Electronic vs. Open Outcry: Side-by-Side Trading of KCBT Wheat Futures
AbstractThis study compares liquidity costs of electronic and open-outcry wheat futures contracts traded side-by-side on the Kansas City Board of Trade. Liquidity costs are considerably lower in the electronic market. Liquidity costs in the electronic market are still considerably lower after eliminating the bias created by splitting orders in the electronic market. Price volatility and transaction size are positively related to liquidity costs, while a negative relation is found between daily volume and liquidity costs. Price clustering at whole cent prices occurs in the open-outcry market which helps explain its higher liquidity costs. Daily volumes were distinctively higher during the Goldman-Sachs roll, but not enough to explain the higher liquidity costs in the open-outcry market. Trade size is larger in the open-outcry market, which suggests large traders prefer open-outcry trading.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Western Agricultural Economics Association in its journal Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
Volume (Year): 36 (2011)
Issue (Month): 1 (April)
bid-ask spread; electronic trading; execution costs; KCBT; liquidity; Crop Production/Industries; Risk and Uncertainty;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Christie, William G & Schultz, Paul H, 1994. " Why Do NASDAQ Market Makers Avoid Odd-Eighth Quotes?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 49(5), pages 1813-40, December.
- Irwin, Scott H. & Sanders, Dwight R., 2012. "Financialization and Structural Change in Commodity Futures Markets," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 44(03), August.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.