交易费用和总体交易成本

Marco Di Maggio, Jerry W. Liu, Savina Rizova, R. Wiley
{"title":"交易费用和总体交易成本","authors":"Marco Di Maggio, Jerry W. Liu, Savina Rizova, R. Wiley","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3625801","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the US market, two popular exchange fee structures are “maker-taker” and “inverted” (also known as “taker-maker”). Maker-taker exchanges charge fees for taking liquidity and give rebates for providing liquidity, while inverted exchanges give rebates for taking liquidity and charge fees for providing liquidity. Using live trade data from an institutional investor that applies a flexible trading approach and seeks to participate in the natural market liquidity, we find that net of fees and rebates, trading costs are statistically indistinguishable between maker-taker and inverted exchanges. This finding has important implications for venue routing decisions in trading algorithms that do not demand immediacy, suggesting that the optimal routing strategy in terms of the tradeoff between cost and volume per unit of time is a pro-rata allocation across venues. It is also relevant to the recent discussions on legislation to fix fees across all trading venues.","PeriodicalId":275096,"journal":{"name":"Monetary Economics: Financial System & Institutions eJournal","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exchange Fees and Overall Trading Costs\",\"authors\":\"Marco Di Maggio, Jerry W. Liu, Savina Rizova, R. Wiley\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3625801\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the US market, two popular exchange fee structures are “maker-taker” and “inverted” (also known as “taker-maker”). Maker-taker exchanges charge fees for taking liquidity and give rebates for providing liquidity, while inverted exchanges give rebates for taking liquidity and charge fees for providing liquidity. Using live trade data from an institutional investor that applies a flexible trading approach and seeks to participate in the natural market liquidity, we find that net of fees and rebates, trading costs are statistically indistinguishable between maker-taker and inverted exchanges. This finding has important implications for venue routing decisions in trading algorithms that do not demand immediacy, suggesting that the optimal routing strategy in terms of the tradeoff between cost and volume per unit of time is a pro-rata allocation across venues. It is also relevant to the recent discussions on legislation to fix fees across all trading venues.\",\"PeriodicalId\":275096,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Monetary Economics: Financial System & Institutions eJournal\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Monetary Economics: Financial System & Institutions eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3625801\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monetary Economics: Financial System & Institutions eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3625801","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

在美国市场,两种流行的交易费用结构是“maker-taker”和“reverse”(也称为“taker-maker”)。Maker-taker交易所对获取流动性收取费用,对提供流动性给予回扣;reverse交易所对获取流动性给予回扣,对提供流动性收取费用。使用来自机构投资者的实时交易数据,该数据采用灵活的交易方法并寻求参与自然市场流动性,我们发现净费用和回扣,交易成本在制造商和反向交易所之间在统计上无法区分。这一发现对交易算法中不要求即时性的场地路线决策具有重要意义,表明在单位时间内成本和数量之间权衡的最佳路线策略是在场地之间按比例分配。这也与最近关于立法确定所有交易场所收费的讨论有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exchange Fees and Overall Trading Costs
In the US market, two popular exchange fee structures are “maker-taker” and “inverted” (also known as “taker-maker”). Maker-taker exchanges charge fees for taking liquidity and give rebates for providing liquidity, while inverted exchanges give rebates for taking liquidity and charge fees for providing liquidity. Using live trade data from an institutional investor that applies a flexible trading approach and seeks to participate in the natural market liquidity, we find that net of fees and rebates, trading costs are statistically indistinguishable between maker-taker and inverted exchanges. This finding has important implications for venue routing decisions in trading algorithms that do not demand immediacy, suggesting that the optimal routing strategy in terms of the tradeoff between cost and volume per unit of time is a pro-rata allocation across venues. It is also relevant to the recent discussions on legislation to fix fees across all trading venues.
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