Skip to main content
Track Liquidity and costs
43 / 155
Library

2011issue C1173

When to raise participation without blocking the tape

Archive descriptions of institutional order-working software treat a stock's own price action as the main driver of execution speed. Liquidity-seeking waits to touch the book. Participation-rate then sets how much of the tape to take. Aggressive execution is only a temporary burst that still leaves the market unblocked.

  • Liquidity-seeking waits to touch the book until price action is favorable, instead of demanding continuous immediacy.
  • Participation-rate is the share of market activity an order consumes, raised when the tape turns favorable and lowered when it does not.
  • Aggressive execution is a temporary, price-driven increase in working speed, not a parked block that advertises remaining size.
  • Protective logic uses the pattern and price of very short-horizon prints to limit information leakage, gaming, and adverse selection.
Entries in this reading3 entries

Price action sets the pace

Institutional order-working software has been described that uses a stock's own price action as the main driver of how quickly the order is executed. That design waits for favorable price movement before accelerating activity rather than trading at a constant pace.

When the price becomes favorable, the design raises its trading rate. The same design is characterized as leaving the market unblocked so the stock can keep following its price trend.

Wait before you touch the book

Liquidity-seeking means waiting to touch the book until price action is favorable, instead of demanding continuous immediacy. Liquidity is sought by standing aside until conditions are favorable, then participating more heavily only after that turn appears.

Share of the tape, not a constant pace

Participation-rate is the share of market activity an order consumes, raised when the tape turns favorable and lowered when it does not. When the price becomes favorable, the described design raises its trading rate rather than holding a constant pace.

A burst that leaves the market unblocked

Aggressive execution is a temporary increase in working speed driven by price action, not a parked block that advertises remaining size. The same design is characterized as leaving the market unblocked so the stock can keep following its price trend.

Short-horizon protection

Protective logic is said to change trading behavior from very short-horizon market details, including the pattern and price of trades. Those adjustments are aimed at limiting information leakage, gaming, and adverse selection as high-frequency order flow becomes more common.

Anti-gaming is that very short-horizon adjustment of trading behavior, using how trades print and at what prices to limit leakage and predatory interaction. Information-leakage is the set of clues an order leaves in the tape that other participants can use against unfilled size. Adverse-selection is filling more readily when the next short-term move is likely to go against the remainder of the order.

TradersWeek editorial view: these short-horizon adjustments are what keep a raised participation-rate from advertising the residual. Aggressive execution stays a burst only if the tape does not start telling the story of unfilled size.

Educational research material, not investment advice. Historical source context does not establish present-day performance.
43 of 155 in the Liquidity and costs track
201237-37 pp.Next on Liquidity and costsA transaction levy makes one-tick market making unexecutableOn a 2,000-share purchase and sale in a name near 180, a quarter-of-one-percent levy is about 1,800 dollars, close to a 2,000-dollar gain at one dollar per share.
All readings on this track · 155 readings
  1. 1985Matching ticket size to negotiable commission schedules
  2. 1985Minimum tickets can price a small book out of its own exit
  3. 1988Why instant basket routing overwhelms specialist liquidity
  4. 1991Testing dealer inventory caps against a frozen order tape
  5. 1992Stop-order slippage as an execution cost filter
  6. 2001Ticket charges, internalization, and hidden size on the tape
  7. 2001Displayed-size filters in multi-venue index-share execution
  8. 2001Displayed size, venue rules, and execution costs
  9. 2002Front-load futures commission and slippage
  10. 2003Cheaper access still left a routing and cost problem
  11. 2004The last hour as a stack of forced executions
  12. 2004Session volume-weighted average for limit placement and listed routing
  13. 2005Currency execution costs hide in spreads and margin
  14. 2005Inactive account fees as hidden implementation cost
  15. 2005A two-gate liquidity filter for futures order routing
  16. 2005Electronic index futures: spread quotes that follow the tape
  17. 2005Read the tape, name the liquidity job, then route for price
  18. 2007Pairs, hedges, vanishing bids, and the cost of liquidity
  19. 2007Hybrid tape sweeps, pairs triggers, and fair-value cash-and-carry
  20. 2007Fair value, open prints, and sweep fades
  21. 2007Ethanol futures liquidity lagged the policy boom
  22. 2008Decimalization, liquidity, and why price-only charts miss the tape
  23. 2010A futures brokerage quote is an execution specification
  24. 2010Stacking commission and currency costs on international fills
  25. 2010A pre-trade liquidity screen for futures contracts
  26. 2010Relative liquidity ranking for futures contract selection
  27. 2010Futures liquidity filter for equal-dollar size and open interest
  28. 2010A liquidity filter for executable futures contract selection
  29. 2010Currency futures versus forex on spread, margin, and micros
  30. 2010Screening futures by liquidity, open interest, and equal-dollar size
  31. 2010Ranking futures liquidity for executable contract choice
  32. 2010Liquidity and open interest screens for futures selection
  33. 2010Screen futures for tradeable liquidity before sizing
  34. 2010Ranking futures by open interest and equal-dollar liquidity
  35. 2011Liquidity filter for futures contract selection
  36. 2011Screen futures liquidity with open interest and volume
  37. 2011Screen futures liquidity with open interest and equal dollar size
  38. 2011Futures liquidity rank as an execution filter
  39. 2011Filter executable futures with liquidity and open interest
  40. 2011Filtering futures by liquidity, open interest and equal-dollar size
  41. 2011Liquidity and open interest as a screen for futures selection
  42. 2011A futures liquidity filter for equal-dollar execution
  43. 2011When to raise participation without blocking the tape
  44. 2012A transaction levy makes one-tick market making unexecutable
  45. 2012Ranking futures markets by executable liquidity
  46. 2012Filter futures contracts by liquidity and implementation cost
  47. 2012Futures commission versus one tick of cost
  48. 2012Liquidity, share count, and stop-trigger costs
  49. 2012Filter listed futures by relative contract liquidity
  50. 2012Visible opening depth versus internalized subpenny priority
  51. 2012Broken quotes as liquidity events
  52. 2012Forex and currency futures: pip-spread, deposit, and scalping size
  53. 2012Ranking futures liquidity for executable orders
  54. 2012Rank listed futures by liquidity before a forecast chooses the name
  55. 2012Filter futures liquidity using open interest and volume
  56. 2012Ranking futures liquidity before choosing a contract
  57. 2013Equal-dollar open interest as a futures liquidity filter
  58. 2013Posted tickets hide margin and fill gates
  59. 2013Pre-trade futures liquidity as an execution filter
  60. 2013Taking liquidity to offset HFT queue priority
  61. 2013Liquidity-first futures contract selection
  62. 2013Equal-dollar liquidity filter for futures contract choice
  63. 2013Filter option day trades by spread, volume, and fees
  64. 2013Filter futures by liquidity, open interest, and effective margin
  65. 2013Futures liquidity filters for executable contract selection
  66. 2013Filter listed futures by liquidity and open interest first
  67. 2013Ranking listed futures by liquidity and equal-dollar size
  68. 2013A pre-trade liquidity filter for futures contract selection
  69. 2013Constructing forex orders from provider imbalance and book depth
  70. 2013Evaluate futures liquidity before committing margin
  71. 2013Filter futures by open interest and relative liquidity
  72. 2014A futures liquidity screen from range, open interest and volume
  73. 2014Ticket charges, margin carry, and bank liquidity limits
  74. 2014Evaluating futures contract liquidity before execution
  75. 2014Filter futures by equal-dollar size, open interest, and volume
  76. 2014Book futures data fees as implementation cost
  77. 2014A two-gate liquidity filter for listed futures
  78. 2014Rank futures liquidity before selecting the contract
  79. 2014A liquidity filter for majors, crosses, and exotics
  80. 2014Filter futures by equal-dollar liquidity and open interest
  81. 2015Filter futures contracts by liquidity and open interest
  82. 2015Use a futures liquidity rank as a pre-trade checklist
  83. 2015Filter futures contracts by open interest and volume
  84. 2015Filter unexecutable futures by liquidity, open interest, and margin
  85. 2015A two-stage liquidity filter for futures contract selection
  86. 2015Futures liquidity ranking as an execution filter
  87. 2015A liquidity filter to choose executable futures
  88. 2015Screen futures contracts by liquidity and open interest
  89. 2015Equal-dollar futures choice as a liquidity filter
  90. 2015Filtering option trades by bid-ask width
  91. 2015Filter futures ideas by ranked contract liquidity
  92. 2015Screen listed futures for executable liquidity first
  93. 2016Evaluate futures liquidity before contract selection
  94. 2016Futures liquidity filter with equal-dollar size and effective margin
  95. 2016Ranking futures liquidity before you pick the contract
  96. 2016Ranking futures by executable liquidity and open interest
  97. 2016Filter listed futures by relative liquidity and open interest
  98. 2016Exchange quote fees as execution costs and liquidity filters
  99. 2016Filter futures by liquidity, open interest, and margin cost
  100. 2016Comparing dollar-index futures execution costs and liquidity
  101. 2016A futures liquidity ranking as a screen for executable orders
  102. 2016Same-dollar liquidity-filter for listed futures
  103. 2016Liquidity filter for executable futures orders
  104. 2017Evaluating futures liquidity for executable contract selection
  105. 2017Screen listed futures for execution liquidity first
  106. 2017Filter a futures board by liquidity, open interest, and implementation cost
  107. 2017How to read a futures liquidity filter
  108. 2017A relative liquidity rank for choosing an executable futures contract
  109. 2017Filter futures contracts by liquidity and margin cost
  110. 2017Constructing a futures liquidity filter for contract selection
  111. 2017How residency rules raise futures implementation costs
  112. 2017How TWAP clock bands and VWAP volume triggers set fill quality
  113. 2017Filter futures orders by liquidity, open interest, and volume
  114. 2017Constructing anchored volume-weighted average price maps for crowd-visible execution costs
  115. 2017Electronic matching changed what a futures account could carry
  116. 2017Filter futures by liquidity, open interest, and equal-dollar size
  117. 2017Rank futures liquidity before contract selection
  118. 2017Brokerage choice as an execution-speed and commission filter
  119. 2017Build a futures liquidity filter from open interest
  120. 2017A three-part liquidity screen before a futures idea is executable
  121. 2018Evaluating futures liquidity for executable contract choice
  122. 2018Screen listed futures by liquidity, open interest, and margin
  123. 2018Using open interest and volume to rank futures liquidity
  124. 2018Contract selection is the first filter on competing bitcoin futures
  125. 2018Executable futures selection from a 2018 liquidity board
  126. 2018Evaluate futures liquidity before contract selection
  127. 2018Open-interest liquidity filter for futures contract selection
  128. 2018Filter futures execution by liquidity and margin
  129. 2018Construct a futures liquidity filter from open interest and range
  130. 2018Ranking futures by liquidity, open interest, and equal-dollar cost
  131. 2018Constructing futures rolls ahead of first notice day
  132. 2018Commission analysis for brokerage execution costs
  133. 2018Futures liquidity and open interest as an execution filter
  134. 2018Score listed futures as an execution menu before the setup
  135. 2019Evaluate futures liquidity with open interest and equal-dollar filters
  136. 2019Ranking futures liquidity before you size the order
  137. 2019Filtering futures orders with liquidity, open interest and volume
  138. 2019Ranking futures liquidity before contract selection
  139. 2019Futures liquidity as an execution filter
  140. 2019Ranking futures liquidity before you pick a contract
  141. 2019Screening futures by equal-dollar liquidity
  142. 2019Screen futures contracts by open interest and liquidity
  143. 2019Inspect execution cost and margin bounds before cycle timing
  144. 2020Building an equal-dollar futures liquidity screen
  145. 2020Market-order slippage on split-adjusted stock prices
  146. 2020Use liquidity and open interest as a futures execution screen
  147. 2020Pre-trade liquidity filter for listed futures
  148. 2020A futures liquidity board as a pre-trade execution filter
  149. 2020Filter futures orders by liquidity and open interest
  150. 2020A two-gate liquidity filter before futures order selection
  151. 2020Use a listed-futures liquidity filter before execution
  152. 2020Filter futures by range-scaled liquidity and open interest
  153. 2020Brokerage selection as an implementation-cost problem
  154. 2020Equal-dollar futures liquidity and an effective margin screen
  155. 2020Ranking futures liquidity before you place the order
Readings that share a method3 readings