电子与公开叫价市场:以外滩期货合约为例

Francis Breedon, Allison Holland
{"title":"电子与公开叫价市场:以外滩期货合约为例","authors":"Francis Breedon, Allison Holland","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.58143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Bund (10 year German Government Bond) futures contract is the most actively traded bond contract in Europe; it is traded in both London (LIFFE) and Frankfurt (DTB) on open outcry and electronic trading platforms respectively. In an attempt to reconcile the conflicting results of earlier studies this paper evalutes the relative liquidity and price discovery roles of these two markets using data from 1995 Q2. The paper finds that this conflict is largely a product of the price data used. Using both transactions prices and quotes data (on a minute by minute basis), variable transaction costs, i.e. spreads, are found to be similar on both markets. There is some evidence to suggest that the order processing component of the spread is larger on LIFFE, but that the compensation required for adverse selection risk is greater on the DTB. Also, the contribution to price formation of each market is found to be similar; there is no clear leader/follower relationship. The main differences between the two markets are the larger trade size on the open outcry market and a tendency for trading to move toward the open outcry market during volatile periods.","PeriodicalId":242545,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Econometric Studies of Capital Markets (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"36","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Electronic Versus Open Outcry Markets: The Case of the Bund Futures Contract\",\"authors\":\"Francis Breedon, Allison Holland\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.58143\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Bund (10 year German Government Bond) futures contract is the most actively traded bond contract in Europe; it is traded in both London (LIFFE) and Frankfurt (DTB) on open outcry and electronic trading platforms respectively. In an attempt to reconcile the conflicting results of earlier studies this paper evalutes the relative liquidity and price discovery roles of these two markets using data from 1995 Q2. The paper finds that this conflict is largely a product of the price data used. Using both transactions prices and quotes data (on a minute by minute basis), variable transaction costs, i.e. spreads, are found to be similar on both markets. There is some evidence to suggest that the order processing component of the spread is larger on LIFFE, but that the compensation required for adverse selection risk is greater on the DTB. Also, the contribution to price formation of each market is found to be similar; there is no clear leader/follower relationship. The main differences between the two markets are the larger trade size on the open outcry market and a tendency for trading to move toward the open outcry market during volatile periods.\",\"PeriodicalId\":242545,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ERN: Econometric Studies of Capital Markets (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"36\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ERN: Econometric Studies of Capital Markets (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.58143\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Econometric Studies of Capital Markets (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.58143","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 36

摘要

10年期德国国债期货合约是欧洲交易最活跃的债券合约;它分别在伦敦(LIFFE)和法兰克福(DTB)的公开叫价和电子交易平台上交易。为了调和早期研究的相互矛盾的结果,本文使用1995年第二季度的数据评估了这两个市场的相对流动性和价格发现作用。本文发现,这种冲突在很大程度上是价格数据使用的产物。使用交易价格和报价数据(以每分钟为基础),可以发现两个市场的可变交易成本,即点差是相似的。有证据表明,差价的订单处理部分在LIFFE上更大,但对逆向选择风险所需的补偿在DTB上更大。此外,发现每个市场对价格形成的贡献是相似的;没有明确的领导者/追随者关系。两个市场之间的主要区别是公开叫价市场的交易规模较大,以及在波动期间交易倾向于向公开叫价市场转移。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Electronic Versus Open Outcry Markets: The Case of the Bund Futures Contract
The Bund (10 year German Government Bond) futures contract is the most actively traded bond contract in Europe; it is traded in both London (LIFFE) and Frankfurt (DTB) on open outcry and electronic trading platforms respectively. In an attempt to reconcile the conflicting results of earlier studies this paper evalutes the relative liquidity and price discovery roles of these two markets using data from 1995 Q2. The paper finds that this conflict is largely a product of the price data used. Using both transactions prices and quotes data (on a minute by minute basis), variable transaction costs, i.e. spreads, are found to be similar on both markets. There is some evidence to suggest that the order processing component of the spread is larger on LIFFE, but that the compensation required for adverse selection risk is greater on the DTB. Also, the contribution to price formation of each market is found to be similar; there is no clear leader/follower relationship. The main differences between the two markets are the larger trade size on the open outcry market and a tendency for trading to move toward the open outcry market during volatile periods.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信