IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0285821.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Minimum tick size, market quality and costs of trade execution in Vietnam

Author

Listed:
  • Duc Hong Vo
  • Bao Doan

Abstract

The Vietnamese government introduced a change in the minimum tick size for stock trading on 12 September 2016 to improve market quality and reduce trade execution costs. The intended effects of this policy have not been widely investigated in an emerging market such as Vietnam. We use data on trade and quote intraday of all stocks listed on the Ho Chi Minh Stock Exchange for the periods before and after the event, with a one-week break from 12/9/2016 to 18/9/2016, for the market to adapt to the new tick size policy. Findings from this paper confirm that the trading cost is reduced following the change to the smallest tick size. However, this is different for large trades executed at the stock price associated with a larger tick size. Furthermore, the findings are robust with a different sample period. These findings imply that introducing a change in tick size in Vietnam in 2016 is desirable for improving market quality. However, the differentiation of these changes in different ranges of stock prices is not necessarily effective for improving market quality and reducing trade execution costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Duc Hong Vo & Bao Doan, 2023. "Minimum tick size, market quality and costs of trade execution in Vietnam," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(5), pages 1-19, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0285821
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285821
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0285821
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0285821&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0285821?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thierry Foucault & Ohad Kadan & Eugene Kandel, 2005. "Limit Order Book as a Market for Liquidity," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 18(4), pages 1171-1217.
    2. Griffith, Todd G. & Roseman, Brian S., 2019. "Making cents of tick sizes: The effect of the 2016 U.S. SEC tick size pilot on limit order book liquidity," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 104-121.
    3. Ke, Mei-Chu & Jiang, Ching-Hai & Huang, Yen-Sheng, 2004. "The impact of tick size on intraday stock price behavior: evidence from the Taiwan Stock Exchange," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 19-39, January.
    4. Harris, Lawrence E, 1994. "Minimum Price Variations, Discrete Bid-Ask Spreads, and Quotation Sizes," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 7(1), pages 149-178.
    5. Seppi, Duane J, 1997. "Liquidity Provision with Limit Orders and a Strategic Specialist," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 10(1), pages 103-150.
    6. Ronald L. Goettler & Christine A. Parlour & Uday Rajan, 2005. "Equilibrium in a Dynamic Limit Order Market," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 60(5), pages 2149-2192, October.
    7. Chung, Kee H. & Charoenwong, Charlie & Ding, David K., 2004. "Penny pricing and the components of spread and depth changes," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 28(12), pages 2981-3007, December.
    8. Ahn, Hee-Joon & Cai, Jun & Chan, Kalok & Hamao, Yasushi, 2007. "Tick size change and liquidity provision on the Tokyo Stock Exchange," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 173-194, June.
    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. Murphy Jun Jie Lee, 2013. "The Microstructure of Trading Processes on the Singapore Exchange," PhD Thesis, Finance Discipline Group, UTS Business School, University of Technology, Sydney, number 2-2013, January-A.
    2. Murphy Jun Jie Lee, 2013. "The Microstructure of Trading Processes on the Singapore Exchange," PhD Thesis, Finance Discipline Group, UTS Business School, University of Technology, Sydney, number 4, July-Dece.
    3. Buti, Sabrina & Rindi, Barbara & Wen, Yuanji & Werner, Ingrid M., 2013. "Tick Size Regulation and Sub-Penny Trading," Working Paper Series 2013-14, Ohio State University, Charles A. Dice Center for Research in Financial Economics.
    4. Chung, Kee H. & Lee, Albert J. & Rösch, Dominik, 2020. "Tick size, liquidity for small and large orders, and price informativeness: Evidence from the Tick Size Pilot Program," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(3), pages 879-899.
    5. Large, Jeremy, 2009. "A market-clearing role for inefficiency on a limit order book," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 102-117, January.
    6. Rakowski, David & Wang Beardsley, Xiaoxin, 2008. "Decomposing liquidity along the limit order book," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1687-1698, August.
    7. Albuquerque, Rui & Song, Shiyun & Yao, Chen, 2017. "The Price Effects of Liquidity Shocks: A Study of SEC’s Tick-Size Experiment," CEPR Discussion Papers 12486, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. Anwer S. Ahmed & Yiwen Li & Nina Xu, 2020. "Tick Size and Financial Reporting Quality in Small‐Cap Firms: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(4), pages 869-914, September.
    9. Ingrid M. Werner & Barbara Rindi & Sabrina Buti & Yuanji Wen, 2023. "Tick Size, Trading Strategies, and Market Quality," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(7), pages 3818-3837, July.
    10. Albuquerque, Rui & Song, Shiyun & Yao, Chen, 2020. "The price effects of liquidity shocks: A study of the SEC’s tick size experiment," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(3), pages 700-724.
    11. Menkhoff, Lukas & Osler, Carol L. & Schmeling, Maik, 2010. "Limit-order submission strategies under asymmetric information," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(11), pages 2665-2677, November.
    12. Jeremy Large, 2006. "A Market-Clearing Role for Inefficiency on a Limit Order Book," Economics Series Working Papers 2006-W08, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    13. Ye, Linlin, 2024. "Understanding the impacts of dark pools on price discovery," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    14. Obizhaeva, Anna A. & Wang, Jiang, 2013. "Optimal trading strategy and supply/demand dynamics," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 1-32.
    15. Wang, Ming-Chang & Cheng, Lee-Young & Ko, Chien-Chuan & Chou, Pang-Ying, 2018. "Does public latency influence market quality? An analysis of pre-trade transparency at the Taiwan futures exchange," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 227-240.
    16. Dugast, J., 2013. "Limited attention and news arrival in limit order markets," Working papers 449, Banque de France.
    17. Roberto Pascual & David Veredas, 2010. "Does the Open Limit Order Book Matter in Explaining Informational Volatility?," Journal of Financial Econometrics, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 57-87, Winter.
    18. Hans Degryse & Mark Van Achter & Gunther Wuyts, 2007. "Dynamic order submission strategies with competition between a dealer market and a crossing network," Working Paper Research 121, National Bank of Belgium.
    19. Ladley, Dan & Schenk-Hoppé, Klaus Reiner, 2009. "Do stylised facts of order book markets need strategic behaviour?," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 817-831, April.
    20. Michael Fleming & Giang Nguyen & Francisco Ruela, 2024. "Tick Size, Competition for Liquidity Provision, and Price Discovery: Evidence from the U.S. Treasury Market," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(1), pages 332-354, January.

    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:plo:pone00:0285821. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.