Quote-based competition and trade execution costs in NYSE-listed stocks

This study examines quotations, order routing, and trade execution costs for seven markets that compete for orders in large-capitalization NYSE-listed stocks. The competitiveness of quote updates from each market varies with measures of the profitability of attracting additional order and with volatility and inventory measures. The probability of a trade executing on each market increases when the market posts competitive quotes. Execution costs for non-NYSE trades when the local market posts competitive (non-competitive) quotes are virtually the same (substantially exceed) costs for matched NYSE trades. Collectively, these results imply a significant degree of quote-based competition for order flow and are consistent with off-NYSE liquidity providers using competitive quotations to signal when they are prepared to give better-than-normal trade executions.     

Hidden liquidity: An analysis of order exposure strategies in electronic stock markets

Many stock exchanges choose to reduce market transparency by allowing traders to hide some or all of their order size. We study the costs and benefits of order exposure and test hypotheses regarding hidden order usage using a sample of Euronext-Paris stocks, where hidden orders represent 44% of the sample order volume. Our results support the hypothesis that hidden orders are associated with a decreased probability of full execution and increased average time to completion, and fail to support the alternate hypothesis that order exposure causes defensive traders to withdraw from the market. However, exposing rather than hiding order size increases average execution costs. We assess the extent to which non-displayed size is truly hidden and document that the presence and magnitude of hidden orders can be predicted to a significant, but imperfect, degree based on observable order attributes, firm characteristics, and market conditions. Overall, the results indicate that the option to hide order size is valuable, in particular, to patient traders.     

Market transparency,liquidity externalities,and institutional trading costs in corporate bonds

We develop a simple model of the effect of public transaction reporting on trade execution costs and test it using a sample of institutional trades in corporate bonds, before and after initiation of the TRACE reporting system. Trade execution costs fell approximately 50% for bonds eligible for TRACE transaction reporting, and 20% for bonds not eligible for TRACE reporting, suggesting the presence of a “liquidity externality.” The key results are robust to changes in variables, such as interest rate volatility and trading activity that might also affect execution costs. Market shares and the cost advantage to large dealers decreased post-TRACE. These results indicate that market design can have first-order effects, even for sophisticated institutional customers.     

Systematic risk, hedging pressure, and risk premiums in futures markets

I examine the uniformity of risk pricing in futures and assetmarkets. Tests against a general alternative do not reflectcomplete integration of futures and asset markets. As predicted,estimates of the 'zero-beta' rate for futures are close to zero,and premiums for systematic risk do not differ significantlyacross assets and futures. There is, however, evidence consistentwith a specific alternative model presented by Hirshleifer (1988).Returns in foreign currency and agricultural futures vary withthe net holdings of hedgers, after controlling for systematicrisk. These results imply a degree of market segmentation andsupport hedging pressure as a determinant of futures premiums.     

Liquidity biases in asset pricing tests

Microstructure noise in security prices biases the results of empirical asset pricing specifications, particularly when security-level explanatory variables are cross-sectionally correlated with the amount of noise. We focus on tests of whether measures of illiquidity, which are likely to be correlated with the noise, are priced in the cross-section of stock returns, and show a significant upward bias in estimated return premiums for an array of illiquidity measures in Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) monthly return data. The upward bias is larger when illiquid securities are included in the sample, but persists even for NYSE/Amex stocks after decimalization. We introduce a methodological correction to eliminate the biases that simply involves weighted least squares (WLS) rather than ordinary least squares (OLS) estimation, and find evidence of smaller, but still significant, return premiums for illiquidity after implementing the correction.     

Equilibrium Pricing and Optimal Hedging in Electricity Forward Markets

Spot power prices are volatile and since electricity cannot be economically stored, familiar arbitrage-based methods are not applicable for pricing power derivative contracts. This paper presents an equilibrium model implying that the forward power price is a downward biased predictor of the future spot price if expected power demand is low and demand risk is moderate. However, the equilibrium forward premium increases when either expected demand or demand variance is high, because of positive skewness in the spot power price distribution. Preliminary empirical evidence indicates that the premium in forward power prices is greatest during the summer months.     

Return autocorrelations around nontrading days

We document a pattern in the serial dependence of security returnsaround nontrading days. ne correlation of returns the secondday after a week-end or holiday with returns first day afteris unusually low, and in many return series is negative, implyinga reversal of price movements. We also document unusually largepositive return autocorrelations the last day before and thefirst day after weekends and holidays. The pattern has existedin equity returns for over 100 years, and also exists in severalfutures markets, implying that the pattern is robust to alternativemarket microstructures.     

Firm characteristics and long-run stock returns after corporate events

The well-documented abnormal long-run buy-and-hold returns to firms issuing equity in initial public offerings and seasoned equity offerings, firms bidding in mergers, and firms initiating dividends can be attributed to imperfect control-firm matching. In addition to firm size and market-to-book ratio, event firms on average differ from control firms in terms of idiosyncratic volatility, liquidity, return momentum, and capital investment, each of which also explains returns. We propose a simple regression-based approach to control for differences in firm characteristics across event and control firms, and we show that long-run abnormal returns do not differ significantly from zero for event firms in the 1980 to 2005 period. The returns to event firms are, therefore, consistent with patterns known to exist for the broad stock market and do not require event-specific explanations.