IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jocoma/v10y2018icp69-90.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of pit closure on futures trading

Author

Listed:
  • Gousgounis, Eleni
  • Onur, Esen

Abstract

Motivated by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange’s (CME) decision to close down most of the futures pits in July of 2015, we analyze how this event may have affected the livestock and treasury futures markets. We find that although the already declining futures pit trading decreased further after the pit closure, it has not completely disappeared. Execution costs, following the pit closure, appear to have increased for livestock futures and declined for treasury futures transactions on the electronic platform. We, also, find that pit users, who had been active in both trading venues, remain active in the electronic market. However, there is no evidence of pit traders (locals) transitioning to the electronic market. Nevertheless, some of them are still active in options pits. When we explore the changes in daily trading patterns, we observe an ongoing shift in the timing of trading hours for livestock futures, but we note that this shift is unlikely to be driven by the pit closure.

Suggested Citation

  • Gousgounis, Eleni & Onur, Esen, 2018. "The effect of pit closure on futures trading," Journal of Commodity Markets, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 69-90.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jocoma:v:10:y:2018:i:c:p:69-90
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jcomm.2017.11.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240585131630054X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jcomm.2017.11.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aitken, Michael & Almeida, Niall & deB. Harris, Frederick H. & McInish, Thomas H., 2007. "Liquidity supply in electronic markets," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 144-168, May.
    2. Thierry Foucault & Sophie Moinas & Erik Theissen, 2007. "Does Anonymity Matter in Electronic Limit Order Markets?," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 20(5), pages 1707-1747, 2007 28.
    3. Bruno Biais & Fany Declerck & Sophie Moinas, 2016. "Who supplies liquidity, how and when?," BIS Working Papers 563, Bank for International Settlements.
    4. Wang, Jianxin, 1999. "Asymmetric information and the bid-ask spread: an empirical comparison between automated order execution and open outcry auction," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 115-128, April.
    5. Orlowski, Lucjan T., 2015. "From pit to electronic trading: Impact on price volatility of U.S. Treasury futures," Review of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 3-9.
    6. Sait R. Ozturk & Michel van der Wel & Dick van Dijk, 2015. "Why do Pit-Hours outlive the Pit?," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 15-082/III, Tinbergen Institute.
    7. Kumar Venkataraman, 2001. "Automated Versus Floor Trading: An Analysis of Execution Costs on the Paris and New York Exchanges," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(4), pages 1445-1485, August.
    8. Terrence Hendershott & Charles M. Jones & Albert J. Menkveld, 2011. "Does Algorithmic Trading Improve Liquidity?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 66(1), pages 1-33, February.
    9. Craig Pirrong, 1996. "Market liquidity and depth on computerized and open outcry trading systems: A comparison of DTB and LIFFE bund contracts," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(5), pages 519-543, August.
    10. Goyenko, Ruslan Y. & Holden, Craig W. & Trzcinka, Charles A., 2009. "Do liquidity measures measure liquidity?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(2), pages 153-181, May.
    11. Pankaj K. Jain, 2005. "Financial Market Design and the Equity Premium: Electronic versus Floor Trading," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 60(6), pages 2955-2985, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. An N. Q. Cao & Michel A. Robe, 2022. "Market uncertainty and sentiment around USDA announcements," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(2), pages 250-275, February.
    2. Emm, Ekaterina E. & Gay, Gerald D. & Ma, Han & Ren, Honglin, 2021. "The rise and breakup of the commodity exchange membership: An analysis of CBOT seat prices," Journal of Commodity Markets, Elsevier, vol. 24(C).
    3. Esen Onur & David Reiffen, 2018. "The effect of settlement rules on the incentive to Bang the Close," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(8), pages 841-864, August.
    4. Pankaj K. Jain & Ayla Kayhan & Esen Onur, 2024. "Determinants of commodity market liquidity," The Financial Review, Eastern Finance Association, vol. 59(1), pages 9-30, February.
    5. Zhepeng Hu & Mindy Mallory & Teresa Serra & Philip Garcia, 2020. "Measuring price discovery between nearby and deferred contracts in storable and nonstorable commodity futures markets," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(6), pages 825-840, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ben R. Marshall & Nhut H. Nguyen & Nuttawat Visaltanachoti & Tom Smith, 2016. "Transaction costs in an illiquid order-driven market," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 56(4), pages 917-933, December.
    2. G. Wuyts, 2007. "Stock Market Liquidity.Determinants and Implications," Review of Business and Economic Literature, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Review of Business and Economic Literature, vol. 0(2), pages 279-316.
    3. Terrence Hendershott & Ryan Riordan, 2009. "Algorithmic Trading and Information," Working Papers 09-08, NET Institute, revised Aug 2009.
    4. Foucault, Thierry & Moinas, Sophie, 2018. "Is Trading Fast Dangerous?," TSE Working Papers 18-881, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    5. Lucjan T. Orlowski, 2015. "From pit to electronic trading: Impact on price volatility of U.S. Treasury futures," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 3-9, April.
    6. Duong, Huu Nhan & Kalev, Petko S., 2014. "Anonymity and the Information Content of the Limit Order Book," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 205-219.
    7. Craig W. Holden & Stacey Jacobsen & Avanidhar Subrahmanyam, 2014. "The Empirical Analysis of Liquidity," Foundations and Trends(R) in Finance, now publishers, vol. 8(4), pages 263-365, December.
    8. Moriyasu, Hiroshi & Wee, Marvin & Yu, Jing, 2018. "The role of algorithmic trading in stock liquidity and commonality in electronic limit order markets," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 103-128.
    9. Kobana Abukari & Isaac Otchere, 2020. "Has stock exchange demutualization improved market quality? International evidence," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 55(3), pages 901-934, October.
    10. Charlie X. Cai & Jeffrey H. Harris & Robert S. Hudson & Kevin Keasey, 2015. "Informed Trading and Market Structure," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 21(1), pages 148-177, January.
    11. Mousumi Bhattacharya & Sharad Nath Bhattacharya & Sumit Kumar Jha, 2022. "Does time-varying illiquidity matter for the Indian stock market? Evidence from high-frequency data," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 47(2), pages 251-272, May.
    12. Kashyap, Ravi, 2020. "David vs Goliath (You against the Markets), A dynamic programming approach to separate the impact and timing of trading costs," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 545(C).
    13. Suchismita Mishra & Le Zhao, 2021. "Order Routing Decisions for a Fragmented Market: A Review," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-32, November.
    14. Johannes A. Skjeltorp & Elvira Sojli & Wing Wah Tham, 2011. "Sunshine trading: Flashes of trading intent at the NASDAQ," Working Paper 2011/17, Norges Bank.
    15. Arjen Siegmann & Denitsa Stefanova, 2011. "Market Liquidity and Exposure of Hedge Funds," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 11-150/2/DSF27, Tinbergen Institute.
    16. Hagströmer, Björn, 2021. "Bias in the effective bid-ask spread," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(1), pages 314-337.
    17. Ayad Assoil & Ndéné Ka & Jules Sadefo-Kamdem, 2021. "Analysis of the dynamic relationship between liquidity proxies and returns on the French CAC 40 index," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 1(10), pages 1-23, October.
    18. Bessembinder, Hendrik & Panayides, Marios & Venkataraman, Kumar, 2009. "Hidden liquidity: An analysis of order exposure strategies in electronic stock markets," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 361-383, December.
    19. Valeria Martinez & Paramita Gupta & Yiuman Tse & Jullavut Kittiakarasakun, 2011. "Electronic versus open outcry trading in agricultural commodities futures markets," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 28-36, January.
    20. Hautsch, Nikolaus & Noé, Michael & Zhang, S. Sarah, 2017. "The ambivalent role of high-frequency trading in turbulent market periods," CFS Working Paper Series 580, Center for Financial Studies (CFS).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Pit trading; Futures; Commodity markets; Liquidity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G10 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - General (includes Measurement and Data)

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jocoma:v:10:y:2018:i:c:p:69-90. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jcomm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.