23 views

Uploaded by Tarun Sehgal

- An Arrival at the Airport in India
- CURRENCY CONVERSION
- Final Report
- 17353_mgn514 -- International Environment and Management
- Currency Carry Trades in Latin America BIS
- Sabsebadarupaiya
- FMI10eAbr_ch16
- Factors Affecting the Fluctuations in Exchange Rate of the Indian Rupee Group 9 C2
- Exchange Rates
- Q. 1 Financial Market
- End Term
- Exchanvvvv
- Guided Tour of FX MicroStruct
- Zimbabwe Monetary Policy February 2019
- The Foreign Exchange Market
- JAIIB AFB Sample Questions by Murugan-Nov 17 Exa
- Foreign Currency Valuation Process
- BUBA SERUES CHARTISTS AND FUNDAMENTALITS_Exchange rate dynamics in a target zone __a heterogeneous expectations approach.pdf
- Currency Fluctuation
- Currency Risk ManagementFTandParttimeVERSION.pptx

You are on page 1of 103

**Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
**

Dissertations and Teses Collection (Open Access) Dissertations and Teses

2011

Analysis of Singapore's Foreign Exchange Market

Microstructure

Chee Wai Wan

Singapore Management University, cheewai.wan.2007@smu.edu.sg

Tis Master Tesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations and Teses at Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management

University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Teses Collection (Open Access) by an authorized administrator of Institutional

Knowledge at Singapore Management University. For more information, please email libIR@smu.edu.sg.

Recommended Citation

Wan, Chee Wai, "Analysis of Singapore's Foreign Exchange Market Microstructure" (2011). Dissertations and Teses Collection (Open

Access). Paper 75.

htp://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/etd_coll/75

ANALYSIS OF

SINGAPORE’S FOREIGN EXCHANGE

MARKET MICROSTRUCTURE

WAN CHEE WAI

SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

2011

Copyright (2011) Wan Chee Wai

Analysis of

Singapore’s Foreign Exchange

Market Microstructure

by

Wan Chee Wai

Submitted to the School of Economics in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Economics

Thesis Committee:

Tse Yiu Kuen (Supervisor/Chair)

Professor of Economics

Singapore Management University

Hoon Hian Teck

Professor of Economics

Singapore Management University

Anthony Tay

Associate Professor of Economics

Singapore Management University

Singapore Management University

2011

Analysis of

Singapore’s Foreign Exchange

Market Microstructure

Wan Chee Wai

Abstract

This paper analyses the Singapore foreign exchange market from a

microstructure approach. Specifically, by applying and modifying the empirical

methodology designed by Bollerslev and Melvin (1994), we examine the

relationship between bid-ask spreads and the underlying volatility of the

USD/SGD. Our data set comprises high-frequency USD/SGD tick data of three

separate years (April-June 1989, April-May 2006, April-May 2009). We found

that for the USD/SGD: i) the size of bid-ask spreads are positively related to the

underlying exchange rate volatility; ii) the magnitude of the dependence on

underlying volatility increases as tick volume increases; and iii) the size of the

bid-ask spreads may also be positively related to the directional movement of

exchange rates.

i

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ......................................................................................................i

Acknowledgement ..................................................................................................iv

1 Introduction....................................................................................................... 1

1.1 The Singapore Foreign Exchange Market ........................................................................ 2

1.2 The Microstructure Approach to Exchange Rate Economics ........................................... 5

1.3 Organization of Thesis...................................................................................................... 9

2 Bid-Ask Spreads in Exchange Rates............................................................... 10

2.1 Bid-Ask Spreads and Asymmetric Information.............................................................. 11

2.2 Bid-Ask Spreads and Volatility....................................................................................... 18

2.3 Bollerslev & Melvin’s Model of Volatility and Bid-Ask Spread.................................... 21

3 Empirical Analysis.......................................................................................... 27

3.1 Empirical Methodology.................................................................................................. 28

3.2 Description of the Data................................................................................................... 34

3.3 GARCH Analysis ........................................................................................................... 44

3.4 Ordered Response Analysis ............................................................................................ 47

3.5 Incorporating Returns ..................................................................................................... 50

3.6 Summary......................................................................................................................... 53

4 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 55

References.............................................................................................................. 57

Appendix 1 – EViews Results................................................................................ 60

A.1.1 Dataset 1: USD-DEM April 1989 to June 1989: ........................................................ 60

A.1.1.1 MA(1)-GARCH(1,1) Results: .................................................................................... 60

A.1.1.2 Ordered Probit Results: 4 Ordered Values.................................................................. 61

A.1.1.3 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values.......................................... 62

A.1.1.4 Ordered Probit Results: 10 Ordered Values................................................................ 63

A.1.1.5 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values........................................ 64

A.1.1.6 Ordered Logit Results: 4 Ordered Values................................................................... 65

A.1.1.7 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values........................................... 66

A.1.1.8 Ordered Logit Results: 10 Ordered Values ................................................................. 67

A.1.1.9 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values......................................... 68

A.1.2 Dataset 2: USD-USD April 1989 to June 1989: ......................................................... 69

A.1.2.1 MA(1)-GARCH(1,1) Results: .................................................................................... 69

A.1.2.2 Ordered Probit Results: 4 Ordered Values.................................................................. 70

A.1.2.3 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values.......................................... 71

A.1.2.4 Ordered Probit Results: 10 Ordered Values................................................................ 72

A.1.2.5 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values........................................ 73

A.1.2.6 Ordered Logit Results: 4 Ordered Values................................................................... 74

A.1.2.7 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values........................................... 75

ii

A.1.2.8 Ordered Logit Results: 10 Ordered Values ................................................................. 76

A.1.2.9 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values......................................... 77

A.1.3 Dataset 3: USD-USD April 2006 to May 2006: ......................................................... 78

A.1.3.1 MA(1)-GARCH(1,1) Results: .................................................................................... 78

A.1.3.2 Ordered Probit Results: 4 Ordered Values.................................................................. 79

A.1.3.3 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values.......................................... 80

A.1.3.4 Ordered Probit Results: 10 Ordered Values................................................................ 81

A.1.3.5 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values........................................ 82

A.1.3.6 Ordered Logit Results: 4 Ordered Values................................................................... 83

A.1.3.7 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values........................................... 84

A.1.3.8 Ordered Logit Results: 10 Ordered Values ................................................................. 85

A.1.3.9 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values......................................... 86

A.1.4 Dataset 4: USD-USD April 2009 to May 2009: ......................................................... 87

A.1.4.1 MA(1)-GARCH(1,1) Results: .................................................................................... 87

A.1.4.2 Ordered Probit Results: 4 Ordered Values.................................................................. 88

A.1.4.3 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values.......................................... 89

A.1.4.4 Ordered Probit Results: 10 Ordered Values................................................................ 90

A.1.4.5 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values........................................ 91

A.1.4.6 Ordered Logit Results: 4 Ordered Values................................................................... 92

A.1.4.7 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values........................................... 93

A.1.4.8 Ordered Logit Results: 10 Ordered Values ................................................................. 94

A.1.4.9 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values......................................... 95

iii

List of Figures & Tables

Figure 1: USD/SGD vs GDP & Quotes .....................................................................................3

Table 1: USD/SGD April-May 2006 Spread Behavior ..............................................................8

Table 2: Distribution of Spreads of USD/DEM April-June 1989.............................................32

Table 3: Quote Volume differences between B&M and Purchased Data USD/DEM 1989 .....35

Table 4: Frequency of No Spread Change reported by B&M USD/DEM 1989 ......................36

Table 5: Frequency of No Spread Change with Olsen USD/DEM 1989 .................................36

Table 6: Frequency Distribution of Spreads USD/DEM 1989.................................................37

Table 7: Volume of Quotes of USD/SGD April-June 1989......................................................37

Table 8: Frequency of No Spread Change for USD/SGD April-June 1989 .............................38

Table 9: Frequency Distribution of Spreads USD/SGD April-June 1989................................39

Table 10: Volume of Quotes of USD-SGD April-May 2006....................................................39

Table 11: Frequency of No Spread Change for USD-SGD April-May 2006 ...........................40

Table 12: Frequency Distribution of Spreads USD-SGD April-June 2006..............................41

Table 13: Volume of Quotes of USD/SGD April-May 2009....................................................41

Table 14: Frequency of No Spread Change for USD-SGD April-May 2009...........................42

Table 15: Frequency Distribution of Spreads USD-SGD April-May 2009..............................43

Table 16: GARCH Estimates for all Datasets ..........................................................................45

Table 17: Ordered Probit Estimates for all Datasets (4 ordered indicator values) ...................47

Table 18: Ordered Logit Estimates for all Datasets (4 ordered indicator values).....................47

Table 19: Ordered Probit Estimates for all Datasets (10 ordered indicator values) .................49

Table 20: Ordered Logit Estimates for all Datasets (10 ordered indicator values)...................50

Table 21: Ordered Probit Estimates (with Returns) for all Datasets (4 ordered values)...........51

Table 22: Ordered Logit Estimates (with Returns) for all Datasets (4 ordered values)............51

Table 23: Ordered Probit Estimates (with Returns) for all Datasets (10 ordered values).........52

Table 24: Ordered Logit Estimates (with Returns) for all Datasets (10 ordered values)..........52

iv

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Professor Tse Yiu Kuen, Professor Hoon Hian Teck and

Professor Anthony Tay for their patience, guidance and advice to me with

regards to the completion of this thesis. Due to challenges in my professional

life (overseas posting!) and priorities in my personal life (wedding!), my

academic life (the completion of this thesis!) had unfortunately taken a backseat.

Without the generous assistance of these kind professors, this paper would never

have seen the light of day.

I also like to thank Ms. Lilian Seah for her tireless efforts with regards to the

administrative aspects of the thesis, and for tolerating my nonsense.

Lastly, I would like to thank Erfei for her love, patience, and steadfast

encouragement to me during this time when I spent more time on this thesis than

with her. I promise this will be my last part-time academic pursuit.

1

1 Introduction

In “Bid-Ask Spreads and Volatility in the Foreign Exchange Market – An

Empirical Analysis”, an early microstructure paper in 1994, Tim Bollerslev, and

Michael Melvin (henceforth, B&M), performed an empirical analysis on the

USD/DEM, one of the most highly-traded currency pair in 1989, and showed

that the size of the bid-ask spread of is positively related to its underlying

exchange rate uncertainty. Their dataset consist of more than 300,000

continuously recorded USD/DEM quotes over a 3 month period from April to

June in 1989.

In this paper, we want to examine whether B&M’s result is applicable to a much

lesser-traded currency belonging to a much smaller developing economy with a

government-managed floating exchange rate regime – the USD/SGD. We begin

with a dataset of the USD/SGD in the same 3 month period as per B&M. The

volume of USD/SGD quotes from April to June in 1989 is slightly over 8,000.

We also want to examine how relationship between the size of the bid-ask

spreads and exchange rate volatility changes as the USD/SGD grows in volume

and significance, and as Singapore evolves into a developed country. Hence, we

fast-forward 17 and 20 years into the future from 1989, and repeat the analysis

on over 600,000 USD/SGD quotes from April to May 2006, and on over 1

million USD/SGD quotes from the same months in 2009.

2

This paper examines the Singapore foreign exchange market from a

microstructure approach, specifically focusing on the bid-ask spreads of the

USD/SGD. We also present a review of some microstructure literature in this

area. But first, we provide more background to these two underlying themes in

the next two sections:

1.1 The Singapore Foreign Exchange Market

The Monetary Authority of Singapore operates a float regime for the Singapore

dollar that is managed against a basket of currencies of the country’s major

trading partners and competitors. The various currencies are given different

weights depending on the extent of trade dependence with that particular country.

The composition of the basket is revised periodically to take into account

changes in Singapore’ trade patterns.

The trade-weighted exchange rate is allowed to fluctuate within an undisclosed

policy band, which provides flexibility for the system to accommodate

short-term fluctuations in the foreign exchange markets as well as some buffer

in the estimation of Singapore’s equilibrium exchange rate.

On a trade-weighted basis, the SGD has appreciated against the exchange rates

of its major trading partners and competitors since 1981, reflected rapid

economic development, high productivity growth, and high savings rate.

3

The following figure shows the USD/SGD, Singapore GDP, and volume of

quotes over the months of April and May from 1989 to 2009.

USD/SGD vs GDP & Quotes

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

1.60

1.70

1.80

1.90

2.00

1988 1993 1998 2003 2008

Year

U

S

D

/

S

G

D

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

G

D

P

S

$

B

/

Q

u

o

t

e

s

(

'

0

0

0

s

)

USD/SGD GDP Quotes

Figure 1: USD/SGD vs GDP & Quotes

1

From 1989 to 2009, as the Singapore GDP experienced a gradual growth from

SGD 61 billion in 1989 to SGD 266 billion in 2009, the USD/SGD fluctuated

between 1.40 and 1.90. Interestingly though, from 2002 onwards the growth of

USD/SGD quote volume for April and May experienced a sharp increase from

only 33,000 quotes in 2001 to 180,000 quotes in 2002. This growth would then

accelerate to 1,630,000 quotes in 2009. It is as if all of a sudden the Singapore

dollar started to become more widely traded than ever before. With increasing

volume, the underlying exchange rate volatility would also be expected to

increase. How much effect would this have on the bid-ask spreads of the

USD/SGD. We examine this using data from 1989, 2006, and 2009.

1

USD/SGD and GDP figures obtained from Singapore Department of Statistics (singstat.gov.sg); Quotes

volume obtained from Olsen Financial Technologies GmbH.

4

In 2006 the global economy had recorded a fourth consecutive year of strong

growth despite the drag from crude oil prices, a buildup in global electronics

inventories and adjustment in the US housing market. The MAS Annual Report

for 2005/2006 reported that “despite higher oil prices, rising interest rates and

natural disasters, the global economy expanded at a robust pace in 2005. This

growth momentum continued unabated in the first quarter of 2006. The strength

of the US economy was a major factor underpinning the continued growth of the

world economy last year. The US economy displayed remarkable resilience

against the backdrop of hurricane Katrina and 11 successive increases in the Fed

funds rate from 2.25% at the beginning of 2005 to 5% in May 2006. In the first

quarter of 2006, growth picked up strongly, led by a rebound in consumer

spending and business investment spending on equipment and software.”

The Singapore economy was also in a state of stability, as reported by the MAS

Annual Report 2005/2006: “In the early months of 2006, some signs of easing in

the domestic economy emerged with growth momentum slowing to 6.8% in Q1.

However, this is not indicative of a broad-based slowdown, but rather a

retraction to a more sustainable pace of growth.”

In 2009 the world found itself in the midst of the worst global financial crisis

ever since the Great Depression. The MAS Annual Report 2008/2009 reported

that “2008 was a tumultuous year for the global economy. While the surge in

5

commodity prices led to strong inflationary pressures in the first half of the year,

the onset of the global financial crisis caused world growth to fall sharply in the

later part of 2008 and into early 2009. The emergence of the Influenza A (H1N1)

virus in recent months has added a new dimension of risk to the fragile global

economy.”

The global financial crisis, which saw the collapse of Lehman Brothers in

September 2008, caused massive economic fallout worldwide. Amidst an

erosion of confidence, global trade and industrial production collapsed in the

first half of 2009, resulting in a 2.4% year-on-year contraction in world GDP

over the same period. During this time, the quote volume for USD/SGD (over

April and May) grew to over 1.6 million quotes, suggesting the increase in

volatility in the exchange rate.

1.2 The Microstructure Approach to Exchange Rate Economics

Exchange rate economics, the branch of international economics and finance

which attempt to explain the foreign exchange market, is an intriguing area of

research.

There are many theories of exchange rate determination, from the open economy

IS-LM models that are mandatory fare for any undergraduate economics course,

to more advanced models such as the Mundell-Fleming model, the

6

sticky/flexible-price monetary models, and the portfolio balance model. More

recently, new open-economy macroeconomists attempt for formalize exchange

rate in the context of dynamic general equilibrium models with explicit

microfoundations, nominal rigidities and imperfect competition.

When tested against empirical evidence, these theories have various degrees of

success in forecasting long-run exchange rates. All of them however are not able

to convincingly explain short-run exchange rate fluctuations.

From a common-sense perspective, this is hardly surprising. If the long-run

exchange rate between two countries is expected to change due to some shifting

fundamental value (say productivity level, for example), how would any macro

model (even one with microfoundations) designed to determine the “new”

equilibrium exchange rate be able to take into account all the possible paths

taken to transit from the “old” equilibrium rate to the “new” one? Some foreign

exchange transactions between the two countries might be related to shifting

fundamentals (e.g. import/export transactions), but others transactions may not

(e.g. tourism, speculation in each others’ asset markets, etc).

Macro foreign exchange models often assume that foreign exchange rates will

move when fundamentals move. But foreign exchange rates can only move

through a trading process in a foreign exchange market. Foreign exchange

7

microstructurists study this trading process.

In his book, “The Microstructure Approach to Exchange Rates”, Richard Lyons

(2001) defined “Order Flow” and “Bid-Ask Spreads”, two variables that are

absent from the macro approach, as the two hallmarks of the microstructure

approach. These are analogous to “Quantity” and “Price” in the dimension of

exchange rates.

Order flow is essentially transaction volume which is “signed”, meaning it

includes information if the transaction is a sale or a purchase. Such data is

usually hard to come by and are proprietary to banks and other high-level

participants in the foreign exchange market.

Well-connected researchers, such as Martin D. D. Evans and Richard K. Lyons

managed to obtain proprietary data on all end-user EUR/USD trades received at

Citibank over 6.5 years. In their 2007 paper “Exchange Rate Fundamentals and

Order Flow", they tested and established four empirical results: (1) transaction

flows forecast future macro variables such as output growth, money growth, and

inflation, (2) transaction flows forecast these macro variables significantly better

than the exchange rate does, (3) transaction flows (proprietary) forecast future

exchange rates, and (4) the forecasted part of fundamentals is better at

explaining exchange rates than standard measured fundamentals.

8

Data for the other hallmark, Bid-Ask Spreads, on the other hand, is much easier

to obtain. In fact, the four datasets for this paper were purchased from Olsen

Financial Technologies GmbH, while B&M obtained theirs by collecting every

USD/DEM quote posted on the Reuters screen for the interbank foreign

exchange market for three months in 1989. But other than being easily

obtainable, Lyons highlighted that one reason spreads receive so much attention

is because, being a core element of most data sets, they are a ready target for

testable hypotheses. This is in contrast to other features in the trading that are

not so easily measurable, such as information flow, belief dispersion, etc.

The behavior of bid-ask spreads in the foreign exchange markets offers many

opportunities for research. For example, Table 1 below shows the distribution of

over 600,000 USD/SGD quotes in April and May 2006, divided into nine

categories of price and spread movements.

SPREAD SPREAD SPREAD

UP SAME DOWN

PRICE UP 32.46% 6.35% 3.53%

PRICE SAME 4.05% 7.52% 3.42%

PRICE DOWN 3.21% 6.60% 32.85%

Total 39.73% 20.47% 39.81%

Table 1: USD/SGD April-May 2006 Spread Behavior

Out of over 600,000 quotes over two months, the spread remained unchanged

6.35% of the time when the price moved up, and 6.60% of time when the price

moved down. Though we may somewhat expect for spreads to move when

prices move, what is intriguing is that when prices move up, spreads tended to

9

widen 32.46% of the time, but yet narrowed only 3.53% of the time, Conversely,

when prices move down, spreads tended to narrow 32.85% of the time but yet

widened only 3.21% of the time.

Spread behavior like in the previous example may differ across different

currencies within the same time period, and may also differ across different time

periods within the same currency. The empirical objective of this paper is thus to

examine the relationship between the bid-ask spread and the underlying

exchange rate volatility from such two angles. The main currency for analysis is

the USD/SGD. For comparison against a different currency within the same time

period, we use B&M’s results for the USD/DEM. For comparison against

different time periods within the same currency, we perform this analysis for the

USD/SGD from the months of April and May in 1989, 2006, and 2009. In

addition, we also perform an empirical analysis on the phenomenon described

above in Table 1.

1.3 Organization of Thesis

The rest of this paper shall be organized as follows: Chapter 2 begins with a

review of microstructure papers which concerns bid-ask spreads, and ends with

a description of B&M’s model that relates volatility to bid-ask spreads. Chapter

3 describes B&M’s empirical methodology and presents the empirical analyses

for each dataset. Chapter 4 concludes.

10

2 Bid-Ask Spreads in Exchange Rates

As previously mentioned in Chapter 1, Lyons (2001) cites bid-ask spreads as

one of the two hallmarks of the microstructure approach. Besides being

relatively obtainable, he explained that spreads receive so much attention

because they form a core element of most data sets and are a ready target for

testable hypotheses. He also gave two more reasons for the heavy attention and

resources focused on bid-ask spreads.

The second reason was because practitioners are “intensely concerned with

managing trading costs”. The third reason had to do with the history of the field

of market microstructure which in its early days sought to distinguish itself from

the literature on trading under rational expectations. Rational expectations

models generally omit trading mechanisms when characterizing the relationship

between fundamentals and price. Contrastingly market microstructure focused

on how trading mechanisms affected prices, and this had led to “a focus on the

determination of real-world transaction prices – spreads.”

For the first section of this Chapter, guided by Sarno & Taylor (2002), we

present a short survey on some early microstructure literature that concerns the

determination of bid-ask spreads, and focus on “adverse selection” as a popular

theme. We then present the views of a more contemporary paper which refutes

11

“adverse selection” as a determinant of bid-ask spreads and proposes that

asymmetric information might be a more plausible candidate.

From the second section of this Chapter we return to our main topic of interest –

bid-ask spreads and exchange rate volatility. Similarly, following Sarno &

Taylor (2002), we first present a short survey on the literature which analyses

the proportional relationship between spreads and exchange rate volatility.

We then close this Chapter by presenting B&M’s simple asymmetric

information model which forms the framework for our empirical investigation.

2.1 Bid-Ask Spreads and Asymmetric Information

Sarno & Taylor (2002) identifies three main determinants of the bid-ask spread:

the cost of dealer services, inventory holding costs, and the cost of adverse

selection.

Cost of Dealer Services

The cost of dealer services is formally analyzed by Demsetz (1968) who

assumes the existence of some fixed costs of providing “predictable immediacy”

as the service for which compensation is required by market makers. While

Demsetz focused on the New York Stock Exchange, his definition for cost of

dealer services could also be applicable to the foreign exchange market.

12

According to Demsetz, “predictable immediacy is a rarity in human actions, and

to approximate it requires that costs be borne by persons who specialize in

standing ready and waiting to trade with the incoming orders of those who

demand immediate servicing of their orders. The ask-bid spread is the markup

that is paid for predictable immediacy of exchange in organized markets; in

other markets, it is the inventory markup of retailer or wholesaler”.

Inventory Holding Costs

The original argument of inventory costs as a crucial determinant of bid-ask

spreads was first propositioned by Barnear & Logue (1975), who tested a

modified theory of market-maker behavior first espoused by Bagehot (1971).

Barnear & Logue modified the theory of the market-maker spread by

distinguishing between the two major components of inventory risk. The second

component, which they termed “marketability risk”, relates to the market

maker's ability to make inventory adjustments when the market for an issue is

"thin." They showed that volume has a negative effect on the bid-ask spread for

two reasons: 1) high volume implies more competition if it implies more

competition among alternative market makers; and 2) high volume implies less

marketability risk, and, therefore, lower positioning costs.

Amihud & Mendelson (1980) considers the problem of a price-setting

monopolistic market-maker in a Garman (1976) dealership market where the

13

stochastic demand and supply are depicted by independent Poisson processes.

The focus of their analysis is the dependence of the bid-ask prices on the

market-maker’s inventory position. They derived the optimal policy the results

are shown to be consistent with some conjectures and observed phenomena, like

the existence of a ‘preferred’ inventory position and the downward monotonicity

of the bid-ask prices.

Ho & Stoll (1981) considers the stochastic dynamic programming problem of

solving for the optimal behavior of a single dealer of a single stock who is faced

with a stochastic demand for his services and return risk on his stock and on the

rest of his portfolio. They show that as time unfolds and transactions occur, the

dealer is able to set his bid price and ask price relative to his opinion of the

"true" price of the stock so as to maximize the expected utility of terminal

wealth. The bid-ask spread is given by a risk neutral spread that maximizes

expected profits for the given stochastic demand functions plus a risk premium

that depends on transaction size, the return variance of the stock and the dealer's

attitude toward risk. The bid-ask spread does not depend on the dealer's

inventory position, but the dealer’s price adjustment does. When inventory

increases both bid price and ask price decline, and the converse is true when

inventory decreases.

14

Generally, inventory costs models assume that market-markers optimize their

inventory holding, and generally imply that market-makers shift the spread

downwards and increase the width of the spread when a positive inventory is

accumulated.

Cost of Adverse Selection

Adverse selection is a common argument to explain the existence of bid-ask

spreads. The origin of this argument could be traced back to Bagehot (1971),

whose model includes two types of market participants – those are willing to

pay the price of the spread to the market-maker in exchange for predictable

immediacy and those who can speculate at the expense of the market-maker

using some private insider information. An adverse selection arises because

market-makers are not able to distinguish between the two types of participants

and resort to widening the spreads for both types. The bid-ask spread then

becomes the market-maker’s defense against adverse selection in “in the form of

exploitation of arbitrage opportunities”. Since Bagehot, numerous

microstructure papers have drawn on adverse selection as their primary

interpretive framework.

Copeland & Galai (1983) analyses the determination of bid-ask spreads in

organized financial markets, where the trading is done through economic agents

who specialize in market-making for a limited set of securities. The commitment

15

made by dealers to buy or sell at the bid and ask prices, respectively, is analyzed

as a combination of put and call options. Given the behavior of liquidity traders

and informed traders, the dealer is assumed to offer an out-of-the-money

straddle option for a fixed number of shares during a fixed time interval. The

exercise prices of the straddle determine the bid-ask spread. The dealer

establishes his profit maximizing spread by balancing the expected total

revenues from liquidity trading against the expected total losses from informed

trading. They showed that a monopolistic dealer will establish a wider bid-ask

spread than will perfectly competitive dealers, and that the bid-ask spread

increases with greater price volatility in the asset being traded, with a higher

asset price level, and with lower volume.

Glosten & Milgrom (1985) analyzed a model of a securities market in which the

arrival of traders over time is accommodated by a market-maker. They showed

that adverse selection, by itself, could account for the existence of a bid-ask

spread, and the average magnitude of the spread depends on many parameters,

including the exogenous arrival patterns of insiders and liquidity traders, the

elasticity of supply and demand among liquidity traders, and the quality of the

information held by insiders. They also showed that, because transaction prices

are informative, bid-ask spreads tend to decline with trade.

16

Lyons (1995) was likely one of the first who departed from early microstructure

work that focused almost entirely on stock markets and applied such theory to

foreign exchange markets. He presented a model which incorporated a number

of institutional features relevant to the FX market, such as the facts that major

currencies are traded in decentralized dealership markets; that over 80% of the

trading volume is between market-makers; that market net volume is only

partially observable; and that customer order flow is an important source of

private information. Lyons showed that trade size and the bid-ask spreads of a

particular dealer were positively related.

Payne (2003) estimates a VAR decomposition of interdealer trades and quotes

and interprets the results through the lens of adverse selection. Specifically, he

used one trading week’s worth of USD/DEM data derived from an electronic

foreign exchange brokerage and employed the framework contained in

Hasbrouck & Sofianos (1993) to test for the existence of private information

effects of trading on prices. His basic results confirm the existence of private

information on FX markets, indicating that adverse selection costs account for

around 60% of the half-spread.

Osler, Mende & Menkhoff (2006) however shows evidence that the behavior of

bid-ask spreads is inconsistent with adverse selection. They outline three factors

that seem likely to be important. The first factor, fixed operating costs, can

17

explain the negative relation between trade size and bid-ask spreads if some

costs are fixed, but cannot explain the cross-sectional variation across customer

types. To explain why bid-ask spreads are larger for commercial than financial

customers they suggest that asymmetric information – in the broad sense of

information that is held by some but not all market participants – may influence

spreads through two channels distinct from adverse selection, one involving

market power and a second involving strategic dealing.

The market power hypothesis suggests that firms, even in a market with

hundreds of competitors like foreign exchange, gain market power from holding

information. It can be costly for customer firms to search out the best available

quotes in the foreign exchange market, so each individual dealer can exert a

certain amount of market power despite the competition. As suggested in Green

et al. (2005), dealers may quote the widest spreads when their market power is

greatest, and market power in quote-driven markets depends on knowledge of

current market conditions. In foreign exchange, commercial customers typically

know far less about market conditions than financial customers so they might be

expected to pay wider spreads, as they do.

The second channel through which asymmetric information might affect bid-ask

spreads in foreign exchange involves strategic dealing. Building on abundant

evidence that customer order flow carries information (e.g., Evans and Lyons

18

(2007), Daníelsson et al. (2002)), Osler et al argue that rational foreign exchange

dealers might strategically vary spreads across customers, subsidizing spreads to

informed customers in order to gain information which they can then exploit in

upcoming interbank trades. In standard adverse-selection models, by contrast,

dealers passively accept the information content of order flow. The idea that

dealers strategically vary spreads to gather information was originally explored

in Leach and Madhavan (1992, 1993). When applied to two-tier markets in Naik

et al. (1999) it implies that bid-ask spreads will be narrower for trades with

information, consistent with the pattern in foreign exchange.

2.2 Bid-Ask Spreads and Volatility

The directly proportional relationship between bid-ask spreads and exchange

rate volatility now represents a fairly stylized fact in the microstructure literature.

Early studies modeled the spread as a function of transaction costs, the bank’s

profit from providing liquidity services, and the market-maker’s payoff for

facing the exchange rate risk when assuming an open position. The main

conclusions of these early studies are that exchange rate spreads are wider under

floating exchange rate than under fixed-exchange rate regimes (e.g. Aliber,

1975), and that measures of exchange rate volatility are followed closely by

exchange rate spreads (e.g. Fieleke, 1975; Overturf, 1982).

19

Glassman (1987) provides a significant contribution to this literature in that she

builds a model where variables representing transactions frequency are included

explicitly and the non-normality of the distribution of exchange rates is taken

into account. The model not only provides additional evidence on the

proportional relationship between exchange rate volatility and bid-ask spreads in

the foreign exchange market, but also suggests that market-makers consider

moments of the exchange rate higher than the second moment in order to

evaluate the probability of large exchange rate changes.

Admanti & Pfleiderer (1988) provides another fundamental theoretical

contribution to this area. In their model, there are three types of agents: informed

traders, who have relatively superior information and only trade on terms

favorable to them; discretionary liquidity traders, who must trade during a day

but can choose when to trade during the day in order to minimize costs; and

non-discretionary liquidity traders, who must trade at a precise time during the

day regardless of the cost. In this model, trading volume is explained by the

concentration of trade of informed traders and discretionary liquidity traders at

certain points in time: the concentrations occur because it is profitable for

informed traders to trade when there are many liquidity traders who do not have

the same information as themselves and because discretionary liquidity traders

are attracted because the larger the number of traders lowers the cost of trading.

20

Bollerslev & Domowitz (1993) used intradaily data to investigate the behavior

of quote arrivals and bid-ask spreads. They recorded quote arrivals and bid-ask

spreads over the trading day, across geographical locations as well as across

market participants. They found that trading activity and the bid-ask spreads for

traders whose activity is restricted to regional markets can be described by a

U-shaped distribution, which is consistent with Admanti & Pfleiderer’s (1989)

model. The patterns of trading activity and spreads during the day also strongly

suggest some degree of traders’ risk aversion, given which, the more trading

activity is executed by informed traders, the higher the cost of trading.

Goodhart & Figliuoli (1991) reported a study of minute bid-ask quotes on three

days in 1987 at a Reuters screen and found evidence that leptokurtosis and

heteroscedasticity are time-varying, and are less pronounced at the

minute-by-minute frequency than at lower frequencies. They also found that

trading volume is time-varying, being higher at the European and North

American openings and lower at the European lunch hour. The series was also

found to exhibit first-order negative serial correlation, which is especially

pronounced after immediately after jumps in the exchange rate. Multivariate

analysis suggested significant relationships between lagged exchange rates and

the current spot rate.

21

2.3 Bollerslev & Melvin’s Model of Volatility and Bid-Ask Spread

B&M is the main inspiration for this thesis, providing most importantly a

methodology to analyze the relationship between bid-ask spreads of exchange

rates and its underlying volatility.

In the early 1990’s as B&M were writing their paper, the bid-ask spread

component of transactions costs in the foreign exchange market had not received

much attention in the literature. Earlier studies on the subject, such as Glassman

(1987) and Boothe (1988), concentrated on the own statistical properties of the

spread. Researchers, such as Goodhart (1990), Bossaerts and Hillion (1991),

Black (1991), Melvin and Tan (1996) and Bollerslev and Domowitz (1993), had

attempted to offer empirical and theoretical analyses of the determinants of

foreign exchange market spreads, but no one had performed any explicit

analysis of the relationship between the magnitude of foreign exchange market

spreads and the underlying exchange rate volatility. Hence, B&M is likely to be

the first paper to touch on this subject.

B&M opined that while unambiguous 'good' or 'bad' news regarding the

fundamentals of the exchange rate should have no systematic effect on the

spread, as both the bid and the ask prices should adjust in the same direction in

response to the traders receiving buy or sell orders that reflect the particular

news event, however greater uncertainty regarding the future spot rate, as

22

associated with greater volatility of the spot rate, is likely to result in a widening

of the spread.

We now outline B&M’s simple theoretical framework that illustrates this role of

volatility in determining the spread.

The formal setup for B&M’s stylized market microstructure model is based on

the analysis in Glosten and Milgrom (1985), Admati and Pfleiderer (1989), and

Andersen (1993).

The model assumes that the foreign exchange market comprises two kinds of

traders: liquidity traders and information-based traders. Liquidity traders

participate in foreign exchange transactions only due to the needs of their

normal business activity which require international trade of goods, services and

financial assets. They are also not speculators. Information-based traders profit

by intermediating the demands and supplies of foreign exchange for the liquidity

traders. These traders also take positions in the foreign exchange market based

on information advantages received through their dealings with the liquidity

traders or, more generally, information asymmetries regarding fundamentals

underlying the determination of the spot exchange rate.

23

The liquidity traders constitute the proportion (1—ì) of the total market

participants. The liquidity traders receive a signal to either buy or sell foreign

currency regardless of the actual value of the currency in comparison with the

bid or ask prices prevailing at the time. Informed traders constitute the

remaining ì proportion of the market. This group of traders receives some

information about the true underlying fundamental value of the exchange rate s

t

.

This fundamental value is assumed to evolve over time according to a

martingale model,

(1)

where E

t-1

(c

t

)=0, E

t-1

(c

t

2

)= o

t

2

, and E

t-1

(•)

denotes the conditional expectation

based on the information set generated by the past values of s

t

. B&M further

assumes that the standardized innovations, c

t

o

t

-1

, are independent and

symmetrically, but not necessarily identically, distributed through time.

At time t-1, one of the many market-making traders will set bid and ask quotes,

B

t

and A

t

, good for trading at time t. The bid-ask spread is assumed to be set

symmetrically around the known fundamental price prevailing at the time of

quote formation, i.e. A

t

= s

t-1

+ k

t,t-1

, and B

t

= s

t-1

– k

t,t-1

. Thus, the quoted spread

for trades at time t, K

t

= A

t

, - B

t

= 2k

t,t-1

depends on time t-1 information only.

24

Trades at existing quotes will generate losses, on average, for the market-maker

when the opposite party an information-based trader. Information-based traders,

who received the signal c

t

buy currency if A

t

< s

t

and sell currency if s

t

, < B

t

. For

values of B

t

≤ s

t

≤ A

t

, the information-based traders cannot profit from

knowing the true fundamental value revealed by c

t.

The liquidity traders only

know s

t-1

and expect c

t

to equal zero.

Trader positions are limited by the convention that existing quotes are only good

for up to some maximum quantity of currency. Assuming that the market-makers

limit trading to one unit of currency at existing quotes, the loss for the quoting

trader relative to the true value s

t

arising from informed trading is therefore

(2)

Let P

t-1

(•) denote the probability conditional on the time t-1 information. Since

the standardized innovations, Z

t

= c

t

o

t

-1

, are assumed to be independent and

symmetrically distributed through time, the expected loss from informed trading

may be expressed as

(3)

25

Assuming an equal probability of a buy or a sell order from the liquidity traders,

it follows that the expected profit for the quoting trader conditional on an

uninformed trade equals:

(4)

Combining the expected trading loss in Eq. (3) with the gain in Eq. (4) yields the

expected profit for the market-maker conditional on time t-1 information:

In equilibrium, competition from other banks or market-makers will drive this

expected profit to zero. Expressing this zero profit condition in terms of the total

spread, K

t

=2

kt,t-1

yields

(6)

Since the conditional expectation and probabilities on the right-hand side of Eq.

(6) only depend on the time t-1 information set through o

t-1

k

t,t-1

, it follows that in

26

equilibrium the spread must move proportional to the conditional standard

deviation of the true fundamental value of the exchange rate.

B&M noted that while this simple proportionality condition would no longer

hold true in a more general model with endogenous information acquisition, the

result that an increase in o

t

2

leads to an increase in K

t

would still remain

generally valid.

Based on this relationship between exchange rate volatility and the bid-ask

spread, B&M designed the empirical methodology that we will describe in the

next chapter.

27

3 Empirical Analysis

B&M performed an empirical analysis on the USD/DEM, one of the most

highly-traded currency pair between two of the largest economies in the world in

1989 and showed that the size of the bid-ask spread of the USD/DEM is

positively related to its underlying exchange rate uncertainty. The USD/DEM is

a free-floating exchange rate. Their dataset consist of more than 300,000

continuously recorded USD/DEM quotes over a 3 month period from April to

June in 1989.

We are curious if 1) B&M’s result would hold for the USD/SGD, a semi-floating

currency from a much smaller economy, where over the same period from April

to May 1989, there were only slightly over 8,000 quotes; 2) B&M’s result would

hold 17 years later for that same currency, as that country becomes a significant

regional economic power in South-east Asia, and when the volume of quotes

increased to over 600,000 over April and May 2006.; and 3) B&M’s result

would hold as that economy enters into a period of worldwide financial crisis.

For the above purposes we purchased four sets of data from Olsen Financial

Technologies GmbH. Before we discuss the data and empirical results, we first

describe B&M’s empirical methodology and how we adapted it for this paper.

28

3.1 Empirical Methodology

B&M’s empirical methodology comprises two major steps.

Step 1: Creating a Proxy for Exchange Rate Volatility

The first step involves using a GARCH model as an explicit proxy for the

time-varying volatility of the spot rate, and as noted by Bollerslev et al. (1992),

such representations have been documented by numerous studies. B&M

employed a two-stage estimation procedure in which the conditional variance

for the spot exchange rate is first estimated as a GARCH process. These

estimates for the conditional variance are then used as the proxy for exchange

rate volatility in the second-stage model for the temporal behavior of the spread.

B&M use the ask price for estimation purposes; the bid and ask prices have

virtually identical higher order moments and differ only very slightly in their

conditional means. They found that the MA(1)-GARCH(1,1) model of the form

below seemed to fit their dataset well:

(7)

where I

t-1

denotes the time t-1 information set, and µ, u, e, o, and | are the

parameters to be estimated. The time t subscript refers to the place in the order

29

of the series of quotes, so that o

A,t

2

provides an estimate of the price volatility

between quotes.

The particular specification for the conditional variance in Eq. (7) may be

justified by the theoretical arguments in Nelson (1990, 1992). Intuitively, if the

sample path for the true unobservable volatility process is continuous, it follows

that on interpreting the GARCH(1,1) model as a non-parametric estimator, or a

one-sided filter, the resulting estimates for the conditional variance will

generally be consistent as the length of the sampling interval goes to zero.

The primary purpose of the GARCH estimation was to create proxies for the

conditional variance of the exchange rate to be used in the investigation of the

determinants of the spread.

But it was 1993 then, and B&M noted that estimating a GARCH model with

more than 300,000 observations in practice was not feasible in practice. Hence,

they divided up their dataset into 12 weeks of data and estimated each set for the

above GARCH parameters. They then saved all the estimates for the conditional

variances from each of the 12 models and combined into a single time series of

volatility estimates for the full set of weekday quotes. Today, we use modern

econometrics software EViews to perform GARCH analysis on our datasets and

to obtain the conditional variance time series.

30

Step 2: Estimate Relationship between Spreads and Proxy for Volatility

The second major step of the methodology involved using ordered response

models to estimate the relationship between the time series of volatility

estimates obtained in the first step and the bid-ask spreads.

Specifically, B&M used an Ordered Probit model with multiplicative

heteroskedasticity for this purpose.

The observed spread, K

t

, is assumed to take on only a fixed number of discrete

values, a

1

, a

2

, … a

J

. The unobservable continuous random variable, K*, is

defined by

K

*

t

= X

i

’| + c

K,t

(8)

The vector X

t

denotes a set of predetermined variables that affect the conditional

mean of K*

t

and c

K,t

, is conditionally normally distributed with mean zero and

variance, c

2

K,t

(9)

B&M allowed for multiplicative heteroskedasticity in the spread by

parameterizing the logarithm of o

2

K,t

as a linear function of the same

31

explanatory variables that enter the conditional mean of K*

t

.

We depart from this path in our analysis, firstly by omitting multiplicative

heteroskedasticity (more due to the limitations of EViews than by choice), and

secondly by estimating the relationships with both Ordered Probit models and

Ordered Logit models (to allow more flexibility in the behaviour of the error

term, since we omitted multiplicative heteroskedasticity).

In our analyses, the observed spread, K

t

, is similarly assumed to take on only a

fixed number of discrete values, a

1

, a

2

, … a

J

, but the unobservable continuous

random variable, K*, is defined by

K

*

t

= X

i

’| + c

(10)

where c is i.i.d. standard normal for the Ordered Probit model, and takes the

form of the logistic distribution for the Ordered Logit model.

The ordered response models relate the observed spreads to K* via

(11)

where the A

j

’s form an ordered partition of the real line into J disjoint intervals.

32

The probability that the spread takes on the value a

j

is equal to the probability

that K* falls into the appropriate partition, A

j

.

For tractability reasons, B&M based the empirical analysis on a classification of

the spread into only four different categories. From the distribution of spreads of

the USD/DEM in 1989, the four most commonly observed spreads account for

97.0 percent of the total quotes.

USD/DEM

Frequency Distribution fof Spreads

Spread All Quotes

0 < . < 5 2,304 (0.8%)

5 77,856 (25.6%)

5 < . < 7 607 (0.2%)

7 34,878 (11.5%)

7 < . < 10 2,977 (1.0%)

10 170,892 (56.1%)

10 < . < 15 329 (0.1%)

15 11,534 (3.8%)

15 < . < 20 39 (0.0%)

20 2,616 (0.9%)

20 < . 572 (0.2%)

Note: Spreads converted into basis points

Table 2: Distribution of Spreads of USD/DEM April-June 1989

We also performed the ordered response analyses with four ordered indicator

values. In addition, as we will see later, because the spreads distribution for the

USD/SGD 2006 and 2009 data have more converging points (certain spread

sizes where there are more quotes than others) than both the USD/DEM and the

USD/SGD in 1989, we used up to 10 ordered indicator values in our own

33

ordered response analyses.

In the case of B&M where by four ordered indicator values of a

j

’s were used, the

corresponding intervals for the unobservable latent variable K* are defined by:

(12)

The partition parameters, µ

I

, are estimated jointly with the other parameters of

the model.

The ordered response model defined above allows us to estimate the probability

of a particular spread being observed as a function of the predetermined

variables, X

t

. In order to test the hypothesis that the spread is partly determined

by the volatility of the spot rate, the GARCH estimate of the conditional

variance for the ask prices is included as one of the elements in X

t

.

B&M noted that Bollerslev and Domowitz (1993) indicated a distinct intra-day

pattern in the spread distribution and tt is possible that any significant effect of

the conditional variance in isolation may merely reflect this dependence rather

than provide an independent influence on the spread process. In order to take

34

account of this own temporal dependence, K

t-1

was included as an element of the

X

t

vector in the estimation of the ordered response functions for K*

t

:

K

t

* = o

1

o

A,t

2

+ o

2

K

t-1

+ c (13)

Given the partition boundaries determined by the data, if a higher conditional

mean o'X, is caused by a larger conditional variance of the spot rate, and this

raises the probability of observing a higher spread, we will infer that the

hypothesized theoretical link is supported by the empirical analysis.

We now describe each of the datasets in more details in the following section:

3.2 Description of the Data

We purchased four sets of data from Olsen Financial Technologies GmbH:

a. Dataset 1 – USD/DEM quotes from April 1989 to June 1989

b. Dataset 2 – USD/SGD quotes from April 1989 to June 1989

c. Dataset 3 – USD/SGD quotes from April 2006 to May 2006

d. Dataset 4 – USD/SGD quotes from April 2009 to May 2009

Dataset 1: USD/DEM from April 1989 to June 1989

For the first dataset we purchased the same dataset used by B&M – USD-DEM

quotes from April 1989 to June 1989. We wanted to repeat the empirical analysis

35

on the dataset again to allow for an apples-to-apples comparison between the

USD/DEM 1989 and the USD/SGD 1998 results.

First, B&M’s results were obtained in 1993 using probably not so

technologically advanced means. We wanted to repeat the estimation processes

again using EViews. Furthermore, as mentioned in the previous Chapter, we

departed from B&M’s ordered probit procedure by omitting multiplicative

heteroskedasticity. Second, B&M’s data were obtained from Reuters. From their

paper we were unable to ascertain the accuracy of this data, or how they

presented 12 workweeks of data from an actual 13 weeks in April to June 1989.

We obtained ours by purchasing from Olsen Financial Technologies GmbH and

upon comparison, we found some minor differences. The differences between

our purchased data and the actual data used by B&M are tabulated as follows:

a. Volume of Quotes

ORIGINAL BOLLERSLEV & MELVIN PURCHASED FROM OLSENDATA

DAY TICKS DAY TICKS

Sun 887 0.29% Sun 1,571 0.51%

Mon 60,095 19.66% Mon 56,600 18.25%

Tue 66,109 21.63% Tue 67,634 21.80%

Wed 63,812 20.88% Wed 66,325 21.38%

Thu 61,521 20.13% Thu 61,377 19.79%

Fri 53,082 17.37% Fri 56,646 18.26%

Sat 98 0.03% Sat 33 0.01%

Grand Total 305,604 100.00% Grand Total 310,186 100.00%

Table 3: Quote Volume differences between B&M and Purchased Data USD/DEM 1989

B&M collected 305,604 ticks of USD/DEM quotes while the dataset purchased

from Olsen Financial Technologies GmbH contains 310,186 ticks. The

distribution of the quotes over each workday is similar in terms of percentage in

both datasets.

36

b. Frequency of No Spread Change

USD/DEM

No. of Quotes, & Frequency of No Spread Change

No Change in Spread

Number Bid-Ask Rise Bid-Ask Fall

All quotes 304,619 8.00% 8.30%

Table 4: Frequency of No Spread Change reported by B&M USD/DEM 1989

B&M reported that 8% of all the quotes observed no change in spread when the

bid-ask price rose and that 8.3% of all the quotes observed no change in spread

when the bid-ask price fell. It was not clear, however, whether these percentages

where calculated based on Number of Ticks with No Spread Change divided by

Number of Ticks Moved, or on Number of Ticks with No Spread Change

divided by Total Number of Ticks. We make this distinction clearer with the

purchased data.

SPREAD SPREAD SPREAD

UP SAME DOWN

PRICE UP 64384 32787 23767

PRICE SAME 13083 39422 13523

PRICE DOWN 24045 33407 64164

Grand Total 101512 105616 101454

SPREAD SPREAD SPREAD

UP SAME DOWN

PRICE UP 53.24% 27.11% 19.65%

PRICE SAME 19.81% 59.70% 20.48%

PRICE DOWN 19.77% 27.47% 52.76%

GRAND TOTAL 32.90% 34.23% 32.88%

SPREAD SPREAD SPREAD

UP SAME DOWN

PRICE UP 20.86% 10.63% 7.70%

PRICE SAME 4.24% 12.78% 4.38%

PRICE DOWN 7.79% 10.83% 20.79%

GRAND TOTAL 32.90% 34.23% 32.88%

NO. OF QUOTES

DIVIDED BY NO OF TICKS MOVED

DIVIDED BY TOTAL NO. OF TICKS

Table 5: Frequency of No Spread Change with Olsen USD/DEM 1989

Among all ticks, we counted that 10.63% and 10.83% of all ticks observed no

change in spreads when the price rose and fell respectively.

37

c. Frequency Distribution of Spreads

Frequency Distribution of Spreads

Spread

0 < . < 5 2,304 (0.8%) 2,562 (0.8%)

5 77,856 (25.6%) 81,368 (26.4%)

5 < . < 7 607 (0.2%) 660 (0.2%)

7 34,878 (11.5%) 35,682 (11.6%)

7 < . < 10 2,977 (1.0%) 3,192 (1.0%)

10 170,892 (56.1%) 171,264 (55.5%)

10 < . < 15 329 (0.1%) 327 (0.1%)

15 11,534 (3.8%) 10,389 (3.4%)

15 < . < 20 39 (0.0%) 38 (0.0%)

20 2,616 (0.9%) 2,547 (0.8%)

20 < . 572 (0.2%) 553 (0.2%)

ORIGINAL OLSENDATA

Note: Spreads converted into basis points

Table 6: Frequency Distribution of Spreads USD/DEM 1989

It appears that the frequency distribution of spreads is quite similar between the

dataset reported by B&M and the dataset purchased from Olsen Financial

Technologies GmbH. The most common bid-ask spread is 10 basis points,

followed by 5 basis points.

Dataset 2: USD/SGD from April 1989 to June 1989

The second dataset are USD/SGD quotes from April 1989 to June 1989.

a. Volume of Quotes

DAY USD/SGD

Sun 6 0.07%

Mon 1,307 15.43%

Tue 2,024 23.89%

Wed 1,876 22.14%

Thu 1,652 19.50%

Fri 1,586 18.72%

Sat 21 0.25%

Grand Total 8,472 100.00%

Table 7: Volume of Quotes of USD/SGD April-June 1989

Compared against a major currency in 1989 over the same period from April to

June, there are only 8,472 USD/SGD quotes compared to over 310,000 for the

USD/DEM. Distribution of the quotes over the week are however quite similar,

38

with volume peaking during midweek.

b. Frequency of No Spread Change

Compared against the USD/DEM in 1989 over the same period from April to

June, we do not observe as much spread changes in the USD/SGD when prices

moves. When prices move upwards, the spread remained unchanged 89.21% of

the time. When prices move downwards, the spread remained unchanged

90.62% of the time.

SPREAD SPREAD SPREAD

UP SAME DOWN

PRICE UP 87 3108 289

PRICE SAME 62 1340 63

PRICE DOWN 256 3168 72

Grand Total 405 7616 424

SPREAD SPREAD SPREAD

UP SAME DOWN

PRICE UP 2.50% 89.21% 8.30%

PRICE SAME 4.23% 91.47% 4.30%

PRICE DOWN 7.32% 90.62% 2.06%

GRAND TOTAL 4.80% 90.18% 5.02%

SPREAD SPREAD SPREAD

UP SAME DOWN

PRICE UP 1.03% 36.80% 3.42%

PRICE SAME 0.73% 15.87% 0.75%

PRICE DOWN 3.03% 37.51% 0.85%

GRAND TOTAL 4.80% 90.18% 5.02%

NO. OF QUOTES

DIVIDED BY NO OF TICKS MOVED

DIVIDED BY TOTAL NO. OF TICKS

Table 8: Frequency of No Spread Change for USD/SGD April-June 1989

39

c. Frequency Distribution of Spreads

Frequency Distribution of Spreads

Spread

0 < . < 5 6 (0.1%)

5 137 (1.6%)

5 < . < 7 22 (0.3%)

7 122 (1.4%)

7 < . < 10 43 (0.5%)

10 7,854 (93.0%)

10 < . < 15 6 (0.1%)

15 76 (0.9%)

15 < . < 20 1 (0.0%)

20 164 (1.9%)

20 < . 14 (0.2%)

USD/SGD

Note: Spreads converted into basis points

Table 9: Frequency Distribution of Spreads USD/SGD April-June 1989

While spread changes in the USD/SGD are uncommon when prices moves, we

note similar characteristics to the USD/DEM in that the most common bid-ask

spread is 10 basis points. When spreads do change, they are most likely to be 5,

7 or 20 basis points.

Dataset 3: USD/SGD from April 2006 to May 2006

The third dataset are USD/SGD quotes from April 2006 to May 2006.

a. Volume of Quotes

DAY USD/SGD

Sun 3,832 0.63%

Mon 104,327 17.24%

Tue 126,812 20.96%

Wed 147,084 24.31%

Thu 135,037 22.32%

Fri 87,332 14.44%

Sat 555 0.09%

Grand Total 604,979 100.00%

Table 10: Volume of Quotes of USD-SGD April-May 2006

15 years later, the USD/SGD has grown to become a major currency in

Southeast Asia. Compared against itself in 1989 over the period from April to

May, the volume of quotes of the USD/SGD has grown from over 8,400 ticks in

40

3 months to over 604,000 ticks in 2 months. The distribution of quotations over

the week remains consistent with volume peaking during midweek.

b. Frequency of No Spread Change

In 2006, we observed that the tendency for spreads to remain unchanged when

prices move is reduced dramatically. Now, when prices move upwards, the

spread remained unchanged only 14.99% of the time compared to 89.21% of the

time in 1989. When prices move downwards, the spread remained unchanged

only 15.46% of the time compared to 90.62% of the time in 1989.

SPREAD SPREAD SPREAD

UP SAME DOWN

PRICE UP 194955 38121 21197

PRICE SAME 24340 45185 20568

PRICE DOWN 19302 39611 197313

Grand Total 238597 122917 239078

SPREAD SPREAD SPREAD

UP SAME DOWN

PRICE UP 76.67% 14.99% 8.34%

PRICE SAME 27.02% 50.15% 22.83%

PRICE DOWN 7.53% 15.46% 77.01%

GRAND TOTAL 39.73% 20.47% 39.81%

SPREAD SPREAD SPREAD

UP SAME DOWN

PRICE UP 32.46% 6.35% 3.53%

PRICE SAME 4.05% 7.52% 3.42%

PRICE DOWN 3.21% 6.60% 32.85%

GRAND TOTAL 39.73% 20.47% 39.81%

NO. OF QUOTES

DIVIDED BY NO OF TICKS MOVED

DIVIDED BY TOTAL NO. OF TICKS

Table 11: Frequency of No Spread Change for USD-SGD April-May 2006

41

c. Frequency Distribution of Spreads

Frequency Distribution of Spreads

Spread

0 < . < 5 51,090 (8.5%)

5 224,763 (37.2%)

5 < . < 7 51,163 (8.5%)

7 68,377 (11.3%)

7 < . < 10 53,582 (8.9%)

10 155,466 (25.7%)

10 < . < 15 25 (0.0%)

15 17 (0.0%)

15 < . < 20 15 (0.0%)

20 1 (0.0%)

20 < . 0 (0.0%)

USD/SGD

Note: Spreads converted into basis points

Table 12: Frequency Distribution of Spreads USD-SGD April-June 2006

The characteristics of the frequency distribution of spreads have also changed

almost completely over 15 years. The most common spread in 2006 is 5 basis

points, followed by 10 basis points. Most of the spreads recorded are either 10

basis points or lower, while quotes with spreads of more than 10 basis points

make up less than 0.01% of the entire spectrum of quotes.

Dataset 4: USD/SGD from April 2009 to May 2009

The fourth dataset are USD/SGD quotes from April 2009 to May 2009.

a. Volume of Quotes

DAY USD/SGD

Sun 9,336 0.87%

Mon 183,055 17.02%

Tue 217,496 20.22%

Wed 237,508 22.08%

Thu 237,604 22.09%

Fri 190,603 17.72%

Sat 32 0.00%

Grand Total 1,075,634 100.00%

Table 13: Volume of Quotes of USD/SGD April-May 2009

In the year of the 2009 economic crisis, we observed a dramatic increase in

volume of USD-SGD quotes over the period of April to May 2009, as compared

to the same period in 2006, although we noted earlier that the volume growth

42

had been exponential since 2002. The volume of quotes of the USD-SGD has

grown from over 604,000 ticks, to exceeding 1 million quotes over a 2 month

period.

b. Frequency of No Spread Change

We now observed that in 2009, the tendency for spreads to remain unchanged

when prices moved is reduced again compared to 2006. Now, when prices move

upwards, the spread remained unchanged 10.17% of the time compared to

14.99% of the time in 1989. When prices move downwards, the spread remained

unchanged 9.76% of the time compared to 15.46% of the time in 2006.

SPREAD SPREAD SPREAD

UP SAME DOWN

PRICE UP 304279 48129 120968

PRICE SAME 59290 18050 53790

PRICE DOWN 120972 45055 295733

Grand Total 484541 111234 470491

SPREAD SPREAD SPREAD

UP SAME DOWN

PRICE UP 64.28% 10.17% 25.55%

PRICE SAME 45.21% 13.76% 41.02%

PRICE DOWN 26.20% 9.76% 64.04%

GRAND TOTAL 45.44% 10.43% 44.13%

SPREAD SPREAD SPREAD

UP SAME DOWN

PRICE UP 28.54% 4.51% 11.35%

PRICE SAME 5.56% 1.69% 5.04%

PRICE DOWN 11.35% 4.23% 27.74%

GRAND TOTAL 45.44% 10.43% 44.13%

DIVIDED BY NO OF TICKS MOVED

DIVIDED BY TOTAL NO. OF TICKS

NO. OF QUOTES

Table 14: Frequency of No Spread Change for USD-SGD April-May 2009

43

c. Frequency Distribution of Spreads

Frequency Distribution of Spreads

Spread

<2.00 13 (0.0%)

2 13,684 (1.3%)

2.00 < . < 3.00 8,422 (0.8%)

3 54,432 (5.1%)

3.2 20,407 (1.9%)

3.20 < . < 3.50 6,484 (0.6%)

3.5 114,907 (10.7%)

3.50 < . < 4.00 10,882 (1.0%)

4 88,441 (8.2%)

4.00 < . < 5.00 13,748 (1.3%)

5 59,572 (5.5%)

5.00 < . < 6.00 6,932 (0.6%)

6 54,354 (5.1%)

6.00 < . < 7.00 2,903 (0.3%)

7 165,828 (15.4%)

7.00 < . < 8.00 2,080 (0.2%)

8 268,577 (25.0%)

8.00 < . < 9.00 1,158 (0.1%)

9 39,789 (3.7%)

9.00 < . < 10.00 830 (0.1%)

10 91,613 (8.5%)

10.00 < . < 11.00 579 (0.1%)

11 11,304 (1.1%)

> 11.00 38,696 (3.6%)

USD/SGD

Note: Spreads converted into basis points

Table 15: Frequency Distribution of Spreads USD-SGD April-May 2009

The characteristics of the frequency distribution of spreads have changed again

over 3 years. The most common spread in 2006 was 5 basis points, followed by

10 basis points. In 2009, the most common spread had risen to 8 basis points,

followed by 7 basis points and 3.5 basis points respectively. Most of the spreads

recorded are still either 10 basis points or lower, but quotations with spreads of

more than 10 basis points have increased to slightly under 5% of the entire

spectrum of quotations.

Two observations are of noteworthy regarding the 2009 dataset. First, the most

common spreads are no longer “significant” numbers such as 5 or 10. This could

indicate advancement in the market’s ability to evaluate foreign exchange risk,

44

and hence being able to price bids and asks more accurately. Second, the volume

of quotes with spreads of more than 10 basis points increased from 0.01% in

2006 to slightly under 5% in 2009. This could be attributed to the increased

amount of uncertainty in the financial markets during that period of global

economic crisis. Both phenomena could warrant future research.

3.3 GARCH Analysis

The primary purpose of the GARCH estimation was to create proxies for the

conditional variance of the exchange rate to be used in the investigation of the

determinants of the spread. Recall from Section 3.1 that, following B&M, we

estimate for each dataset with the following MA(1)-GARCH(1,1) model:

(7)

where I

t-1

denotes the time t-1 information set, and µ, u, e, o, and | are the

parameters to be estimated. The time t subscript refers to the place in the order

of the series of quotes, so that o

A,t

2

provides an estimate of the price volatility

between quotes.

Following B&M, we first removed all weekend quotes. We then used EViews to

estimate the parameters for each dataset and the full results are attached in

45

Appendix 1. Here we present a summary of the results:

B&M

DEM1989 DEM1989 SGD1989 SGD2006 SGD2009

µ 0.0065 0.0069 0.0452 0.0025 0.0023

(0.0042) (0.0013) (0.0138) (0.0004) (0.0003)

u -0.5953 -0.5867 -0.3281 -0.7817 -0.7802

(0.0052) (0.0014) (0.0114) (0.0009) (0.0006)

e 0.1008 0.0500 0.6833 0.0578 0.0453

(0.0053) (0.0005) (0.0256) (0.0008) (0.0002)

o 0.0652 0.0561 0.2650 0.0632 0.0513

(0.0018) (0.0003) (0.0081) (0.0006) (0.0002)

| 0.9057 0.9327 0.6540 0.9025 0.9197

(0.0030) (0.0003) (0.0075) (0.0009) (0.0003)

o+| 0.9708 0.9888 0.9190 0.9657 0.9710

T 304,608 308,748 8,444 551,355 1,006,736

Asymptotic errors are reported in parenthesis

Table 16: GARCH Estimates for all Datasets

The first column contains the average of the weekly estimates from the original

B&M dataset (they only estimated these parameters per workweek, for 12

weeks). The second to fifth columns contain the EViews GARCH estimates for

the parameters for the purchased USD/DEM 1989, USD/SGD 1989, USD/SGD

2006, and USD/SGD 2009 data respectively.

First we observe that the EViews estimates for the purchased USD/DEM dataset

compares very well with B&M’s original results, though standard errors are

significantly lower. This provides confidence that the EViews results for the rest

of the datasets are appropriate for comparison.

46

The second observation is that all estimates for u are negative, which

corresponds to B&M’s results, and they noted that “the negative estimates for u

may be partly attributed to a non-synchronous quoting phenomenon; see Lo and

MacKinlay (1990) for a formal analysis.”

The GARCH effects for all datasets are all highly significant. Comparing

GARCH effects between the USD/DEM 1989 dataset and USD/SGD 1989

dataset, it is clear that the USD/DEM dataset shows much stronger effects, and

stronger o+| volatility persistence. This is expected, as the USD/DEM dataset

contains at least 36 times more observations and from Table 8, the spread did not

change 90.18% of the time.

As the Singapore economy grows and the USD/SGD becomes a significant

regional currency, the results show that the GARCH effects and persistence of

volatility is consistent with this phenomenon.

The primary purpose of the GARCH estimation was to create proxies for the

conditional variance of the exchange rate to be used in the investigation of the

determinants of the spread. To this end, we used EViews to obtain GARCH

variance series for each dataset.

47

3.4 Ordered Response Analysis

Recall from Section 3.1 that we estimate for each dataset with the following

ordered response model (probit and logit):

K

t

* = o

1

o

A,t

2

+ o

2

K

t-1

+ c (13)

We first use four ordered indicator values and B&M’s definitions for a

j

’s:

a

1

: <= 5 a

2

: 5 < . < 10 a

3

: = 10 a

4

: > 10

The results for the above parameters for all four datasets are attached in

Appendix 1, but a summary is presented below:

DEM1989 SGD1989 SGD2006 SGD2009

o1 0.0214 0.0091 0.0464 0.0988

(73.9604) (10.6719) (29.2412) (113.8863)

o2 0.3116 0.0422 -0.1306 0.2622

(135.3568) (22.3298) -(69.4622) (177.1729)

T 308,748 8,444 551,355 1,006,736

Z-statistics are reported in parenthesis

Table 17: Ordered Probit Estimates for all Datasets (4 ordered indicator values)

DEM1989 SGD1989 SGD2006 SGD2009

o1 0.1299 0.0231 0.0802 0.2146

(102.6436) (9.2342) (28.9306) (109.5740)

o2 0.4330 1.8160 -0.2040 0.4395

(108.2955) (23.1592) -(66.7912) (169.4684)

T 308,748 8,444 551,355 1,006,736

Z-statistics are reported in parenthesis

Table 18: Ordered Logit Estimates for all Datasets (4 ordered indicator values)

48

The positive o

1

coefficients for both ordered probit and logit analyses above

suggest that there is a significantly positive effect of exchange rate volatility on

the spread for all datasets. The conditional mean of K

t

* is an increasing function

of o

A,t

2

. This is consistent with the implications drawn from B&M’s theoretical

model. The estimates for o

2

are indicative of intra-day persistence in the spread

process.

The magnitude of o

1

for each dataset supports what we intuitively already know.

Comparing the USD/DEM and USD/SGD in 1989, although both o

1

values are

statistically significant, volatility appears to play a much larger role in

determining the size of the spread for the USD/DEM. After all, as noted above,

the spread remained the same 90.18% of the time for the USD/SGD in 1989. For

the same reason, the o

2

values show that the dependence on the previous spread

appears to be more significant for the USD/SGD than for the USD/DEM.

As the country grow in economic significance and the SGD becoming a major

regional currency over 17 years, the magnitude of the o

1

values almost

quadrupled, coincidentally matching the growth in quote volume. It is

interesting to note the negative o

2

values for the USD/SGD 2006 dataset, but it

might be due to seasonality.

49

In 2009, in midst of the worldwide financial crisis, we observed a higher level of

volatility in the USD/SGD. The much higher o

1

values for this dataset, together

with the larger distribution of spreads as shown in Table 15, supports the theory

that the bid-ask spreads of foreign exchange rates is very much positively related

to the underlying volatility.

We repeated the ordered response analyses using 10 ordered indicator values,

due to the larger distribution of spreads as seen in the 2006 and 2009 data. The

a

j

’s are:

a

1

: < 3 a

2

: 3 <= . < 4 a

3

: 4 <= . < 5

a

4

: 5 <= . < 6 a

5

: 6 <= . < 7 a

6

: 7 <= . < 8

a

7

: 8 <= . < 9 a

8

: 9 <= . < 10 a

9

: = 10

a

10

: > 10

Again, the results for the above parameters for all four datasets are attached in

Appendix 1, but a summary is presented below:

DEM1989 SGD1989 SGD2006 SGD2009

o1 0.0345 0.0106 0.0296 0.0964

(90.1741) (12.7664) (19.2017) (117.0911)

o2 0.1124 0.2933 -0.0404 0.0884

(122.5758) (16.0766) -(61.5938) (212.8967)

T 308,748 8,444 551,355 1,006,736

Z-statistics are reported in parenthesis

Table 19: Ordered Probit Estimates for all Datasets (10 ordered indicator values)

50

DEM1989 SGD1989 SGD2006 SGD2009

o1 0.1557 0.0305 0.0599 0.2047

(115.2591) (10.8283) (22.1246) (110.9948)

o2 0.1599 0.5637 -0.0755 0.1493

(100.3382) (16.7295) -(67.7863) (205.0571)

T 308,748 8,444 551,355 1,006,736

Z-statistics are reported in parenthesis

Table 20: Ordered Logit Estimates for all Datasets (10 ordered indicator values)

Generally, the conclusions from the previous ordered response analyses with 4

ordered indicator values still holds after we attempt to be more discerning with

the ordered indicator values.

3.5 Incorporating Returns

Recall that we noted (see Tables 5, 11 and 14) an interesting phenomenon

regarding the behavior of bid-ask spreads of foreign exchange rates. When

prices move up, and the bid-ask spreads change, they tend to widen. Conversely,

when prices move down, and the bid-ask spreads change, they tend to narrow.

Previously we were examining the relationship between bid-ask spreads and the

underlying volatility of exchange rates and found that positive relationships

generally exists between the two. We are now curious if there is any relationship

between bid-ask spreads and price movement. To examine this we repeat the

ordered response analyses by including the Returns variable from the

MA(1)-GARCH(1,1) model into the ordered response model:

51

K

t

* = o

1

o

A,t

2

+ o

2

K

t-1

+ o

3

10,000*AlogA

t

+ c (14)

We repeated the ordered probit and ordered logit analyses for all four datesets

using both 4 and 10 ordered indicator values. The results are attached in

Appendix 1, but we summarize the results below:

DEM1989 SGD1989 SGD2006 SGD2009

o1 0.0148 0.0093 0.0325 0.0406

(51.4649) (10.9454) (19.1288) (44.7718)

o2 0.0383 1.0090 0.5203 0.2606

(16.2662) (23.4338) (210.7702) (146.0215)

o3 0.0970 0.0827 0.6241 0.4158

(98.3419) (12.2743) (449.5486) (437.6876)

T 308,748 8,444 551,355 1,006,736

Z-statistics are reported in parenthesis

Table 21: Ordered Probit Estimates (with Returns) for all Datasets (4 ordered values)

DEM1989 SGD1989 SGD2006 SGD2009

o1 0.1319 0.0235 0.0485 0.2225

(101.6830) (8.7724) (14.8530) (96.1127)

o2 0.6732 1.9380 1.0532 1.9644

(154.6104) (24.1228) (229.6602) (494.6543)

o3 0.3205 0.1796 1.2152 1.3865

(174.0656) (12.2520) (409.7483) (585.1713)

T 308,748 8,444 551,355 1,006,736

Z-statistics are reported in parenthesis

Table 22: Ordered Logit Estimates (with Returns) for all Datasets (4 ordered values)

52

DEM1989 SGD1989 SGD2006 SGD2009

o1 0.0205 0.0108 -0.0350 -0.0032

(54.0252) (13.0826) -(22.6917) -(3.8439)

o2 0.0042 0.3135 0.0185 0.0949

(4.5016) (17.0041) (22.5621) (188.9157)

o3 0.0961 0.0745 0.0012 0.3996

(105.6836) (11.3375) (298.6273) (468.5108)

T 308,748 8,444 551,355 1,006,736

Z-statistics are reported in parenthesis

Table 23: Ordered Probit Estimates (with Returns) for all Datasets (10 ordered values)

DEM1989 SGD1989 SGD2006 SGD2009

o1 0.1592 0.0317 0.0673 0.2688

(113.7732) (10.6241) (21.1859) (124.5891)

o2 0.2532 0.6059 0.4030 0.5755

(146.3672) (17.7207) (251.9007) (574.3314)

o3 0.3182 0.1677 1.1891 1.2835

(173.2477) (11.3873) (434.4841) (654.4871)

T 308,748 8,444 551,355 1,006,736

Table 24: Ordered Logit Estimates (with Returns) for all Datasets (10 ordered values)

In general (except for Ordered Probit estimates for 10 ordered values), the

results for o

1

and o

2

values are consistent with the results in the previous section.

Even when taking Returns into account, B&M’s theory still holds. The results

for o

3

values show that a significant positive relationship also exists between the

size of the bid-ask spread and the direction of the exchange rate movement.

53

One interesting result to note are the negative o

1

and o

2

values for the ordered

probit analyses of 2006 and 2009 for 10 ordered indicator values (see Table 23).

Not only does this violate B&M’s prediction, the observation that the o

1

values

appear to decrease with increasing tick volume runs counter to the rest of the

ordered response results. One possible explanation for this is that multiplicative

heteroskedasticity, which our ordered response models omitted but has been

shown to be significant by B&M, is likely to be the cause of this results.

Also since we know that the error term of equations 13 and 14 are not i.d.d.

standard normal, the results for the ordered logit analyses are probably more

meaningful.

3.6 Summary

B&M provided the theoretical framework and showed empirical evidence that

the size of the bid-ask spread of exchange rates is positively related to the

exchange rate’s underlying volatility. Their empirical subject was over 300,000

USD/DEM quotes from April to June of 1989. The USD/DEM was obviously

one of the most traded currency pair during that time, and both the USD and

DEM belonged to floating exchange rates regimes of two of the top three largest

world economies in 1989.

54

We then wanted to see if both theory and empirical results would hold for a

much lesser traded subject currency, if the currency belonged to a small country

and from a semi-floating exchange rate regime – the USD/SGD.

We applied a modified version of B&M’s methodology on the USD/SGD from

the same months of April to June 1989 and found that the evidence (as

documented in the previous section) supported their theory. Furthermore, we

repeated the analysis on the USD/SGD 17 years later in 2006 when the world

economy was at a point of stability, and again in 2009 when the world economy

was somewhat in disarray. We found that B&M’s theory was still supported by

the evidence.

Along the way we also noted the interesting phenomenon regarding the behavior

of bid-ask spreads of foreign exchange rates. When prices move up, and the

bid-ask spreads change, they tend to widen. Conversely, when prices move

down, and the bid-ask spreads change, they tend to narrow. We repeated the

analyses on the datasets and included Returns as additional variable in the

ordered response models. We found that the relationship between bid-ask

spreads and price direction is positive and significant.

55

4 Conclusion

This paper has set out to empirically test B&M’s theory against a lesser-traded

currency from a developing country with a managed floating rate regime. The

results generally hold, and we found that the effects of the tested parameters

grew in strength as that currency grew in economic significance in its region.

We departed from B&M’s methodology by omitting multiplicative

heteroskedasticity, but we tested our data using both Ordered Probit and Ordered

Logit models. The generally “better-behaving” results from the Logit models

suggests that the disturbances are indeed not standard normal, and that future

work in this area using the same methodologies should include multiplicative

heteroskedasticity.

We also noted the interesting phenomenon regarding the behavior of bid-ask

spreads of foreign exchange rates. We included returns as additional variable in

the ordered response models and found that the relationship between bid-ask

spreads and price direction is positive and significant. Future work in this area

should attempt to build a model which links bid-ask spreads not only to

volatility and also returns.

We provided a simple survey on microstructure literature. We first touched on

those which analyses bid-ask spreads and asymmetric information, and also

56

presented snapshots of research involving bid-ask spreads and volatility. Bid-ask

spreads, one of two “hallmarks” of the microstructure approach, remain a

popular theme for research today.

57

References

Admanti, A., and Pfleiderer, P., (1988), “A Theory of Intraday Patterns: Volume and

Price Variability,” Review of Financial Studies, 1, pp. 3-40

Admanti, A.R. and Pfleiderer, P., (1989), “Divide and Conquer: A Theory of

Intra-day and Day of the Week Effects,” Review of Financial Studies, 2, pp.

189-223

Aliber, R.Z., (1975), “Monetary Independence under Floating Exchange Rates,”

Journal of Finance, 30, pp. 365-376

Amihud, Y. and Mendelson, H. (1980), “Dealership Market: Market-making with

Inventory”, Journal of Financial Economics, pp. 31-53

Bagehot, W. (1971), “The Only Game in Town,” Financial Analysts Journal, 22, pp.

12-14

Barnea, A. and Logue, D.E. (1975), “The Effect of Risk on the Market Maker’s

Spread”, Financial Analysts Journal, 31, pp. 45-49

Black, S.W., (1991), “Transactions Costs and Vehicle Currencies,” Journal of

International Money and Finance, 10, pp. 512-526

Bollerslev, T., Chou, R.Y., and Kroner, K.F., (1992), “ARCH Modeling in Finance:

A Review of the Theory and Empirical Evidence,” Journal of Econometrics, 52,

pp. 5-59

Bollerslev, T., and Domowitz, I., (1993), “Trading Patterns and Prices in the

Interbank Foreign Exchange Market,” Journal of Finance, 48, pp. 1421-1443

Bollerslev, T. and Melvin, M. (1994), “Bid-ask Spreads and Volatility in the Foreign

Exchange Market – an Empirical Analysis,” Journal of International Economics,

36, pp. 355-372

Boothe, P., (1988), “Exchange Rate Risk and the Bid-Ask Spread: A Seven Country

Comparison,” Economic Inquiry, 26, pp. 485-492

Bossaerts, P. and Hillion, P., (1991), “Market Microstructure Effects of Government

Intervention in the Foreign Exchange Market,” Review of Financial Studies, 4,

pp. 513-541

Copeland, T. and Galai, D. (1983), “Information Effects on the Bid-Ask Spread,”

58

Journal of Finance, 38, pp. 1457-1469

Demsetz, H (1968), “The Cost of Transacting”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 82,

pp. 33-53

Evans, M. and Lyons, R. (2007), “Exchange Rate Fundamentals and Order Flow,”

NBER Working Papers 13151, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

Fieleke, N.S., (1975), “Exchange Rate Flexibility and the Efficiency of Foreign

Exchange Markets,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 10, pp.

409-428

Glassman, D.A., (1987), “Exchange Rate Risks and Transaction Costs: Evidence

from Bid-Ask Spreads,” Journal of International Money and Finance, 6, pp.

479-490

Glosten, L.R. and Milgrom, P.R. (1985), “Bid, Ask and Transaction Prices in a

Specialist Market with Heterogeneously Informed Traders,” Journal of

Financial Economics, 14, pp. 71-100

Goodhart, C.A.E., and Figliuoli, L., (1991), “Every Minute Counts in Financial

Markets,” Journal of International Money and Finance, 10, pp. 23-52

Goodhart, C.A.E., (1990), “News and the Foreign Exchange market,” FMG

Discussion Papers dp71, Financial Markets Group

Green, R., Hollified, B. and Schurhoff, N. (2005), “Financial Intermediation And

The Costs Of Trading In An Opaque Market,” FAME Research Paper Series

rp130, International Center for Financial Asset Management and Engineering

Hasbrouck, J. and Sofianos, G.. (1993), “The Trades Of Market Makers: An

Empirical Analysis Of NYSE Specialists,” Journal of Finance, 48, pp.

1565-1593.

Ho, T. and Stoll, H. (1981), “Optimal Dealer Pricing under Transactions and Return

Uncertainty,” Journal of Financial Economics, 9, pp. 757-84

Leach, C.J., and Madhavan, A.N., (1992), “Intertemporal Price Discovery By

Market Makers: Active Versus Passive Learning,” Journal of Financial

Intermediation, 2, pp. 207-235

Leach, C.J., and Madhavan, A.N., (1993), “Price Experimentation And Security

Market Structure”, Review of Financial Studies, 6, pp. 375-404

59

Lo, A.W. and Mackinlay, A.C., (1990), “An Econometric Analysis of

Non-Synchronous Trading,” Journal of Econometrics, 45, pp. 181-210

Lo, A.W., and MacKinlay, A.C., (1992), “An Ordered Probit Analysis of

Transaction Stock Prices,” Journal of Financial Economics, 31, pp. 319-379

Lyons, R. (1995), “Tests of Microstructural Hypotheses in the Foreign Exchange

Market”, Journal of Financial Economics, 39, pp. 321-351

Lyons, R. (2001) The Microstructure Approach to Exchange Rates, The MIT Press,

Cambridge, MA

Melvin, M. and Tan, K.H., (1996), “Foreign Exchange Market Bid-Ask Spreads and

the Market Price of Social Unrest,” Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford

University Press, 48(2), pp. 329-41

Monetary Authority of Singapore Annual Report 2005/2006

Monetary Authority of Singapore Annual Report 2008/2009

Naik, N.Y., Neuberger, A. and Viswanathan, S., (1999), “Trade Disclosure

Regulation In Markets With Negotiated Trades,” Review of Financial Studies,

12, pp. 873-900

Nelson, D.B., (1990), “ARCH Models as Diffusion Approximations,” Journal of

Econometrics, 45, pp. 7-38

Nelson, D.B., (1992), “Filtering and Forecasting with Misspecified ARCH Models I:

Getting the Right Variance with the Wrong Model,” Journal of Econometrics,

52, pp. 61-90

Osler, C., Mende, A. and Menkhoff, L. (2006), “Price Discovery in Currency

Markets,” Diskussionspapiere der Wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Fakultät der

Universität Hannover dp-351, Universität Hannover,

Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät.

Overturf, S.F., (1982), “Risk, Transaction Charges, and the Market for Foreign

Exchange Services,” Economic Inquiry, 20, pp. 291-302

Payne, R. (2003), “Informed Trade In Spot Foreign Exchange Markets: An

Empirical Investigation,” Journal of International Economics, 61, pp. 307-329

Sarno, L. and Taylor M. (2002) The Exconomics of Exchange Rates Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, UK

60

Appendix 1 – EViews Results

A.1.1 Dataset 1: USD-DEM April 1989 to June 1989:

A.1.1.1 MA(1)-GARCH(1,1) Results:

Dependent Variable: 10000*DLOG(ASK)

Method: ML - ARCH (Marquardt) - Normal distribution

Sample (adjusted): 2 304131

Included observations: 304130 after adjustments

Convergence achieved after 86 iterations

MA Backcast: 1

Presample variance: backcast (parameter = 0.7)

GARCH = C(3) + C(4)*RESID(-1)^2 + C(5)*GARCH(-1)

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

C 0.007732 0.001186 6.518723 0

MA(1) -0.586985 0.00129 -455.0911 0

Variance Equation

C 0.04555 0.000523 87.1623 0

RESID(-1)^2 0.055817 0.00029 192.773 0

GARCH(-1) 0.934608 0.000278 3358.51 0

R-squared 0.237055 Mean dependent var 0.00087

Adjusted R-squared 0.237053 S.D. dependent var 2.379553

S.E. of regression 2.078464 Akaike info criterion 4.102756

Sum squared resid 1313837 Schwarz criterion 4.102931

Log likelihood -623880.6 Hannan-Quinn criter. 4.102807

Durbin-Watson stat 1.942352

Inverted MA Roots 0.59

61

A.1.1.2 Ordered Probit Results: 4 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 304131

Included observations: 304130 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 4

Convergence achieved after 4 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR 0.021372 0.000289 73.96036 0

AJ(-1) 0.311626 0.002302 135.3568 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(3) 0.190472 0.005775 32.98297 0

LIMIT_3:C(4) 0.557843 0.005798 96.21363 0

LIMIT_4:C(5) 2.633627 0.007509 350.7163 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.041442 Akaike info criterion 2.077312

Schwarz criterion 2.077487 Log likelihood -315881.5

Hannan-Quinn criter. 2.077363 Restr. log likelihood -329538.1

LR statistic 27313.29 Avg. log likelihood -1.03864

Prob(LR statistic) 0

62

A.1.1.3 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 304131

Included observations: 304130 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 4

Failure to improve Likelihood after 12 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR 0.014821 0.000288 51.46485 0

AJ(-1) 0.038314 0.002355 16.26616 0

10000*DLOG(ASK) 0.096973 0.000986 98.34188 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(4) -0.569596 0.005843 -97.47589 0

LIMIT_3:C(5) -0.204094 0.005933 -34.39776 0

LIMIT_4:C(6) 1.828335 0.007386 247.5462 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.041202 Akaike info criterion 2.077839

Schwarz criterion 2.078049 Log likelihood -315960.6

Hannan-Quinn criter. 2.0779 Restr. log likelihood -329538.1

LR statistic 27155.04 Avg. log likelihood -1.0389

Prob(LR statistic) 0

63

A.1.1.4 Ordered Probit Results: 10 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 308749

Included observations: 307943 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 10

Convergence achieved after 7 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR 0.034469 0.000382 90.17413 0

AJ(-1) 0.112367 0.000917 122.5758 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(3) -2.206482 0.01721 -128.2094 0

LIMIT_3:C(4) -1.756869 0.010998 -159.7475 0

LIMIT_4:C(5) -1.538779 0.00944 -162.9984 0

LIMIT_5:C(6) 0.322974 0.006894 46.85067 0

LIMIT_6:C(7) 0.329696 0.006894 47.8258 0

LIMIT_7:C(8) 0.666276 0.006924 96.2254 0

LIMIT_8:C(9) 0.693844 0.006929 100.1396 0

LIMIT_9:C(10) 0.694678 0.006929 100.2579 0

LIMIT_10:C(11) 2.788901 0.008505 327.928 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.037526 Akaike info criterion 2.258734

Schwarz criterion 2.259114 Log likelihood -347769.7

Hannan-Quinn criter. 2.258844 Restr. log likelihood -361329

LR statistic 27118.64 Avg. log likelihood -1.129331

Prob(LR statistic) 0

64

A.1.1.5 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 308749

Included observations: 307943 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 10

Failure to improve Likelihood after 9 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR 0.020522 0.00038 54.02521 0

AJ(-1) 0.004221 0.000938 4.501637 0

10000*DLOG(ASK) 0.096148 0.00091 105.6836 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(4) -3.04669 0.017039 -178.812 0

LIMIT_3:C(5) -2.605993 0.011008 -236.7287 0

LIMIT_4:C(6) -2.393098 0.00953 -251.1147 0

LIMIT_5:C(7) -0.605194 0.006997 -86.49427 0

LIMIT_6:C(8) -0.598756 0.006998 -85.56097 0

LIMIT_7:C(9) -0.277872 0.007077 -39.26293 0

LIMIT_8:C(10) -0.251959 0.007086 -35.55753 0

LIMIT_9:C(11) -0.251127 0.007086 -35.43857 0

LIMIT_10:C(12) 1.820135 0.008402 216.6283 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.034829 Akaike info criterion 2.26507

Schwarz criterion 2.265485 Log likelihood -348744.3

Hannan-Quinn criter. 2.26519 Restr. log likelihood -361329

LR statistic 25169.41 Avg. log likelihood -1.132496

Prob(LR statistic) 0

65

A.1.1.6 Ordered Logit Results: 4 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 304131

Included observations: 304130 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 4

Convergence achieved after 4 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR 0.129908 0.001266 102.6436 0

AJ(-1) 0.432993 0.003998 108.2955 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(3) 0.483887 0.009847 49.14077 0

LIMIT_3:C(4) 1.100335 0.009948 110.6037 0

LIMIT_4:C(5) 4.89648 0.014927 328.0225 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.051821 Akaike info criterion 2.05482

Schwarz criterion 2.054994 Log likelihood -312461.1

Hannan-Quinn criter. 2.05487 Restr. log likelihood -329538.1

LR statistic 34153.96 Avg. log likelihood -1.027393

Prob(LR statistic) 0

66

A.1.1.7 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 3 304131

Included observations: 304128 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 4

Convergence achieved after 5 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR 0.131878 0.001297 101.683 0

AJ(-1) 0.673158 0.004354 154.6104 0

10000*DLOG(ASK) 0.320523 0.001841 174.0656 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(4) 0.955897 0.010468 91.31565 0

LIMIT_3:C(5) 1.626336 0.010676 152.3301 0

LIMIT_4:C(6) 5.78533 0.016938 341.5674 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.102908 Akaike info criterion 1.944117

Schwarz criterion 1.944327 Log likelihood -295624.3

Hannan-Quinn criter. 1.944178 Restr. log likelihood -329536.2

LR statistic 67823.94 Avg. log likelihood -0.972039

Prob(LR statistic) 0

67

A.1.1.8 Ordered Logit Results: 10 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 308749

Included observations: 307943 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 10

Convergence achieved after 7 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR 0.155742 0.001351 115.2591 0

AJ(-1) 0.159926 0.001594 100.3382 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(3) -5.137085 0.053891 -95.32363 0

LIMIT_3:C(4) -3.762068 0.028652 -131.3013 0

LIMIT_4:C(5) -3.158783 0.022402 -141.0075 0

LIMIT_5:C(6) 0.717831 0.011771 60.98525 0

LIMIT_6:C(7) 0.729267 0.011771 61.95536 0

LIMIT_7:C(8) 1.29396 0.011879 108.9279 0

LIMIT_8:C(9) 1.339747 0.011894 112.6399 0

LIMIT_9:C(10) 1.341132 0.011895 112.7518 0

LIMIT_10:C(11) 5.194799 0.016561 313.6803 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.04758 Akaike info criterion 2.23514

Schwarz criterion 2.23552 Log likelihood -344136.9

Hannan-Quinn criter. 2.23525 Restr. log likelihood -361329

LR statistic 34384.2 Avg. log likelihood -1.117534

Prob(LR statistic) 0

68

A.1.1.9 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 308749

Included observations: 307943 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 10

Convergence achieved after 7 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR 0.15917 0.001399 113.7732 0

AJ(-1) 0.253184 0.00173 146.3672 0

10000*DLOG(ASK) 0.318154 0.001836 173.2477 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(4) -4.663842 0.053994 -86.37753 0

LIMIT_3:C(5) -3.286633 0.028848 -113.9311 0

LIMIT_4:C(6) -2.681408 0.022654 -118.3644 0

LIMIT_5:C(7) 1.308867 0.012554 104.2614 0

LIMIT_6:C(8) 1.321246 0.012556 105.2298 0

LIMIT_7:C(9) 1.93451 0.012762 151.5792 0

LIMIT_8:C(10) 1.984385 0.012786 155.2056 0

LIMIT_9:C(11) 1.985893 0.012786 155.3148 0

LIMIT_10:C(12) 6.194035 0.018747 330.3986 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.093349 Akaike info criterion 2.127739

Schwarz criterion 2.128154 Log likelihood -327599.2

Hannan-Quinn criter. 2.127859 Restr. log likelihood -361329

LR statistic 67459.66 Avg. log likelihood -1.063831

Prob(LR statistic) 0

69

A.1.2 Dataset 2: USD-USD April 1989 to June 1989:

A.1.2.1 MA(1)-GARCH(1,1) Results:

Dependent Variable: 10000*DLOG(ASK)

Method: ML - ARCH

Sample (adjusted): 2 8445

Included observations: 8444 after adjustments

Convergence achieved after 37 iterations

MA Backcast: 1

Presample variance: backcast (parameter = 0.7)

GARCH = C(3) + C(4)*RESID(-1)^2 + C(5)*GARCH(-1)

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

C 0.045205 0.013771 3.282516 0.001

MA(1) -0.3281 0.011435 -28.693 0

Variance Equation

C 0.683349 0.025552 26.7437 0

RESID(-1)^2 0.265029 0.008055 32.9008 0

GARCH(-1) 0.653991 0.007513 87.05354 0

R-squared 0.046483 Mean dependent var 0.001809

Adjusted R-squared 0.04637 S.D. dependent var 2.611027

S.E. of regression 2.549771 Akaike info criterion 4.444882

Sum squared resid 54884.24 Schwarz criterion 4.449051

Log likelihood -18761.29 Hannan-Quinn criter. 4.446305

Durbin-Watson stat 1.819609

Inverted MA Roots 0.33

70

A.1.2.2 Ordered Probit Results: 4 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 8445

Included observations: 8444 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 4

Convergence achieved after 5 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCH01 0.009127 0.000855 10.67187 0

AJ(-1) 0.942999 0.042231 22.3298 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(3) 0.61897 0.123303 5.019921 0

LIMIT_3:C(4) 1.002232 0.121611 8.241273 0

LIMIT_4:C(5) 4.898957 0.134626 36.38941 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.115395 Akaike info criterion 0.581462

Schwarz criterion 0.585632 Log likelihood -2449.933

Hannan-Quinn criter. 0.582885 Restr. log likelihood -2769.524

LR statistic 639.1806 Avg. log likelihood -0.290139

Prob(LR statistic) 0

71

A.1.2.3 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 8445

Included observations: 8444 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 4

Convergence achieved after 5 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR 0.00933 0.000852 10.94538 0

AJ(-1) 1.008975 0.043056 23.43378 0

10000*DLOG(ASK) 0.08268 0.006736 12.27428 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(4) 0.775747 0.125149 6.198581 0

LIMIT_3:C(5) 1.166192 0.12345 9.446642 0

LIMIT_4:C(6) 5.148438 0.138288 37.22976 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.142475 Akaike info criterion 0.563936

Schwarz criterion 0.568939 Log likelihood -2374.936

Hannan-Quinn criter. 0.565644 Restr. log likelihood -2769.524

LR statistic 789.1746 Avg. log likelihood -0.281257

Prob(LR statistic) 0

72

A.1.2.4 Ordered Probit Results: 10 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 8445

Included observations: 8444 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 10

Convergence achieved after 7 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR 0.010588 0.000829 12.7664 0

AJ(-1) 0.293255 0.018241 16.07658 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(3) -1.046148 0.251299 -4.162967 0

LIMIT_3:C(4) -0.925167 0.225398 -4.104586 0

LIMIT_4:C(5) -0.71307 0.195539 -3.646689 0.0003

LIMIT_5:C(6) 0.463308 0.159031 2.91332 0.0036

LIMIT_6:C(7) 0.525466 0.158821 3.308537 0.0009

LIMIT_7:C(8) 0.77686 0.158252 4.908998 0

LIMIT_8:C(9) 0.837742 0.158161 5.296765 0

LIMIT_9:C(10) 0.843638 0.158153 5.334317 0

LIMIT_10:C(11) 4.644992 0.167892 27.66655 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.069425 Akaike info criterion 0.65859

Schwarz criterion 0.667763 Log likelihood -2769.568

Hannan-Quinn criter. 0.661721 Restr. log likelihood -2976.191

LR statistic 413.2452 Avg. log likelihood -0.327992

Prob(LR statistic) 0

73

A.1.2.5 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 8445

Included observations: 8444 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 10

Convergence achieved after 7 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR 0.010826 0.000828 13.08258 0

AJ(-1) 0.313473 0.018435 17.00409 0

10000*DLOG(ASK) 0.074509 0.006572 11.33749 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(4) -0.920766 0.2527 -3.643716 0.0003

LIMIT_3:C(5) -0.799597 0.226892 -3.524124 0.0004

LIMIT_4:C(6) -0.586622 0.197098 -2.976292 0.0029

LIMIT_5:C(7) 0.609972 0.160333 3.804416 0.0001

LIMIT_6:C(8) 0.673407 0.160125 4.205514 0

LIMIT_7:C(9) 0.92919 0.159566 5.823252 0

LIMIT_8:C(10) 0.991005 0.159477 6.214104 0

LIMIT_9:C(11) 0.996988 0.159469 6.251929 0

LIMIT_10:C(12) 4.866967 0.170386 28.56432 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.09087 Akaike info criterion 0.64371

Schwarz criterion 0.653717 Log likelihood -2705.745

Hannan-Quinn criter. 0.647126 Restr. log likelihood -2976.191

LR statistic 540.8901 Avg. log likelihood -0.320434

Prob(LR statistic) 0

74

A.1.2.6 Ordered Logit Results: 4 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 8445

Included observations: 8444 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 4

Convergence achieved after 7 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR 0.023145 0.002506 9.234157 0

AJ(-1) 1.816022 0.078415 23.15919 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(3) 1.151811 0.221143 5.208446 0

LIMIT_3:C(4) 2.052707 0.215518 9.524505 0

LIMIT_4:C(5) 9.285628 0.252771 36.73541 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.11296 Akaike info criterion 0.583059

Schwarz criterion 0.587229 Log likelihood -2456.677

Hannan-Quinn criter. 0.584483 Restr. log likelihood -2769.524

LR statistic 625.6929 Avg. log likelihood -0.290938

Prob(LR statistic) 0

75

A.1.2.7 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 8445

Included observations: 8444 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 4

Convergence achieved after 8 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR 0.023498 0.002679 8.772378 0

AJ(-1) 1.937969 0.080338 24.12276 0

10000*DLOG(ASK) 0.179594 0.014658 12.25201 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(4) 1.431605 0.224685 6.371611 0

LIMIT_3:C(5) 2.341427 0.219477 10.66822 0

LIMIT_4:C(6) 9.770045 0.261472 37.36562 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.139367 Akaike info criterion 0.565974

Schwarz criterion 0.570977 Log likelihood -2383.542

Hannan-Quinn criter. 0.567682 Restr. log likelihood -2769.524

LR statistic 771.9628 Avg. log likelihood -0.282276

Prob(LR statistic) 0

76

A.1.2.8 Ordered Logit Results: 10 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 8445

Included observations: 8444 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 10

Convergence achieved after 6 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR 0.030535 0.00282 10.82827 0

AJ(-1) 0.563651 0.033692 16.72951 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(3) -3.399721 0.756259 -4.495444 0

LIMIT_3:C(4) -2.993661 0.63663 -4.702359 0

LIMIT_4:C(5) -2.298438 0.488651 -4.703637 0

LIMIT_5:C(6) 0.926596 0.286528 3.233876 0.0012

LIMIT_6:C(7) 1.076884 0.285436 3.77277 0.0002

LIMIT_7:C(8) 1.66173 0.282811 5.875773 0

LIMIT_8:C(9) 1.797737 0.282485 6.364009 0

LIMIT_9:C(10) 1.810792 0.282458 6.41083 0

LIMIT_10:C(11) 8.845043 0.310773 28.46145 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.068507 Akaike info criterion 0.659237

Schwarz criterion 0.66841 Log likelihood -2772.3

Hannan-Quinn criter. 0.662368 Restr. log likelihood -2976.191

LR statistic 407.7821 Avg. log likelihood -0.328316

Prob(LR statistic) 0

77

A.1.2.9 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 8445

Included observations: 8444 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 10

Convergence achieved after 8 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR 0.031698 0.002984 10.62409 0

AJ(-1) 0.605872 0.03419 17.72067 0

10000*DLOG(ASK) 0.167709 0.014728 11.38731 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(4) -3.108606 0.756454 -4.109446 0

LIMIT_3:C(5) -2.702375 0.63687 -4.243211 0

LIMIT_4:C(6) -2.004677 0.48917 -4.098116 0

LIMIT_5:C(7) 1.236004 0.289368 4.271391 0

LIMIT_6:C(8) 1.387414 0.288368 4.811259 0

LIMIT_7:C(9) 1.976024 0.286018 6.908731 0

LIMIT_8:C(10) 2.112879 0.285744 7.394317 0

LIMIT_9:C(11) 2.126018 0.285722 7.440867 0

LIMIT_10:C(12) 9.336144 0.318108 29.349 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.09058 Akaike info criterion 0.643914

Schwarz criterion 0.653921 Log likelihood -2706.607

Hannan-Quinn criter. 0.64733 Restr. log likelihood -2976.191

LR statistic 539.1676 Avg. log likelihood -0.320536

Prob(LR statistic) 0

78

A.1.3 Dataset 3: USD-USD April 2006 to May 2006:

A.1.3.1 MA(1)-GARCH(1,1) Results:

Dependent Variable: 10000*DLOG(ASK)

Method: ML - ARCH (Marquardt) - Normal distribution

Sample (adjusted): 2 551356

Included observations: 551355 after adjustments

Convergence achieved after 14 iterations

MA Backcast: 1

Presample variance: backcast (parameter = 0.7)

GARCH = C(3) + C(4)*RESID(-1)^2 + C(5)*GARCH(-1)

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

C 0.002535 0.000358 7.075531 0

MA(1) -0.781719 0.000858 -911.204 0

Variance Equation

C 0.057826 0.000813 71.15628 0

RESID(-1)^2 0.063219 0.000558 113.2785 0

GARCH(-1) 0.902484 0.000889 1015.04 0

R-squared 0.372225 Mean dependent var -0.000425

Adjusted R-squared 0.372224 S.D. dependent var 1.657286

S.E. of regression 1.313106 Akaike info criterion 3.302185

Sum squared resid 950669.3 Schwarz criterion 3.302287

Log likelihood -910333.2 Hannan-Quinn criter. 3.302214

Durbin-Watson stat 1.97678

Inverted MA Roots 0.78

79

A.1.3.2 Ordered Probit Results: 4 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 551356

Included observations: 551355 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 4

Convergence achieved after 4 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR 0.046421 0.001588 29.24124 0

AJ(-1) -0.130554 0.001879 -69.46221 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(3) -0.267391 0.004557 -58.67524 0

LIMIT_3:C(4) 0.497267 0.004577 108.652 0

LIMIT_4:C(5) 3.624999 0.036661 98.87791 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.00466 Akaike info criterion 2.122714

Schwarz criterion 2.122815 Log likelihood -585179.4

Hannan-Quinn criter. 2.122742 Restr. log likelihood -587919.3

LR statistic 5479.851 Avg. log likelihood -1.061348

Prob(LR statistic) 0

80

A.1.3.3 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 551356

Included observations: 551355 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 4

Convergence achieved after 6 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR 0.032475 0.001698 19.12882 0

AJ(-1) 0.520271 0.002468 210.7702 0

10000*DLOG(ASK) 0.624067 0.001388 449.5486 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(4) 0.803072 0.005446 147.4683 0

LIMIT_3:C(5) 1.84724 0.00582 317.4066 0

LIMIT_4:C(6) 6.264271 0.051481 121.682 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.202812 Akaike info criterion 1.700133

Schwarz criterion 1.700255 Log likelihood -468682.4

Hannan-Quinn criter. 1.700167 Restr. log likelihood -587919.3

LR statistic 238473.8 Avg. log likelihood -0.850056

Prob(LR statistic) 0

81

A.1.3.4 Ordered Probit Results: 10 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 551356

Included observations: 530382 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 10

Convergence achieved after 5 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR 0.029623 0.001543 19.20169 0

AJ(-1) -0.040361 0.000655 -61.5938 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(3) -2.770052 0.008137 -340.4275 0

LIMIT_3:C(4) -2.123895 0.005776 -367.693 0

LIMIT_4:C(5) -1.541017 0.005154 -299.0033 0

LIMIT_5:C(6) -0.292156 0.004841 -60.34619 0

LIMIT_6:C(7) -0.076775 0.004831 -15.89255 0

LIMIT_7:C(8) 0.218854 0.004827 45.33503 0

LIMIT_8:C(9) 0.463249 0.00484 95.70278 0

LIMIT_9:C(10) 0.472672 0.004841 97.63469 0

LIMIT_10:C(11) 3.593189 0.037289 96.36043 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.00228 Akaike info criterion 3.351617

Schwarz criterion 3.351849 Log likelihood -888807.6

Hannan-Quinn criter. 3.351682 Restr. log likelihood -890838.9

LR statistic 4062.696 Avg. log likelihood -1.675788

Prob(LR statistic) 0

82

A.1.3.5 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 551356

Included observations: 530382 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 10

Failure to improve Likelihood after 17 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR -0.035043 0.001544 -22.69168 0

AJ(-1) 0.01852 0.000821 22.56212 0

10000*DLOG(ASK) 0.365238 0.001223 298.6273 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(4) -2.768453 0.008501 -325.6782 0

LIMIT_3:C(5) -2.089688 0.006173 -338.5115 0

LIMIT_4:C(6) -1.484632 0.00565 -262.7437 0

LIMIT_5:C(7) -0.148442 0.005549 -26.74997 0

LIMIT_6:C(8) 0.084178 0.005598 15.03649 0

LIMIT_7:C(9) 0.395925 0.005688 69.60886 0

LIMIT_8:C(10) 0.648621 0.005789 112.0419 0

LIMIT_9:C(11) 0.659757 0.005795 113.8488 0

LIMIT_10:C(12) 4.041679 0.025918 155.9393 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.101511 Akaike info criterion 3.018282

Schwarz criterion 3.018535 Log likelihood -800409.1

Hannan-Quinn criter. 3.018353 Restr. log likelihood -890838.9

LR statistic 180859.6 Avg. log likelihood -1.509118

Prob(LR statistic) 0

83

A.1.3.6 Ordered Logit Results: 4 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 551356

Included observations: 551355 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 4

Convergence achieved after 4 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR 0.080152 0.00277 28.93061 0

AJ(-1) -0.204018 0.003055 -66.79117 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(3) -0.41091 0.007581 -54.20336 0

LIMIT_3:C(4) 0.830244 0.007658 108.4198 0

LIMIT_4:C(5) 9.135262 0.144521 63.21045 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.004388 Akaike info criterion 2.123295

Schwarz criterion 2.123397 Log likelihood -585339.7

Hannan-Quinn criter. 2.123324 Restr. log likelihood -587919.3

LR statistic 5159.321 Avg. log likelihood -1.061638

Prob(LR statistic) 0

84

A.1.3.7 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 551356

Included observations: 551355 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 4

Convergence achieved after 6 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR 0.048475 0.003264 14.85304 0

AJ(-1) 1.053246 0.004586 229.6602 0

10000*DLOG(ASK) 1.215211 0.002966 409.7483 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(4) 1.600267 0.009958 160.7016 0

LIMIT_3:C(5) 3.453473 0.011048 312.5789 0

LIMIT_4:C(6) 13.6294 0.167398 81.41909 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.216154 Akaike info criterion 1.671678

Schwarz criterion 1.671801 Log likelihood -460838.1

Hannan-Quinn criter. 1.671713 Restr. log likelihood -587919.3

LR statistic 254162.3 Avg. log likelihood -0.835828

Prob(LR statistic) 0

85

A.1.3.8 Ordered Logit Results: 10 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 551356

Included observations: 530382 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 10

Convergence achieved after 5 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR 0.059869 0.002706 22.12459 0

AJ(-1) -0.07549 0.001114 -67.78632 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(3) -5.681481 0.021378 -265.7677 0

LIMIT_3:C(4) -3.965107 0.011679 -339.4939 0

LIMIT_4:C(5) -2.690845 0.009268 -290.3316 0

LIMIT_5:C(6) -0.512979 0.008257 -62.12349 0

LIMIT_6:C(7) -0.168038 0.008229 -20.41918 0

LIMIT_7:C(8) 0.3095 0.008227 37.61812 0

LIMIT_8:C(9) 0.714603 0.008278 86.32978 0

LIMIT_9:C(10) 0.73051 0.008281 88.22038 0

LIMIT_10:C(11) 9.036028 0.147643 61.20197 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.0028 Akaike info criterion 3.34987

Schwarz criterion 3.350102 Log likelihood -888344.5

Hannan-Quinn criter. 3.349936 Restr. log likelihood -890838.9

LR statistic 4988.841 Avg. log likelihood -1.674915

Prob(LR statistic) 0

86

A.1.3.9 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 551356

Included observations: 530382 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 10

Convergence achieved after 6 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR 0.067262 0.003175 21.18593 0

AJ(-1) 0.402995 0.0016 251.9007 0

10000*DLOG(ASK) 1.189108 0.002737 434.4841 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(4) -3.894364 0.022026 -176.8036 0

LIMIT_3:C(5) -2.114505 0.012808 -165.0968 0

LIMIT_4:C(6) -0.7165 0.010767 -66.54475 0

LIMIT_5:C(7) 2.04924 0.010738 190.8341 0

LIMIT_6:C(8) 2.528082 0.010914 231.6353 0

LIMIT_7:C(9) 3.225475 0.011271 286.1774 0

LIMIT_8:C(10) 3.846774 0.011692 329.0122 0

LIMIT_9:C(11) 3.872262 0.011712 330.6322 0

LIMIT_10:C(12) 13.94908 0.170499 81.81305 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.146499 Akaike info criterion 2.867156

Schwarz criterion 2.867409 Log likelihood -760331.9

Hannan-Quinn criter. 2.867227 Restr. log likelihood -890838.9

LR statistic 261014.1 Avg. log likelihood -1.433555

Prob(LR statistic) 0

87

A.1.4 Dataset 4: USD-USD April 2009 to May 2009:

A.1.4.1 MA(1)-GARCH(1,1) Results:

Dependent Variable: 10000*DLOG(ASK)

Method: ML - ARCH

Sample (adjusted): 2 1006737

Included observations: 1006736 after adjustments

Convergence achieved after 21 iterations

MA Backcast: 1

Presample variance: backcast (parameter = 0.7)

GARCH = C(3) + C(4)*RESID(-1)^2 + C(5)*GARCH(-1)

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

C 0.002329 0.000251 9.274136 0

MA(1) -0.78024 0.000611 -1276.001 0

Variance Equation

C 0.045284 0.000225 201.6421 0

RESID(-1)^2 0.051345 0.00021 244.0686 0

GARCH(-1) 0.919658 0.000263 3502.001 0

R-squared 0.36927 Mean dependent var -0.000386

Adjusted R-squared 0.369269 S.D. dependent var 1.602816

S.E. of regression 1.272934 Akaike info criterion 3.196957

Sum squared resid 1631271 Schwarz criterion 3.197016

Log likelihood -1609241 Hannan-Quinn criter. 3.196973

Durbin-Watson stat 1.970126

Inverted MA Roots 0.78

88

A.1.4.2 Ordered Probit Results: 4 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 1006737

Included observations: 1006736 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 4

Convergence achieved after 3 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR 0.098754 0.000867 113.8863 0

AJ(-1) 0.262245 0.00148 177.1729 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(3) 0.300383 0.003019 99.50314 0

LIMIT_3:C(4) 1.797373 0.003373 532.8891 0

LIMIT_4:C(5) 2.392075 0.003801 629.366 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.024794 Akaike info criterion 2.069774

Schwarz criterion 2.069833 Log likelihood -1041853

Hannan-Quinn criter. 2.069791 Restr. log likelihood -1068342

LR statistic 52977.45 Avg. log likelihood -1.034882

Prob(LR statistic) 0

89

A.1.4.3 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 1006737

Included observations: 1006736 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 4

Convergence achieved after 12 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR 0.040619 0.000907 44.7718 0

AJ(-1) 0.260624 0.001785 146.0215 0

10000*DLOG(ASK) 0.415817 0.00095 437.6876 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(4) 0.072632 0.003441 21.10602 0

LIMIT_3:C(5) 1.741812 0.004059 429.1621 0

LIMIT_4:C(6) 2.420409 0.004675 517.7516 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.176356 Akaike info criterion 1.748103

Schwarz criterion 1.748173 Log likelihood -879933.1

Hannan-Quinn criter. 1.748122 Restr. log likelihood -1068342

LR statistic 376817.7 Avg. log likelihood -0.874046

Prob(LR statistic) 0

90

A.1.4.4 Ordered Probit Results: 10 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 1006737

Included observations: 1006736 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 10

Convergence achieved after 4 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR 0.096416 0.000823 117.0911 0

AJ(-1) 0.088372 0.000415 212.8967 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(3) -1.466867 0.003573 -410.4852 0

LIMIT_3:C(4) -0.169471 0.002717 -62.38151 0

LIMIT_4:C(5) 0.142757 0.00271 52.67088 0

LIMIT_5:C(6) 0.32063 0.002718 117.9753 0

LIMIT_6:C(7) 0.463947 0.002729 170.0266 0

LIMIT_7:C(8) 0.855945 0.002774 308.5626 0

LIMIT_8:C(9) 1.630826 0.002965 549.9868 0

LIMIT_9:C(10) 1.799457 0.003034 593.0574 0

LIMIT_10:C(11) 2.394888 0.003495 685.2099 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.016257 Akaike info criterion 4.058805

Schwarz criterion 4.058934 Log likelihood -2043062

Hannan-Quinn criter. 4.05884 Restr. log likelihood -2076824

LR statistic 67525.47 Avg. log likelihood -2.029392

Prob(LR statistic) 0

91

A.1.4.5 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 1006737

Included observations: 1006736 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 10

Convergence achieved after 9 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR -0.003187 0.000829 -3.843887 0.0001

AJ(-1) 0.094896 0.000502 188.9157 0

10000*DLOG(ASK) 0.399614 0.000853 468.5108 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(4) -1.889585 0.00377 -501.2568 0

LIMIT_3:C(5) -0.540899 0.002964 -182.4773 0

LIMIT_4:C(6) -0.211211 0.003013 -70.09902 0

LIMIT_5:C(7) -0.014555 0.003062 -4.753915 0

LIMIT_6:C(8) 0.153294 0.003113 49.24206 0

LIMIT_7:C(9) 0.615502 0.003255 189.0877 0

LIMIT_8:C(10) 1.481455 0.003579 413.8783 0

LIMIT_9:C(11) 1.676514 0.003697 453.4845 0

LIMIT_10:C(12) 2.40264 0.004378 548.8559 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.096012 Akaike info criterion 3.729748

Schwarz criterion 3.729889 Log likelihood -1877424

Hannan-Quinn criter. 3.729787 Restr. log likelihood -2076824

LR statistic 398801.1 Avg. log likelihood -1.864862

Prob(LR statistic) 0

92

A.1.4.6 Ordered Logit Results: 4 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 1006737

Included observations: 1006736 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 4

Convergence achieved after 4 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR 0.214626 0.001959 109.574 0

AJ(-1) 0.43948 0.002593 169.4684 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(3) 0.593662 0.00533 111.3912 0

LIMIT_3:C(4) 3.114943 0.006332 491.9238 0

LIMIT_4:C(5) 4.301442 0.007555 569.3761 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.024601 Akaike info criterion 2.070184

Schwarz criterion 2.070243 Log likelihood -1042059

Hannan-Quinn criter. 2.0702 Restr. log likelihood -1068342

LR statistic 52565.01 Avg. log likelihood -1.035087

Prob(LR statistic) 0

93

A.1.4.7 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 1006737

Included observations: 1006736 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 4

Convergence achieved after 5 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR 0.222491 0.002315 96.11273 0

AJ(-1) 1.964362 0.003971 494.6543 0

10000*DLOG(ASK) 1.38648 0.002369 585.1713 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(4) 2.992082 0.007366 406.2264 0

LIMIT_3:C(5) 6.796605 0.010304 659.6204 0

LIMIT_4:C(6) 8.504201 0.012206 696.7327 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.27793 Akaike info criterion 1.532523

Schwarz criterion 1.532594 Log likelihood -771417.2

Hannan-Quinn criter. 1.532543 Restr. log likelihood -1068342

LR statistic 593849.5 Avg. log likelihood -0.766256

Prob(LR statistic) 0

94

A.1.4.8 Ordered Logit Results: 10 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 1006737

Included observations: 1006736 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 10

Convergence achieved after 4 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR 0.204722 0.001844 110.9948 0

AJ(-1) 0.149279 0.000728 205.0571 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(3) -2.795295 0.007967 -350.8518 0

LIMIT_3:C(4) -0.187268 0.004866 -38.48186 0

LIMIT_4:C(5) 0.339075 0.004839 70.07788 0

LIMIT_5:C(6) 0.630813 0.004859 129.8187 0

LIMIT_6:C(7) 0.863371 0.004891 176.5268 0

LIMIT_7:C(8) 1.496184 0.005024 297.8132 0

LIMIT_8:C(9) 2.804875 0.005538 506.4991 0

LIMIT_9:C(10) 3.112486 0.005723 543.812 0

LIMIT_10:C(11) 4.297395 0.007016 612.4985 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.01601 Akaike info criterion 4.059823

Schwarz criterion 4.059952 Log likelihood -2043574

Hannan-Quinn criter. 4.059859 Restr. log likelihood -2076824

LR statistic 66500.5 Avg. log likelihood -2.029901

Prob(LR statistic) 0

95

A.1.4.9 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ

Method: ML - Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing)

Sample (adjusted): 2 1006737

Included observations: 1006736 after adjustments

Number of ordered indicator values: 10

Convergence achieved after 5 iterations

Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives

Variable Coefficient Std. Error z-Statistic Prob.

GARCHVAR 0.268841 0.002158 124.5891 0

AJ(-1) 0.575528 0.001002 574.3314 0

10000*DLOG(ASK) 1.283457 0.001961 654.4871 0

Limit Points

LIMIT_2:C(4) -1.499334 0.008444 -177.5703 0

LIMIT_3:C(5) 1.549476 0.005795 267.3935 0

LIMIT_4:C(6) 2.288018 0.005979 382.6506 0

LIMIT_5:C(7) 2.734323 0.006163 443.6451 0

LIMIT_6:C(8) 3.100859 0.006343 488.8769 0

LIMIT_7:C(9) 4.034615 0.006789 594.2899 0

LIMIT_8:C(10) 5.85286 0.007889 741.9462 0

LIMIT_9:C(11) 6.285226 0.008209 765.6376 0

LIMIT_10:C(12) 7.959922 0.010167 782.9249 0

Pseudo R-squared 0.158021 Akaike info criterion 3.473909

Schwarz criterion 3.47405 Log likelihood -1748643

Hannan-Quinn criter. 3.473948 Restr. log likelihood -2076824

LR statistic 656363.1 Avg. log likelihood -1.736943

Prob(LR statistic) 0

ANALYSIS OF SINGAPORE’S FOREIGN EXCHANGE MARKET MICROSTRUCTURE

WAN CHEE WAI

SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY 2011

Analysis of Singapore’s Foreign Exchange Market Microstructure

by Wan Chee Wai

Submitted to the School of Economics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Economics

Thesis Committee:

Tse Yiu Kuen (Supervisor/Chair) Professor of Economics Singapore Management University Hoon Hian Teck Professor of Economics Singapore Management University Anthony Tay Associate Professor of Economics Singapore Management University

Singapore Management University 2011 Copyright (2011) Wan Chee Wai

by applying and modifying the empirical methodology designed by Bollerslev and Melvin (1994). We found that for the USD/SGD: i) the size of bid-ask spreads are positively related to the underlying exchange rate volatility. . we examine the relationship between bid-ask spreads and the underlying volatility of the USD/SGD. Specifically. April-May 2006. and iii) the size of the bid-ask spreads may also be positively related to the directional movement of exchange rates.Analysis of Singapore’s Foreign Exchange Market Microstructure Wan Chee Wai Abstract This paper analyses the Singapore foreign exchange market from a microstructure approach. ii) the magnitude of the dependence on underlying volatility increases as tick volume increases. April-May 2009). Our data set comprises high-frequency USD/SGD tick data of three separate years (April-June 1989.

...1........5 3...............................2 2............75 i .1.............1 A...........3 Bid-Ask Spreads and Asymmetric Information............1..69 MA(1)-GARCH(1...................................................................2...........................44 Ordered Response Analysis ..........................1.......................1..................................................................1 A.............1.......................73 Ordered Logit Results: 4 Ordered Values ........................18 Bollerslev & Melvin’s Model of Volatility and Bid-Ask Spread .............................60 Ordered Probit Results: 4 Ordered Values.......2..............................................................................10 2......iv 1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................3 A..............62 Ordered Probit Results: 10 Ordered Values......................1.........................................................................1.....................1...................................................................1...............1..............................1............2 A...........6 Empirical Methodology ...............................................................5 A...1) Results: .........53 4 Conclusion ...........60 A..............................................................................3 A......64 Ordered Logit Results: 4 Ordered Values ...........................1 2.................1........................1..........................1.....................................60 MA(1)-GARCH(1...................................................21 3 Empirical Analysis ...........................................................1......74 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values ...............4 A......71 Ordered Probit Results: 10 Ordered Values........57 Appendix 1 – EViews Results.........................................8 A..9 2 Bid-Ask Spreads in Exchange Rates..............................2 A.............6 A.......1................................................65 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values ...............1.................................Table of Contents Table of Contents ...............9 A.55 References.................2......................1.......................................................................1..............................................................6 A......5 A......................................... 11 Bid-Ask Spreads and Volatility................1....................................47 Incorporating Returns .....................................................................................................1..................................70 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values.....1 A......27 3.............1..................................2 The Microstructure Approach to Exchange Rate Economics ................2 3.................................................1 1............................................72 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values....................................................2..........................61 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values..............69 Ordered Probit Results: 4 Ordered Values.........................................1....................................................................................28 Description of the Data...............1...........................1........................67 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values ..........................4 3..................................................2 1................................................i Acknowledgement ........2 A.........2...2..................7 Dataset 1: USD-DEM April 1989 to June 1989: ..............................4 A..........3 The Singapore Foreign Exchange Market ....................1..................................5 Organization of Thesis.........2............50 Summary............3 3..................7 A............1) Results: .......63 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values...............1 3......................................................34 GARCH Analysis ......................68 Dataset 2: USD-USD April 1989 to June 1989: .....................................66 Ordered Logit Results: 10 Ordered Values ...................1 1...

.............5 A........3..............9 A..87 MA(1)-GARCH(1......95 ii .1..................................1..........84 Ordered Logit Results: 10 Ordered Values ..................3.............3 A....9 Ordered Logit Results: 10 Ordered Values .........................................9 A..80 Ordered Probit Results: 10 Ordered Values..................................................1.....91 Ordered Logit Results: 4 Ordered Values ...8 A....3 A....8 A............................................................................78 Ordered Probit Results: 4 Ordered Values...................................4.......88 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values............................82 Ordered Logit Results: 4 Ordered Values ...........3 A.........3..........1) Results: .3......3.....7 A................................93 Ordered Logit Results: 10 Ordered Values .....1......3...........................................1................................8 A....92 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values ...................1....76 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values ..7 A...4 A.....4.......................................1...........1..............................1......................................2 A.................1......................3.............................89 Ordered Probit Results: 10 Ordered Values....1) Results: .......4...................4...........................86 Dataset 4: USD-USD April 2009 to May 2009: .................1..................2..........77 Dataset 3: USD-USD April 2006 to May 2006: ...............................5 A.........3.....4.....1......87 Ordered Probit Results: 4 Ordered Values...........1..................85 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values ...............1 A.................94 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values ................4 A.........1................78 MA(1)-GARCH(1.3.........2 A..................1.........1.......................................1..........83 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values .........79 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values....6 A.......6 A..............1................................1..........1.........81 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values.2.4...4.90 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values....1........................A.........................1 A.....4...1.....4 A.............................................4..

....52 iii .......................................................................40 Table 12: Frequency Distribution of Spreads USD-SGD April-June 2006................................51 Table 22: Ordered Logit Estimates (with Returns) for all Datasets (4 ordered values).......................50 Table 21: Ordered Probit Estimates (with Returns) for all Datasets (4 ordered values).....................45 Table 17: Ordered Probit Estimates for all Datasets (4 ordered indicator values) .43 Table 16: GARCH Estimates for all Datasets .....................................................................................................................47 Table 18: Ordered Logit Estimates for all Datasets (4 ordered indicator values)..........38 Table 9: Frequency Distribution of Spreads USD/SGD April-June 1989 .................................................................................8 Table 2: Distribution of Spreads of USD/DEM April-June 1989.39 Table 11: Frequency of No Spread Change for USD-SGD April-May 2006 ..........................................42 Table 15: Frequency Distribution of Spreads USD-SGD April-May 2009..............................39 Table 10: Volume of Quotes of USD-SGD April-May 2006...........................37 Table 8: Frequency of No Spread Change for USD/SGD April-June 1989 .............................41 Table 14: Frequency of No Spread Change for USD-SGD April-May 2009 ....................47 Table 19: Ordered Probit Estimates for all Datasets (10 ordered indicator values) .....................................................36 Table 5: Frequency of No Spread Change with Olsen USD/DEM 1989 ........................................................................35 Table 4: Frequency of No Spread Change reported by B&M USD/DEM 1989 ...........................................................List of Figures & Tables Figure 1: USD/SGD vs GDP & Quotes ..49 Table 20: Ordered Logit Estimates for all Datasets (10 ordered indicator values)....32 Table 3: Quote Volume differences between B&M and Purchased Data USD/DEM 1989 ...51 Table 23: Ordered Probit Estimates (with Returns) for all Datasets (10 ordered values)...........36 Table 6: Frequency Distribution of Spreads USD/DEM 1989 ...41 Table 13: Volume of Quotes of USD/SGD April-May 2009.............................................3 Table 1: USD/SGD April-May 2006 Spread Behavior ...........................37 Table 7: Volume of Quotes of USD/SGD April-June 1989...........52 Table 24: Ordered Logit Estimates (with Returns) for all Datasets (10 ordered values)............................

and steadfast encouragement to me during this time when I spent more time on this thesis than with her. guidance and advice to me with regards to the completion of this thesis. Lilian Seah for her tireless efforts with regards to the administrative aspects of the thesis. this paper would never have seen the light of day. patience. my academic life (the completion of this thesis!) had unfortunately taken a backseat. I would like to thank Erfei for her love. Due to challenges in my professional life (overseas posting!) and priorities in my personal life (wedding!). Lastly. Without the generous assistance of these kind professors.Acknowledgement I would like to thank Professor Tse Yiu Kuen. and for tolerating my nonsense. I also like to thank Ms. iv . I promise this will be my last part-time academic pursuit. Professor Hoon Hian Teck and Professor Anthony Tay for their patience.

and repeat the analysis on over 600. We also want to examine how relationship between the size of the bid-ask spreads and exchange rate volatility changes as the USD/SGD grows in volume and significance. and on over 1 million USD/SGD quotes from the same months in 2009. In this paper. Tim Bollerslev. an early microstructure paper in 1994.000 continuously recorded USD/DEM quotes over a 3 month period from April to June in 1989. B&M). we want to examine whether B&M’s result is applicable to a much lesser-traded currency belonging to a much smaller developing economy with a government-managed floating exchange rate regime – the USD/SGD. 1 . The volume of USD/SGD quotes from April to June in 1989 is slightly over 8.000 USD/SGD quotes from April to May 2006. and as Singapore evolves into a developed country. Their dataset consist of more than 300. and showed that the size of the bid-ask spread of is positively related to its underlying exchange rate uncertainty. We begin with a dataset of the USD/SGD in the same 3 month period as per B&M.000. performed an empirical analysis on the USD/DEM. one of the most highly-traded currency pair in 1989. Hence.1 Introduction In “Bid-Ask Spreads and Volatility in the Foreign Exchange Market – An Empirical Analysis”. and Michael Melvin (henceforth. we fast-forward 17 and 20 years into the future from 1989.

On a trade-weighted basis. specifically focusing on the bid-ask spreads of the USD/SGD. which provides flexibility for the system to accommodate short-term fluctuations in the foreign exchange markets as well as some buffer in the estimation of Singapore’s equilibrium exchange rate. the SGD has appreciated against the exchange rates of its major trading partners and competitors since 1981. we provide more background to these two underlying themes in the next two sections: 1.1 The Singapore Foreign Exchange Market The Monetary Authority of Singapore operates a float regime for the Singapore dollar that is managed against a basket of currencies of the country’s major trading partners and competitors. The trade-weighted exchange rate is allowed to fluctuate within an undisclosed policy band. But first. high productivity growth. The composition of the basket is revised periodically to take into account changes in Singapore’ trade patterns.This paper examines the Singapore foreign exchange market from a microstructure approach. The various currencies are given different weights depending on the extent of trade dependence with that particular country. and high savings rate. 2 . We also present a review of some microstructure literature in this area. reflected rapid economic development.

The following figure shows the USD/SGD, Singapore GDP, and volume of quotes over the months of April and May from 1989 to 2009.

USD/SGD vs GDP & Quotes 2.00 1.90 1.80 USD/SGD 1.70 1.60 800 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.20 1988 600 400 200 0 1993 1998 Year USD/SGD GDP Quotes 2003 2008 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 GDP S$B / Quotes ('000s)

Figure 1: USD/SGD vs GDP & Quotes1

From 1989 to 2009, as the Singapore GDP experienced a gradual growth from SGD 61 billion in 1989 to SGD 266 billion in 2009, the USD/SGD fluctuated between 1.40 and 1.90. Interestingly though, from 2002 onwards the growth of USD/SGD quote volume for April and May experienced a sharp increase from only 33,000 quotes in 2001 to 180,000 quotes in 2002. This growth would then accelerate to 1,630,000 quotes in 2009. It is as if all of a sudden the Singapore dollar started to become more widely traded than ever before. With increasing volume, the underlying exchange rate volatility would also be expected to increase. How much effect would this have on the bid-ask spreads of the USD/SGD. We examine this using data from 1989, 2006, and 2009.

1

USD/SGD and GDP figures obtained from Singapore Department of Statistics (singstat.gov.sg); Quotes volume obtained from Olsen Financial Technologies GmbH.

3

In 2006 the global economy had recorded a fourth consecutive year of strong growth despite the drag from crude oil prices, a buildup in global electronics inventories and adjustment in the US housing market. The MAS Annual Report for 2005/2006 reported that “despite higher oil prices, rising interest rates and natural disasters, the global economy expanded at a robust pace in 2005. This growth momentum continued unabated in the first quarter of 2006. The strength of the US economy was a major factor underpinning the continued growth of the world economy last year. The US economy displayed remarkable resilience against the backdrop of hurricane Katrina and 11 successive increases in the Fed funds rate from 2.25% at the beginning of 2005 to 5% in May 2006. In the first quarter of 2006, growth picked up strongly, led by a rebound in consumer spending and business investment spending on equipment and software.”

The Singapore economy was also in a state of stability, as reported by the MAS Annual Report 2005/2006: “In the early months of 2006, some signs of easing in the domestic economy emerged with growth momentum slowing to 6.8% in Q1. However, this is not indicative of a broad-based slowdown, but rather a retraction to a more sustainable pace of growth.”

In 2009 the world found itself in the midst of the worst global financial crisis ever since the Great Depression. The MAS Annual Report 2008/2009 reported that “2008 was a tumultuous year for the global economy. While the surge in

4

commodity prices led to strong inflationary pressures in the first half of the year, the onset of the global financial crisis caused world growth to fall sharply in the later part of 2008 and into early 2009. The emergence of the Influenza A (H1N1) virus in recent months has added a new dimension of risk to the fragile global economy.”

The global financial crisis, which saw the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008, caused massive economic fallout worldwide. Amidst an erosion of confidence, global trade and industrial production collapsed in the first half of 2009, resulting in a 2.4% year-on-year contraction in world GDP over the same period. During this time, the quote volume for USD/SGD (over April and May) grew to over 1.6 million quotes, suggesting the increase in volatility in the exchange rate.

1.2

The Microstructure Approach to Exchange Rate Economics

Exchange rate economics, the branch of international economics and finance which attempt to explain the foreign exchange market, is an intriguing area of research.

There are many theories of exchange rate determination, from the open economy IS-LM models that are mandatory fare for any undergraduate economics course, to more advanced models such as the Mundell-Fleming model, the

5

But foreign exchange rates can only move through a trading process in a foreign exchange market.g. tourism. and the portfolio balance model. nominal rigidities and imperfect competition. for example). import/export transactions).sticky/flexible-price monetary models. how would any macro model (even one with microfoundations) designed to determine the “new” equilibrium exchange rate be able to take into account all the possible paths taken to transit from the “old” equilibrium rate to the “new” one? Some foreign exchange transactions between the two countries might be related to shifting fundamentals (e. but others transactions may not (e. If the long-run exchange rate between two countries is expected to change due to some shifting fundamental value (say productivity level. All of them however are not able to convincingly explain short-run exchange rate fluctuations. these theories have various degrees of success in forecasting long-run exchange rates. new open-economy macroeconomists attempt for formalize exchange rate in the context of dynamic general equilibrium models with explicit microfoundations. From a common-sense perspective. More recently. Macro foreign exchange models often assume that foreign exchange rates will move when fundamentals move. this is hardly surprising. When tested against empirical evidence.g. etc). speculation in each others’ asset markets. Foreign exchange 6 .

Such data is usually hard to come by and are proprietary to banks and other high-level participants in the foreign exchange market. they tested and established four empirical results: (1) transaction flows forecast future macro variables such as output growth.microstructurists study this trading process. such as Martin D. Richard Lyons (2001) defined “Order Flow” and “Bid-Ask Spreads”. as the two hallmarks of the microstructure approach. D. and (4) the forecasted part of fundamentals is better at explaining exchange rates than standard measured fundamentals. Evans and Richard K. “The Microstructure Approach to Exchange Rates”. In their 2007 paper “Exchange Rate Fundamentals and Order Flow". Well-connected researchers. These are analogous to “Quantity” and “Price” in the dimension of exchange rates. two variables that are absent from the macro approach. Order flow is essentially transaction volume which is “signed”. and inflation. (3) transaction flows (proprietary) forecast future exchange rates. meaning it includes information if the transaction is a sale or a purchase. In his book.5 years. (2) transaction flows forecast these macro variables significantly better than the exchange rate does. Lyons managed to obtain proprietary data on all end-user EUR/USD trades received at Citibank over 6. 7 . money growth.

53% 3. such as information flow. But other than being easily obtainable. they are a ready target for testable hypotheses. spreads tended to 8 .21% 39.000 quotes over two months.60% 20. divided into nine categories of price and spread movements. and 6. the spread remained unchanged 6. Lyons highlighted that one reason spreads receive so much attention is because.05% 3. This is in contrast to other features in the trading that are not so easily measurable.85% 39.47% SPREAD DOWN 3.35% of the time when the price moved up.35% 7. Bid-Ask Spreads.Data for the other hallmark. is much easier to obtain. while B&M obtained theirs by collecting every USD/DEM quote posted on the Reuters screen for the interbank foreign exchange market for three months in 1989.73% SPREAD SAME 6. For example. the four datasets for this paper were purchased from Olsen Financial Technologies GmbH.52% 6. In fact.46% 4.81% PRICE UP PRICE SAME PRICE DOWN Total Table 1: USD/SGD April-May 2006 Spread Behavior Out of over 600. what is intriguing is that when prices move up. being a core element of most data sets. Though we may somewhat expect for spreads to move when prices move.000 USD/SGD quotes in April and May 2006. belief dispersion.42% 32.60% of time when the price moved down. on the other hand. etc. SPREAD UP 32. The behavior of bid-ask spreads in the foreign exchange markets offers many opportunities for research. Table 1 below shows the distribution of over 600.

1. and ends with a description of B&M’s model that relates volatility to bid-ask spreads.21% of the time. The main currency for analysis is the USD/SGD. spreads tended to narrow 32. Chapter 4 concludes. Spread behavior like in the previous example may differ across different currencies within the same time period.widen 32.85% of the time but yet widened only 3. For comparison against a different currency within the same time period. we also perform an empirical analysis on the phenomenon described above in Table 1. we perform this analysis for the USD/SGD from the months of April and May in 1989. and 2009. 9 . and may also differ across different time periods within the same currency. Conversely. when prices move down. 2006. but yet narrowed only 3. The empirical objective of this paper is thus to examine the relationship between the bid-ask spread and the underlying exchange rate volatility from such two angles.53% of the time.3 Organization of Thesis The rest of this paper shall be organized as follows: Chapter 2 begins with a review of microstructure papers which concerns bid-ask spreads. In addition.46% of the time. For comparison against different time periods within the same currency. Chapter 3 describes B&M’s empirical methodology and presents the empirical analyses for each dataset. we use B&M’s results for the USD/DEM.

” For the first section of this Chapter. He also gave two more reasons for the heavy attention and resources focused on bid-ask spreads. Contrastingly market microstructure focused on how trading mechanisms affected prices. Besides being relatively obtainable. The second reason was because practitioners are “intensely concerned with managing trading costs”. We then present the views of a more contemporary paper which refutes 10 . The third reason had to do with the history of the field of market microstructure which in its early days sought to distinguish itself from the literature on trading under rational expectations. and focus on “adverse selection” as a popular theme. Lyons (2001) cites bid-ask spreads as one of the two hallmarks of the microstructure approach. Rational expectations models generally omit trading mechanisms when characterizing the relationship between fundamentals and price. we present a short survey on some early microstructure literature that concerns the determination of bid-ask spreads. he explained that spreads receive so much attention because they form a core element of most data sets and are a ready target for testable hypotheses. and this had led to “a focus on the determination of real-world transaction prices – spreads.2 Bid-Ask Spreads in Exchange Rates As previously mentioned in Chapter 1. guided by Sarno & Taylor (2002).

We then close this Chapter by presenting B&M’s simple asymmetric information model which forms the framework for our empirical investigation. inventory holding costs. From the second section of this Chapter we return to our main topic of interest – bid-ask spreads and exchange rate volatility. Cost of Dealer Services The cost of dealer services is formally analyzed by Demsetz (1968) who assumes the existence of some fixed costs of providing “predictable immediacy” as the service for which compensation is required by market makers.“adverse selection” as a determinant of bid-ask spreads and proposes that asymmetric information might be a more plausible candidate. following Sarno & Taylor (2002). Similarly. 2. 11 . his definition for cost of dealer services could also be applicable to the foreign exchange market. While Demsetz focused on the New York Stock Exchange. we first present a short survey on the literature which analyses the proportional relationship between spreads and exchange rate volatility.1 Bid-Ask Spreads and Asymmetric Information Sarno & Taylor (2002) identifies three main determinants of the bid-ask spread: the cost of dealer services. and the cost of adverse selection.

According to Demsetz. relates to the market maker's ability to make inventory adjustments when the market for an issue is "thin. which they termed “marketability risk”. and 2) high volume implies less marketability risk. “predictable immediacy is a rarity in human actions. Inventory Holding Costs The original argument of inventory costs as a crucial determinant of bid-ask spreads was first propositioned by Barnear & Logue (1975). it is the inventory markup of retailer or wholesaler”." They showed that volume has a negative effect on the bid-ask spread for two reasons: 1) high volume implies more competition if it implies more competition among alternative market makers. The ask-bid spread is the markup that is paid for predictable immediacy of exchange in organized markets. and to approximate it requires that costs be borne by persons who specialize in standing ready and waiting to trade with the incoming orders of those who demand immediate servicing of their orders. who tested a modified theory of market-maker behavior first espoused by Bagehot (1971). and. therefore. Barnear & Logue modified the theory of the market-maker spread by distinguishing between the two major components of inventory risk. in other markets. Amihud & Mendelson (1980) considers the problem of a price-setting monopolistic market-maker in a Garman (1976) dealership market where the 12 . lower positioning costs. The second component.

The bid-ask spread is given by a risk neutral spread that maximizes expected profits for the given stochastic demand functions plus a risk premium that depends on transaction size. They show that as time unfolds and transactions occur. and the converse is true when inventory decreases. 13 . like the existence of a ‘preferred’ inventory position and the downward monotonicity of the bid-ask prices. but the dealer’s price adjustment does.stochastic demand and supply are depicted by independent Poisson processes. The focus of their analysis is the dependence of the bid-ask prices on the market-maker’s inventory position. The bid-ask spread does not depend on the dealer's inventory position. When inventory increases both bid price and ask price decline. Ho & Stoll (1981) considers the stochastic dynamic programming problem of solving for the optimal behavior of a single dealer of a single stock who is faced with a stochastic demand for his services and return risk on his stock and on the rest of his portfolio. the return variance of the stock and the dealer's attitude toward risk. They derived the optimal policy the results are shown to be consistent with some conjectures and observed phenomena. the dealer is able to set his bid price and ask price relative to his opinion of the "true" price of the stock so as to maximize the expected utility of terminal wealth.

whose model includes two types of market participants – those are willing to pay the price of the spread to the market-maker in exchange for predictable immediacy and those who can speculate at the expense of the market-maker using some private insider information. The commitment 14 . Cost of Adverse Selection Adverse selection is a common argument to explain the existence of bid-ask spreads. Copeland & Galai (1983) analyses the determination of bid-ask spreads in organized financial markets. The origin of this argument could be traced back to Bagehot (1971). inventory costs models assume that market-markers optimize their inventory holding. numerous microstructure papers have drawn on adverse selection as their primary interpretive framework. An adverse selection arises because market-makers are not able to distinguish between the two types of participants and resort to widening the spreads for both types.Generally. Since Bagehot. where the trading is done through economic agents who specialize in market-making for a limited set of securities. and generally imply that market-makers shift the spread downwards and increase the width of the spread when a positive inventory is accumulated. The bid-ask spread then becomes the market-maker’s defense against adverse selection in “in the form of exploitation of arbitrage opportunities”.

made by dealers to buy or sell at the bid and ask prices. The dealer establishes his profit maximizing spread by balancing the expected total revenues from liquidity trading against the expected total losses from informed trading. is analyzed as a combination of put and call options. They also showed that. and that the bid-ask spread increases with greater price volatility in the asset being traded. The exercise prices of the straddle determine the bid-ask spread. Given the behavior of liquidity traders and informed traders. including the exogenous arrival patterns of insiders and liquidity traders. They showed that a monopolistic dealer will establish a wider bid-ask spread than will perfectly competitive dealers. and with lower volume. could account for the existence of a bid-ask spread. Glosten & Milgrom (1985) analyzed a model of a securities market in which the arrival of traders over time is accommodated by a market-maker. 15 . the dealer is assumed to offer an out-of-the-money straddle option for a fixed number of shares during a fixed time interval. and the average magnitude of the spread depends on many parameters. by itself. bid-ask spreads tend to decline with trade. with a higher asset price level. because transaction prices are informative. and the quality of the information held by insiders. the elasticity of supply and demand among liquidity traders. respectively. They showed that adverse selection.

and that customer order flow is an important source of private information. can 16 . that market net volume is only partially observable. Osler. Mende & Menkhoff (2006) however shows evidence that the behavior of bid-ask spreads is inconsistent with adverse selection. Payne (2003) estimates a VAR decomposition of interdealer trades and quotes and interprets the results through the lens of adverse selection. that over 80% of the trading volume is between market-makers. He presented a model which incorporated a number of institutional features relevant to the FX market. he used one trading week’s worth of USD/DEM data derived from an electronic foreign exchange brokerage and employed the framework contained in Hasbrouck & Sofianos (1993) to test for the existence of private information effects of trading on prices. indicating that adverse selection costs account for around 60% of the half-spread. They outline three factors that seem likely to be important.Lyons (1995) was likely one of the first who departed from early microstructure work that focused almost entirely on stock markets and applied such theory to foreign exchange markets. such as the facts that major currencies are traded in decentralized dealership markets. Specifically. The first factor. His basic results confirm the existence of private information on FX markets. fixed operating costs. Lyons showed that trade size and the bid-ask spreads of a particular dealer were positively related.

so each individual dealer can exert a certain amount of market power despite the competition.explain the negative relation between trade size and bid-ask spreads if some costs are fixed. but cannot explain the cross-sectional variation across customer types. In foreign exchange. The second channel through which asymmetric information might affect bid-ask spreads in foreign exchange involves strategic dealing. The market power hypothesis suggests that firms.. (2005). As suggested in Green et al. one involving market power and a second involving strategic dealing. To explain why bid-ask spreads are larger for commercial than financial customers they suggest that asymmetric information – in the broad sense of information that is held by some but not all market participants – may influence spreads through two channels distinct from adverse selection. commercial customers typically know far less about market conditions than financial customers so they might be expected to pay wider spreads. It can be costly for customer firms to search out the best available quotes in the foreign exchange market. even in a market with hundreds of competitors like foreign exchange. Evans and Lyons 17 . as they do. Building on abundant evidence that customer order flow carries information (e.g. and market power in quote-driven markets depends on knowledge of current market conditions. dealers may quote the widest spreads when their market power is greatest. gain market power from holding information.

Overturf. 1982).2 Bid-Ask Spreads and Volatility The directly proportional relationship between bid-ask spreads and exchange rate volatility now represents a fairly stylized fact in the microstructure literature. The idea that dealers strategically vary spreads to gather information was originally explored in Leach and Madhavan (1992.g. 1993). 1975). Early studies modeled the spread as a function of transaction costs.(2007). 2. Osler et al argue that rational foreign exchange dealers might strategically vary spreads across customers. Daníelsson et al. consistent with the pattern in foreign exchange. subsidizing spreads to informed customers in order to gain information which they can then exploit in upcoming interbank trades. by contrast. When applied to two-tier markets in Naik et al. (2002)). and the market-maker’s payoff for facing the exchange rate risk when assuming an open position. (1999) it implies that bid-ask spreads will be narrower for trades with information. 18 . The main conclusions of these early studies are that exchange rate spreads are wider under floating exchange rate than under fixed-exchange rate regimes (e. and that measures of exchange rate volatility are followed closely by exchange rate spreads (e. the bank’s profit from providing liquidity services. Aliber.g. 1975. In standard adverse-selection models. Fieleke. dealers passively accept the information content of order flow.

The model not only provides additional evidence on the proportional relationship between exchange rate volatility and bid-ask spreads in the foreign exchange market. 19 . and non-discretionary liquidity traders. who have relatively superior information and only trade on terms favorable to them. In this model. who must trade at a precise time during the day regardless of the cost. there are three types of agents: informed traders. discretionary liquidity traders. trading volume is explained by the concentration of trade of informed traders and discretionary liquidity traders at certain points in time: the concentrations occur because it is profitable for informed traders to trade when there are many liquidity traders who do not have the same information as themselves and because discretionary liquidity traders are attracted because the larger the number of traders lowers the cost of trading. who must trade during a day but can choose when to trade during the day in order to minimize costs. Admanti & Pfleiderer (1988) provides another fundamental theoretical contribution to this area. but also suggests that market-makers consider moments of the exchange rate higher than the second moment in order to evaluate the probability of large exchange rate changes. In their model.Glassman (1987) provides a significant contribution to this literature in that she builds a model where variables representing transactions frequency are included explicitly and the non-normality of the distribution of exchange rates is taken into account.

They recorded quote arrivals and bid-ask spreads over the trading day. and are less pronounced at the minute-by-minute frequency than at lower frequencies. The patterns of trading activity and spreads during the day also strongly suggest some degree of traders’ risk aversion. the more trading activity is executed by informed traders. across geographical locations as well as across market participants. given which. which is especially pronounced after immediately after jumps in the exchange rate.Bollerslev & Domowitz (1993) used intradaily data to investigate the behavior of quote arrivals and bid-ask spreads. They found that trading activity and the bid-ask spreads for traders whose activity is restricted to regional markets can be described by a U-shaped distribution. The series was also found to exhibit first-order negative serial correlation. which is consistent with Admanti & Pfleiderer’s (1989) model. 20 . Goodhart & Figliuoli (1991) reported a study of minute bid-ask quotes on three days in 1987 at a Reuters screen and found evidence that leptokurtosis and heteroscedasticity are time-varying. the higher the cost of trading. They also found that trading volume is time-varying. being higher at the European and North American openings and lower at the European lunch hour. Multivariate analysis suggested significant relationships between lagged exchange rates and the current spot rate.

but no one had performed any explicit analysis of the relationship between the magnitude of foreign exchange market spreads and the underlying exchange rate volatility. Researchers. providing most importantly a methodology to analyze the relationship between bid-ask spreads of exchange rates and its underlying volatility. as 21 . Hence. B&M opined that while unambiguous 'good' or 'bad' news regarding the fundamentals of the exchange rate should have no systematic effect on the spread.3 Bollerslev & Melvin’s Model of Volatility and Bid-Ask Spread B&M is the main inspiration for this thesis. B&M is likely to be the first paper to touch on this subject.2. In the early 1990’s as B&M were writing their paper. Earlier studies on the subject. such as Glassman (1987) and Boothe (1988). concentrated on the own statistical properties of the spread. as both the bid and the ask prices should adjust in the same direction in response to the traders receiving buy or sell orders that reflect the particular news event. however greater uncertainty regarding the future spot rate. Bossaerts and Hillion (1991). Black (1991). Melvin and Tan (1996) and Bollerslev and Domowitz (1993). the bid-ask spread component of transactions costs in the foreign exchange market had not received much attention in the literature. had attempted to offer empirical and theoretical analyses of the determinants of foreign exchange market spreads. such as Goodhart (1990).

They are also not speculators. The formal setup for B&M’s stylized market microstructure model is based on the analysis in Glosten and Milgrom (1985). information asymmetries regarding fundamentals underlying the determination of the spot exchange rate. Admati and Pfleiderer (1989). more generally.associated with greater volatility of the spot rate. services and financial assets. The model assumes that the foreign exchange market comprises two kinds of traders: liquidity traders and information-based traders. Information-based traders profit by intermediating the demands and supplies of foreign exchange for the liquidity traders. and Andersen (1993). We now outline B&M’s simple theoretical framework that illustrates this role of volatility in determining the spread. These traders also take positions in the foreign exchange market based on information advantages received through their dealings with the liquidity traders or. is likely to result in a widening of the spread. 22 . Liquidity traders participate in foreign exchange transactions only due to the needs of their normal business activity which require international trade of goods.

one of the many market-making traders will set bid and ask quotes. B&M further assumes that the standardized innovations. The bid-ask spread is assumed to be set symmetrically around the known fundamental price prevailing at the time of quote formation. At time t-1. At = st-1 + kt. Thus.The liquidity traders constitute the proportion (1—) of the total market participants. The liquidity traders receive a signal to either buy or sell foreign currency regardless of the actual value of the currency in comparison with the bid or ask prices prevailing at the time.t-1. distributed through time. tt-1. Informed traders constitute the remaining proportion of the market. . This fundamental value is assumed to evolve over time according to a martingale model. and Bt = st-1 – kt. are independent and symmetrically. 23 . the quoted spread for trades at time t. i. This group of traders receives some information about the true underlying fundamental value of the exchange rate st. Bt and At. (1) where Et-1(t)=0.Bt = 2kt. good for trading at time t. Et-1(t2)= t2.t-1.e. but not necessarily identically.t-1 depends on time t-1 information only. and Et-1(•) denotes the conditional expectation based on the information set generated by the past values of st. Kt = At.

The liquidity traders only know st-1 and expect t to equal zero. for the market-maker when the opposite party an information-based trader. the loss for the quoting trader relative to the true value st arising from informed trading is therefore (2) Let Pt-1(•) denote the probability conditional on the time t-1 information. the information-based traders cannot profit from knowing the true fundamental value revealed by t. Since the standardized innovations. on average. Zt = tt-1. Trader positions are limited by the convention that existing quotes are only good for up to some maximum quantity of currency. < Bt. For values of Bt ≤ st ≤ At. who received the signal t buy currency if At < st and sell currency if st. are assumed to be independent and symmetrically distributed through time.Trades at existing quotes will generate losses. Assuming that the market-makers limit trading to one unit of currency at existing quotes. Information-based traders. the expected loss from informed trading may be expressed as (3) 24 .

(3) with the gain in Eq. (4) yields the expected profit for the market-maker conditional on time t-1 information: In equilibrium. it follows that the expected profit for the quoting trader conditional on an uninformed trade equals: (4) Combining the expected trading loss in Eq. Kt =2kt. competition from other banks or market-makers will drive this expected profit to zero.t-1. (6) only depend on the time t-1 information set through t-1kt.t-1 yields (6) Since the conditional expectation and probabilities on the right-hand side of Eq. it follows that in 25 .Assuming an equal probability of a buy or a sell order from the liquidity traders. Expressing this zero profit condition in terms of the total spread.

Based on this relationship between exchange rate volatility and the bid-ask spread. B&M noted that while this simple proportionality condition would no longer hold true in a more general model with endogenous information acquisition. 26 .equilibrium the spread must move proportional to the conditional standard deviation of the true fundamental value of the exchange rate. B&M designed the empirical methodology that we will describe in the next chapter. the result that an increase in t2 leads to an increase in Kt would still remain generally valid.

one of the most highly-traded currency pair between two of the largest economies in the world in 1989 and showed that the size of the bid-ask spread of the USD/DEM is positively related to its underlying exchange rate uncertainty. a semi-floating currency from a much smaller economy. We are curious if 1) B&M’s result would hold for the USD/SGD.3 Empirical Analysis B&M performed an empirical analysis on the USD/DEM.000 quotes. and when the volume of quotes increased to over 600. there were only slightly over 8. 27 . Their dataset consist of more than 300.000 continuously recorded USD/DEM quotes over a 3 month period from April to June in 1989. as that country becomes a significant regional economic power in South-east Asia.000 over April and May 2006. The USD/DEM is a free-floating exchange rate. For the above purposes we purchased four sets of data from Olsen Financial Technologies GmbH. and 3) B&M’s result would hold as that economy enters into a period of worldwide financial crisis. Before we discuss the data and empirical results. we first describe B&M’s empirical methodology and how we adapted it for this paper. 2) B&M’s result would hold 17 years later for that same currency. where over the same period from April to May 1989..

. B&M use the ask price for estimation purposes. .1 Empirical Methodology B&M’s empirical methodology comprises two major steps. the bid and ask prices have virtually identical higher order moments and differ only very slightly in their conditional means. and are the parameters to be estimated.1) model of the form below seemed to fit their dataset well: (7) where It-1 denotes the time t-1 information set. and as noted by Bollerslev et al. These estimates for the conditional variance are then used as the proxy for exchange rate volatility in the second-stage model for the temporal behavior of the spread. such representations have been documented by numerous studies.3. and . B&M employed a two-stage estimation procedure in which the conditional variance for the spot exchange rate is first estimated as a GARCH process. (1992). They found that the MA(1)-GARCH(1. . Step 1: Creating a Proxy for Exchange Rate Volatility The first step involves using a GARCH model as an explicit proxy for the time-varying volatility of the spot rate. The time t subscript refers to the place in the order 28 .

The primary purpose of the GARCH estimation was to create proxies for the conditional variance of the exchange rate to be used in the investigation of the determinants of the spread. They then saved all the estimates for the conditional variances from each of the 12 models and combined into a single time series of volatility estimates for the full set of weekday quotes. Intuitively. we use modern econometrics software EViews to perform GARCH analysis on our datasets and to obtain the conditional variance time series.000 observations in practice was not feasible in practice.1) model as a non-parametric estimator. 1992). they divided up their dataset into 12 weeks of data and estimated each set for the above GARCH parameters.of the series of quotes.t2 provides an estimate of the price volatility between quotes. Hence. (7) may be justified by the theoretical arguments in Nelson (1990. or a one-sided filter. 29 . the resulting estimates for the conditional variance will generally be consistent as the length of the sampling interval goes to zero. it follows that on interpreting the GARCH(1. But it was 1993 then. so that A. if the sample path for the true unobservable volatility process is continuous. The particular specification for the conditional variance in Eq. Today. and B&M noted that estimating a GARCH model with more than 300.

is defined by K*t = Xi’ + K.t. … aJ. Specifically. Kt.t (9) B&M allowed for multiplicative heteroskedasticity in the spread by parameterizing the logarithm of 2K. The observed spread. K*. a2.t (8) The vector Xt denotes a set of predetermined variables that affect the conditional mean of K*t and K. B&M used an Ordered Probit model with multiplicative heteroskedasticity for this purpose. a1. is conditionally normally distributed with mean zero and variance. The unobservable continuous random variable. 2K.t as a linear function of the same 30 .Step 2: Estimate Relationship between Spreads and Proxy for Volatility The second major step of the methodology involved using ordered response models to estimate the relationship between the time series of volatility estimates obtained in the first step and the bid-ask spreads. is assumed to take on only a fixed number of discrete values.

i. K*. The ordered response models relate the observed spreads to K* via (11) where the Aj’s form an ordered partition of the real line into J disjoint intervals. is defined by K*t = Xi’ + (10) where is i. Kt. firstly by omitting multiplicative heteroskedasticity (more due to the limitations of EViews than by choice). 31 . since we omitted multiplicative heteroskedasticity). the observed spread. is similarly assumed to take on only a fixed number of discrete values. but the unobservable continuous random variable.explanatory variables that enter the conditional mean of K*t. a2. a1. and takes the form of the logistic distribution for the Ordered Logit model.d. We depart from this path in our analysis. In our analyses. standard normal for the Ordered Probit model. and secondly by estimating the relationships with both Ordered Probit models and Ordered Logit models (to allow more flexibility in the behaviour of the error term. … aJ.

8%) 5 77. because the spreads distribution for the USD/SGD 2006 and 2009 data have more converging points (certain spread sizes where there are more quotes than others) than both the USD/DEM and the USD/SGD in 1989.892 (56.<5 2.2%) 7 34. < 10 2.8%) 15 < .9%) 20 < .0%) 10 170. < 15 329 (0. as we will see later. the four most commonly observed spreads account for 97. In addition.878 (11.304 (0.2%) Note: Spreads converted into basis points Table 2: Distribution of Spreads of USD/DEM April-June 1989 We also performed the ordered response analyses with four ordered indicator values.5%) 7 < .The probability that the spread takes on the value aj is equal to the probability that K* falls into the appropriate partition.977 (1.0 percent of the total quotes. < 20 39 (0. Aj. From the distribution of spreads of the USD/DEM in 1989.616 (0. B&M based the empirical analysis on a classification of the spread into only four different categories.0%) 20 2. 572 (0. For tractability reasons. USD/DEM Frequency Distribution fof Spreads Spread All Quotes 0<.6%) 5<. we used up to 10 ordered indicator values in our own 32 .1%) 10 < .534 (3.856 (25.<7 607 (0.1%) 15 11.

I. In order to test the hypothesis that the spread is partly determined by the volatility of the spot rate. Xt. In order to take 33 . The ordered response model defined above allows us to estimate the probability of a particular spread being observed as a function of the predetermined variables. the GARCH estimate of the conditional variance for the ask prices is included as one of the elements in Xt. In the case of B&M where by four ordered indicator values of aj’s were used.ordered response analyses. the corresponding intervals for the unobservable latent variable K* are defined by: (12) The partition parameters. are estimated jointly with the other parameters of the model. B&M noted that Bollerslev and Domowitz (1993) indicated a distinct intra-day pattern in the spread distribution and tt is possible that any significant effect of the conditional variance in isolation may merely reflect this dependence rather than provide an independent influence on the spread process.

Dataset 1 – USD/DEM quotes from April 1989 to June 1989 b. we will infer that the hypothesized theoretical link is supported by the empirical analysis. is caused by a larger conditional variance of the spot rate. and this raises the probability of observing a higher spread. Dataset 2 – USD/SGD quotes from April 1989 to June 1989 c.account of this own temporal dependence. Dataset 4 – USD/SGD quotes from April 2009 to May 2009 Dataset 1: USD/DEM from April 1989 to June 1989 For the first dataset we purchased the same dataset used by B&M – USD-DEM quotes from April 1989 to June 1989. Dataset 3 – USD/SGD quotes from April 2006 to May 2006 d.2 Description of the Data We purchased four sets of data from Olsen Financial Technologies GmbH: a. We now describe each of the datasets in more details in the following section: 3. We wanted to repeat the empirical analysis 34 . Kt-1 was included as an element of the Xt vector in the estimation of the ordered response functions for K*t: Kt* = 1A.t2 + 2Kt-1 + (13) Given the partition boundaries determined by the data. if a higher conditional mean 'X.

325 21.604 100. The distribution of the quotes over each workday is similar in terms of percentage in both datasets. First.51% Mon 56.80% Wed 66.26% Sat 33 0.00% PURCHASED FROM OLSENDATA DAY TICKS Sun 1.13% Fri 53.186 100. The differences between our purchased data and the actual data used by B&M are tabulated as follows: a. Furthermore.600 18. we departed from B&M’s ordered probit procedure by omitting multiplicative heteroskedasticity. We wanted to repeat the estimation processes again using EViews.377 19. B&M’s results were obtained in 1993 using probably not so technologically advanced means. or how they presented 12 workweeks of data from an actual 13 weeks in April to June 1989.634 21.646 18. B&M’s data were obtained from Reuters. we found some minor differences.571 0. Second.186 ticks.79% Fri 56.521 20.on the dataset again to allow for an apples-to-apples comparison between the USD/DEM 1989 and the USD/SGD 1998 results. as mentioned in the previous Chapter.812 20.03% Grand Total 305.082 17.109 21.63% Wed 63.604 ticks of USD/DEM quotes while the dataset purchased from Olsen Financial Technologies GmbH contains 310.25% Tue 67.29% Mon 60.095 19. 35 . From their paper we were unable to ascertain the accuracy of this data.66% Tue 66.01% Grand Total 310. We obtained ours by purchasing from Olsen Financial Technologies GmbH and upon comparison.00% Table 3: Quote Volume differences between B&M and Purchased Data USD/DEM 1989 B&M collected 305.37% Sat 98 0.88% Thu 61.38% Thu 61. Volume of Quotes ORIGINAL BOLLERSLEV & MELVIN DAY TICKS Sun 887 0.

SPREAD UP 64384 13083 24045 101512 NO.86% 10.70% 20. 36 .30% Table 4: Frequency of No Spread Change reported by B&M USD/DEM 1989 B&M reported that 8% of all the quotes observed no change in spread when the bid-ask price rose and that 8. OF QUOTES SPREAD SAME 32787 39422 33407 105616 SPREAD DOWN 23767 13523 64164 101454 PRICE UP PRICE SAME PRICE DOWN Grand Total PRICE UP PRICE SAME PRICE DOWN GRAND TOTAL DIVIDED BY NO OF TICKS MOVED SPREAD SPREAD SPREAD UP SAME DOWN 53.79% 32.48% 19.b.23% 32.3% of all the quotes observed no change in spread when the bid-ask price fell. or on Number of Ticks with No Spread Change divided by Total Number of Ticks. We make this distinction clearer with the purchased data. It was not clear.90% 34.23% 32.88% PRICE UP PRICE SAME PRICE DOWN GRAND TOTAL Table 5: Frequency of No Spread Change with Olsen USD/DEM 1989 Among all ticks.38% 7.78% 4.76% 32.90% 34. Frequency of No Spread Change USD/DEM No.619 8.77% 27.88% DIVIDED BY TOTAL NO. whether these percentages where calculated based on Number of Ticks with No Spread Change divided by Number of Ticks Moved.24% 12. however.63% 7.70% 4.47% 52.24% 27.83% of all ticks observed no change in spreads when the price rose and fell respectively.00% 8. of Quotes.11% 19.63% and 10. OF TICKS SPREAD SPREAD SPREAD UP SAME DOWN 20.81% 59.65% 19. & Frequency of No Spread Change No Change in Spread Number Bid-Ask Rise Bid-Ask Fall All quotes 304.79% 10.83% 20. we counted that 10.

1%) 15 11.14% 19. Distribution of the quotes over the week are however quite similar. 37 .1%) 10 < . Frequency Distribution of Spreads Frequency Distribution of Spreads ORIGINAL Spread 0<.1%) 10.5%) 7 < .0%) 171.616 (0. there are only 8.304 (0.682 (11.977 (1.892 (56.0%) 20 2.<5 2.50% 18.0%) 10 170.652 1. Volume of Quotes DAY Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Grand Total USD/SGD 6 1. a.8%) 15 < . < 10 2.00% Table 7: Volume of Quotes of USD/SGD April-June 1989 Compared against a major currency in 1989 over the same period from April to June.8%) 5 77.534 (3.2%) 35.9%) 20 < .8%) 553 (0.5%) 327 (0. followed by 5 basis points. 572 (0.07% 15.2%) Note: Spreads converted into basis points OLSENDATA 2.307 2.25% 100.000 for the USD/DEM.43% 23.876 1.264 (55.586 21 8.<7 607 (0.72% 0.6%) 3.c.6%) 5<.8%) 81.192 (1.89% 22.389 (3.856 (25.472 USD/SGD quotes compared to over 310.4%) 38 (0.0%) 2.2%) 7 34. < 15 329 (0.368 (26.4%) 660 (0. Dataset 2: USD/SGD from April 1989 to June 1989 The second dataset are USD/SGD quotes from April 1989 to June 1989.2%) Table 6: Frequency Distribution of Spreads USD/DEM 1989 It appears that the frequency distribution of spreads is quite similar between the dataset reported by B&M and the dataset purchased from Olsen Financial Technologies GmbH.024 1. The most common bid-ask spread is 10 basis points.878 (11.547 (0. < 20 39 (0.472 0.562 (0.

62% 2.62% of the time.02% DIVIDED BY TOTAL NO.06% 4. Frequency of No Spread Change Compared against the USD/DEM in 1989 over the same period from April to June. OF TICKS SPREAD SPREAD SPREAD UP SAME DOWN 1.02% PRICE UP PRICE SAME PRICE DOWN GRAND TOTAL Table 8: Frequency of No Spread Change for USD/SGD April-June 1989 38 . OF QUOTES SPREAD SAME 3108 1340 3168 7616 SPREAD DOWN 289 63 72 424 PRICE UP PRICE SAME PRICE DOWN GRAND TOTAL DIVIDED BY NO OF TICKS MOVED SPREAD SPREAD SPREAD UP SAME DOWN 2.50% 89.87% 0.73% 15.18% 5.80% 3. we do not observe as much spread changes in the USD/SGD when prices moves.47% 4.30% 4.80% 90.30% 7.with volume peaking during midweek.80% 90.85% 4.32% 90. PRICE UP PRICE SAME PRICE DOWN Grand Total SPREAD UP 87 62 256 405 NO.18% 5.03% 37.23% 91. b. the spread remained unchanged 90.03% 36. When prices move downwards. When prices move upwards. the spread remained unchanged 89.21% of the time.21% 8.42% 0.51% 0.75% 3.

24% 20. 14 (0. < 15 6 (0.31% 22.979 0.854 (93.1%) 5 137 (1.1%) 15 76 (0. When spreads do change.0%) 10 < . < 10 43 (0.037 87.c. a. Frequency Distribution of Spreads Frequency Distribution of Spreads USD/SGD Spread 0<.32% 14.<7 22 (0.9%) 15 < .812 147. Volume of Quotes DAY Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Grand Total USD/SGD 3.0%) 20 164 (1.084 135.09% 100.9%) 20 < . Dataset 3: USD/SGD from April 2006 to May 2006 The third dataset are USD/SGD quotes from April 2006 to May 2006.00% Table 10: Volume of Quotes of USD-SGD April-May 2006 15 years later.<5 6 (0.44% 0. we note similar characteristics to the USD/DEM in that the most common bid-ask spread is 10 basis points.327 126.332 555 604.400 ticks in 39 . < 20 1 (0.5%) 10 7.6%) 5<. Compared against itself in 1989 over the period from April to May.63% 17. the volume of quotes of the USD/SGD has grown from over 8.2%) Note: Spreads converted into basis points Table 9: Frequency Distribution of Spreads USD/SGD April-June 1989 While spread changes in the USD/SGD are uncommon when prices moves.4%) 7 < . the USD/SGD has grown to become a major currency in Southeast Asia.832 104. they are most likely to be 5.96% 24.3%) 7 122 (1. 7 or 20 basis points.

99% of the time compared to 89.000 ticks in 2 months.46% of the time compared to 90.21% 6. when prices move upwards. the spread remained unchanged only 14.01% 39.62% of the time in 1989.53% 4. Now.60% 32. Frequency of No Spread Change In 2006. PRICE UP PRICE SAME PRICE DOWN Grand Total SPREAD UP 194955 24340 19302 238597 NO.15% 22. When prices move downwards. OF TICKS SPREAD SPREAD SPREAD UP SAME DOWN 32.3 months to over 604.73% 20. The distribution of quotations over the week remains consistent with volume peaking during midweek.47% 39.67% 14.42% 3.53% 15.83% 7.81% PRICE UP PRICE SAME PRICE DOWN GRAND TOTAL Table 11: Frequency of No Spread Change for USD-SGD April-May 2006 40 .52% 3.35% 3.47% 39. we observed that the tendency for spreads to remain unchanged when prices move is reduced dramatically. OF QUOTES SPREAD SAME 38121 45185 39611 122917 SPREAD DOWN 21197 20568 197313 239078 PRICE UP PRICE SAME PRICE DOWN GRAND TOTAL DIVIDED BY NO OF TICKS MOVED SPREAD SPREAD SPREAD UP SAME DOWN 76.02% 50.05% 7.21% of the time in 1989. the spread remained unchanged only 15.85% 39.46% 6. b.46% 77.99% 8.73% 20.34% 27.81% DIVIDED BY TOTAL NO.

<7 51. Dataset 4: USD/SGD from April 2009 to May 2009 The fourth dataset are USD/SGD quotes from April 2009 to May 2009.00% Table 13: Volume of Quotes of USD/SGD April-May 2009 In the year of the 2009 economic crisis.<5 51. The most common spread in 2006 is 5 basis points. < 10 53. Frequency Distribution of Spreads Frequency Distribution of Spreads USD/SGD Spread 0<.336 183. < 15 25 (0.08% 22.0%) 20 1 (0.00% 100. while quotes with spreads of more than 10 basis points make up less than 0.5%) 7 68.508 237.163 (8.0%) Note: Spreads converted into basis points Table 12: Frequency Distribution of Spreads USD-SGD April-June 2006 The characteristics of the frequency distribution of spreads have also changed almost completely over 15 years.02% 20.7%) 10 < .01% of the entire spectrum of quotes.090 (8. we observed a dramatic increase in volume of USD-SGD quotes over the period of April to May 2009. a.604 190.87% 17.0%) 15 17 (0. although we noted earlier that the volume growth 41 .496 237.2%) 5<.582 (8.9%) 10 155.c.0%) 15 < .603 32 1. Most of the spreads recorded are either 10 basis points or lower. as compared to the same period in 2006. < 20 15 (0.22% 22.5%) 5 224.09% 17.466 (25.075.634 0. followed by 10 basis points.72% 0.3%) 7 < . 0 (0.055 217.763 (37.0%) 20 < . Volume of Quotes DAY Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Grand Total USD/SGD 9.377 (11.

the spread remained unchanged 9.51% 11. When prices move downwards.13% PRICE UP PRICE SAME PRICE DOWN GRAND TOTAL Table 14: Frequency of No Spread Change for USD-SGD April-May 2009 42 . b. when prices move upwards. Now.23% 27.46% of the time in 2006. The volume of quotes of the USD-SGD has grown from over 604. OF TICKS SPREAD SPREAD SPREAD UP SAME DOWN 28.43% 44.13% DIVIDED BY TOTAL NO. PRICE UP PRICE SAME PRICE DOWN Grand Total SPREAD UP 304279 59290 120972 484541 NO.had been exponential since 2002.43% 44.44% 10.17% of the time compared to 14.17% 25.69% 5. OF QUOTES SPREAD SAME 48129 18050 45055 111234 SPREAD DOWN 120968 53790 295733 470491 PRICE UP PRICE SAME PRICE DOWN GRAND TOTAL DIVIDED BY NO OF TICKS MOVED SPREAD SPREAD SPREAD UP SAME DOWN 64.28% 10.76% 64.99% of the time in 1989.04% 11.44% 10.55% 45. to exceeding 1 million quotes over a 2 month period.35% 4.20% 9.21% 13.54% 4. Frequency of No Spread Change We now observed that in 2009. the spread remained unchanged 10.35% 5.000 ticks. the tendency for spreads to remain unchanged when prices moved is reduced again compared to 2006.74% 45.04% 45.76% of the time compared to 15.76% 41.02% 26.56% 1.

684 (1.00 38.00 < . 43 .00 < .484 (0.158 (0.00 2. < 11.354 (5.00 6. < 10.572 (5.00 13 (0. < 6. This could indicate advancement in the market’s ability to evaluate foreign exchange risk.0%) 2 13.422 (0.7%) 3.5 basis points respectively.6%) Note: Spreads converted into basis points Table 15: Frequency Distribution of Spreads USD-SGD April-May 2009 The characteristics of the frequency distribution of spreads have changed again over 3 years.932 (0.080 (0.6%) 3.828 (15.748 (1.00 < .00 13.1%) > 11.00 < . < 4.903 (0. Two observations are of noteworthy regarding the 2009 dataset.4%) 7.50 6.304 (1.00 < .50 < .577 (25.432 (5. < 3.696 (3.2%) 4. followed by 10 basis points.3%) 7 165. the most common spread had risen to 8 basis points.20 < . Frequency Distribution of Spreads Frequency Distribution of Spreads USD/SGD Spread <2.0%) 4 88.c.0%) 8. < 8.5%) 10.00 10.1%) 9 39. The most common spread in 2006 was 5 basis points.3%) 2.1%) 11 11.2 20. In 2009.00 8.1%) 10 91.5 114.1%) 6.407 (1.00 < . the most common spreads are no longer “significant” numbers such as 5 or 10.2%) 8 268.6%) 6 54.00 579 (0. Most of the spreads recorded are still either 10 basis points or lower.5%) 5.00 < .00 2.3%) 5 59. followed by 7 basis points and 3.441 (8. < 9.1%) 3. but quotations with spreads of more than 10 basis points have increased to slightly under 5% of the entire spectrum of quotations. First.00 830 (0.00 < .9%) 3.613 (8.907 (10.882 (1.8%) 3 54. < 3.7%) 9. < 7.00 1.789 (3. < 5.

We then used EViews to estimate the parameters for each dataset and the full results are attached in 44 .3 GARCH Analysis The primary purpose of the GARCH estimation was to create proxies for the conditional variance of the exchange rate to be used in the investigation of the determinants of the spread.and hence being able to price bids and asks more accurately.1) model: (7) where It-1 denotes the time t-1 information set. Both phenomena could warrant future research. This could be attributed to the increased amount of uncertainty in the financial markets during that period of global economic crisis. Recall from Section 3. so that A. . Following B&M. . Second. and are the parameters to be estimated.t2 provides an estimate of the price volatility between quotes. we first removed all weekend quotes. and .01% in 2006 to slightly under 5% in 2009. 3.1 that. we estimate for each dataset with the following MA(1)-GARCH(1. The time t subscript refers to the place in the order of the series of quotes. following B&M. the volume of quotes with spreads of more than 10 basis points increased from 0. .

736 304.0052) -0.3281 (0.0003) 0. This provides confidence that the EViews results for the rest of the datasets are appropriate for comparison.5953 (0. The second to fifth columns contain the EViews GARCH estimates for the parameters for the purchased USD/DEM 1989.0006) 0.0006) 0. and USD/SGD 2009 data respectively.0030) 0.0025 (0.0013) SGD1989 0.6540 (0.9197 (0.9190 0.0256) 0.0002) 0. 45 .006.0453 (0.9708 0.0003) 0.0138) SGD2006 0.7802 (0.0004) SGD2009 0.0053) 0.0081) 0.7817 (0.9327 (0.355 0.0008) 0.0018) 0.9025 (0.0069 (0.748 8.0632 (0.0652 (0.0014) -0.9888 0.0003) -0.0500 (0.1008 (0.9710 1. USD/SGD 1989.0065 (0.6833 (0.0561 (0.0452 (0.0009) -0.9057 (0. for 12 weeks). Here we present a summary of the results: B&M DEM1989 0.5867 (0.0009) 0. though standard errors are significantly lower. First we observe that the EViews estimates for the purchased USD/DEM dataset compares very well with B&M’s original results.0002) 0.0042) DEM1989 0.0075) 0.0003) 0.0513 (0.2650 (0.0005) 0.0114) -0.9657 551.608 308.0023 (0.444 Asymptotic errors are reported in parenthesis Table 16: GARCH Estimates for all Datasets The first column contains the average of the weekly estimates from the original B&M dataset (they only estimated these parameters per workweek. USD/SGD 2006.Appendix 1.0578 (0.

the spread did not change 90. To this end.” The GARCH effects for all datasets are all highly significant. Comparing GARCH effects between the USD/DEM 1989 dataset and USD/SGD 1989 dataset. see Lo and MacKinlay (1990) for a formal analysis. we used EViews to obtain GARCH variance series for each dataset. This is expected. the results show that the GARCH effects and persistence of volatility is consistent with this phenomenon.18% of the time. 46 . it is clear that the USD/DEM dataset shows much stronger effects.The second observation is that all estimates for are negative. and stronger + volatility persistence. As the Singapore economy grows and the USD/SGD becomes a significant regional currency. as the USD/DEM dataset contains at least 36 times more observations and from Table 8. which corresponds to B&M’s results. The primary purpose of the GARCH estimation was to create proxies for the conditional variance of the exchange rate to be used in the investigation of the determinants of the spread. and they noted that “the negative estimates for may be partly attributed to a non-synchronous quoting phenomenon.

2955) 1.748 8.1299 (102.6436) SGD1989 0.1592) -0.0091 (10.444 551.2342) SGD2006 0.4684) 308.3298) -0.4395 (169.8160 (23.1306 -(69.4 Ordered Response Analysis Recall from Section 3.6719) SGD2006 0. but a summary is presented below: DEM1989 0.355 Z-statistics are reported in parenthesis 1.736 Table 18: Ordered Logit Estimates for all Datasets (4 ordered indicator values) 47 .3568) 0.4622) 0.0464 (29.3.0988 (113.4330 (108.2622 (177.8863) 0.748 8.2412) SGD2009 0.0214 (73.t2 + 2Kt-1 + (13) We first use four ordered indicator values and B&M’s definitions for aj’s: a1: <= 5 a2: 5 < .2146 (109.2040 -(66.006.0802 (28.006.9306) SGD2009 0.1 that we estimate for each dataset with the following ordered response model (probit and logit): Kt* = 1A.3116 (135.0231 (9.0422 (22.1729) 308.355 Z-statistics are reported in parenthesis 1.444 551.7912) 0.9604) SGD1989 0.736 Table 17: Ordered Probit Estimates for all Datasets (4 ordered indicator values) DEM1989 0. < 10 a3: = 10 a4: > 10 The results for the above parameters for all four datasets are attached in Appendix 1.5740) 0.

48 . It is interesting to note the negative 2 values for the USD/SGD 2006 dataset.The positive 1 coefficients for both ordered probit and logit analyses above suggest that there is a significantly positive effect of exchange rate volatility on the spread for all datasets.18% of the time for the USD/SGD in 1989.t2. the 2 values show that the dependence on the previous spread appears to be more significant for the USD/SGD than for the USD/DEM. the spread remained the same 90. although both 1 values are statistically significant. This is consistent with the implications drawn from B&M’s theoretical model. Comparing the USD/DEM and USD/SGD in 1989. coincidentally matching the growth in quote volume. but it might be due to seasonality. The conditional mean of Kt* is an increasing function of A. For the same reason. as noted above. After all. the magnitude of the 1 values almost quadrupled. The estimates for 2 are indicative of intra-day persistence in the spread process. As the country grow in economic significance and the SGD becoming a major regional currency over 17 years. The magnitude of 1 for each dataset supports what we intuitively already know. volatility appears to play a much larger role in determining the size of the spread for the USD/DEM.

7664) SGD2006 0.748 8.0911) 0. < 4 a5: 6 <= . together with the larger distribution of spreads as shown in Table 15.0345 (90.1741) SGD1989 0.8967) 308. the results for the above parameters for all four datasets are attached in Appendix 1.736 Table 19: Ordered Probit Estimates for all Datasets (10 ordered indicator values) 49 .0296 (19.006. due to the larger distribution of spreads as seen in the 2006 and 2009 data. < 6 a7: 8 <= . We repeated the ordered response analyses using 10 ordered indicator values.5758) 0.5938) 0. < 7 a8: 9 <= .2017) SGD2009 0. < 10 a3: 4 <= . but a summary is presented below: DEM1989 0.2933 (16.0964 (117. The much higher 1 values for this dataset.444 551.0404 -(61.0106 (12. in midst of the worldwide financial crisis. < 8 a9: = 10 Again.0884 (212. < 5 a6: 7 <= .1124 (122. supports the theory that the bid-ask spreads of foreign exchange rates is very much positively related to the underlying volatility. we observed a higher level of volatility in the USD/SGD. < 9 a10: > 10 a2: 3 <= .355 Z-statistics are reported in parenthesis 1. The aj’s are: a1 : < 3 a4: 5 <= .In 2009.0766) -0.

When prices move up. Previously we were examining the relationship between bid-ask spreads and the underlying volatility of exchange rates and found that positive relationships generally exists between the two.444 551.5637 (16.1599 (100. they tend to narrow. To examine this we repeat the ordered response analyses by including the Returns variable from the MA(1)-GARCH(1.0305 (10.1) model into the ordered response model: 50 .748 8. 11 and 14) an interesting phenomenon regarding the behavior of bid-ask spreads of foreign exchange rates.5 Incorporating Returns Recall that we noted (see Tables 5. and the bid-ask spreads change. Conversely.006.8283) SGD2006 0.2591) SGD1989 0.1246) SGD2009 0.DEM1989 0. the conclusions from the previous ordered response analyses with 4 ordered indicator values still holds after we attempt to be more discerning with the ordered indicator values. and the bid-ask spreads change.3382) 0.0755 -(67.736 Table 20: Ordered Logit Estimates for all Datasets (10 ordered indicator values) Generally. when prices move down.355 Z-statistics are reported in parenthesis 1.0571) 308. We are now curious if there is any relationship between bid-ask spreads and price movement.1493 (205.1557 (115.9948) 0. they tend to widen.0599 (22.7863) 0.7295) -0. 3.2047 (110.

0215) 0.2662) 1. The results are attached in Appendix 1.4158 (437.7702) 0.2606 (146.1796 (12.1127) 0.444 551.6830) SGD1989 0.0970 (98.2152 (409.006.0827 (12.3205 (174.6602) 1.2225 (96.0325 (19.1288) SGD2009 0.6876) 308.4338) 0. but we summarize the results below: DEM1989 0.7724) SGD2006 0.9644 (494.3865 (585.6543) 0.748 8.1228) 1.355 Z-statistics are reported in parenthesis 1.9380 (24.t2 + 2Kt-1 + 310.748 8.006.8530) SGD2009 0.0656) 0.6241 (449.2743) 0.9454) SGD2006 0.6732 (154.736 Table 22: Ordered Logit Estimates (with Returns) for all Datasets (4 ordered values) 51 .6104) 1.355 Z-statistics are reported in parenthesis 1.0383 (16.2520) 1.0093 (10.1713) 308.0485 (14.000*logAt + (14) We repeated the ordered probit and ordered logit analyses for all four datesets using both 4 and 10 ordered indicator values.0406 (44.0235 (8.5486) 0.444 551.1319 (101.Kt* = 1A.7483) 1.5203 (210.0532 (229.4649) SGD1989 0.736 Table 21: Ordered Probit Estimates (with Returns) for all Datasets (4 ordered values) DEM1989 0.0148 (51.3419) 0.7718) 0.0090 (23.

3996 (468.2532 (146.6059 (17.0317 (10.1592 (113.0012 (298.736 Table 23: Ordered Probit Estimates (with Returns) for all Datasets (10 ordered values) DEM1989 0.DEM1989 0.9157) 0. Even when taking Returns into account.3672) 0.0032 -(3.006.3873) 1.7732) SGD1989 0.748 8.5108) 308.0673 (21.6836) 0.736 Table 24: Ordered Logit Estimates (with Returns) for all Datasets (10 ordered values) In general (except for Ordered Probit estimates for 10 ordered values).1677 (11.0350 -(22.355 1.6917) SGD2009 -0.0949 (188.6273) 0. B&M’s theory still holds.3375) 0.4841) 1.0108 (13.0961 (105.748 8.8439) 0.3314) 0.5016) 0.0745 (11.0041) 0.4871) 308.0205 (54.5755 (574.2688 (124.5621) 0. The results for 3 values show that a significant positive relationship also exists between the size of the bid-ask spread and the direction of the exchange rate movement.1891 (434.006.0042 (4.4030 (251.3182 (173.7207) 0.5891) 0.6241) SGD2006 0.0826) SGD2006 -0. the results for 1 and 2 values are consistent with the results in the previous section.355 Z-statistics are reported in parenthesis 1.444 551.3135 (17.2477) 0.2835 (654.1859) SGD2009 0.0252) SGD1989 0.9007) 0.444 551.0185 (22. 52 .

the observation that the 1 values appear to decrease with increasing tick volume runs counter to the rest of the ordered response results. Their empirical subject was over 300. 53 . is likely to be the cause of this results. The USD/DEM was obviously one of the most traded currency pair during that time.d. 3.d. and both the USD and DEM belonged to floating exchange rates regimes of two of the top three largest world economies in 1989.6 Summary B&M provided the theoretical framework and showed empirical evidence that the size of the bid-ask spread of exchange rates is positively related to the exchange rate’s underlying volatility. One possible explanation for this is that multiplicative heteroskedasticity. standard normal.000 USD/DEM quotes from April to June of 1989. Not only does this violate B&M’s prediction. the results for the ordered logit analyses are probably more meaningful. which our ordered response models omitted but has been shown to be significant by B&M.One interesting result to note are the negative 1 and 2 values for the ordered probit analyses of 2006 and 2009 for 10 ordered indicator values (see Table 23). Also since we know that the error term of equations 13 and 14 are not i.

When prices move up. and again in 2009 when the world economy was somewhat in disarray. if the currency belonged to a small country and from a semi-floating exchange rate regime – the USD/SGD. We found that the relationship between bid-ask spreads and price direction is positive and significant.We then wanted to see if both theory and empirical results would hold for a much lesser traded subject currency. they tend to widen. Along the way we also noted the interesting phenomenon regarding the behavior of bid-ask spreads of foreign exchange rates. Conversely. We applied a modified version of B&M’s methodology on the USD/SGD from the same months of April to June 1989 and found that the evidence (as documented in the previous section) supported their theory. We repeated the analyses on the datasets and included Returns as additional variable in the ordered response models. Furthermore. We found that B&M’s theory was still supported by the evidence. we repeated the analysis on the USD/SGD 17 years later in 2006 when the world economy was at a point of stability. and the bid-ask spreads change. 54 . and the bid-ask spreads change. when prices move down. they tend to narrow.

and also 55 . and we found that the effects of the tested parameters grew in strength as that currency grew in economic significance in its region. We included returns as additional variable in the ordered response models and found that the relationship between bid-ask spreads and price direction is positive and significant. Future work in this area should attempt to build a model which links bid-ask spreads not only to volatility and also returns. The generally “better-behaving” results from the Logit models suggests that the disturbances are indeed not standard normal. The results generally hold. We first touched on those which analyses bid-ask spreads and asymmetric information. We also noted the interesting phenomenon regarding the behavior of bid-ask spreads of foreign exchange rates. We departed from B&M’s methodology by omitting multiplicative heteroskedasticity. We provided a simple survey on microstructure literature.4 Conclusion This paper has set out to empirically test B&M’s theory against a lesser-traded currency from a developing country with a managed floating rate regime. and that future work in this area using the same methodologies should include multiplicative heteroskedasticity. but we tested our data using both Ordered Probit and Ordered Logit models.

one of two “hallmarks” of the microstructure approach. 56 .presented snapshots of research involving bid-ask spreads and volatility. Bid-ask spreads. remain a popular theme for research today.

. (1989). pp.. “The Effect of Risk on the Market Maker’s Spread”. I. A. pp..” Journal of Finance.. 30. “Trading Patterns and Prices in the Interbank Foreign Exchange Market. 189-223 Aliber. Financial Analysts Journal. “Monetary Independence under Floating Exchange Rates.R. pp.” Journal of International Money and Finance. “Transactions Costs and Vehicle Currencies. and Logue.” 57 . (1983). M.. “Market Microstructure Effects of Government Intervention in the Foreign Exchange Market..” Journal of Econometrics. D. R. (1993)..W. P.. (1992). W. A. R. and Pfleiderer. (1994).E. A. and Kroner. D. pp. (1991)..” Review of Financial Studies.. 4. 3-40 Admanti.. S. “Dealership Market: Market-making with Inventory”. P. 485-492 Bossaerts. 48. and Domowitz. 45-49 Black. 12-14 Barnea. (1975). K.. pp. 31. 5-59 Bollerslev. and Mendelson. and Melvin. (1988). T. 52.” Review of Financial Studies. “ARCH Modeling in Finance: A Review of the Theory and Empirical Evidence. 2.References Admanti. T. pp. and Hillion. “Divide and Conquer: A Theory of Intra-day and Day of the Week Effects.” Review of Financial Studies. 1. 1421-1443 Bollerslev.Z. Chou. 513-541 Copeland. T. Journal of Financial Economics. (1991). 31-53 Bagehot. “Bid-ask Spreads and Volatility in the Foreign Exchange Market – an Empirical Analysis. 512-526 Bollerslev. 22. H. (1971). 26. pp. and Galai. (1975).” Journal of Finance. pp. 355-372 Boothe. 365-376 Amihud. P.” Financial Analysts Journal. Y. pp. 36.” Economic Inquiry. “Information Effects on the Bid-Ask Spread. (1988).F. P. and Pfleiderer. “A Theory of Intraday Patterns: Volume and Price Variability. T. pp. P. “The Only Game in Town. 10.” Journal of International Economics. “Exchange Rate Risk and the Bid-Ask Spread: A Seven Country Comparison. (1980). pp.Y. pp.

.. “Intertemporal Price Discovery By Market Makers: Active Versus Passive Learning. H. pp. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 6. (2007). Hollified. C. (1985). 33-53 Evans. 10. C. National Bureau of Economic Research..S. pp. and Madhavan. C. 23-52 Goodhart.R.J.” FMG Discussion Papers dp71. 82. “News and the Foreign Exchange market.E. and Sofianos. C. 48. pp. “Financial Intermediation And The Costs Of Trading In An Opaque Market.. (1993). 207-235 Leach. (1987). pp. 14. (1992). and Madhavan. 1565-1593. Financial Markets Group Green. 1457-1469 Demsetz. pp.” NBER Working Papers 13151..N. N. 38. “Every Minute Counts in Financial Markets..J. M. R. 409-428 Glassman. “The Cost of Transacting”. Inc. “The Trades Of Market Makers: An Empirical Analysis Of NYSE Specialists.R. “Exchange Rate Fundamentals and Order Flow.. and Stoll.Journal of Finance. “Optimal Dealer Pricing under Transactions and Return Uncertainty. 757-84 Leach. B.” Journal of Finance. and Figliuoli. pp. 479-490 Glosten. pp. Ho. 6.” Journal of International Money and Finance.A. “Exchange Rate Flexibility and the Efficiency of Foreign Exchange Markets. “Bid. (1975). International Center for Financial Asset Management and Engineering Hasbrouck.A. “Exchange Rate Risks and Transaction Costs: Evidence from Bid-Ask Spreads. L. 10. 9. T..N. “Price Experimentation And Security Market Structure”. (1993). and Lyons. J. pp. and Milgrom. Fieleke. (1991). pp. (1981).” Journal of Financial Intermediation. Ask and Transaction Prices in a Specialist Market with Heterogeneously Informed Traders.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis.. 375-404 58 . (1990). pp. N. D. A. R. 2. Review of Financial Studies.” Journal of International Money and Finance.E. 71-100 Goodhart. L.” Journal of Financial Economics..” FAME Research Paper Series rp130.” Journal of Financial Economics. A.A. (2005). P. and Schurhoff.. H (1968). G.

and Mackinlay. The MIT Press. A. UK 59 . 39. “Trade Disclosure Regulation In Markets With Negotiated Trades. 291-302 Payne.” Economic Inquiry. 319-379 Lyons. L. S. (2002) The Exconomics of Exchange Rates Cambridge University Press.F. “An Ordered Probit Analysis of Transaction Stock Prices. Journal of Financial Economics. (1995). Cambridge. R.Lo.” Journal of Econometrics. pp. pp. (1992). and Viswanathan. pp.C. 45. (1999). Universität Hannover. “Filtering and Forecasting with Misspecified ARCH Models I: Getting the Right Variance with the Wrong Model..W. R. MA Melvin. 61. A.” Oxford Economic Papers. R. “Foreign Exchange Market Bid-Ask Spreads and the Market Price of Social Unrest. 31.” Journal of International Economics.” Review of Financial Studies.. “ARCH Models as Diffusion Approximations.. A.B. pp. Neuberger. A. D. Transaction Charges. “Price Discovery in Currency Markets.C. 45. K. (1990). pp. and the Market for Foreign Exchange Services. A. 7-38 Nelson. Oxford University Press. and Menkhoff..Y. pp. “Informed Trade In Spot Foreign Exchange Markets: An Empirical Investigation. “Risk. 12. 52. 307-329 Sarno. (1996). 181-210 Lo.. 873-900 Nelson. S. Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät.. 61-90 Osler.. “An Econometric Analysis of Non-Synchronous Trading.” Journal of Financial Economics. Mende. (2001) The Microstructure Approach to Exchange Rates.. A.W.. and Tan. N. 20.” Journal of Econometrics. (1992). 48(2). D. and MacKinlay. pp.B. “Tests of Microstructural Hypotheses in the Foreign Exchange Market”. L.” Journal of Econometrics. 321-351 Lyons.H. Overturf. (2003). and Taylor M.” Diskussionspapiere der Wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Hannover dp-351. (1990). M. pp. C.. Cambridge. (1982). 329-41 Monetary Authority of Singapore Annual Report 2005/2006 Monetary Authority of Singapore Annual Report 2008/2009 Naik. (2006). pp.

078464 1313837 -623880.00029 0.1 Dataset 1: USD-DEM April 1989 to June 1989: MA(1)-GARCH(1.1623 192.7) GARCH = C(3) + C(4)*RESID(-1)^2 + C(5)*GARCH(-1) Variable C MA(1) Coefficient 0.00087 2.001186 0.Normal distribution Sample (adjusted): 2 304131 Included observations: 304130 after adjustments Convergence achieved after 86 iterations MA Backcast: 1 Presample variance: backcast (parameter = 0.000523 0.1 A.055817 0.237055 0.Appendix 1 – EViews Results A.379553 4.ARCH (Marquardt) .102807 Std.942352 0. of regression Sum squared resid Log likelihood Durbin-Watson stat Inverted MA Roots 0.E. Error 0.586985 Variance Equation C RESID(-1)^2 GARCH(-1) R-squared Adjusted R-squared S.000278 87.0911 Prob.1.D.04555 0.934608 0.51 0 0 0 0.518723 -455. dependent var Akaike info criterion Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter.237053 2.102756 4.59 0.102931 4. 0 0 Mean dependent var S.00129 z-Statistic 6.6 1. 60 .773 3358.1) Results: Dependent Variable: 10000*DLOG(ASK) Method: ML .007732 -0.1.1.

7163 0 0 0 2.077487 2.007509 32.3568 Prob.077312 -315881.557843 2.633627 0.021372 0.005775 0.041442 2.Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 304131 Included observations: 304130 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 4 Convergence achieved after 4 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) Coefficient 0.005798 0.311626 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(3) LIMIT_3:C(4) LIMIT_4:C(5) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter.1.002302 z-Statistic 73.98297 96.21363 350. log likelihood 61 .29 0 0.96036 135.A.1 -1.190472 0. log likelihood Avg.03864 Std.2 Ordered Probit Results: 4 Ordered Values Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML . Error 0.5 -329538.1.077363 27313. LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) 0.000289 0. 0 0 Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr.

34188 Prob.041202 2.0779 27155.569596 -0. log likelihood 62 .096973 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(4) LIMIT_3:C(5) LIMIT_4:C(6) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter.077839 -315960. LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) -0.038314 0.46485 16.002355 0.204094 1.A.0389 Std.078049 2.39776 247.000986 z-Statistic 51.5462 0 0 0 2.Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 304131 Included observations: 304130 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 4 Failure to improve Likelihood after 12 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) 10000*DLOG(ASK) Coefficient 0.007386 -97. Error 0.1.6 -329538. 0 0 0 Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr.005843 0.828335 0.1.1 -1.005933 0.47589 -34.04 0 0.014821 0.000288 0.26616 98.3 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML . log likelihood Avg.

2094 -159.2254 100.2579 327.006929 0.000382 0.7 -361329 -1.756869 -1. log likelihood Avg.258734 -347769.008505 -128. log likelihood 63 .693844 0.006929 0.034469 0.1. 0 0 Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr.85067 47.928 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.006924 0.112367 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(3) LIMIT_3:C(4) LIMIT_4:C(5) LIMIT_5:C(6) LIMIT_6:C(7) LIMIT_7:C(8) LIMIT_8:C(9) LIMIT_9:C(10) LIMIT_10:C(11) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter.000917 z-Statistic 90.010998 0.006894 0.01721 0.666276 0.538779 0.037526 2.788901 0.17413 122.259114 2.129331 Std.1.7475 -162.Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 308749 Included observations: 307943 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 10 Convergence achieved after 7 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) Coefficient 0.4 Ordered Probit Results: 10 Ordered Values Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML .8258 96.64 0 0.258844 27118.00944 0.329696 0.206482 -1. Error 0.694678 2.006894 0. LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) -2.1396 100.9984 46.5758 Prob.A.322974 0.

1.55753 -35.007086 0.43857 216.56097 -39.02521 4.6283 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.251959 -0.034829 2.000938 0.277872 -0.020522 0.008402 -178.41 0 0. 0 0 0 Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr.132496 Std.017039 0.007086 0.00091 z-Statistic 54. log likelihood Avg.265485 2.006997 0.251127 1.006998 0.096148 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(4) LIMIT_3:C(5) LIMIT_4:C(6) LIMIT_5:C(7) LIMIT_6:C(8) LIMIT_7:C(9) LIMIT_8:C(10) LIMIT_9:C(11) LIMIT_10:C(12) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter.393098 -0.00038 0.1147 -86. Error 0.605993 -2.26519 25169.A.007077 0.26293 -35.501637 105.3 -361329 -1.7287 -251.5 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML .04669 -2.1. LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) -3.605194 -0.598756 -0.00953 0.49427 -85.004221 0.812 -236.011008 0.6836 Prob.820135 0.Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 308749 Included observations: 307943 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 10 Failure to improve Likelihood after 9 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) 10000*DLOG(ASK) Coefficient 0.26507 -348744. log likelihood 64 .

2955 Prob.6037 328.003998 z-Statistic 102.6436 108.129908 0.96 0 0.1.6 Ordered Logit Results: 4 Ordered Values Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML . LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) 0.05487 34153.A.009948 0. 0 0 Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr.051821 2.0225 0 0 0 2. Error 0.Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 304131 Included observations: 304130 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 4 Convergence achieved after 4 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) Coefficient 0.001266 0.009847 0.1 -329538. log likelihood 65 .483887 1.14077 110.1 -1. log likelihood Avg.432993 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(3) LIMIT_3:C(4) LIMIT_4:C(5) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter.1.05482 -312461.100335 4.014927 49.054994 2.027393 Std.89648 0.

004354 0.31565 152.6104 174.010468 0. 0 0 0 Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr.001297 0.131878 0. LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) 0.3301 341.955897 1.7 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML .94 0 0.3 -329536.673158 0.016938 91. Error 0.944327 1. log likelihood 66 .5674 0 0 0 1.0656 Prob.78533 0.944178 67823.320523 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(4) LIMIT_3:C(5) LIMIT_4:C(6) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter.Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 3 304131 Included observations: 304128 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 4 Convergence achieved after 5 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) 10000*DLOG(ASK) Coefficient 0.626336 5.010676 0.1.001841 z-Statistic 101.2 -0.1.944117 -295624.683 154.102908 1.972039 Std.A. log likelihood Avg.

0075 60.011771 0.155742 0.2591 100. log likelihood 67 .6399 112.6803 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.762068 -3.137085 -3.158783 0.1.23552 2. Error 0.053891 0.011771 0.7518 313.3013 -141.1.159926 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(3) LIMIT_3:C(4) LIMIT_4:C(5) LIMIT_5:C(6) LIMIT_6:C(7) LIMIT_7:C(8) LIMIT_8:C(9) LIMIT_9:C(10) LIMIT_10:C(11) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter.23525 34384.341132 5.98525 61. LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) -5.011879 0.29396 1. log likelihood Avg.2 0 0.8 Ordered Logit Results: 10 Ordered Values Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML . 0 0 Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr.95536 108.23514 -344136.022402 0.016561 -95.717831 0.001594 z-Statistic 115.04758 2.9279 112.028652 0.729267 1.339747 1.3382 Prob.011894 0.9 -361329 -1.Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 308749 Included observations: 307943 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 10 Convergence achieved after 7 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) Coefficient 0.001351 0.011895 0.194799 0.32363 -131.117534 Std.A.

37753 -113. 0 0 0 Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr.3644 104. log likelihood 68 . Error 0.663842 -3.286633 -2.985893 6.9311 -118.2477 Prob.984385 1.2 -361329 -1. LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) -4.028848 0.5792 155.3672 173.3148 330.1.2614 105.012554 0.9 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML .3986 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.012556 0.7732 146. log likelihood Avg.053994 0.66 0 0.018747 -86.001399 0.308867 1.681408 1.093349 2.063831 Std.127739 -327599.93451 1.012786 0.321246 1.318154 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(4) LIMIT_3:C(5) LIMIT_4:C(6) LIMIT_5:C(7) LIMIT_6:C(8) LIMIT_7:C(9) LIMIT_8:C(10) LIMIT_9:C(11) LIMIT_10:C(12) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter.012786 0.127859 67459.A.128154 2.012762 0.194035 0.2298 151.00173 0.253184 0.Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 308749 Included observations: 307943 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 10 Convergence achieved after 7 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) 10000*DLOG(ASK) Coefficient 0.2056 155.15917 0.022654 0.001836 z-Statistic 113.1.

A.1.2 A.1.2.1

Dataset 2: USD-USD April 1989 to June 1989: MA(1)-GARCH(1,1) Results:

Dependent Variable: 10000*DLOG(ASK) Method: ML - ARCH Sample (adjusted): 2 8445 Included observations: 8444 after adjustments Convergence achieved after 37 iterations MA Backcast: 1 Presample variance: backcast (parameter = 0.7) GARCH = C(3) + C(4)*RESID(-1)^2 + C(5)*GARCH(-1) Variable C MA(1) Coefficient 0.045205 -0.3281 Variance Equation C RESID(-1)^2 GARCH(-1) R-squared Adjusted R-squared S.E. of regression Sum squared resid Log likelihood Durbin-Watson stat Inverted MA Roots 0.683349 0.265029 0.653991 0.046483 0.04637 2.549771 54884.24 -18761.29 1.819609 0.33 0.025552 0.008055 0.007513 26.7437 32.9008 87.05354 0 0 0 0.001809 2.611027 4.444882 4.449051 4.446305 Std. Error 0.013771 0.011435 z-Statistic 3.282516 -28.693 Prob. 0.001 0

Mean dependent var S.D. dependent var Akaike info criterion Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter.

69

A.1.2.2

Ordered Probit Results: 4 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML - Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 8445 Included observations: 8444 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 4 Convergence achieved after 5 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCH01 AJ(-1) Coefficient 0.009127 0.942999 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(3) LIMIT_3:C(4) LIMIT_4:C(5) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter. LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) 0.61897 1.002232 4.898957 0.115395 0.585632 0.582885 639.1806 0 0.123303 0.121611 0.134626 5.019921 8.241273 36.38941 0 0 0 0.581462 -2449.933 -2769.524 -0.290139 Std. Error 0.000855 0.042231 z-Statistic 10.67187 22.3298 Prob. 0 0

Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr. log likelihood Avg. log likelihood

70

A.1.2.3

Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values

Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML - Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 8445 Included observations: 8444 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 4 Convergence achieved after 5 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) 10000*DLOG(ASK) Coefficient 0.00933 1.008975 0.08268 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(4) LIMIT_3:C(5) LIMIT_4:C(6) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter. LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) 0.775747 1.166192 5.148438 0.142475 0.568939 0.565644 789.1746 0 0.125149 0.12345 0.138288 6.198581 9.446642 37.22976 0 0 0 0.563936 -2374.936 -2769.524 -0.281257 Std. Error 0.000852 0.043056 0.006736 z-Statistic 10.94538 23.43378 12.27428 Prob. 0 0 0

Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr. log likelihood Avg. log likelihood

71

463308 0.644992 0.A.837742 0. LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) -1.251299 0.568 -2976.65859 -2769.000829 0.195539 0.925167 -0.1.162967 -4.010588 0.293255 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(3) LIMIT_3:C(4) LIMIT_4:C(5) LIMIT_5:C(6) LIMIT_6:C(7) LIMIT_7:C(8) LIMIT_8:C(9) LIMIT_9:C(10) LIMIT_10:C(11) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter.2452 0 0.07658 Prob.159031 0.661721 413.Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 8445 Included observations: 8444 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 10 Convergence achieved after 7 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) Coefficient 0.334317 27.77686 0.191 -0.2.91332 3.908998 5.158252 0.327992 Std.843638 4.71307 0.308537 4.018241 z-Statistic 12.069425 0.104586 -3.0036 0. log likelihood 72 .0009 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr.296765 5.225398 0. log likelihood Avg.4 Ordered Probit Results: 10 Ordered Values Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML .0003 0.158821 0.046148 -0.667763 0.525466 0.7664 16.646689 2.158153 0. Error 0.158161 0.167892 -4.66655 0 0 0.

647126 540.018435 0.92919 0.823252 6.586622 0.159566 0. LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) -0.160333 0.804416 4.643716 -3.320434 Std.197098 0.074509 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(4) LIMIT_3:C(5) LIMIT_4:C(6) LIMIT_5:C(7) LIMIT_6:C(8) LIMIT_7:C(9) LIMIT_8:C(10) LIMIT_9:C(11) LIMIT_10:C(12) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter.524124 -2.Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 8445 Included observations: 8444 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 10 Convergence achieved after 7 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) 10000*DLOG(ASK) Coefficient 0.160125 0.170386 -3. log likelihood 73 .010826 0.0001 0 0 0 0 0 0.2.745 -2976. log likelihood Avg.159477 0.226892 0. 0 0 0 Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr.251929 28.976292 3.0004 0.673407 0.1.56432 0. Error 0.00409 11.205514 5.159469 0.64371 -2705.A.609972 0.0029 0.866967 0.09087 0.991005 0.0003 0.5 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML .313473 0.653717 0.33749 Prob.000828 0.799597 -0.191 -0.214104 6.08258 17.006572 z-Statistic 13.920766 -0.2527 0.996988 4.8901 0 0.

2.584483 625.208446 9.052707 9.285628 0.A. 0 0 Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr.587229 0.252771 5.215518 0.Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 8445 Included observations: 8444 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 4 Convergence achieved after 7 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) Coefficient 0.290938 Std.6 Ordered Logit Results: 4 Ordered Values Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML .524 -0. log likelihood Avg.677 -2769.023145 1. Error 0.73541 0 0 0 0.234157 23.15919 Prob.078415 z-Statistic 9. LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) 1.6929 0 0.816022 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(3) LIMIT_3:C(4) LIMIT_4:C(5) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter. log likelihood 74 .583059 -2456.151811 2.221143 0.1.11296 0.002506 0.524505 36.

014658 z-Statistic 8. 0 0 0 Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr.12276 12.66822 37.524 -0.002679 0.A.565974 -2383.7 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML .Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 8445 Included observations: 8444 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 4 Convergence achieved after 8 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) 10000*DLOG(ASK) Coefficient 0.772378 24.139367 0.567682 771. Error 0.570977 0. log likelihood 75 .282276 Std.080338 0.1.2.219477 0.023498 1.431605 2.25201 Prob.36562 0 0 0 0.371611 10.542 -2769.224685 0. LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) 1.770045 0. log likelihood Avg.261472 6.937969 0.341427 9.9628 0 0.179594 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(4) LIMIT_3:C(5) LIMIT_4:C(6) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter.

399721 -2.310773 -4. Error 0.662368 407.030535 0.810792 8. LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) -3.285436 0.66841 0.282811 0.845043 0.00282 0.66173 1.756259 0.068507 0.282485 0.0012 0.46145 0 0 0 0.797737 1.72951 Prob.63663 0.8 Ordered Logit Results: 10 Ordered Values Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML .563651 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(3) LIMIT_3:C(4) LIMIT_4:C(5) LIMIT_5:C(6) LIMIT_6:C(7) LIMIT_7:C(8) LIMIT_8:C(9) LIMIT_9:C(10) LIMIT_10:C(11) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter.Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 8445 Included observations: 8444 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 10 Convergence achieved after 6 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) Coefficient 0.1.7821 0 0.2.41083 28.77277 5.286528 0.233876 3.282458 0.993661 -2.703637 3.82827 16.3 -2976.875773 6.702359 -4.926596 1.A.659237 -2772.0002 0 0 0 0 0. log likelihood Avg.328316 Std.488651 0. log likelihood 76 .364009 6.191 -0.033692 z-Statistic 10.495444 -4.298438 0. 0 0 Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr.076884 1.

108606 -2.112879 2. log likelihood Avg.285722 0.440867 29.811259 6.236004 1.109446 -4.002984 0.908731 7.394317 7.271391 4.605872 0. log likelihood 77 .004677 1.653921 0.2.387414 1.976024 2. LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) -3.64733 539.286018 0. Error 0.62409 17.336144 0.48917 0.289368 0.63687 0.320536 Std.72067 11.38731 Prob.756454 0.098116 4.09058 0.607 -2976.288368 0.285744 0.Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 8445 Included observations: 8444 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 10 Convergence achieved after 8 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) 10000*DLOG(ASK) Coefficient 0.9 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML .643914 -2706.167709 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(4) LIMIT_3:C(5) LIMIT_4:C(6) LIMIT_5:C(7) LIMIT_6:C(8) LIMIT_7:C(9) LIMIT_8:C(10) LIMIT_9:C(11) LIMIT_10:C(12) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter.014728 z-Statistic 10. 0 0 0 Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr.1.1676 0 0.A.191 -0.702375 -2.243211 -4.03419 0.126018 9.349 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.031698 0.318108 -4.

2785 1015.657286 3.000558 0.075531 -911.902484 0.000813 0.78 0.204 Prob.1.3.781719 Variance Equation C RESID(-1)^2 GARCH(-1) R-squared Adjusted R-squared S.002535 -0.3 -910333.15628 113.7) GARCH = C(3) + C(4)*RESID(-1)^2 + C(5)*GARCH(-1) Variable C MA(1) Coefficient 0.302185 3.3 A.2 1.057826 0.313106 950669. dependent var Akaike info criterion Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter.ARCH (Marquardt) .A.000858 z-Statistic 7.000425 1. Error 0.1) Results: Dependent Variable: 10000*DLOG(ASK) Method: ML .372224 1.1 Dataset 3: USD-USD April 2006 to May 2006: MA(1)-GARCH(1.D.302287 3.000889 71.000358 0. of regression Sum squared resid Log likelihood Durbin-Watson stat Inverted MA Roots 0.1.372225 0.04 0 0 0 -0. 78 . 0 0 Mean dependent var S.302214 Std.E.Normal distribution Sample (adjusted): 2 551356 Included observations: 551355 after adjustments Convergence achieved after 14 iterations MA Backcast: 1 Presample variance: backcast (parameter = 0.97678 0.063219 0.

24124 -69.004577 0.036661 -58. 0 0 Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr.122714 -585179. log likelihood 79 .001588 0.4 -587919.624999 0.A.87791 0 0 0 2.004557 0.652 98.3.267391 0.130554 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(3) LIMIT_3:C(4) LIMIT_4:C(5) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter.2 Ordered Probit Results: 4 Ordered Values Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML .67524 108. LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) -0.851 0 0.3 -1.061348 Std. log likelihood Avg.1.001879 z-Statistic 29.122815 2. Error 0.00466 2.497267 3.122742 5479.046421 -0.Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 551356 Included observations: 551355 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 4 Convergence achieved after 4 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) Coefficient 0.46221 Prob.

002468 0.700133 -468682.005446 0.850056 Std.4 -587919. LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) 0.803072 1.624067 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(4) LIMIT_3:C(5) LIMIT_4:C(6) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter.520271 0.700167 238473.4683 317. log likelihood 80 .032475 0.3 -0.8 0 0.84724 6. 0 0 0 Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr. Error 0.Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 551356 Included observations: 551355 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 4 Convergence achieved after 6 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) 10000*DLOG(ASK) Coefficient 0.682 0 0 0 1.1.202812 1.12882 210.001388 z-Statistic 19.7702 449.00582 0.3 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML .051481 147.3.001698 0.4066 121.264271 0. log likelihood Avg.700255 1.5486 Prob.A.

1. log likelihood Avg.89255 45.351617 -888807.000655 z-Statistic 19.9 -1.040361 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(3) LIMIT_3:C(4) LIMIT_4:C(5) LIMIT_5:C(6) LIMIT_6:C(7) LIMIT_7:C(8) LIMIT_8:C(9) LIMIT_9:C(10) LIMIT_10:C(11) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter.004831 0.472672 3.20169 -61.001543 0. 0 0 Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr.4 Ordered Probit Results: 10 Ordered Values Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML .029623 -0. LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) -2.36043 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.005154 0.675788 Std.6 -890838.A.005776 0.218854 0.123895 -1.292156 -0.696 0 0.00484 0.076775 0.Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 551356 Included observations: 530382 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 10 Convergence achieved after 5 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) Coefficient 0.008137 0.770052 -2.351849 3.004827 0.351682 4062.4275 -367.037289 -340.33503 95. log likelihood 81 .5938 Prob.004841 0.00228 3.70278 97.463249 0. Error 0.0033 -60.34619 -15.004841 0.63469 96.693 -299.593189 0.3.541017 -0.

005688 0.56212 298.00565 0.018353 180859.509118 Std.648621 0.Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 551356 Included observations: 530382 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 10 Failure to improve Likelihood after 17 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) 10000*DLOG(ASK) Coefficient -0.9393 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.69168 22. Error 0.365238 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(4) LIMIT_3:C(5) LIMIT_4:C(6) LIMIT_5:C(7) LIMIT_6:C(8) LIMIT_7:C(9) LIMIT_8:C(10) LIMIT_9:C(11) LIMIT_10:C(12) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter.018282 -800409.5115 -262.005598 0. LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) -2.001223 z-Statistic -22.035043 0.005795 0.018535 3.60886 112.768453 -2.000821 0.3.A.7437 -26.089688 -1.148442 0.025918 -325.008501 0. 0 0 0 Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr.6782 -338.01852 0.1.1 -890838.659757 4.6 0 0.006173 0.084178 0.0419 113.5 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML .395925 0.484632 -0.03649 69. log likelihood 82 .101511 3.6273 Prob.74997 15.001544 0.005789 0.041679 0.9 -1.005549 0.8488 155. log likelihood Avg.

41091 0. Error 0.003055 z-Statistic 28.061638 Std.007581 0.004388 2.123397 2.204018 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(3) LIMIT_3:C(4) LIMIT_4:C(5) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter.123324 5159.1.007658 0.00277 0.20336 108.Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 551356 Included observations: 551355 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 4 Convergence achieved after 4 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) Coefficient 0.7 -587919.830244 9. LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) -0. log likelihood 83 .6 Ordered Logit Results: 4 Ordered Values Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML . log likelihood Avg.4198 63.21045 0 0 0 2. 0 0 Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr.3 -1.080152 -0.135262 0.3.93061 -66.A.321 0 0.79117 Prob.144521 -54.123295 -585339.

6294 0. LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) 1.453473 13.671801 1.600267 3.671678 -460838. log likelihood 84 .009958 0.671713 254162.7016 312.1 -587919.41909 0 0 0 1.7483 Prob.3.7 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML .216154 1.85304 229.053246 1.167398 160.3 0 0.003264 0.011048 0.048475 1.1. log likelihood Avg.6602 409.3 -0. Error 0. 0 0 0 Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr.Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 551356 Included observations: 551355 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 4 Convergence achieved after 6 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) 10000*DLOG(ASK) Coefficient 0.835828 Std.002966 z-Statistic 14.5789 81.A.004586 0.215211 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(4) LIMIT_3:C(5) LIMIT_4:C(6) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter.

008281 0.001114 z-Statistic 22.4939 -290. 0 0 Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr.841 0 0.78632 Prob.349936 4988.73051 9.7677 -339.681481 -3. Error 0.008229 0.009268 0.011679 0.002706 0.3095 0.714603 0.1. LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) -5.690845 -0.61812 86.3.059869 -0.3316 -62.Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 551356 Included observations: 530382 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 10 Convergence achieved after 5 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) Coefficient 0.168038 0.965107 -2.5 -890838.41918 37.34987 -888344.0028 3.12349 -20.008227 0.350102 3.147643 -265.A. log likelihood Avg.008257 0.674915 Std. log likelihood 85 .8 Ordered Logit Results: 10 Ordered Values Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML .32978 88.008278 0.07549 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(3) LIMIT_3:C(4) LIMIT_4:C(5) LIMIT_5:C(6) LIMIT_6:C(7) LIMIT_7:C(8) LIMIT_8:C(9) LIMIT_9:C(10) LIMIT_10:C(11) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter.021378 0.036028 0.512979 -0.20197 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.12459 -67.9 -1.22038 61.

Error 0.6353 286.3.067262 0.225475 3.846774 3.8036 -165.872262 13.8341 231.1774 329.528082 3.011712 0. log likelihood 86 .9 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML .54475 190.189108 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(4) LIMIT_3:C(5) LIMIT_4:C(6) LIMIT_5:C(7) LIMIT_6:C(8) LIMIT_7:C(9) LIMIT_8:C(10) LIMIT_9:C(11) LIMIT_10:C(12) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter.402995 1.4841 Prob.0968 -66.114505 -0. 0 0 0 Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr.9007 434.1 0 0.867156 -760331.A.81305 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) -3.18593 251.6322 81.9 -890838.0016 0.894364 -2.022026 0.04924 2.433555 Std.9 -1. log likelihood Avg.011692 0.012808 0.1.0122 330.867227 261014.010767 0.003175 0.94908 0.011271 0.010738 0.Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 551356 Included observations: 530382 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 10 Convergence achieved after 6 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) 10000*DLOG(ASK) Coefficient 0.7165 2.010914 0.002737 z-Statistic 21.170499 -176.146499 2.867409 2.

dependent var Akaike info criterion Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter. 87 .001 Prob.E. Error 0.000386 1.919658 0.00021 0.D.602816 3.A.196957 3.274136 -1276.78 0.1) Results: Dependent Variable: 10000*DLOG(ASK) Method: ML .051345 0.0686 3502. 0 0 Mean dependent var S.272934 1631271 -1609241 1.7) GARCH = C(3) + C(4)*RESID(-1)^2 + C(5)*GARCH(-1) Variable C MA(1) Coefficient 0.002329 -0.045284 0.000251 0.196973 Std.36927 0.970126 0.000263 201.000611 z-Statistic 9.ARCH Sample (adjusted): 2 1006737 Included observations: 1006736 after adjustments Convergence achieved after 21 iterations MA Backcast: 1 Presample variance: backcast (parameter = 0. of regression Sum squared resid Log likelihood Durbin-Watson stat Inverted MA Roots 0.197016 3.369269 1.78024 Variance Equation C RESID(-1)^2 GARCH(-1) R-squared Adjusted R-squared S.1 Dataset 4: USD-USD April 2009 to May 2009: MA(1)-GARCH(1.001 0 0 0 -0.1.4.4 A.1.000225 0.6421 244.

003373 0.50314 532.003801 99.8891 629.8863 177.1.069791 52977. Error 0.4.366 0 0 0 2. log likelihood 88 .262245 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(3) LIMIT_3:C(4) LIMIT_4:C(5) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter.Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 1006737 Included observations: 1006736 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 4 Convergence achieved after 3 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) Coefficient 0.00148 z-Statistic 113.000867 0.1729 Prob.A. log likelihood Avg.024794 2. 0 0 Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr.797373 2.392075 0.003019 0.300383 1.45 0 0.034882 Std.069833 2. LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) 0.098754 0.2 Ordered Probit Results: 4 Ordered Values Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML .069774 -1041853 -1068342 -1.

Error 0.003441 0.001785 0.040619 0.741812 2. 0 0 0 Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr.415817 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(4) LIMIT_3:C(5) LIMIT_4:C(6) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter.7718 146.874046 Std.1 -1068342 -0.7 0 0.748122 376817. log likelihood 89 .1.748173 1.000907 0.Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 1006737 Included observations: 1006736 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 4 Convergence achieved after 12 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) 10000*DLOG(ASK) Coefficient 0.10602 429.6876 Prob.4.1621 517.3 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML .004675 21.A.072632 1.00095 z-Statistic 44.420409 0. log likelihood Avg.260624 0.0215 437.176356 1.004059 0.7516 0 0 0 1.748103 -879933. LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) 0.

000415 z-Statistic 117.855945 1.002718 0.4852 -62.630826 1.002717 0.142757 0.0911 212.003573 0.9753 170.4.002965 0. 0 0 Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr.38151 52.799457 2.2099 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.463947 0. log likelihood 90 .029392 Std.0266 308.8967 Prob.67088 117.47 0 0.000823 0.Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 1006737 Included observations: 1006736 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 10 Convergence achieved after 4 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) Coefficient 0.002774 0.466867 -0.05884 67525.32063 0.003495 -410. LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) -1.169471 0.00271 0.088372 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(3) LIMIT_3:C(4) LIMIT_4:C(5) LIMIT_5:C(6) LIMIT_6:C(7) LIMIT_7:C(8) LIMIT_8:C(9) LIMIT_9:C(10) LIMIT_10:C(11) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter. Error 0.058805 -2043062 -2076824 -2.0574 685.016257 4.9868 593.058934 4.003034 0.4 Ordered Probit Results: 10 Ordered Values Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML .5626 549.A.394888 0. log likelihood Avg.002729 0.096416 0.1.

LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) -1.540899 -0. 0.014555 0.003013 0.0001 0 0 Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr.2568 -182.5 Ordered Probit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML .889585 -0.003187 0.4845 548.0877 413.1. Error 0.A.843887 188.000853 z-Statistic -3.481455 1.8559 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.729748 -1877424 -2076824 -1.729787 398801.000502 0.5108 Prob.094896 0.Ordered Probit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 1006737 Included observations: 1006736 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 10 Convergence achieved after 9 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) 10000*DLOG(ASK) Coefficient -0.1 0 0. log likelihood Avg.00377 0.399614 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(4) LIMIT_3:C(5) LIMIT_4:C(6) LIMIT_5:C(7) LIMIT_6:C(8) LIMIT_7:C(9) LIMIT_8:C(10) LIMIT_9:C(11) LIMIT_10:C(12) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter.096012 3.8783 453.753915 49.4.003113 0.729889 3.003697 0.09902 -4.003255 0.211211 -0.153294 0.864862 Std.003579 0.002964 0.676514 2.24206 189.40264 0. log likelihood 91 .000829 0.9157 468.003062 0.615502 1.004378 -501.4773 -70.

002593 z-Statistic 109.301442 0.070184 -1042059 -1068342 -1.0702 52565.035087 Std.01 0 0.006332 0. log likelihood Avg. log likelihood 92 .001959 0.007555 111.1.574 169.3912 491. Error 0.114943 4.Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 1006737 Included observations: 1006736 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 4 Convergence achieved after 4 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) Coefficient 0.9238 569.A. 0 0 Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr.4684 Prob.43948 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(3) LIMIT_3:C(4) LIMIT_4:C(5) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter.214626 0.070243 2.024601 2.4. LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) 0.6 Ordered Logit Results: 4 Ordered Values Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML .00533 0.3761 0 0 0 2.593662 3.

LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) 2. Error 0.532543 593849.11273 494.27793 1.4.964362 1.6543 585.38648 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(4) LIMIT_3:C(5) LIMIT_4:C(6) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter.010304 0.003971 0.002369 z-Statistic 96.002315 0.A.796605 8.1713 Prob.1. 0 0 0 Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr.7 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 4 Ordered Values Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML .532523 -771417. log likelihood 93 .Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 1006737 Included observations: 1006736 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 4 Convergence achieved after 5 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) 10000*DLOG(ASK) Coefficient 0.6204 696.2264 659.992082 6.766256 Std.222491 1. log likelihood Avg.532594 1.007366 0.2 -1068342 -0.5 0 0.504201 0.012206 406.7327 0 0 0 1.

log likelihood 94 .Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 1006737 Included observations: 1006736 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 10 Convergence achieved after 4 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) Coefficient 0.07788 129.4. 0 0 Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr.630813 0.5268 297.863371 1.059952 4.007967 0.1. log likelihood Avg.059823 -2043574 -2076824 -2.4985 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.000728 z-Statistic 110.004866 0.812 612.187268 0.0571 Prob.005538 0.005024 0.9948 205.297395 0.804875 3.4991 543.004859 0.149279 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(3) LIMIT_3:C(4) LIMIT_4:C(5) LIMIT_5:C(6) LIMIT_6:C(7) LIMIT_7:C(8) LIMIT_8:C(9) LIMIT_9:C(10) LIMIT_10:C(11) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter.007016 -350.204722 0.029901 Std.A.004839 0.059859 66500.112486 4.48186 70.5 0 0.8 Ordered Logit Results: 10 Ordered Values Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML .8518 -38. LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) -2.004891 0.01601 4.795295 -0. Error 0.8187 176.005723 0.496184 2.001844 0.339075 0.8132 506.

575528 1.158021 3. LR statistic Prob(LR statistic) -1.008209 0.85286 6.3935 382.959922 0.1 0 0.4871 Prob.288018 2.005979 0. log likelihood 95 .001961 z-Statistic 124.736943 Std. Error 0.010167 -177.6506 443.006343 0.006163 0.734323 3. 0 0 0 Akaike info criterion Log likelihood Restr.002158 0.499334 1.268841 0.9462 765.3314 654.5703 267.4.034615 5.473909 -1748643 -2076824 -1.008444 0.473948 656363.8769 594.285226 7.100859 4.2899 741.283457 Limit Points LIMIT_2:C(4) LIMIT_3:C(5) LIMIT_4:C(6) LIMIT_5:C(7) LIMIT_6:C(8) LIMIT_7:C(9) LIMIT_8:C(10) LIMIT_9:C(11) LIMIT_10:C(12) Pseudo R-squared Schwarz criterion Hannan-Quinn criter. log likelihood Avg.9249 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.A.006789 0.Ordered Logit (Quadratic hill climbing) Sample (adjusted): 2 1006737 Included observations: 1006736 after adjustments Number of ordered indicator values: 10 Convergence achieved after 5 iterations Covariance matrix computed using second derivatives Variable GARCHVAR AJ(-1) 10000*DLOG(ASK) Coefficient 0.005795 0.007889 0.6451 488.549476 2.1.9 Ordered Logit (with Returns) Results: 10 Ordered Values Dependent Variable: AJ Method: ML .5891 574.001002 0.6376 782.47405 3.

- An Arrival at the Airport in IndiaUploaded byManova Kumar
- CURRENCY CONVERSIONUploaded bySruthi Nair
- Final ReportUploaded byAkshay Doshi
- 17353_mgn514 -- International Environment and ManagementUploaded byVernikaSharma
- Currency Carry Trades in Latin America BISUploaded byIván Wdi
- SabsebadarupaiyaUploaded bySamuel Biswas
- FMI10eAbr_ch16Uploaded byNajmul Joy
- Factors Affecting the Fluctuations in Exchange Rate of the Indian Rupee Group 9 C2Uploaded byKarishma Satheesh Kumar
- Exchange RatesUploaded byFadhili Kiyao
- Q. 1 Financial MarketUploaded byMAHENDRA SHIVAJI DHENAK
- End TermUploaded byPriti Bihani
- ExchanvvvvUploaded byaaabu299js
- Guided Tour of FX MicroStructUploaded byzztf
- Zimbabwe Monetary Policy February 2019Uploaded byBusiness Daily Zimbabwe
- The Foreign Exchange MarketUploaded byDipesh Jain
- JAIIB AFB Sample Questions by Murugan-Nov 17 ExaUploaded byLakshmi Narasaiah
- Foreign Currency Valuation ProcessUploaded byVinay Singh
- BUBA SERUES CHARTISTS AND FUNDAMENTALITS_Exchange rate dynamics in a target zone __a heterogeneous expectations approach.pdfUploaded bywlannes
- Currency FluctuationUploaded bySakshi G Awasthi
- Currency Risk ManagementFTandParttimeVERSION.pptxUploaded byAnonymous uS08x4VZ3P
- RupeeUploaded byrahul_khanna4321
- US Federal Reserve: h10Uploaded byThe Fed
- Test 09Uploaded bySanthoshkumar Rayavarapu
- spt,cross,forwardUploaded byseagul_1183822
- Financials ERP for beginnersUploaded byEryx Letz
- fm401miUploaded by31025442743
- forxUploaded byAshwini Prabhu
- Foreign Trading SystemsUploaded byAravind Siva
- Targeting Real Exchange RateUploaded bySukumar Nandi
- PDVSA Ortega Factual ProfferUploaded byLatin American Herald Tribune

- Lecture 7_8-Flexible and Fixed Exchange Rate SystemUploaded byAmitesh Singh
- C_2011 Audited Financials and 990Uploaded byJohn Q Citizen
- Questions ITUploaded byshree_ny
- Frm Practice Exam 052711Uploaded byBruno F. Bessa
- Form N3 DDO Registration NORUploaded bysatisch
- Lion on the MoveUploaded byMihir Shah
- IFRS in your Pocket 2015.pdfUploaded bylemur6666
- F1Uploaded byAdeel Shahid
- economic survey gistUploaded byAnkit Jain
- 00000667Uploaded byBahman Matouri
- Hotel Business Plan GuideUploaded bySky Yim
- SEBIUploaded byamoljadhav3690
- Raghee Horner - Forex Trading for Maximum ProfitUploaded byDaniel Carlos
- CP Philippines SSSUploaded bymervin_malabuyoc
- UBL CSR ReportUploaded byTalha E
- PRS~MPR February 2015Uploaded byAditi Bhardwaj
- Small and Cottage IndustriesUploaded bymd rizwan
- NABARD-sources_and_uses_of_funds.docUploaded byKartik Shah
- Grameen ExperienceUploaded byAvrupa Sanat
- Practice Session 2.docxUploaded byKUMAR ABHISHEK
- KMBLUploaded byAkshitaDeepchand
- CONTOH PARAPHRASING, SUMARISING, QUOTING AND ABSTRACTUploaded byLuhan Rina
- Deltanet TravelUploaded byRif-q Doank
- The World Trade Organization and Its Impact on Indian BusinessesUploaded byAsha Anbalagan
- MCID -SHGS PPT-.pptUploaded byPriyanka Agarwal
- gowtham plagarisamUploaded byvamsi
- International Trade Worksheet1Uploaded byMildred C. Walters
- Sh. Satya Dev Sharma , Jaipur vs Assessee on 23 January, 2014Uploaded bysun
- Project Report on Portfolio ConstructionUploaded byMazhar Zaman
- Accounting Chapter 2- Analyzing and Recording TransactionsUploaded bynicat