IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bfr/fisrev/20081110.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact on financial market liquidity of the markets in financial instruments directive (MiFID)

Author

Listed:
  • Cherbonnier, F.
  • Vandelanoite, S.

Abstract

The Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), which entered into force on 1 November 2007, implies the abolition of the concentration rule regarding equity transactions so far in force in France. This rule, which was applied to varying degrees across Europe, resulted in the vast majority of order flow being concentrated in regulated markets, and notably in Euronext Paris for shares listed on the French stock exchange. Over the coming years, order flow will become fragmented de facto as a result of being able to execute client orders on regulated markets as well as on multilateral trading facilities (MTFs), and by use of systematic internalisers (SIs), which act as counterparties for transactions in the same way as market makers on price-driven markets such as the London Stock Exchange (LSE) or Nasdaq. The competition between trading venues, which will be enhanced at the European level, has steadily been increasing since the 1970s. Since then, alternating series of regulations and technological progress have gradually weakened the monopolistic position of national regulated markets. The impact of this phenomenon has been a continuous fall in transaction costs, benefi ting investors and issuers of securities through a drop in the cost of capital. However, the fragmentation of order fl ow stemming from a proliferation of trading venues may raise concern about a reduction in market liquidity and a slowdown in the decline in transaction costs, which would run counter to the competitive effect between systems sought by the European regulatory authorities. Although the most conservative medium-term scenarios point to continued dominance by regulated markets, we estimate that in the case of France, a very signifi cant share of order fl ow may rapidly be executed on alternative trading systems. Here, we focus on the impact on “wholesale” transactions, i.e. transactions of at least EUR 50,000, which we attribute to institutional investors. In particular, we identify the portion of these trades currently executed outside the order book. According to our estimates, these transactions constitute roughly 10% of the traded volume on CAC 40 shares and that may be lost to the regulated market each year. This volume, which would more or less equally be distributed between SIs and MTFs operating crossing systems, only constitutes a fraction of the total volume of the wholesale market.

Suggested Citation

  • Cherbonnier, F. & Vandelanoite, S., 2008. "The impact on financial market liquidity of the markets in financial instruments directive (MiFID)," Financial Stability Review, Banque de France, issue 11, pages 75-94, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:bfr:fisrev:2008:11:10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://publications.banque-france.fr/sites/default/files/medias/documents/financial-stability-review-11_2008-02.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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 1813-1840, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Huang, Roger D. & Stoll, Hans R., 1996. "Dealer versus auction markets: A paired comparison of execution costs on NASDAQ and the NYSE," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 313-357, July.
    2. Wentworth Boynton & Steven Jordan, 2006. "Will the Smart Institutional Investor Always Drive Prices to Fundamental Value?," Yale School of Management Working Papers amz2357, Yale School of Management, revised 19 Nov 2006.
    3. Kyle, Albert S. & Obizhaeva, Anna A. & Tuzun, Tugkan, 2020. "Microstructure invariance in U.S. stock market trades," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    4. Demsetz, Harold, 1997. "Limit orders and the alleged Nasdaq collusion," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 91-95, July.
    5. Gehrig, Thomas & Jackson, Matthew, 1998. "Bid-ask spreads with indirect competition among specialists," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 89-119, April.
    6. Lallouache, Mehdi & Abergel, Frédéric, 2014. "Tick size reduction and price clustering in a FX order book," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 416(C), pages 488-498.
    7. Joseph E. Harrington, Jr., 2004. "Cartel Pricing Dynamics in the Presence of an Antitrust Authority," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 35(4), pages 651-673, Winter.
    8. Bruno Biais & Christophe Bisiere & Chester Spatt, 2002. "Imperfect Competition in Financial Markets: ISLAND vs. NASDAQ," GSIA Working Papers 2003-E41, Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business.
    9. Seguin, P. J. & Smoller, M. M., 1997. "Share price and mortality: An empirical evaluation of newly listed Nasdaq stocks," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 333-363, September.
    10. Jones, Charles M. & Lipson, Marc L., 1999. "Execution Costs of Institutional Equity Orders," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 123-140, July.
    11. 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.
    12. Ahmed Baig & Nasim Sabah & Drew Winters, 2019. "Have Stock Prices become more Uniformly Distributed?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 39(2), pages 1242-1250.
    13. Hong Liu & Yajun Wang, 2019. "Asset Pricing Implications of Short-Sale Constraints in Imperfectly Competitive Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(9), pages 4422-4439, September.
    14. Roger D. Huang, 2002. "The Quality of ECN and Nasdaq Market Maker Quotes," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 57(3), pages 1285-1319, June.
    15. Alexander, Gordon J. & Peterson, Mark A., 2007. "An analysis of trade-size clustering and its relation to stealth trading," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 435-471, May.
    16. James S. Ang & Kenneth J. Hunsader & Shaojun Zhang, 2019. "Order dynamics during the flash crash," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 20(5), pages 365-383, September.
    17. William G. Christie & Paul H. Schultz, 1995. "Policy Watch: Did Nasdaq Market Makers Implicitly Collude?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 199-208, Summer.
    18. Bill M. Cai & Charlie X. Cai & Kevin Keasey, 2007. "Influence of cultural factors on price clustering and price resistance in China's stock markets," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 47(4), pages 623-641, December.
    19. Bondarenko, Oleg, 2001. "Competing market makers, liquidity provision, and bid-ask spreads," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 269-308, June.
    20. Locke, Peter R. & Sarkar, Asani & Wu, Lifan, 1999. "Market Liquidity and Trader Welfare in Multiple Dealer Markets: Evidence from Dual Trading Restrictions," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(1), pages 57-88, March.

    More about this item

    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:bfr:fisrev:2008:11:10. 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: Michael brassart (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/bdfgvfr.html .

    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.