How does increased noise trading affect market liquidity and trading costs? We use The Wall Street Journal 's “Investment Dartboard” column, which stimulates noise trading, as a natural experiment to evaluate models of the bid‐ask spread. We find that substantial increases in trading volume and significant but temporary abnormal returns occur when analysts recommend stocks in this column, especially when recommendations come from analysts with successful contest track records. We also find an increase in liquidity and a decrease in the adverse selection component of the bid‐ask spread.

We examine how mutual fund flows that are correlated with subsequent fund returns can have a dilution impact on the performance of open-end funds. Active trading of open-end funds has a meaningful economic impact on the returns of passive, nontrading shareholders, particularly in U.S.-based international funds. The overall sample of domestic equity funds shows no dilution impact, but we find an annualized negative impact of 0.48% in international funds (and nearly 1% for a subsample of funds whose daily flows are particularly large). The exchange and pricing policies of mutual funds can thus have important performance-related implications.

Merrill Lynch's decision to redirect order flow in exchange-listed equity securities from regional exchanges to the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) provides an opportunity to examine (1) whether order flow affects market makers' spread-setting behavior and (2) whether brokers can capture liquidity-cost differences between market centers for their customers. Merrill's market-order customers appear to obtain better prices on the NYSE than on the regionals. Consistently with market microstructure theory, the NYSE's quoted spread for stocks affected by Merrill's decision falls relative to a control sample and decreases absolutely for a subsample of stocks we believe most sensitive to order-flow distribution.Journal of Economic LiteratureClassification Numbers: D40, G10.

We empirically demonstrate that the opportunities the Boston Stock Exchange and the Cincinnati Stock Exchange offer members to take the other side of their customers’ orders through affiliated market makers (to internalize orders) have little short-run effect on posted or effective bid-ask spreads. This is true despite substantial movement of order flow away from the New York Stock Exchange when trading under one of these regional stock exchange programs begins. These results contrast with the adverse effects of market fragmentation and internalization predicted by some theoretical market microstructure analyses and the popular financial press.

We examine how redemption policies affect daily fund flows in open-end mutual funds. Since short-term trading of fund shares, as manifested in daily fund flows, can have an adverse impact on returns to the fund’s shareholders, mutual funds might find it desirable to discourage short-term trading through the use of redemption fees. However, if daily fund flows are due to fund shareholders’ legitimate liquidity demands, the redemption fee would have little effect on daily fund flows and possibly adversely affect fund shareholders by imposing a liquidity cost on them. We find that the likelihood of a fund charging a redemption fee is largely a function of its overall fee structure. We also use a sample of funds that imposed redemption fees to examine whether the distribution of daily fund flows changes after the initiation of the redemption fee. We find that the redemption fee is an effective tool in controlling the volatility of fund flows.

We examine the impact deciding to route limit orders away from the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) has on three dimensions of execution quality with methodologies controlling for market conditions and order submission strategies. Overall differences in limit order execution quality between regional stock exchanges and the NYSE are small, suggesting that the order routing decision may not affect retail limit order traders substantively. Conditioning on the distance between the limit order’s price and prevailing quotes, however, reveals systematic differences in execution quality. This implies that brokers can strategically route limit orders to improve retail limit order execution quality.