Tick Size, Competition for Liquidity Provision, and Price Discovery: Evidence from the U.S. Treasury Market

References

• Adrian T, Capponi A, Fleming M, Vogt E, Zhang H (2020) Intraday market making with overnight inventory costs. J. Financial Markets 50:100564.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Albuquerque R, Song S, Yao C (2020) The price effects of liquidity shocks: A study of the SEC’s tick-size experiment. J. Financial Econom. 138(3):700–724.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aquilina M, Budish E, O’Neill P (2022) Quantifying the high-frequency trading “arms race.” Quart. J. Econom. 137(1):493–564.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bacidore J (1997) The impact of decimalization on market quality: An empirical investigation of the Toronto Stock Exchange. J. Financial Intermediation 6(2):92–120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bertrand M, Duflo E, Mullainathan S (2004) How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates? Quart. J. Econom. 119(1):249–275.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bessembinder H (2000) Tick size, spreads, and liquidity: An analysis of Nasdaq securities trading near ten dollars. J. Financial Intermediation 9(3):213–239.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bessembinder H (2003) Trade execution costs and market quality after decimalization. J. Financial Quant. Anal. 38(4):747–777.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Biais B, Glosten L, Spatt C (2005) Market microstructure: A survey of microfoundations, empirical results, and policy implications. J. Financial Markets 8(2):217–264.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boehmer E, Jones CM, Zhang X (2020) Potential pilot problems: Treatment spillovers in financial regulatory experiments. J. Financial Econom. 135(1):68–87.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brain D, De Pooter M, Dobrev D, Fleming MJ, Johansson P, Keane FM, Puglia M, et al. (2018) Breaking down TRACE volumes further. Liberty Street Economics Blog, November 29, 2018. Accessed April 21, 2022, https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2018/11/breaking-down-trace-volumes-further/.Google Scholar
• Brogaard J, Hendershott T, Riordan R (2014) High-frequency trading and price discovery. Rev. Financial Stud. 27(8):2267–2306.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cameron AC, Miller DL (2015) A practitioner’s guide to cluster-robust inference. J. Human Resources 50(2):317–372.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chaboud A, Dao A, Vega C (2019) What makes HFTs tick? Tick size changes and information advantage in a market with fast and slow traders. Working paper, Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Chaboud AP, Chiquoine B, Hjalmarsson E, Vega C (2014) Rise of the machines: Algorithmic trading in the foreign exchange market. J. Finance 69(5):2045–2084.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chordia T, Green TC, Kottimukkalur B (2018) Rent seeking by low-latency traders: Evidence from trading on macroeconomic announcements. Rev. Financial Stud. 31(12):4650–4687.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chung KH, Lee AJ, Rosch D (2020) Tick size, liquidity for small and large orders, and price informativeness: Evidence from the Tick Size Pilot Program. J. Financial Econom. 136(3):879–899.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Comerton-Forde C, Gregoire V, Zhong Z (2019) Inverted fee structures, tick size, and market quality. J. Financial Econom. 134(1):141–164.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dobrev D, Schaumburg E (2018) High-frequency cross-market trading: Model-free measurement and applications. Working paper, Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Field J, Large J (2008) Pro-rata matching and one-tick futures markets. CFS Working Paper No. 2008/40, Goethe University Frankfurt, Center for Financial Studies (CFS), Frankfurt, Germany.Google Scholar
• Fleming M, Nguyen G (2019) Price and size discovery in financial markets: Evidence from the U.S. Treasury securities market. Rev. Asset Pricing Stud. 9(2):256–295.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fleming M, Mizrach B, Nguyen G (2018) The microstructure of a U.S. Treasury ECN: The Brokertec platform. J. Financial Markets 40:2–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fleming MJ (1997) The round-the-clock market for U.S. Treasury securities. Federal Reserve Bank New York Econom. Policy Rev. 3(July):9–32.Google Scholar
• Fleming MJ, Liu H, Podjasek R, Schurmeier J (2021) The Federal Reserve’s market functioning purchases. Staff Reports No. 998, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, New York.Google Scholar
• Goettler RL, Parlour CA, Rajan U (2005) Equilibrium in a dynamic limit order market. J. Finance 60(5):2149–2192.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goldstein M, Kavajecz K (2000) Eighths, sixteenths, and market depth: Changes in tick size and liquidity provision on the NYSE. J. Financial Econom. 56(1):125–149.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Griffith TG, Roseman BS (2019) Making cents of tick sizes: The effect of the 2016 U.S. SEC Tick Size Pilot on limit order book liquidity. J. Banking Finance 101(April):104–121.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Group of Thirty (2021) U.S. Treasury market: Steps toward increased resilience. Accessed April 21, 2022, https://group30.org/publications/detail/4950.Google Scholar
• Harris L (1994) Minimum price variations, discrete bid-ask spreads, and quotation sizes. Rev. Financial Stud. 7(1):149–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harris LE (1997) Decimalization: A review of the arguments and evidence. Working paper, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
• Hasbrouck J (1993) Assessing the quality of a security market: A new approach to transaction-cost measurement. Rev. Financial Stud. 6(1):191–212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hasbrouck J (1995) One security, many markets: Determining the contributions to price discovery. J. Finance 50(4):1175–1199.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hasbrouck J, Saar G (2013) Low-latency trading. J. Financial Markets 16(4):646–679.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haynes R, Onur E (2020) Precedence rules in matching algorithms. J. Commodity Markets 19(September):100109.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hendershott T, Jones CM, Menkveld AJ (2011) Does algorithmic trading improve liquidity? J. Finance 66(1):1–33.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Inter-Agency Working Group (2021) Recent disruptions and potential reforms in the U.S. Treasury market: A staff progress report. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.Google Scholar
• Joint Staff Report (2015) The U.S. Treasury market on October 15, 2014, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.Google Scholar
• Jones CM, Lipson ML (2001) Sixteenths: Direct evidence on institutional execution costs. J. Financial Econom. 59(2):253–278.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee CM, Watts EM (2021) Tick size tolls: Can a trading slowdown improve earnings news discovery? Accounting Rev. 96(3):373–401.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li S, Wang X, Ye M (2021) Who provides liquidity, and when? J. Financial Econom. 141(3):968–980.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Martinez V, Tse Y (2019) The impact of tick size reductions in foreign currency futures markets. Finance Res. Lett. 28 (March):32–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McPartland K (2018) CME’s NEX acquisition a game changer: But how? Greenwich Blog, April 27, 2018 Accessed April 21, 2022, https://www.greenwich.com/blog/does-cme-own-us-treasury-market.Google Scholar
• Mizrach B, Neely C (2008) Information shares in the U.S. Treasury market. J. Banking Finance 32(7):1221–1233.Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Hara M, Saar G, Zhong Z (2019) Relative tick size and the trading environment. Rev. Asset Pricing Stud. 9(1):47–90.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Porter D, Weaver D (1997) Tick size and market quality. Financial Management 26(4):5–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rindi B, Werner I (2019) U.S. Tick Size Pilot. Working paper, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy, and The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
• Ronen T, Weaver DG (2001) Teenies’ anyone? J. Financial Markets 4(3):231–260.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Salem M, Younger J, St John H (2018) Fast and Furious: The Link Between Rapid Trading and Volatility in U.S. Rates Markets, North America Fixed Income Strategy, November 20, 2018, US Fixed Income Markets 2019 Outlook (JP Morgan).Google Scholar
• U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (2014) Equity Market Structure Literature Review. Part II: High Frequency Trading (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
• Vayanos D, Vila J-L (2021) A preferred-habitat model of the term structure of interest rates. Econometrica 89(1):77–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Webb MD (2013) Reworking wild bootstrap based inference for clustered errors. Working paper, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
• Yao C, Ye M (2018) Why trading speed matters: A tale of queue rationing under price controls. Rev. Financial Stud. 31(6):2157–2183.Crossref, Google Scholar