IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/revfec/v12y2003i4p381-396.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Liquidity costs: Screen‐based trading versus open outcry

Author

Listed:
  • Carlos A. Ulibarri
  • John Schatzberg

Abstract

The results reported in this paper challenge the popular belief that screen‐based trading offered lower liquidity costs than the open‐outcry approach during its first year of side‐by‐side operation in the U.S. financial derivatives market. Using time and sales data from the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) market profile data series, effective bid–ask spreads are estimated on the basis of daily and intraday measures of the Thompson–Waller and Smith–Whaley estimators. We find liquidity costs on the screen‐based system vary with time and the level of floor trading activity. In particular, a one‐tick market is observed just before the opening of the Chicago trading floor (6:30 to 7:30 am). However, subsequent intraday spreads exhibit the familiar “reverse J‐shaped pattern”—highest following the opening of floor trading, declining until afternoon, and then increasing until close. Meanwhile, daily spread estimates average almost a quarter‐tick higher on the screen‐based market relative to the one‐tick spread commonly associated with open outcry. This relationship remained robust across sample time‐series and conservative price‐change specifications. Since the study was conducted, electronic trading has become the predominant exchange medium for financial derivatives at the CBOT, following the example set in Europe's traditional futures exchanges, e.g. France's Matif, Germany's Deutsche Bourse and the U.K.'s Liffe.

Suggested Citation

  • Carlos A. Ulibarri & John Schatzberg, 2003. "Liquidity costs: Screen‐based trading versus open outcry," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 381-396.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:revfec:v:12:y:2003:i:4:p:381-396
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rfe.2003.07.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rfe.2003.07.003
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rfe.2003.07.003?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. Gang Shyy & Jie‐Haun Lee, 1995. "Price transmission and information asymmetry in Bund futures markets: LIFFE vs. DTB," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(1), pages 87-99, February.
    2. Tauchen, George E & Pitts, Mark, 1983. "The Price Variability-Volume Relationship on Speculative Markets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(2), pages 485-505, March.
    3. Grammatikos, Theoharry & Saunders, Anthony, 1986. "Futures Price Variability: A Test of Maturity and Volume Effects," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(2), pages 319-330, April.
    4. 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.
    5. Paul Kofman & James T. Moser, 1995. "Spreads, information flows and transparency across trading systems," Working Paper Series, Issues in Financial Regulation 95-1, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
    6. Harold Demsetz, 1968. "The Cost of Transacting," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 82(1), pages 33-53.
    7. Roll, Richard, 1984. "A Simple Implicit Measure of the Effective Bid-Ask Spread in an Efficient Market," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 39(4), pages 1127-1139, September.
    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. Ulibarri, Carlos A. & Schatzberg, John, 2003. "Liquidity costs: Screen-based trading versus open outcry," Review of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 381-396.
    2. Ledenyov, Dimitri O. & Ledenyov, Viktor O., 2015. "Wave function method to forecast foreign currencies exchange rates at ultra high frequency electronic trading in foreign currencies exchange markets," MPRA Paper 67470, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. 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.
    4. Jamshed Y. Uppal, 2009. "The Role of Satellite Stock Exchanges: A Case Study of the Lahore Stock Exchange," Lahore Journal of Economics, Department of Economics, The Lahore School of Economics, vol. 14(2), pages 1-47, Jul-Dec.
    5. Theissen, Erik, 2002. "Price discovery in floor and screen trading systems," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 455-474, November.
    6. Hagströmer, Björn, 2021. "Bias in the effective bid-ask spread," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(1), pages 314-337.
    7. Francis Breedon & Allison Holland, 1998. "Electronic versus open outcry markets: The case of the Bund futures contract," Bank of England working papers 76, Bank of England.
    8. Alex Frino & Elvis Jarnecic & Hui Zheng, 2010. "Activity in futures: does underlying market size relate to futures trading volume?," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 313-325, April.
    9. Vayanos, Dimitri & Wang, Jiang, 2013. "Market Liquidity—Theory and Empirical Evidence ," Handbook of the Economics of Finance, in: G.M. Constantinides & M. Harris & R. M. Stulz (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Finance, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1289-1361, Elsevier.
    10. Arthur Akhmetov & Anna Burova & Natalia Makhankova & Alexey Ponomarenko, 2021. "Measuring Market Liquidity and Liquidity Mismatches across Sectors," Bank of Russia Working Paper Series wps82, Bank of Russia.
    11. Pascual, Roberto & Escribano, Álvaro & Tapia, Mikel, 2000. "Adverse selection costs, trading activity and liquidity in the NYSE: an empirical analysis in a dynamic context," UC3M Working papers. Economics 7276, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    12. Medina, Vicente & Pardo, Ángel & Pascual, Roberto, 2014. "The timeline of trading frictions in the European carbon market," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 378-394.
    13. Krishnamurti, Chandrasekhar & Sequeira, John M. & Fangjian, Fu, 2003. "Stock exchange governance and market quality," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 27(9), pages 1859-1878, September.
    14. Yu Chuan Huang, 2004. "The components of bid‐ask spread and their determinants: TAIFEX versus SGX‐DT," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(9), pages 835-860, September.
    15. Hegde, Shantaram P. & McDermott, John B., 2004. "The market liquidity of DIAMONDS, Q's, and their underlying stocks," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 1043-1067, May.
    16. Silva, Ana Cristina & Chávez, Gonzalo A., 2008. "Cross-listing and liquidity in emerging market stocks," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 420-433, March.
    17. Díaz, Antonio & Escribano, Ana, 2020. "Measuring the multi-faceted dimension of liquidity in financial markets: A literature review," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    18. Christine Jiang & Jang-Chul Kim & Robert Wood, 2011. "A comparison of volatility and bid-ask spread for NASDAQ and NYSE after decimalization," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(10), pages 1227-1239.
    19. Flannery, Mark J. & Kwan, Simon H. & Nimalendran, Mahendrarajah, 2013. "The 2007–2009 financial crisis and bank opaqueness," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 55-84.
    20. Kenneth Yung & Yen-Chih Liu, 2009. "Implications of futures trading volume: Hedgers versus speculators," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(5), pages 318-337, December.

    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:wly:revfec:v:12:y:2003:i:4:p:381-396. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1873-5924 .

    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.