Refine
Document Type
- Working Paper (4)
Language
- English (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Keywords
- Adverse Selection Risk (2)
- Dynamic Duration Models (2)
- Price Impact of Trades (2)
- Spread Decomposition Models (2)
- Trading Intensity (2)
- International Cross-Listings (1)
- Kanada (1)
- Market Microstructure Noise (1)
- Orderbuch (1)
- Preisbildung (1)
We revisit the role of time in measuring the price impact of trades using a new empirical method that combines spread decomposition and dynamic duration modeling. Previous studies which have addressed the issue in a vector-autoregressive framework conclude that times when markets are most active are times when there is an increased presence of informed trading. Our empirical analysis based on recent European and U.S. data offers challenging new evidence. We find that as trade intensity increases, the informativeness of trades tends to decrease. This result is consistent with the predictions of Admati and Pfleiderer’s (1988) rational expectations model, and also with models of dynamic trading like those proposed by Parlour (1998) and Foucault (1999). Our results cast doubt on the common wisdom that fast markets bear particularly high adverse selection risks for uninformed market participants. JEL Classification: G10, C32 Keywords: Price Impact of Trades, Trading Intensity, Dynamic Duration Models, Spread Decomposition Models, Adverse Selection Risk
This paper addresses and resolves the issue of microstructure noise when measuring the relative importance of home and U.S. market in the price discovery process of Canadian interlisted stocks. In order to avoid large bounds for information shares, previous studies applying the Cholesky decomposition within the Hasbrouck (1995) framework had to rely on high frequency data. However, due to the considerable amount of microstructure noise inherent in return data at very high frequencies, these estimators are distorted. We offer a modified approach that identifies unique information shares based on distributional assumptions and thereby enables us to control for microstructure noise. Our results indicate that the role of the U.S. market in the price discovery process of Canadian interlisted stocks has been underestimated so far. Moreover, we suggest that rather than stock specific factors, market characteristics determine information shares.
In the microstructure literature, information asymmetry is an important determinant of market liquidity. The classic setting is that uninformed dedicated liquidity suppliers charge price concessions when incoming market orders are likely to be informationally motivated. In limit order book markets, however, this relationship is less clear, as market participants can switch roles, and freely choose to immediately demand or patiently supply liquidity by submitting either market or limit orders. We study the importance of information asymmetry in limit order books based on a recent sample of thirty German DAX stocks. We find that Hasbrouck’s (1991) measure of trade informativeness Granger-causes book liquidity, in particular that required to fill large market orders. Picking-off risk due to public news induced volatility is more important for top-of-the book liquidity supply. In our multivariate analysis we control for volatility, trading volume, trading intensity and order imbalance to isolate the effect of trade informativeness on book liquidity. JEL Classification: G14 Keywords: Price Impact of Trades , Trading Intensity , Dynamic Duration Models, Spread Decomposition Models , Adverse Selection Risk
Non-standard errors
(2021)
In statistics, samples are drawn from a population in a data-generating process (DGP). Standard errors measure the uncertainty in sample estimates of population parameters. In science, evidence is generated to test hypotheses in an evidence-generating process (EGP). We claim that EGP variation across researchers adds uncertainty: non-standard errors. To study them, we let 164 teams test six hypotheses on the same sample. We find that non-standard errors are sizeable, on par with standard errors. Their size (i) co-varies only weakly with team merits, reproducibility, or peer rating, (ii) declines significantly after peer-feedback, and (iii) is underestimated by participants.