The AMEX changed the tick size from[formula]to[formula]for low-price stocks on September 3, 1992. Consistent with the prediction of L. E. Harris (1994, Minimum price variations, discrete bid–ask spreads, and quotation sizes,Rev. Finan. Stud.7,149–178), the change has reduced both quoted and effective spreads, although the magnitude of the reduction is much smaller than predicted. However, we fail to find evidence of a significant increase in trading volume. Our cross-sectional regressions show that stocks with greater trading activity, lower prices, and stronger competition from the regional exchanges experienced greater spread reductions.Journal of Economic LiteratureClassification Numbers: G10, G18, G20.

This paper examines the impact of share repurchase tender offers on the market microstructure. We find that there is a temporary reduction in the bid–ask spread, and a temporary increase in volume and quotation depth during the offer period. Our evidence suggests that the bid–ask spread is asymmetric during the offer period with the bid-side spread smaller than the ask-side spread. The temporary reduction in the spread around offers is consistent with the competing-market-maker hypothesis which predicts that the intensified competition for the market maker raises bid prices and narrows the spread asymmetrically during the offer period.

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.

Limit-order trading mechanisms, corporate ownership structure, and incentive structures in the Japanese brokerage industry differ from those in the US in several important ways. This paper exploits these differences to examine the joint and cross-sectional determinants of adverse selection costs, brokerage coverage, and trading activity for a large sample of Japanese firms traded on the Tokyo Stock Exchange. We find that adverse selection costs are associated with firm characteristics but not with ownership characteristics, which implies that adverse selection costs are affected by inside trading rather than inside holdings. We also find that while brokerage coverage reduces adverse selection costs, higher adverse selection costs lead more brokerage firms to enter the market because of the greater profit potential. Finally, we find that causality also runs both ways between brokerage coverage and trading volume: brokerage coverage increases trading volume and trading volume increases brokerage coverage.