IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/11518.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Taking Orders and Taking Notes: Dealer Information Sharing in Treasury Markets

Author

Listed:
  • Boyarchenko, Nina
  • Lucca, David O
  • Veldkamp, Laura

Abstract

The use of order flow information by financial firms has come to the forefront of the regulatory debate. A central question is: Should a dealer who acquires information by taking client orders be allowed to use or share that information? We explore how information sharing affects dealers, clients and issuer revenues in U.S. Treasury auctions. Because one cannot observe alternative information regimes, we build a model, calibrate it to auction results data, and use it to quantify counter-factuals. We estimate that yearly auction revenues with full-information sharing (with clients and between dealers) would be $5 billion higher than in a "Chinese Wall'' regime in which no information is shared. When information sharing enables collusion, the collusion costs revenue, but prohibiting information sharing costs more. For investors, the welfare effects of information sharing depend on how information is shared. Surprisingly, investors benefit when dealers share information with each other, not when they share more with clients. For the market, when investors can bid directly, information sharing creates a new financial accelerator: Only investors with bad news bid through intermediaries, who then share that information with others. Thus, sharing amplifies the effect of negative news. Tests of two model predictions support its key features.

Suggested Citation

  • Boyarchenko, Nina & Lucca, David O & Veldkamp, Laura, 2016. "Taking Orders and Taking Notes: Dealer Information Sharing in Treasury Markets," CEPR Discussion Papers 11518, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:11518
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cepr.org/active/publications/discussion_papers/dp.php?dpno=11518
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Markus K. Brunnermeier & Yuliy Sannikov, 2014. "A Macroeconomic Model with a Financial Sector," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(2), pages 379-421, February.
    2. Dong Lou & Hongjun Yan & Jinfan Zhang, 2013. "Anticipated and Repeated Shocks in Liquid Markets," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 26(8), pages 1891-1912.
    3. Hirshleifer, Jack, 1971. "The Private and Social Value of Information and the Reward to Inventive Activity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 61(4), pages 561-574, September.
    4. Erwann SbaÏ & Olivier Armantier, 2006. "Estimation and comparison of treasury auction formats when bidders are asymmetric," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 745-779.
    5. Zhaogang Song & Haoxiang Zhu, 2014. "QE Auctions of Treasury Bonds," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2014-48, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    6. Ali Hortaçsu & Jakub Kastl, 2012. "Valuing Dealers' Informational Advantage: A Study of Canadian Treasury Auctions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(6), pages 2511-2542, November.
    7. Luis Angel Medran & Xavier Vives, 2004. "Regulating Insider Trading When Investment Matters," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 8(2), pages 199-277.
    8. Ali Hortaçsu & David McAdams, 2010. "Mechanism Choice and Strategic Bidding in Divisible Good Auctions: An Empirical Analysis of the Turkish Treasury Auction Market," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 118(5), pages 833-865.
    9. Babus, Ana & Parlatore, Cecilia, 2016. "Strategic Fragmented Markets," CEPR Discussion Papers 11591, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    10. Nyborg, Kjell G. & Sundaresan, Suresh, 1996. "Discriminatory versus uniform Treasury auctions: Evidence from when-issued transactions," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 63-104, September.
    11. Back, Kerry & Zender, Jaime F, 1993. "Auctions of Divisible Goods: On the Rationale for the Treasury Experiment," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 6(4), pages 733-764.
    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. Marco Di Maggio & Francesco Franzoni & Amir Kermani & Carlo Sommavilla, 2017. "The Relevance of Broker Networks for Information Diffusion in the Stock Market," NBER Working Papers 23522, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Beetsma, Roel & Giuliodori, Massimo & Hanson, Jesper & de Jong, Frank, 2018. "Bid-to-cover and yield changes around public debt auctions in the euro area," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 118-134.
    3. Beetsma, Roel & Giuliodori, Massimo & Hanson, Jesper & de Jong, Frank, 2020. "Determinants of the bid-to-cover ratio in Eurozone sovereign debt auctions," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 96-120.
    4. Lou, Youcheng & Parsa, Sahar & Ray, Debraj & Li, Duan & Wang, Shouyang, 2019. "Information aggregation in a financial market with general signal structure," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 594-624.
    5. Glode, Vincent & Opp, Christian C. & Zhang, Xingtan, 2018. "Voluntary disclosure in bilateral transactions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 652-688.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    asymmetric information; auctions; Financial Intermediation; Treasury;

    JEL classification:

    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • G1 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets
    • G14 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Information and Market Efficiency; Event Studies; Insider Trading

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cpr:ceprdp:11518. 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: (). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

    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 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.

    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.