Refine
Year of publication
- 2017 (5) (remove)
Document Type
- Working Paper (5) (remove)
Language
- English (5)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5) (remove)
Keywords
- "magnet effect" (1)
- Brexit (1)
- Counterparty Credit Limits (1)
- Counterparty Risk (1)
- Futures Market (1)
- High Frequency Trading (1)
- Market Design (1)
- Market Making (1)
- News Releases (1)
- Price Formation (1)
Institute
We extend the classical ”martingale-plus-noise” model for high-frequency prices by an error correction mechanism originating from prevailing mispricing. The speed of price reversal is a natural measure for informational efficiency. The strength of the price reversal relative to the signal-to-noise ratio determines the signs of the return serial correlation and the bias in standard realized variance estimates. We derive the model’s properties and locally estimate it based on mid-quote returns of the NASDAQ 100 constituents. There is evidence of mildly persistent local regimes of positive and negative serial correlation, arising from lagged feedback effects and sluggish price adjustments. The model performance is decidedly superior to existing stylized microstructure models. Finally, we document intraday periodicities in the speed of price reversion and noise-to-signal ratios.
We show an ambivalent role of high-frequency traders (HFTs) in the Eurex Bund Futures market around high-impact macroeconomic announcements and extreme events. Around macroeconomic announcements, HFTs serve as market makers, post competitive spreads, and earn most of their profits through liquidity supply. Right before the announcement, however, HFTs significantly widen spreads and cause a rapid but short-lived drying-out of liquidity. In turbulent periods, such as after the U.K. Brexit announcement, HFTs shift their focus from market making activities to aggressive (but not necessarily profitable) directional strategies. Then, HFT activity becomes dominant and market quality can degrade.
We theoretically and empirically study large-scale portfolio allocation problems when transaction costs are taken into account in the optimization problem. We show that transaction costs act on the one hand as a turnover penalization and on the other hand as a regularization, which shrinks the covariance matrix. As an empirical framework, we propose a flexible econometric setting for portfolio optimization under transaction costs, which incorporates parameter uncertainty and combines predictive distributions of individual models using optimal prediction pooling. We consider predictive distributions resulting from highfrequency based covariance matrix estimates, daily stochastic volatility factor models and regularized rolling window covariance estimates, among others. Using data capturing several hundred Nasdaq stocks over more than 10 years, we illustrate that transaction cost regularization (even to small extent) is crucial in order to produce allocations with positive Sharpe ratios. We moreover show that performance differences between individual models decline when transaction costs are considered. Nevertheless, it turns out that adaptive mixtures based on high-frequency and low-frequency information yield the highest performance. Portfolio bootstrap reveals that naive 1=N-allocations and global minimum variance allocations (with and without short sales constraints) are significantly outperformed in terms of Sharpe ratios and utility gains.
A counterparty credit limit (CCL) is a limit imposed by a financial institution to cap its maximum possible exposure to a specified counterparty. Although CCLs are designed to help institutions mitigate counterparty risk by selective diversification of their exposures, their implementation restricts the liquidity that institutions can access in an otherwise centralized pool. We address the question of how this mechanism impacts trade prices and volatility, both empirically and via a new model of trading with CCLs. We find empirically that CCLs cause little impact on trade. However, our model highlights that in extreme situations, CCLs could serve to destabilize prices and thereby influence systemic risk.
Exploiting NASDAQ order book data and difference-in-differences methodology, we identify the distinct effects of trading pause mechanisms introduced on U.S. stock exchanges after May 2010. We show that the mere existence of such a regulation constitutes a safeguard which makes market participants behave differently in anticipation of a pause. Pauses tend to break local price trends, make liquidity suppliers revise positions, and enhance price discovery. In contrast, pauses do not have a “cool off” effect on markets, but rather accelerate volatility and bid-ask spreads. This implies a regulatory trade-off between the protective role of trading pauses and their adverse effects on market quality.