Pre-Trade Transparency and Informed Trading: An Experimental Approach to Hidden Liquidity
Preprint
- 1 January 2010
- preprint
- Published by Elsevier in SSRN Electronic Journal
Abstract
We use experimental asset markets to analyze trading under different transparency and information settings. We …find that both liquidity and informed traders use undisclosed orders to compete for liquidity provision. In opaque markets, traders increase aggressiveness to improve execution probability. Without information friction, opacity enhances liquidity, especially toward the end of trading, and is beneficial for liquidity traders. Under informed trading, adverse selection drives market outcomes mainly around news announcements. Monopolistic insiders exploit opacity at the expense of large liquidity traders. Opacity does not affect informational efficiency with a monopolistic insider, but value discovery is faster with shared informational rents.Keywords
This publication has 31 references indexed in Scilit:
- Undisclosed orders and optimal submission strategies in a limit order marketJournal of Financial Economics, 2013
- Hidden and Displayed Liquidity in Securities Markets with Informed Liquidity ProvidersThe Review of Financial Studies, 2013
- Undisclosed Orders and Optimal Submission Strategies in a Dynamic Limit Order MarketSSRN Electronic Journal, 2011
- Hidden liquidity: An analysis of order exposure strategies in electronic stock marketsJournal of Financial Economics, 2009
- How Noise Trading Affects Markets: An Experimental AnalysisThe Review of Financial Studies, 2009
- Supply and Information Content of Order Book Depth: The Case of Displayed and Hidden DepthSSRN Electronic Journal, 2007
- The “make or take” decision in an electronic market: Evidence on the evolution of liquidityJournal of Financial Economics, 2005
- Can order exposure be mandated?Journal of Financial Markets, 2004
- The use of undisclosed limit orders on the Australian Stock ExchangeJournal of Banking & Finance, 2001
- Market Transparency: Who Wins and Who Loses?The Review of Financial Studies, 1999