This study directly tests the ability of several competing methods to identify market buy and sell orders using intra-day quote and trade prices, and identifies factors that affect the accuracy of the methods. Lee and Ready's (1991) algorithm performs about the same as the tick test, but the performance of both methods is worse than expected. The results show that the use of either algorithm to classify trades can lead to significantly biased estimates of effective spreads and signed volume, but the tick test provides better estimates of effective spreads and signed volume than Lee and Ready's method.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. 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.
Volume (Year): 35 (2000) Issue (Month): 04 (December) Pages: 553-576 Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML
(with abstract),
plain text
(with abstract),
BibTeX,
RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite),
ReDIF
Contact details of provider: Postal: The Edinburgh Building, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 2RU UK Fax: +44 (0)1223 325150 Email: Web page: http://journals.cambridge.org/jid_JFQ
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Mike Eden).
Related research
Keywords:
Cited by: (explanations, 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.)