing temporal asymmetric market movements.     

The impact of aggressive orders in an order-driven market: a simulation approach

This article investigates resiliency in an order-driven market. On basis of a vector autoregressive model capturing various dimensions of liquidity and their interactions, I simulate the effect of a large liquidity shock, measured by a very aggressive market order. I show that, despite the absence of market makers, the market is resilient. All dimensions of liquidity (spread, depth at the best prices and order book imbalances) revert to their steady-state values within 15 orders after the shock. For prices, a long run effect is found. Furthermore, different dimensions of liquidity interact. Immediately after a liquidity shock, the spread becomes wider than in the steady state, implying that one dimension of liquidity deteriorates, while at the same time, depth at the best prices increases, meaning an improvement of another liquidity dimension. In subsequent periods, the spread reverts back to the steady-state level but also depth decreases. Also, I find evidence for asymmetries in the impact of shocks on the ask and bid side. Shocks on the ask side have a stronger impact than shocks on the bid side. Finally, resiliency is higher for less-frequently traded stocks and stocks with a larger relative tick size.     

Reprint of: Market liquidity in the financial crisis: The role of liquidity commonality and flight-to-quality

We examine the dynamics and the drivers of market liquidity during the financial crisis, using a unique volume-weighted spread measure. According to the literature we find that market liquidity is impaired when stock markets decline, implying a positive relation between market and liquidity risk. Moreover, this relationship is the stronger the deeper one digs into the order book. Even more interestingly, this paper sheds further light on so far puzzling features of market liquidity: liquidity commonality and flight-to-quality. We show that liquidity commonality varies over time, increases during market downturns, peaks at major crisis events and becomes weaker the deeper we look into the limit order book. Consistent with recent theoretical models that argue for a spiral effect between the financial sector’s funding liquidity and an asset’s market liquidity, we find that funding liquidity tightness induces an increase in liquidity commonality which then leads to market-wide liquidity dry-ups. Therefore our findings corroborate the view that market liquidity can be a driving force for financial contagion. Finally, we show that there is a positive relationship between credit risk and liquidity risk, i.e., there is a spread between liquidity costs of high and low credit quality stocks, and that in times of increased market uncertainty the impact of credit risk on liquidity risk intensifies. This corroborates the existence of a flight-to-quality or flight-to-liquidity phenomenon also on the stock markets.     

Applying hedging strategies to estimate model risk and provision calculation

We present an empirical study of the intertwined behaviour of members in a financial market. Exploiting a database where the broker that initiates an order book event can be identified, we decompose the correlation and response functions into contributions coming from different market participants and study how their behaviour is interconnected. We find evidence for the following. (1) Brokers are very heterogeneous in liquidity provision—some appear to be primarily liquidity providers while others are primarily liquidity takers. (2) The behaviour of brokers is strongly conditioned on the actions of other brokers. In contrast, brokers are only weakly influenced by the impact of their own previous orders. (3) The total impact of market orders is the result of a subtle compensation between the same broker pushing the price in one direction and the liquidity provision of other brokers pushing it in the opposite direction. These results enforce the picture of market dynamics being the result of the competition between heterogeneous participants, interacting to form a complex market ecology.