To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
3 results ✕ Clear filters

Who provides liquidity, and when?

Journal of Financial Economics 2021 141(3), 968-980 open access
We model competition for liquidity provision between high-frequency traders (HFTs) and slower execution algorithms (EAs) designed to minimize investors’ transaction costs. Under continuous pricing, EAs dominate liquidity provision by using aggressive limit orders to stimulate HFTs’ market orders. Under discrete pricing, HFTs dominate liquidity provision if the bid-ask spread is binding at one tick. If the tick size (minimum price variation) is not binding, EAs choose between stimulating HFTs and providing liquidity to non-HFTs. Transaction costs increase with the tick size but can be negatively correlated with the bid-ask spread when all traders can provide liquidity.

Why Discrete Price Fragments U.S. Stock Exchanges and Disperses Their Fee Structures

Review of Financial Studies 2019 32(3), 1068-1101 open access
Stock exchange operators compete for order flow by setting “make” fees for limit orders and “take” fees for market orders. When traders can quote continuous prices, exchange operators compete on total fee, because traders can choose prices that perfectly neutralize any fee division. The 1-cent minimum tick size, however, prevents traders from neutralizing fee division. The nonneutrality of division between make and take fees (1) allows an exchange operator to establish exchanges that differ in fee structure to engage in second-degree price discrimination and (2) destroys the Bertrand equilibrium, leads to frequent fee changes, and encourages entries of new exchanges. Received May 29, 2016; editorial decision April 19, 2018 by Editor Robin Greenwood.

Designated market makers still matter: Evidence from two natural experiments

Journal of Financial Economics 2017 126(3), 652-667 open access
Independent technological glitches forced two separate trading halts on different U.S. exchanges during the week of July 6, 2015. During each halt, all other exchanges remained open. We exploit exogenous variation provided by this unprecedented coincidence, in conjunction with a proprietary data set, to identify the causal impact of Designated Market Maker (DMM) participation on liquidity. When the voluntary liquidity providers on one exchange were removed, liquidity remained unchanged; when DMMs were removed, liquidity decreased market-wide. We find evidence consistent with the idea that these DMMs, despite facing only mild formal obligations, significantly improve liquidity in the modern electronic marketplace.