The informational effect and market quality impact of upstairs trading and fleeting orders on the Australian Securities Exchange

This paper investigates the informational effect of trading and market segmentation on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) paying particular attention to the recent phenomenon: fleeting orders.¹ Confirming theoretical predictions, this study finds that permanent price effect (PPE) is significantly greater in the central limit order book (LOB) than in the upstairs market and that less informed institutional trades are routed to the upstairs market. It also finds that a well functioning upstairs market often results in lower transaction cost, higher volatility and larger trade size on the ASX. In the context of fleeting orders specifically, it finds the informational effect and market quality impact of upstairs market to be weaker after removing fleeting orders, which subsequently leads to the conclusion that recently introduced execution algorithms, which leave a trace of fleeting orders, often result in lower PPE and are mostly used my uninformed liquidity traders.     

The “make or take” decision in an electronic market: Evidence on the evolution of liquidity

This paper uses experimental asset markets to investigate the evolution of liquidity in an electronic limit order market. Our market setting includes salient features of electronic limit order markets, as well as informed traders and liquidity traders. We focus on the strategies of the traders and how these are affected by trader type, characteristics of the market, and characteristics of the asset. We find that informed traders use more limit orders than do liquidity traders. Our main result is that liquidity provision shifts as trading progresses, with informed traders increasingly providing liquidity in markets. The change in the behavior of the informed traders seems to be in response to the dynamic adjustment of prices to information; they take (provide) liquidity when the value of their information is high (low). Thus, a market-making role emerges endogenously in our electronic markets and is ultimately adopted by the traders who are least subject to adverse selection when placing limit orders.     

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.     

Hidden Liquidity: Some New Light on Dark Trading

Using a laboratory market, we investigate how the ability to hide orders affects traders’ strategies and market outcomes in a limit order book environment. We find that order strategies are greatly affected by allowing hidden liquidity, with traders substituting nondisplayed for displayed shares and changing the aggressiveness of their trading. As traders adapt their behavior to the different opacity regimes, however, most aggregate market outcomes (such as liquidity and informational efficiency) are not affected as much. We also find that opacity appears to increase the profits of informed traders but only when their private information is very valuable.     

Order Flow and Liquidity around NYSE Trading Halts

We study order flow and liquidity around NYSE trading halts. We find that market and limit order submissions and cancellations increase significantly during trading halts, that a large proportion of the limit order book at the reopen is composed of orders submitted during the halt, and that the market-clearing price at the reopen is a good predictor of future prices. Depth near the quotes is unusually low around trading halts, though specialists and/or floor traders appear to provide additional liquidity at these times. Finally, specialists appear to 'spread the quote' prior to imbalance halts to convey information to market participants.     

Modelling the buy and sell intensity in a limit order book market

In this paper, we model the buy and sell arrival process in the limit order book market at the Australian Stock Exchange. Using a bivariate autoregressive intensity model we analyze the contemporaneous buy and sell intensity as a function of the state of the market. We find evidence that trading decisions are both information as well as liquidity driven. Confirming predictions from market microstructure theory traders submit market orders by inferring from the recent order flow and the book with respect to upper and lower tail expectations as well as trading directions. However, traders also tend to take liquidity when the liquidity supply is high. Moreover, we find evidence that traders pay more attention to recent order arrivals and the current state of the order book than to the past order flow.     

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 aggressiveness and quantity: How are they determined in a limit order market?

Dealers trading in a limit order market must choose both the order aggressiveness and the quantity for their orders. Since little research has considered how dealers make this trade-off, we empirically investigate how dealers jointly make these decisions in the foreign exchange market using a unique simultaneous equations model. Our model uses an ordered probit model to account for the discrete nature of order aggressiveness and a censored regression model to capture the quantity decision recognizing the clustering of orders at the smallest available quantity, $1 million. Using two currency pairs with very different trading characteristics, we find evidence of a trade-off between order aggressiveness and quantity. We also find a significant role being played by factors related to the levels of information asymmetry and liquidity in the dealers’ choices of both the order aggressiveness and quantity.     

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.     

Do Proprietary Algorithmic Traders Withdraw Liquidity during Market Stress?

We investigate the role of proprietary algorithmic traders in facilitating liquidity in a limit order market. Using order‐level data from the National Stock Exchange of India, we find that proprietary algorithmic traders increase limit order supply following periods of both high short‐term stock‐specific volatility and extreme stock price movement. Even following periods of high marketwide volatility, they do not decrease their supply of liquidity. We define orders from high‐frequency traders as a subclass of orders from proprietary algorithmic traders that are revised in less than three milliseconds. The behavior of high‐frequency trading mimics the behavior of its parent class. This is inconsistent with the theory that fast traders leave the market when stress situations arise, although their limit‐order‐supplying behavior becomes weaker when the increase in short‐term volatility is more informational than transitory. Agency algorithmic traders and nonalgorithmic traders behave opposite to proprietary algorithmic traders by reducing the supply of liquidity during stress situations. The presence of faster traders in the market possibly instills the fear of adverse selection in them. We document that the order imbalance of agency algorithmic traders is positively related to future short‐term returns, whereas the order imbalance of proprietary algorithmic traders is negatively related to future short‐term returns.     

Stock splits, trading continuity, and the cost of equity capital

We hypothesize that managers use stock splits to attract more uninformed trading so that market makers can provide liquidity services at lower costs, thereby increasing investors’ trading propensity and improving liquidity. We examine a large sample of stock splits and find that, consistent with our hypothesis, the incidence of no trading decreases and liquidity risk is lower following splits, implying a decline in latent trading costs and a reduced cost of equity capital. Further, split announcement returns are correlated with the improvements in both liquidity levels and liquidity risk. Our analysis suggests nontrivial economic benefits from liquidity improvements, with less liquid firms benefiting more from stock splits.     

Liquidity Provision of Limit Order Trading in the Futures Market Under Bull and Bear Markets

Abstract:  This study investigates how limit orders affect liquidity in a purely order-driven futures market. Additionally, the possible asymmetric relationship between market depth and transitory volatility in bull and bear markets and the effect of institutional trading on liquidity provision behavior are examined as well. The empirical results demonstrate that subsequent market depth increases as transient volatility increases in bull markets. Market depth exhibits significantly positive relationship to subsequent transient volatility in bull markets. Additionally, although trading volume positively influences transient volatility in bull markets, no such relationship exists in bear markets. Liquidity provision decreases when institutional trading activity intensifies during bear markets. Thus, liquidity provision for limit orders differs between bull and bear markets.     

Liquidity determination in an order-driven market

We exploit full order level information from an electronic FX broking system to provide a comprehensive account of the determination of its liquidity. We not only look at bid-ask spreads and trading volumes, but also study the determination of order entry rates and depth measures derived from the entire limit order book. We find strong predictability in the arrival of liquidity supply/demand events. Further, in times of low (high) liquidity, liquidity supply (demand) events are more common. In times of high trading activity and volatility, the ratio of limit to market order arrivals is high but order book spreads and depth deteriorate. These results are consistent with market order traders having better information than limit order traders.     

Limit Order Book as a Market for Liquidity

We develop a dynamic model of a limit order market populatedby strategic liquidity traders of varying impatience. In equilibrium,patient traders tend to submit limit orders, whereas impatienttraders submit market orders. Two variables are the key determinantsof the limit order book dynamics in equilibrium: the proportionof patient traders and the order arrival rate. We offer severaltestable implications for various market quality measures suchas spread, trading frequency, market resiliency, and time toexecution for limit orders. Finally, we show the effect of imposinga minimal price variation on these measures.     

Is faster or slower trading better? An examination of order type execution speed and costs

We examine order type execution speed and costs for US equity traders. Marketable orders that execute slower exhibit lower execution costs. Those who remove liquidity faster and pay higher trading costs transact in smaller size, spread trading across more venues, take more liquidity, and are better informed. Nonmarketable limit orders that execute slower exhibit greater adverse selection; and larger, uninformed traders who concentrate their trading in fewer venues submit them. Our findings suggest that slowing down the trading process, when faster options exist, can benefit certain market participants who seek to cross the bid–ask spread.     

Limit Orders, Depth, and Volatility: Evidence from the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong

We investigate the role of limit orders in the liquidity provision in a pure order-driven market. Results show that market depth rises subsequent to an increase in transitory volatility, and transitory volatility declines subsequent to an increase in market depth. We also examine how transitory volatility affects the mix between limit orders and market orders. When transitory volatility arises from the ask (bid) side, investors will submit more limit sell (buy) orders than market sell (buy) orders. This result is consistent with the existence of limit-order traders who enter the market and place orders when liquidity is needed.     

A MICROSTRUCTURE ANALYSIS OF THE LIQUIDITY IMPACT OF OPEN MARKET REPURCHASES

We examine the liquidity impact of Canadian open market repurchases and find that spreads are smaller and depths greater during repurchase programs (as compared to the prerepurchase period) and on repurchase days (as compared to nonrepurchase days). We examine the types of orders used by repurchasing companies and find that all repurchase orders are limit orders and more than 70% of these unambiguously add liquidity to the limit order book. The improved liquidity is consistent with U.S. research but different from results from other markets. We attribute the difference to an uptick restriction that limits the aggressiveness of North American repurchases.     

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.     

Does high-frequency trading actually improve market liquidity? A comparative study for selected models and measures

The increasing volume of messages sent to the exchange by algorithmic traders stimulates a fierce debate among academics and practitioners on the impacts of high-frequency trading (HFT) on capital markets. By comparing a variety of regression models that associate various measures of market liquidity with measures of high-frequency activity on the same dataset, we find that for some models the increase in high-frequency activity improves market liquidity, but for others, we get the opposite effect. We indicate that this ambiguity does not depend only on the stock market or the data period, but also on the used HFT measure: the increase of high-frequency orders leads to lower market liquidity whereas the increase in high-frequency trades improves liquidity. We hypothesize that the observed decrease in market liquidity associated with an increasing level of high-frequency orders is caused by a rise in quote volatility.     

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.