
doi: 10.2139/ssrn.923022
I find that limit order submission is not random. The probability of observing a limit sell (buy) order is highest after another limit sell (buy) order. This first-order positive serial correlation in the order flow cannot be explained by theories offered in the current literature. I find that the positive serial correlation is due largely to order splitting and the undercutting behavior among limit order traders. Controlling for these two effects explains up to 72 percent of the positive serial correlation. I also show that the failure to account for these two effects may cloud the results of some empirical market microstructure studies.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 1 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
