MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399880461 · doi:10.1093/rfs/hhae026

Institutional Brokerage Networks: Facilitating Liquidity Provision

2024· article· en· W4399880461 on OpenAlexaff
Munhee Han, Sanghyun Kim, Vikram K. Nanda

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Financial Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarket liquidityBusinessFinancial systemFinanceMonetary economicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We argue that institutional brokerage networks facilitate liquidity provision and mitigate the price impact of large non-information-motivated trades. Using commissions, we map trading networks of mutual funds (institutions) and their brokers. Central funds (institutions) tend to outperform their peripheral counterparts in terms of return gap (execution shortfall). This outperformance is more pronounced when funds experience large outflows and for large trades in less liquid stocks. Central brokers can deliver superior trade execution compared to peripheral brokers, but mainly for central institutions. We use the collapse of Lehman Brothers as a quasi-natural experiment to establish the likely causality of our findings.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Financial StudiesSame topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiencyFrench-language works237,207