Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T06:47:30.286Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do (Should) Brokers Route Limit Orders to Options Exchanges That Purchase Order Flow?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2020

Robert Battalio ,
Todd Griffith  and
Robert Van Ness
Robert Battalio*
Affiliation:
Battalio, rbattali@nd.edu, University of Notre Dame Mendoza College of Business
Todd Griffith
Affiliation:
Griffith, todd.griffith@usu.edu, Utah State University Jon M. Huntsman School of Business
Robert Van Ness
Affiliation:
Van Ness, rvanness@bus.olemis.edu, University of Mississippi School of Business
*
Battalio (corresponding author), rbattali@nd.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examine whether options exchanges’ pricing schedules affect broker order routing behavior and limit order execution quality. We find that some brokers seemingly maximize the value of their order flow by selling marketable orders and sending nonmarketable orders to exchanges that offer large liquidity rebates. Other brokers appear to bypass liquidity rebates by routing both marketable and nonmarketable orders to exchanges that purchase order flow. Using a decision by the Philadelphia Stock Exchange (PHLX) to change its trading protocol, we provide empirical evidence that brokers can enhance limit order execution quality by routing nonmarketable limit orders to options exchanges that purchase order flow.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , February 2021 , pp. 183 - 211
Copyright
© Michael G. Foster School of Business, University of Washington 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We thank NASDAQ for providing order data and ITG for providing data regarding the costs associated with taking and providing liquidity on various options exchanges. We also thank Amber Anand (the referee), Jennifer Conrad (the editor), Shane Corwin, Michael Doherty, Robert Jennings, Katya Malinova, Giang Nguyen, Carol Osler, Jeff Smith, Jim Upson, brownbag participants at Indiana University and the University of Notre Dame, seminar participants at UTEP, and the University of Memphis, and participants at the 2017 Mid-Atlantic Research Conference in Finance, the 2017 Washington University Theory Conference, the 2017 Northern Finance Association Annual Conference, the 2017 Financial Management Association Annual Conference, and the 2017 Annual Market Structure Conference (by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and Columbia University).

References

Anand, A.; Hua, J.; and McCormick, T.. “Make-Take Structure and Market Quality: Evidence from the U.S. Options Markets.” Management Science, 62 (2016), 3271–3290.Google Scholar
Angel, J.; Harris, L.; and Spatt, C.. “Equity Trading in the 21st Century.” Quarterly Journal of Finance, 1 (2011), 1–53.Google Scholar
Battalio, R.; Corwin, S.; and Jennings, R.. “Can Brokers Have It All? On the Relation between Make-Take Fees and Limit Order Execution Quality.” Journal of Finance, 71 (2016), 2193–2237.Google Scholar
Battalio, R.; Hatch, B.; and Jennings, R.. “Toward a National Market System for U.S. Exchange-Listed Equity Options.” Journal of Finance, 59 (2004), 933–962.Google Scholar
Battalio, R., and Schultz, P.. “Regulatory Uncertainty and Market Liquidity: The 2008 Short Sale Ban’s Impact on Equity Option Markets.” Journal of Finance, 66 (2011), 2013–2053.Google Scholar
Battalio, R.; Shkilko, A.; and Van Ness, R.. “To Pay or Be Paid? The Impact of Taker Fees and Order Flow Inducements on Trading Costs in U.S. Options Markets.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 51 (2016), 1637–1662.Google Scholar
Colliard, J.-E., and Foucault, T.. “Trading Fees and Efficiency in Limit Order Markets.” Review of Financial Studies, 25 (2012), 3389–3421.Google Scholar
Credit Suisse. “Equity Research Report Regarding U.S. Retail Brokers.” Nov. 30 (2017).Google Scholar
Diether, K.; Lee, K.-H.; and Werner, I.. “It’s SHO Time! Short-Sale Price Tests and Market Quality.” Journal of Finance, 64 (2009), 37–73.Google Scholar
Malinova, K., and Park, A.. “Subsidizing Liquidity: The Impact of Make/Take Fees on Market Quality.” Journal of Finance, 70 (2015), 509–536.Google Scholar
O’Donoghue, S. “The Effect of Maker-Taker Fees on Investor Order Choice and Execution Quality in U.S. Security Markets.” Unpublished Paper, Indiana University (2015).Google Scholar
Pragma Trading. “A Conflict Inherent in the Maker-Taker Model: Equities vs. Futures.” Pragma Research Note, No. 6, July (2013).Google Scholar
Securities and Exchange Commission. “Disclosure of Order Execution and Routing Practice.” Dec. 1, (2000), Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Securities and Exchange Commission. “Competitive Developments in the Options Markets.” Feb. 9, (2004), Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Securities and Exchange Commission. “Report Concerning Examinations of Options Order Routing and Execution.” Mar. 8, (2007), Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Securities and Exchange Commission. “Maker-Taker and Equity Exchanges,” Oct. 20, (2015), Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Sofianos, G., and Yousefi, A.. “Smart Routing: Good Fills, Bad Fills and Venue Toxicity.” Goldman Sachs Equity Execution Strategies Street Smart, 40 (2010), 1–9.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Battalio et al. supplementary material

Battalio et al. supplementary material

Download Battalio et al. supplementary material(File)
File 50.5 KB