[We propose a mechanism that relates asset returns to the firm's optimal listing choice. We use a theoretical model to show that a stock will be more liquid when it is listed on a market where "similar" securities are traded. We empirically examine the implications of our model using New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and Nasdaq securities. We find that the return patterns of stocks that switch markets become more similar to the return patterns of securities listed on the new market prior to the switch. Stocks that are eligible to switch but stay put are more similar to securities listed on their market than to securities listed on the other market. Our results suggest that managers make listing decisions that enhance the liquidity of their firms' stocks]

We propose a mechanism that relates asset returns to the firm's optimal listing choice. We use a theoretical model to show that a stock will be more liquid when it is listed on a market where “similar” securities are traded. We empirically examine the implications of our model using New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and Nasdaq securities. We find that the return patterns of stocks that switch markets become more similar to the return patterns of securities listed on the new market prior to the switch. Stocks that are eligible to switch but stay put are more similar to securities listed on their market than to securities listed on the other market. Our results suggest that managers make listing decisions that enhance the liquidity of their firms' stocks.

Stock prices incorporate less news before negative events than positive events. Further, informed agents use less price aggressive (limit) orders before negative events and more price aggressive (market) orders before positive events (buy–sell asymmetry). Motivated by these patterns, we model the execution risk that informed agents impose on each other and relate the asymmetry to costly short selling. When investor base is narrow, security borrowing is difficult, or the magnitude of the event is small, buy–sell asymmetry is pronounced and price discovery before negative events is lower. Overall, we show that the strategies of informed traders influence the process of price formation in financial markets, as predicted by theory.

We characterize and prove the existence of Nash equilibrium in a limit order market with a finite number of risk-neutral liquidity providers. We show that if there is sufficient adverse selection, then pointwise optimization (maximizing in p for each q) in a certain nonlinear pricing game produces a Nash equilibrium in the limit order market. The need for a sufficient degree of adverse selection does not vanish as the number of liquidity providers increases. Our formulation of the nonlinear pricing game encompasses various specifications of informed and liquidity trading, including the case in which nature chooses whether the market-order trader is informed or a liquidity trader. We solve for an equilibrium analytically in various examples and also present examples in which the first-order condition for pointwise optimization does not define an equilibrium, because the amount of adverse selection is insufficient.

This paper analyzes models of securities markets with a single strategic informed trader and competitive market makers. In one version, uninformed trades arrive as a Brownian motion and market makers see only the order imbalance, as in Kyle (1985). In the other version, uninformed trades arrive as a Poisson process and market makers see individual trades. This is similar to the Glosten–Milgrom (1985) model, except that we allow the informed trader to optimize his times of trading. We show there is an equilibrium in the Glosten–Milgrom-type model in which the informed trader plays a mixed strategy (a point process with stochastic intensity). In this equilibrium, informed and uninformed trades arrive probabilistically, as Glosten and Milgrom assume. We study a sequence of such markets in which uninformed trades become smaller and arrive more frequently, approximating a Brownian motion. We show that the equilibria of the Glosten–Milgrom model converge to the equilibrium of the Kyle model.

We analyze limit order markets and floor exchanges, assuming an informed trader and discretionary liquidity traders use market orders and can either submit block orders or work their demands as a series of small orders. By working their demands, large market order traders pool with small traders. We show that every equilibrium on a floor exchange must involve at least partial pooling. Moreover, there is always a fully pooling (worked order) equilibrium on a floor exchange that is equivalent to a block order equilibrium in a limit order market.

We develop a new model of multimarket trading to explain the differences in the foreign share of trading volume of internationally cross‐listed stocks. The model predicts that the trading volume of a cross‐listed stock is proportionally higher on the exchange in which the cross‐listed asset returns have greater correlation with returns of other assets traded on that market. We find robust empirical support for this prediction using stock return and volume data on 251 non‐U.S. stocks cross‐listed on major U.S. exchanges.