medium · Market Microstructure
A venue lowers its taker fee, narrowing the QUOTED spread (the cum-fee spread tightens because makers can post tighter and still profit). A buy-side desk paying the taker fee compares the pre- and post-change CUM-FEE effective spread (the all-in cost including the access fee) and finds it essentially unchanged, even though the quoted spread visibly tightened.
What is the cleanest explanation consistent with rational maker behavior?
- Makers tighten the displayed quote by roughly the fee reduction, so the quoted spread falls but the all-in (fee-inclusive) cost to the taker is approximately conserved
- Because the taker fee reduction lowers all-in trading costs one-for-one, an unchanged cum-fee effective spread can only mean the desk mismeasured the original quoted spread
- Narrower quoted spreads mechanically reduce cum-fee effective spreads, so the desk is likely capturing extra midpoint price improvement that offsets the lower fee
- Quoted and effective spreads are defined independently of any exchange access fee, so the fee cut cannot affect either one and the observation is purely coincidental
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More Market Microstructure practice
- A stock is quoted at $50.00 bid x $50.10 ask. A buyer submit… — How does this action affec
- A stock is trading at $100.00. The Level 1 S&P 500 Market-Wi… — What is the status of trad
- If the stock price drops instantly from $50.05 to $49.00 in a 'flash crash,' what happens
- Under the National Market System (Reg NMS), if Exchange A is quoting a stock at $10.00 x
- If the stock gaps down and opens at $69.50 on Tuesday morning, at what price will the trad
- If the dealer uses a quote shading parameter of κ = 0.00004 to manage inventory, what is t
- A trader places a large sell order for 50,000 shares at $50.01 only to cancel it immediate
- Using the Lee-Ready algorithm, how should a trade occurring at $50.10 following a $50.00 t