As known, in the past stocks traded at order size of minimum 100 shares, does that habbit still affect us ourdays on liquid stocks ($20mln+ daily volume) ? e.g. does a 100 shares order get faster filling than 89 shares ???
Algos split their orders to remain undetected. Plenty of time my round lots orders get filled by a whole bunch of 2's, 3's, 14's and so on. So I guess odd lots should not affect fill quality.
It’s amazing that my orders (mostly round orders from 100 to 500 shares) almost always got filled even at the price edges, i.e., if the price reaches $200.06 at its highest and I got filled at $200.05. For years I only had a few orders filled at 93 shares out of 100 shares, for example. It was usually at the very extremes of price movement. Granted I only trade very liquid stocks in high volume situations.
That makes sense. Guess computer programs don’t care 1 share or 10 shares. I also noticed if my order is in the price volatility range, even at the edge, it always gets filled. My reasoning is it’s favorable to fill orderers as much as possible, like doing more business in a way. No order fills no business for brokers. That phenomenon may become some kind of edge, though quite small.
Slightly different routing. But in normal markets with a high volume instrument, and not huge order, there should be no discernable difference. On the other hand, in a disorderly market, I would stay clear and go with a 100 share increments to avoid the odd lot matching engine. You will have enough troubles being retail in such markets.
Theoretically, yes. And it used to be meaningful in a real world sense but today I don't think most humans would notice unless you're trading a truly massive (or tiny) order, in a thinly traded instrument...maybe?
The other day I considered buying 10k shares of a 1.50 stock but wondered how to place that order, as a 10k shares order or 10x 1k or ? And if it mattered at all. My concern was that it would trigger a downward movement from algos or bigger fish. Thoughts?