Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Encyclopedia of Finance pp 689–699Cite as

Networks, nodes, and priority rules

  • Reference work entry

  • 6150 Accesses

Abstract

In the United States, the same stock can be traded at different locations. In the case of listed stocks, each location is a node in national network called the Intermarket Trading System (ITS). Unlisted stocks also trade at different nodes on the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotation (NASDAQ) network. Each node of these two networks may have rules for breaking queuing ties among competing orders. Orders may be routed on the networks according to official rules (as with ITS) or order preferencing arrangements (both networks). This paper examines the impact of priority rules on individual markets and networks. The development of the ITS and NASDAQ networks as well as the relevant literature is discussed. I conclude that network priority rules improve market quality if they result in consolidated markets.

Keywords

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (Canada)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   329.00
Price excludes VAT (Canada)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Amihud, Y. (2002). “Illiquidity and stock returns: Cross-sectional and time-series effects.” Journal of Financial Markets, 5: 31–56.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  2. Amihud, Y. and Mendelson, H. (1986). “Asset pricing and the bid-ask spread.” Journal of Financial Economics, 17: 223–250.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  3. Amihud, Y., Mendelson, H., and Lauterbach, B. (1997). “Market microstructure and securities values: evidence from the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.” Journal of Financial Economics, 45: 365–390.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  4. Angel, J. and Weaver, D. (1998). “Priority Rules!” Working Paper, Rutgers University.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Barclay, Michael J., William G. Christie, Jeffrey H. Harris, Eugene Kandel, and Paul H. Schultz, 1999, The effects of market reform on the trading costs and depths of Nasdaq Stocks, Journal of Finance, 54, 1–34.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  6. Barclay, M.J., Hendershott, T., and Jones, C.M. (2003). “Which witches better? A cross-market comparison of extreme liquidity shocks.” Working Paper, University of Rochester.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Battalio, R., Greene, J., and Jennings, R. (1998). “Order flow distribution, bid-ask spreads, and liquidity costs: Merrill Lynch’s decision to cease routinely routing orders to Regional Stock Exchanges.” Journal of Financial Intermediation, 7: 338–358.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  8. Battalio, R., Greene, J., Hatch, B., and Jennings, R. (2002). “Does the limit order routing decision matter?” Review of Financial Studies, 15(1): 159–194.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  9. Cohen, K., Conroy, R., and Maier, S. (1985). “Order flow and the quality of the market,” in Amihud, Ho, and Schwartz (eds.) Market Making and the Changing Structure of the Securities Industry. MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cordella, T. and Foucault, T. (1999). “Minimum price variations, time priority and quote dynamics.” Journal of Financial Intermediation, 8(3): 141–173.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  11. Domowitz, I. (1993). “A taxonomy of automated trade execution systems.” Journal of International Money and Finance, 12: 607–631.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  12. Harris, L. (1994). “Minimum price variations, discrete bid-ask spreads, and quotation sizes.” Review of Financial Studies, 7: 149–178.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  13. Hatch, B., Battalio, R., and Jennings, R. (2001). “Post-reform market execution quality: multidimensional comparisons across market centers.” The Financial Review, 36(3): 123–151.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  14. Madhavan, A. (2000). “Consolidation, fragmentation, and the disclosure of trading information.” Review of Financial Studies, 8(3).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Madhavan, Ananth, David Porter, and Daniel Weaver, 2005. “Should Securities Markets be Transparent?” Journal of Financial Markets. 8: 265–287.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  16. Murphy, A. and Weaver, D. (2003). “Order flow consolidation and market quality: an empirical investigation.” Working Paper, Manhattan College.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Panchapagesan, V. (1998). “What if time priority is not enforced among traders?” Working Paper, Washington University.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Wei, L. and Bennett, P. (2003). “New York stock market structure, fragmentation and market quality — evidence from recent listing switches.” Working Paper, New York Stock Exchange.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rutgers University, New Brunswick/Piscataway, USA

    Daniel G. Weaver

Authors
  1. Daniel G. Weaver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Rutgers University, New Brunswick/Piscataway, USA

    Cheng-Few Lee

  2. San Francisco State University, San Francisco, USA

    Alice C. Lee

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

About this entry

Cite this entry

Weaver, D.G. (2006). Networks, nodes, and priority rules. In: Lee, CF., Lee, A.C. (eds) Encyclopedia of Finance. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-26336-6_70

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-26336-6_70

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-26284-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-26336-6

  • eBook Packages: Business and Economics

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

search

Navigation