Do Algorithmic Traders Improve Liquidity When Information Asymmetry is High?
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
Hendershott et al. (2011, Does Algorithmic Trading Improve Liquidity? Journal of Finance 66, 1–33) show that algorithmic traders improve liquidity in equity markets. An equally important and unanswered question is whether they improve liquidity when information asymmetry is high. We use days surrounding earnings announcement as a period of high information asymmetry. First, we follow Hendershott et al. (2011, Does Algorithmic Trading Improve Liquidity? Journal of Finance 66, 1–33) to use introduction of NYSE autoquote as a natural experiment. We find that increased algorithmic trading (AT) as a result of NYSE autoquote does not improve liquidity around earnings announcements. Next, we use trade-to-order volume % and cancel rate as a proxy for algorithmic trading and find that abnormal spreads surrounding the days of earnings announcement are significantly higher for stocks with higher AT. Our findings indicate that algorithmic traders reduces their role of liquidity provision in markets when information asymmetry is high. These findings shed further light on the role of liquidity provision by algorithmic traders in the financial markets.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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