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.     

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.     

Tick Size,Share Prices,and Stock Splits

Minimum price variation rules help explain why stock prices vary substantially across countries, and other curiosities of share prices. Companies tend to split their stock so that the institutionally mandated minimum tick size is optimal relative to the stock price. A large relative tick size provides an incentive for dealers to make markets and for investors to provide liquidity by placing limit orders, despite its placing a high floor on the quoted bid-ask spread. A simple model suggests that idiosyncratic risk, firm size, and visibility of the firm affect the optimal relative tick size and thus the share price.     

A market-clearing role for inefficiency on a limit order book

Limit order markets with stationary dynamics attract equal volumes of market orders and uncanceled limit orders, equalizing the supply and demand for liquidity and immediacy. To maintain this balance, market orders must share any benefit obtained by limit order traders from more efficient trading conditions, such as better order queuing policies. Therefore an efficient market places a low price on immediacy, producing small bid–ask spreads. Furthermore, when price-discreteness leads to a mainly constant spread, cutting the price tick raises surplus. This is modeled with a stochastic sequential game, using stationarity considerations to bypass direct analysis of traders’ intricate market forecasts.     

The specialist's discretion: stopped orders and price improvement

When a market order arrives, the NYSE specialist can offer aprice one tick better than the limit orders on the book andtrade for his own account. Alternatively, the specialist can'stop' the market order, which means he guarantees executionat the current quote but provides the possibility of price improvement.My model shows that specialists can use stops to sample thefuture order flow before making a commitment to trade. I presentempirical evidence that both stops and immediate price improvementimpose adverse selection costs on limit order traders.     

Liquidity distribution in the limit order book on the stock exchange of Thailand

The liquidity distribution, or the shape of the limit order book, influences trading behavior and choice of order submission by public liquidity suppliers. The present study seeks to discover whether liquidity providers are concerned about being picked off by informed traders, and whether they are less willing to supply liquidity at the market or demand higher price spreads. The results show that liquidity at the market is a small portion of total liquidity, and that firm size, minimum tick size, volatility, and trading volume play significant roles in determining the liquidity distribution within an order book.     

Can Brokers Have It All? On the Relation between Make‐Take Fees and Limit Order Execution Quality

We identify retail brokers that seemingly route orders to maximize order flow payments, by selling market orders and sending limit orders to venues paying large liquidity rebates. Angel, Harris, and Spatt argue that such routing may not always be in customers’ best interests. For both proprietary limit order data and a broad sample of trades from TAQ, we document a negative relation between several measures of limit order execution quality and rebate/fee level. This finding suggests that order routing designed to maximize liquidity rebates does not maximize limit order execution quality and thus brokers cannot have it all.     

A simulation analysis of the microstructure of double auction markets

Abstract

We introduce an order-driven market model with heterogeneous agents trading via a central order matching mechanism. Traders set bids and asks and post market or limit orders according to exogenously fixed rules. We investigate how different trading strategies may affect the dynamics of price, bid-ask spreads, trading volume and volatility. We also analyse how some features of market design, such as tick size and order lifetime, affect market liquidity. The model is able to reproduce many of the complex phenomena observed in real stock markets.     

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.     

Working Orders in Limit Order Markets and Floor Exchanges

We analyze limit order markets and floor exchanges, assuming an informed trader and discretionary liquidity traders use market orders and can either submit block orders or work their demands as a series of small orders. By working their demands, large market order traders pool with small traders. We show that every equilibrium on a floor exchange must involve at least partial pooling. Moreover, there is always a fully pooling (worked order) equilibrium on a floor exchange that is equivalent to a block order equilibrium in a limit order market.     

Correlated Trading and Returns

A German broker's clients place similar speculative trades and therefore tend to be on the same side of the market in a given stock during a given day, week, month, and quarter. Aggregate liquidity effects, short sale constraints, the systematic execution of limit orders (coordinated through price movements) or the correlated trading of other investors who pick off retail limit orders do not fully explain why retail investors trade similarly. Correlated market orders lead returns, presumably due to persistent speculative price pressure. Correlated limit orders also predict subsequent returns, consistent with executed limit orders being compensated for accommodating liquidity demands.     

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.     

So who gains from a small tick size?

We investigate the relation between price discreteness and the number of dealers in a dealer market. We present a model featuring a finite number of dealers competing in prices for supplying liquidity to a forthcoming market order. We find that a decrease in tick size benefits dealers and tends to hurt investors when the number of dealers for a stock is small. In contrast, a decrease in tick size hurts dealers and benefits investors when the number of dealers is large. This result yields several new empirical implications relating a change in tick size to entry and exit of dealers, order aggressiveness and transaction rates.     

Optimal Dynamic Order Submission Strategies in Some Stylized Trading Problems

This study derives optimal dynamic order submission strategies for trading problems faced by three stylized traders: an uninformed liquidity trader, an informed trader and a value-motivated trader. Separate solutions are obtained for quote- and order-driven markets. The results provide practicable rules for how to trade small orders and how to manage traders. Transaction cost measurement methods based on implementation shortfall are proven to dominate other methods.
Since investors demand liquidity when they submit market orders and supply liquidity when they submit limit orders, the results improve our understanding of market liquidity. In particular, the models illustrate the role of time in the search for liquidity by characterizing the demand for and supply of immediacy.     

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.     

One size fits all? High frequency trading,tick size changes and the implications for exchanges: market quality and market structure considerations

This paper offers a systematic review of the empirical literature on the implications of tick size changes for exchanges. Our focus is twofold: first, we are concerned with the market quality implications of a change in the minimum tick size. Second, we are interested in the implications of changes in the minimum tick size on market structure. We show that there is a large body of empirical literature that documents a decrease in transaction costs following a decrease in the minimum tick size. However, even though market liquidity increases, the incentive to provide market making activities decreases. We document a strong link between the minimum tick size regulations and the recent increase in high frequency trading activity. A smaller tick enhances the price discovery process. However, the question of how multiple tick size regimes affect market liquidity in a fragmented market remains to be answered. Finally, we identify topics for future research; we discuss the empirical literature on the minimum trade unit and the recent calls for a minimum resting time for quotes.     

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.     

Impact of a tick size reduction on liquidity: evidence from the Sydney Futures Exchange

This paper examines the impact of a reduction in the minimum price increment on liquidity and execution costs in a futures market setting. In 2006, the Sydney Futures Exchange halved the minimum tick in the 3 Year Commonwealth Treasury Bond Futures. Results indicate that bid‐ask spreads are significantly reduced after the change. Quoted depth, both at the best quotes and visible in the limit order book, is significantly lower after the tick reduction. Further analysis reveals that execution costs are significantly reduced after the change. We conclude that a tick size reduction improves liquidity and reduces execution costs in a futures market setting.     

Does stock exchange consolidation improve market liquidity? A study of stock exchange acquisition in Russia

The last couple of decades have witnessed significant institutional and structural changes in financial sector within a worldwide trend toward consolidation. In the segment of organized trading stock exchanges merge and develop into large and diversified publicly traded companies. These processes are rather complicated in case of a transition economy like Russia. In December 2011 MICEX, the first largest and state-controlled stock exchange acquired RTS, the second largest and privately owned stock exchange primarily designed for foreign investors. We empirically investigate whether the acquisition resulted in improved liquidity of the Russian stock market which was one of the declared acquisition objectives. We use the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and the Wilcoxon tests to compare market-wide liquidity in several discrete periods pre and post acquisition. A deep and thorough insight into liquidity performance is ensured by assessing liquidity from limit order book data of tick frequency along three dimensions (tightness, immediacy, and elasticity).     

Liquidity in auction and specialist market structures: Evidence from the Italian bourse

Several studies find that bid-ask spreads for stocks listed on the NYSE are lower than for stocks listed on NASDAQ. While this suggests that specialist market structures provide greater liquidity than competing dealer markets, the nature of trading on the NYSE, which comprises a specialist competing with limit order flow, obfuscates the comparison. In 2001, a structural change was implemented on the Italian Bourse. Many stocks that traded in an auction market switched to a specialist market, where the specialist controls order flow. Results confirm that liquidity is significantly improved when stocks commence trading in the specialist market. Analysis of the components of the bid-ask spread reveal that the adverse selection component of the spread is significantly reduced. This evidence suggests that specialist market structures provide greater liquidity to market participants.