A standard presumption of market microstructure models is that competition between risk neutral market makers inevitably leads to prices schedules that leave market makers zero expected profits conditional on the order flows. This paper shows that this result does not hold when traders can split orders between market makers. When traders can split orders, market makers set less competitive price schedules that earn them strictly positive profits and hence raise trading costs. Indeed, if noise traders have completely inelastic demands (as in Kyle 1985), market makers want to set arbitrarily uncompetitive price schedules: no equilibrium exists. Our results imply that if feasible, regulation banning order splitting on an exchange is optimal. Analogous results obtain when price schedules are set by any finite number of agents who compete using limit orders. Further, since limit orders, by their very nature, are split against incoming market orders, the analysis suggests that regulated market maker competition will provide better prices.
|Date of creation:||Oct 1993|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: (613) 533-2250
Fax: (613) 533-6668
Web page: http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:qed:wpaper:888. 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: (Mark Babcock)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.