Fragmentation and complementarity: The case of EFPs
With the proliferation of alternative markets, concerns have arisen that they may induce lower liquidity on centralized exchanges. In futures markets, the use of an alternative trading mechanism known as exchange of futures for physicals (EFPs) has increased sharply in recent years. EFPs provide a m...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The journal of futures markets 2002-08, Vol.22 (8), p.697-727 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 727 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | 697 |
| container_title | The journal of futures markets |
| container_volume | 22 |
| creator | Brown-Hruska, Sharon Laux, Paul A. |
| description | With the proliferation of alternative markets, concerns have arisen that they may induce lower liquidity on
centralized exchanges. In futures markets, the use of an alternative trading mechanism known as exchange of
futures for physicals (EFPs) has increased sharply in recent years. EFPs provide a means to obtain
futures positions, coupled with offsetting cash positions, away from the centralized exchange. Traders use EFPs
to ensure a desired price on complex packages of trades, thus avoiding the transactional risk
(slippage) that is inherent in the centralized market. Theoretical analysis establishes that any
detrimental effects of fragmenting the centralized market can be offset by traders' knowledge of another
opportunity to trade without transactional risk. If EFPs attract more risk‐bearing capacity, there could
even be a net benefit to the central market. An empirical analysis suggests that EFP trading is motivated by
transactional risk because it represents a larger portion of total trading during periods of unusually high
volatility when slippage is apt to be more of a problem. Consistent with the notion that alternative markets can
be complementary to centralized exchanges, we find that EFP trading is not associated with reductions in market
quality and may act as an outlet for extra volume when markets are under the most stress. © 2002 Wiley
Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 22:697–727, 2002 |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/fut.10029 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_39112198</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>39112198</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4259-a06e1f41fb5d6a59acecc67f2867f9468d4e81db92653a73bc2bd207f125dd673</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kElPwzAQhS0EEqVw4B9EHJA4hHqLE3NDVVOWshxawc1yHBtSsrR2Iui_xzTAAYnLzNPoe6OZB8AxgucIQjwyXbsVfAcMEOQs5JzQXTCAOIZhTBDdBwfOLSGEnFM4ACS18qXSdSvboqkDWeeBaqpVqbczW7Sbi2D-qgMlnQ4aE0zSR3cI9owsnT767kOwSCfz8VU4e5hejy9noaI44qGETCNDkcminMmIS6WVYrHBiS-csiSnOkF5xjGLiIxJpnCWYxgbhKM8ZzEZgtN-78o26067VlSFU7osZa2bzgnCEcKIJx48-QMum87W_jaBPUJwxIiHznpI2cY5q41Y2aKSdiMQFF-RCZ_dVnDPjnr2vSj15n9QpIv5jyPsHYVr9cevQ9o34T-JI_F0PxXwGc3Y3S0VN-QTEzV9ig</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>211232563</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Fragmentation and complementarity: The case of EFPs</title><source>Wiley Journals</source><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><creator>Brown-Hruska, Sharon ; Laux, Paul A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Brown-Hruska, Sharon ; Laux, Paul A.</creatorcontrib><description>With the proliferation of alternative markets, concerns have arisen that they may induce lower liquidity on
centralized exchanges. In futures markets, the use of an alternative trading mechanism known as exchange of
futures for physicals (EFPs) has increased sharply in recent years. EFPs provide a means to obtain
futures positions, coupled with offsetting cash positions, away from the centralized exchange. Traders use EFPs
to ensure a desired price on complex packages of trades, thus avoiding the transactional risk
(slippage) that is inherent in the centralized market. Theoretical analysis establishes that any
detrimental effects of fragmenting the centralized market can be offset by traders' knowledge of another
opportunity to trade without transactional risk. If EFPs attract more risk‐bearing capacity, there could
even be a net benefit to the central market. An empirical analysis suggests that EFP trading is motivated by
transactional risk because it represents a larger portion of total trading during periods of unusually high
volatility when slippage is apt to be more of a problem. Consistent with the notion that alternative markets can
be complementary to centralized exchanges, we find that EFP trading is not associated with reductions in market
quality and may act as an outlet for extra volume when markets are under the most stress. © 2002 Wiley
Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 22:697–727, 2002</description><identifier>ISSN: 0270-7314</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1096-9934</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/fut.10029</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JFMADT</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><subject>Alternatives ; Capital market ; Commodities ; Derivatives ; Economic models ; Economics ; Finance ; Futures ; Futures exchanges ; Futures market ; Futures trading ; Liquidity ; Market ; Risk ; Studies ; Terms of trade ; Volatility</subject><ispartof>The journal of futures markets, 2002-08, Vol.22 (8), p.697-727</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Aug 2002</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4259-a06e1f41fb5d6a59acecc67f2867f9468d4e81db92653a73bc2bd207f125dd673</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4259-a06e1f41fb5d6a59acecc67f2867f9468d4e81db92653a73bc2bd207f125dd673</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Ffut.10029$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Ffut.10029$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Brown-Hruska, Sharon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Laux, Paul A.</creatorcontrib><title>Fragmentation and complementarity: The case of EFPs</title><title>The journal of futures markets</title><addtitle>J. Fut. Mark</addtitle><description>With the proliferation of alternative markets, concerns have arisen that they may induce lower liquidity on
centralized exchanges. In futures markets, the use of an alternative trading mechanism known as exchange of
futures for physicals (EFPs) has increased sharply in recent years. EFPs provide a means to obtain
futures positions, coupled with offsetting cash positions, away from the centralized exchange. Traders use EFPs
to ensure a desired price on complex packages of trades, thus avoiding the transactional risk
(slippage) that is inherent in the centralized market. Theoretical analysis establishes that any
detrimental effects of fragmenting the centralized market can be offset by traders' knowledge of another
opportunity to trade without transactional risk. If EFPs attract more risk‐bearing capacity, there could
even be a net benefit to the central market. An empirical analysis suggests that EFP trading is motivated by
transactional risk because it represents a larger portion of total trading during periods of unusually high
volatility when slippage is apt to be more of a problem. Consistent with the notion that alternative markets can
be complementary to centralized exchanges, we find that EFP trading is not associated with reductions in market
quality and may act as an outlet for extra volume when markets are under the most stress. © 2002 Wiley
Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 22:697–727, 2002</description><subject>Alternatives</subject><subject>Capital market</subject><subject>Commodities</subject><subject>Derivatives</subject><subject>Economic models</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Finance</subject><subject>Futures</subject><subject>Futures exchanges</subject><subject>Futures market</subject><subject>Futures trading</subject><subject>Liquidity</subject><subject>Market</subject><subject>Risk</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Terms of trade</subject><subject>Volatility</subject><issn>0270-7314</issn><issn>1096-9934</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kElPwzAQhS0EEqVw4B9EHJA4hHqLE3NDVVOWshxawc1yHBtSsrR2Iui_xzTAAYnLzNPoe6OZB8AxgucIQjwyXbsVfAcMEOQs5JzQXTCAOIZhTBDdBwfOLSGEnFM4ACS18qXSdSvboqkDWeeBaqpVqbczW7Sbi2D-qgMlnQ4aE0zSR3cI9owsnT767kOwSCfz8VU4e5hejy9noaI44qGETCNDkcminMmIS6WVYrHBiS-csiSnOkF5xjGLiIxJpnCWYxgbhKM8ZzEZgtN-78o26067VlSFU7osZa2bzgnCEcKIJx48-QMum87W_jaBPUJwxIiHznpI2cY5q41Y2aKSdiMQFF-RCZ_dVnDPjnr2vSj15n9QpIv5jyPsHYVr9cevQ9o34T-JI_F0PxXwGc3Y3S0VN-QTEzV9ig</recordid><startdate>200208</startdate><enddate>200208</enddate><creator>Brown-Hruska, Sharon</creator><creator>Laux, Paul A.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</general><general>Wiley Periodicals Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200208</creationdate><title>Fragmentation and complementarity: The case of EFPs</title><author>Brown-Hruska, Sharon ; Laux, Paul A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4259-a06e1f41fb5d6a59acecc67f2867f9468d4e81db92653a73bc2bd207f125dd673</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Alternatives</topic><topic>Capital market</topic><topic>Commodities</topic><topic>Derivatives</topic><topic>Economic models</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Finance</topic><topic>Futures</topic><topic>Futures exchanges</topic><topic>Futures market</topic><topic>Futures trading</topic><topic>Liquidity</topic><topic>Market</topic><topic>Risk</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Terms of trade</topic><topic>Volatility</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Brown-Hruska, Sharon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Laux, Paul A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>The journal of futures markets</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Brown-Hruska, Sharon</au><au>Laux, Paul A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Fragmentation and complementarity: The case of EFPs</atitle><jtitle>The journal of futures markets</jtitle><addtitle>J. Fut. Mark</addtitle><date>2002-08</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>697</spage><epage>727</epage><pages>697-727</pages><issn>0270-7314</issn><eissn>1096-9934</eissn><coden>JFMADT</coden><abstract>With the proliferation of alternative markets, concerns have arisen that they may induce lower liquidity on
centralized exchanges. In futures markets, the use of an alternative trading mechanism known as exchange of
futures for physicals (EFPs) has increased sharply in recent years. EFPs provide a means to obtain
futures positions, coupled with offsetting cash positions, away from the centralized exchange. Traders use EFPs
to ensure a desired price on complex packages of trades, thus avoiding the transactional risk
(slippage) that is inherent in the centralized market. Theoretical analysis establishes that any
detrimental effects of fragmenting the centralized market can be offset by traders' knowledge of another
opportunity to trade without transactional risk. If EFPs attract more risk‐bearing capacity, there could
even be a net benefit to the central market. An empirical analysis suggests that EFP trading is motivated by
transactional risk because it represents a larger portion of total trading during periods of unusually high
volatility when slippage is apt to be more of a problem. Consistent with the notion that alternative markets can
be complementary to centralized exchanges, we find that EFP trading is not associated with reductions in market
quality and may act as an outlet for extra volume when markets are under the most stress. © 2002 Wiley
Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 22:697–727, 2002</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</pub><doi>10.1002/fut.10029</doi><tpages>31</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0270-7314 |
| ispartof | The journal of futures markets, 2002-08, Vol.22 (8), p.697-727 |
| issn | 0270-7314 1096-9934 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_39112198 |
| source | Wiley Journals; EBSCOhost Business Source Complete |
| subjects | Alternatives Capital market Commodities Derivatives Economic models Economics Finance Futures Futures exchanges Futures market Futures trading Liquidity Market Risk Studies Terms of trade Volatility |
| title | Fragmentation and complementarity: The case of EFPs |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T08%3A08%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Fragmentation%20and%20complementarity:%20The%20case%20of%20EFPs&rft.jtitle=The%20journal%20of%20futures%20markets&rft.au=Brown-Hruska,%20Sharon&rft.date=2002-08&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=697&rft.epage=727&rft.pages=697-727&rft.issn=0270-7314&rft.eissn=1096-9934&rft.coden=JFMADT&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/fut.10029&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E39112198%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=211232563&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |