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

Fields:
3 results ✕ Clear filters

Liquidity-Based Competition for Order Flow

Review of Financial Studies 2003 16(2), 301-343
We present a microstructure model of competition for order flow between exchanges based on liquidity provision. We find that neither a pure limit order market (PLM) nor a hybrid specialist/limit order market (HM) structure is competition-proof. A PLM can always be supported in equilibrium as the dominant market (i.e., where the hybrid limit book is empty), but an HM can also be supported, for some market parameterizations, as the dominant market. We also show the possible coexistence of competing markets. Order preferencing—that is, decisions about where orders are routed when investors are indifferent—is a key determinant of market viability. Welfare comparisons show that competition between exchanges can increase as well as reduce the cost of liquidity.

Liquidity-Based Competition for Order Flow

Review of Financial Studies 2003 16(2), 301-343
We present a microstructure model of competition for order flow between exchanges based on liquidity provision. We find that neither a pure limit order market (PLM) nor a hybrid specialist/limit order market (HM) structure is competition-proof. A PLM can always be supported in equilibrium as the dominant market (i.e., where the hybrid limit book is empty), but an HM can also be supported, for some market parameterizations, as the dominant market. We also show the possible coexistence of competing markets. Order preferencing—that is, decisions about where orders are routed when investors are indifferent—is a key determinant of market viability. Welfare comparisons show that competition between exchanges can increase as well as reduce the cost of liquidity.

Payment for order flow

Journal of Financial Economics 2003 68(3), 379-411
We develop a dynamic model of price competition in broker and dealer markets. With no payment for order flow, a zero-profit equilibrium exists. With payment for order flow, spreads widen to more than compensate for this payment; hence, there is no equilibrium in which market makers earn zero profits. While brokerage commissions for market orders can fall, the total transactions cost to submitting a market order remains positive. Consumer and social welfare are both lower in any equilibrium with payment for order flow; payment for order flow redistributes payoffs from traders who demand liquidity to those who supply it.