IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Order preferencing, adverse-selection costs, and the probability of information-based trading


  • Kee Chung


  • Chairat Chuwonganant
  • D. McCormick


Although prior studies offer various conjectures on the causes and consequences of order preferencing, there is only limited empirical evidence. In this study, we show that the extent of order preferencing is significantly and negatively related to both the adverse-selection component of the spread and the probability of information-based trading. This result is consistent with the prediction of the clientele-pricing hypothesis that dealers (brokers) selectively purchase (internalize) orders based on information content. Our results suggest that order preferencing may not be as harmful as some researchers have suggested and offer some rationale for its prevalence in securities markets with heterogeneously informed traders. Copyright Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Suggested Citation

  • Kee Chung & Chairat Chuwonganant & D. McCormick, 2006. "Order preferencing, adverse-selection costs, and the probability of information-based trading," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 343-364, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:rqfnac:v:27:y:2006:i:4:p:343-364
    DOI: 10.1007/s11156-006-0042-3

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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


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

    Cited by:

    1. Lescourret, Laurence & Robert, Christian Y., 2011. "Transparency matters: Price formation in the presence of order preferencing," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 227-258, May.
    2. Moonsoo Kang & Kiseok Nam, 2015. "Informed trade and idiosyncratic return variation," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 551-572, April.
    3. Jared F. Egginton & Bonnie F. Ness & Robert A. Ness, 2016. "Dealers and changing obligations: the case of stub quoting," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 919-941, November.
    4. Qianyun Huang & Terrance R. Skantz, 2016. "The informativeness of pro forma and street earnings: an examination of information asymmetry around earnings announcements," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 198-250, March.


    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:kap:rqfnac:v:27:y:2006:i:4:p:343-364. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.