Yiping Lin , Peter L. Swan , Frederick H.de B. Harris
{"title":"做市商限价订单补贴能否改善市场结果?准自然实验证据","authors":"Yiping Lin , Peter L. Swan , Frederick H.de B. Harris","doi":"10.1016/j.jbankfin.2024.107330","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>We provide a new theory of exchange access fees that explains why fees relatively reduce the probability of execution and increase the limit order queue length on “maker-taker” platforms. Nonetheless, the limit order subsidy greatly improves market depth, together with market efficiency and trading volume. Moreover, fee structures never “wash out” regardless of the minimum tick. The regulatory requirement that trading and order flow depend only on raw (nominal) spreads and prices underpins the multi-billion-dollar subsidy to limit orders. So long as a platform remains competitive, elimination of the fee structure does not alter the raw spread, but it does lower the cum fee spread. We test these implications with a unilateral maker-taker fee/rebate reduction using NASDAQ's “quasi-natural” $1.9 trillion experiment to find support for our theory.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48460,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Banking & Finance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does maker-taker limit order subsidy improve market outcomes? Quasi-natural experimental evidence\",\"authors\":\"Yiping Lin , Peter L. Swan , Frederick H.de B. Harris\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jbankfin.2024.107330\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>We provide a new theory of exchange access fees that explains why fees relatively reduce the probability of execution and increase the limit order queue length on “maker-taker” platforms. Nonetheless, the limit order subsidy greatly improves market depth, together with market efficiency and trading volume. Moreover, fee structures never “wash out” regardless of the minimum tick. The regulatory requirement that trading and order flow depend only on raw (nominal) spreads and prices underpins the multi-billion-dollar subsidy to limit orders. So long as a platform remains competitive, elimination of the fee structure does not alter the raw spread, but it does lower the cum fee spread. We test these implications with a unilateral maker-taker fee/rebate reduction using NASDAQ's “quasi-natural” $1.9 trillion experiment to find support for our theory.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48460,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Banking & Finance\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Banking & Finance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378426624002449\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Banking & Finance","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378426624002449","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Does maker-taker limit order subsidy improve market outcomes? Quasi-natural experimental evidence
We provide a new theory of exchange access fees that explains why fees relatively reduce the probability of execution and increase the limit order queue length on “maker-taker” platforms. Nonetheless, the limit order subsidy greatly improves market depth, together with market efficiency and trading volume. Moreover, fee structures never “wash out” regardless of the minimum tick. The regulatory requirement that trading and order flow depend only on raw (nominal) spreads and prices underpins the multi-billion-dollar subsidy to limit orders. So long as a platform remains competitive, elimination of the fee structure does not alter the raw spread, but it does lower the cum fee spread. We test these implications with a unilateral maker-taker fee/rebate reduction using NASDAQ's “quasi-natural” $1.9 trillion experiment to find support for our theory.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Banking and Finance (JBF) publishes theoretical and empirical research papers spanning all the major research fields in finance and banking. The aim of the Journal of Banking and Finance is to provide an outlet for the increasing flow of scholarly research concerning financial institutions and the money and capital markets within which they function. The Journal''s emphasis is on theoretical developments and their implementation, empirical, applied, and policy-oriented research in banking and other domestic and international financial institutions and markets. The Journal''s purpose is to improve communications between, and within, the academic and other research communities and policymakers and operational decision makers at financial institutions - private and public, national and international, and their regulators. The Journal is one of the largest Finance journals, with approximately 1500 new submissions per year, mainly in the following areas: Asset Management; Asset Pricing; Banking (Efficiency, Regulation, Risk Management, Solvency); Behavioural Finance; Capital Structure; Corporate Finance; Corporate Governance; Derivative Pricing and Hedging; Distribution Forecasting with Financial Applications; Entrepreneurial Finance; Empirical Finance; Financial Economics; Financial Markets (Alternative, Bonds, Currency, Commodity, Derivatives, Equity, Energy, Real Estate); FinTech; Fund Management; General Equilibrium Models; High-Frequency Trading; Intermediation; International Finance; Hedge Funds; Investments; Liquidity; Market Efficiency; Market Microstructure; Mergers and Acquisitions; Networks; Performance Analysis; Political Risk; Portfolio Optimization; Regulation of Financial Markets and Institutions; Risk Management and Analysis; Systemic Risk; Term Structure Models; Venture Capital.