IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/ohidic/2015-04.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Tick Size: Theory and Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Werner, Ingrid M.

    (OH State University)

  • Wen, Yuanji

    (University of Western Australia)

  • Rindi, Barbara

    (Bocconi University)

  • Consonni, Francesco

    (Bocconi University)

  • Buti, Sabrina

    (University of Toronto)

Abstract

We model a public limit order book where rational traders decide whether to demand or supply liquidity, and where liquidity builds endogenously. The model predicts that a reduction of the tick size will cause spreads and welfare to deteriorate for illiquid but improve for liquid books. We find empirical support for these predictions based on European and U.S. data. The model also generates predictions for volume, but we find less empirical support for these predictions which we attribute to opportunistic High-Frequency-Traders selectively entering the market.

Suggested Citation

  • Werner, Ingrid M. & Wen, Yuanji & Rindi, Barbara & Consonni, Francesco & Buti, Sabrina, 2015. "Tick Size: Theory and Evidence," Working Paper Series 2015-04, Ohio State University, Charles A. Dice Center for Research in Financial Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ecl:ohidic:2015-04
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2485069
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thanos Verousis & Pietro Perotti & Georgios Sermpinis, 2018. "One size fits all? High frequency trading, tick size changes and the implications for exchanges: market quality and market structure considerations," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 353-392, February.
    2. Eric M. Aldrich & Daniel Friedman, 2023. "Order Protection Through Delayed Messaging," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(2), pages 774-790, February.
    3. Chakrabarty, Bidisha & Cox, Justin & Upson, James E., 2022. "Tick Size Pilot Program and price discovery in U.S. stock markets," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 59(PB).
    4. Grimstvedt Meling, Tom, 2017. "Anonymous trading in equities," Working Papers in Economics 7/17, University of Bergen, Department of Economics.
    5. Xiao, Xijuan & Yamamoto, Ryuichi, 2020. "Price discovery, order submission, and tick size during preopen period," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    6. Meling, Tom Grimstvedt & Odegaard, Bernt Arne, 2016. "Tick Size Wars," UiS Working Papers in Economics and Finance 2016/15, University of Stavanger.
    7. Michael Fleming & Giang Nguyen & Francisco Ruela, 2024. "Tick Size, Competition for Liquidity Provision, and Price Discovery: Evidence from the U.S. Treasury Market," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(1), pages 332-354, January.
    8. Arie E. Gozluklu & Pietro Perotti & Barbara Rindi & Roberta Fredella, 2015. "Lot Size Constraints and Market Quality: Evidence from the Borsa Italiana," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 44(4), pages 905-945, October.
    9. Foley, Sean & Putniņš, Tālis J., 2016. "Should we be afraid of the dark? Dark trading and market quality," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(3), pages 456-481.
    10. Grimstvedt Meling, Tom, 2017. "Tick sizes in illiquid order books," Working Papers in Economics 6/17, University of Bergen, Department of Economics.
    11. Chung, Kee H. & Lee, Albert J. & Rösch, Dominik, 2020. "Tick size, liquidity for small and large orders, and price informativeness: Evidence from the Tick Size Pilot Program," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(3), pages 879-899.
    12. Albuquerque, Rui & Song, Shiyun & Yao, Chen, 2020. "The price effects of liquidity shocks: A study of the SEC’s tick size experiment," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(3), pages 700-724.
    13. Albuquerque, Rui & Song, Shiyun & Yao, Chen, 2017. "The Price Effects of Liquidity Shocks: A Study of SEC’s Tick-Size Experiment," CEPR Discussion Papers 12486, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Faith Chin & Corey Garriott, 2016. "Options Decimalization," Staff Working Papers 16-57, Bank of Canada.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • G10 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - General (includes Measurement and Data)
    • G12 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Asset Pricing; Trading Volume; Bond Interest Rates
    • G14 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Information and Market Efficiency; Event Studies; Insider Trading
    • G18 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Government Policy and Regulation
    • G20 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - General

    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:ecl:ohidic:2015-04. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cdohsus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.