MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156642063 · doi:10.18533/jefs.v3i03.159

Price impact of informed trades in the U.S. treasury markets

2015· article· en· W2156642063 on OpenAlexaff
Onem Ozocak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic & Financial Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarket liquidityFutures contractTreasuryEconomicsFutures marketMarket impactFinancial economicsMonetary economicsMarket pricePrice discoveryMarket microstructureOrder (exchange)MicroeconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to a review of the literature, there is no study that examines how the price impact of informed trades is related to liquidity levels in the U.S. Treasury markets. Using variance decomposition and regime-switching methodologies, we find that the price impact of informed trades is higher in more liquid markets. In the case of on-the-run and off-the-run spot markets, the price impact of informed trades is higher in 2-year and 5-year T-notes markets. In the case of T-notes futures markets, the price impact of informed trades is higher in 10-year futures market. We find that the price impact of uninformed (informed) individual trades decreases (increases) as the time scale increases. The results indicate that the price impact of informed trades is greater between 8:00 am and 3:00 pm when the market is more liquid, and smaller between 3:00 pm and 5:00 pm when the market is less liquid.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economic & Financial StudiesSame topicFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesFrench-language works237,207