|
Transaction costs are direct costs associated with transacting trades.
Indirect costs, such as staff salaries, computer systems or overhead are
not included. Some transaction costs are visible and explicit:
commissions
paid as compensation to brokers acting as agents,
exchange
fees, and
stamp taxes
or other duties governments (rarely) apply to transactions.
Not as transparent are implicit costs, which include
bid-ask
spreads,
impact
costs, and
timing
risk costs.
The cost due to a bid-ask spread is generally calculated as half the
spread between the best ask price and the best bid price available in the
market. As an implicit cost, bid-ask spreads are paid by
liquidity
demanders and compensate liquidity provides such as market makers or
parties who place limit orders.
Impact costs are implicit costs also paid by liquidity
demanders to liquidity providers. Generally, the best bid and ask prices
quoted in the market are for only small transactions. Larger transactions
must be executed at even less favorable prices. Such large transactions
are said to "move" the market, which is why the additional cost is called
an impact cost.
Traders try to mitigate impact costs by disguising the
size of an order. They will split an order into pieces and transact trades
at different times or through different brokers or dealers. This extends
the period over which the order is fulfilled, and the market may move
during that period for reasons unrelated to the order's impact. The
resulting cost or savings is called the timing risk cost. Of course,
distinguishing an impact cost from a cost resulting from a market move
that "would have happened anyway" is largely impossible. The distinction
between impact and timing risk costs is conceptual.
Finally, in addition to explicit and implicit transaction
costs are
opportunity costs. Large orders may
take several days to fill. If part of an order remains unfilled at the end
of the day on which it was placed, any missed profit or loss arising from
the unfilled portion is considered opportunity cost.
Institutional investors spend considerable effort in
tracking and mitigating their transaction costs. If they employ outside
portfolio mangers or brokers, they will also scrutinize their transaction
costs. Explicit transaction costs are known, so analyses tend to focus on
estimating implicit, and occasionally even opportunity costs. Actual
analyses will depend upon the size of an order as well as available
information. For example, the exact timing of an order or trade may not
always be known, which makes it more difficult to assign transaction
costs.
If the timing of a trade is known, a simple analysis is to
compare the trade price with the average of the bid and ask prices (what
is called the mid-offer price) at
the time the trade was made. This captures the transaction cost due to the
bid-ask spread but not due to impact costs or timing risk costs. If a
broker is given discretion as to the timing of a trade, this analysis will
not indicate if his timing was good or bad. The approach is most suitable
for very small orders that can be executed rapidly and won't be broken
down into smaller trades.
Another approach is to compare the trade price (or the
average trade price, if an order is broken into pieces) with the mid-offer price at the time the order was passed to the trader or
broker. This, of course, requires that those times be recorded. The
advantage of the approach is that it reflects transaction costs due to
bid-ask spreads, impact costs and timing risk costs. It is also applicable
to orders that are split.
A popular approach, especially if information on the
timing of orders or trades is not available, is to compare the average
trade price to the
volume-weighted average price (VWAP) for
that day. The VWAP of a security or other traded instrument is simply the
average price paid for that instrument in all trading of that instrument:
 |
[1] |
where the sums are taken over all trades during that day.
VWAP was first proposed by Berkowitz, Logue and Noser (1988). Traders like it because it
is simple and allows them to
be compared with their "peers." It is especially relevant for large orders
that are split, since trades will be transacted at various points during
the day. However, it can be misleading if an order is so large that its
trade prices dominate the VWAP. In the limiting case where an order
represents the only trading in an instrument for the day, the average
trade price for the order will equal the VWAP irrespective of transaction
costs.
Perold (1988) published a comprehensive
metric of
transaction costs that is known as
Perold's implementation
shortfall. Perold wrote in the context of portfolio management. He
included among transaction costs any change in price that occurs between
the time when a portfolio manager decides on a transaction and the time
when she actually passes the order to a trader.
Perold's metric is a sum of four components:
 |
[2] |
The cost due to manager's delay is simply the volume of
the order multiplied by the change in the mid-offer price between the time
when the portfolio manager decides on the transaction and the time when
she passes the order to a trader. Explicit costs are known. They are the sum
of actual brokerage commissions, fees, etc. Implicit costs are calculated
as the total value paid/received for that portion of the order filled
during the day minus the total value that would have been paid/received if
all those trades had been executed at the mid-offer price when the order
was placed. Opportunity cost is calculated as the total value of that
portion of the order that remains unfilled at the end of the day based on
the closing mid-offer price minus its value based on the mid-offer price
when the order was placed.
Typically, an investor will apply the model each day to
calculate the total transaction costs across all its orders that were open
at any point during the day. If an order remains unfilled at the end of
the day, the balance is carried forward and treated like a new order
placed at the market open for calculating that day's transaction costs.
|
|
 |
|
exchange traded
Traded on a formal exchange such as the New York Stock Exchange or Chicago Board
of Trade.
liquidity
Used in various senses, all relating to availability of, access to, or
convertibility into cash.
settlement In finance, performance
on a contractual obligation.
soft
dollars A sometimes controversial inducement brokers offer
investment managers to place trades through them.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Harris (2003)
is an outstanding book on all aspects of trading. It
includes a detailed treatment of transaction costs. Kissell and
Glantz (2003)
is a book entirely about transaction costs
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Berkowitz,
Stephen A., Dennis E. Logue and Eugene A. Noser, Jr. (1988). The
total cost of transactions on the NYSE, Journal of Finance,
43 (1), 97–112.
Perold,
Andre F. (1988), The implementation shortfall: paper vs. reality,
Journal of Portfolio Management, 14 (Spring), 4–9. |
|
|
|
 |
 |
Ads by Contingency Analysis
|
|
|
 |
|
Mark
to Market 02 Mar 2004
Accounting for transaction costs market values. |
|
|
|
|