PIP Transactions, Price Improvement, Informed Trades and Order Execution Quality
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study focuses on innovations in order execution processes within the context of the Boston Option Exchange (BOX). More specifically, it examines the impact of the Price Improvement Process (PIP) on options quoted, effective and realised proportional spreads. We consider the PIP as a mechanism that allows the market maker to ‘internalise’ the transaction. We show that PIP transactions are associated with wider bid/ask proportional quoted spreads than non‐PIP transactions, in spite of the temporary narrowing of the effective proportional spread during PIP. We identify informed traders by focusing on the direction of trade. Using an original data set, we show that PIP transactions follow signals in the form of buy/sell orders by informed traders. We also show that PIP is a mechanism that allows the market maker to internalise a position in the same direction as that of the informed trader. We conclude that PIP does not improve the efficiency of the market but simply allows the market maker to benefit at the expense of uninformed traders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it