Scribd
Upload
13 views10 pages

(In) Stability Properties of Limit Order Dynamics

EC 2006

Uploaded by

Indrayana Rustandi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
13 views10 pages

(In) Stability Properties of Limit Order Dynamics

EC 2006

Uploaded by

Indrayana Rustandi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 10

(In)Stability Properties of

Limit Order Dynamics

Collaborators:
Eyal Even-Dar (Final Israel)
Sham Kakade (Penn/Wharton Stats)
Yishay Mansour (Tel Aviv University)

[EC 2006]
“Backtesting” of Trading Strategies

• Common microstructure backtesting process:


– assume access to historical limit order data
– reconstruct complete order books at each point in time
– insert hypothetical limit orders into the stream
– simulate forward the execution of the hypothetical orders
• Faithfully simulates the mechanical aspects of market impact
• What about the reactive or “psychological” aspects?
• Formalize as a question about dynamical stability:
– Make various assumptions about how future orders do or do not react to the past
– Can tiny perturbations of the limit order sequence cause dramatic future change?
– Butterfly Effects and Chaos
Two Models of Market Impact
• Both models deal with arbitrary, fixed sequences
• Absolute model:
– market given by a sequence of “absolute” limit order prices (one share each)
– e.g. M = (p_1,buy),(p_2,buy),(p_3,sell),…
– order books constructed from sequence M
– “mechanical” impact only
– motivation:
• traders with “inherent” valuations
• traders with slow time scales, long investment horizons, poor microstructure access
• Relative model:
– market given by a sequence of limit order prices relative to current bid & ask
– e.g. M’ = (d_1,buy),(d_2,buy),(d_3,sell),…
– construct order books & actual prices in concert with each other
• e.g. limit price p_2 = current bid + d_2; limit price p_3 = current ask + d_3; etc.
– crude form of “psychological” or “reactive” impact
– motivation:
• traders “looking for a bargain”; trading off time for price
• “penny-jumping”, optimized execution
• high-frequency traders with low latency and full microstructure access
• How do these models differ?
Stability
• Consider sequences in the two models:
– absolute: M = (p_1,type_1),(p_2,type_2),…
– relative: M’ = (d_1,type_1),(d_2,type_2),…
• Now consider a small, arbitrary modification to each
– e.g. deleting or adding a single order
• (p_i,type_i) from M, (d_i,type_i) from M’
• think of this as “our” action
• How much can such a change alter basic properties of the sequence?
– stability = small change not amplified with time
– instability = small change greatly amplified
• Absolute model: Every “reasonable” property stable!
– volume executed, VWAP, closing price,…
– note: must still be careful; some bounds depend on spread of M
– generalizes to larger modifications, other types
• Relative model: Most properties highly unstable!
– can find sequences (with bounded spread) such that single deletion causes
arbitrarily large changes in volume executed, VWAP, closing price,…
Absolute Model Stability
• <B,S> = original buy and sell books (at some point in simulation)
• <B’,S’> = modified buy and sell books (at the same point)
• Introduce “meta-states” with small “edit distance” between simulations
• E.g. meta-state where B = B’ and S U {s’} = S’ U {s} for some s != s’
• Main technical lemma establishes:
Some Sobering Philosophy
• The “usual” backtesting concern:
– Past strategy performance may not be indicative of hypothetical future performance
• changes in underlying market conditions
• overfitting the historical data
• An even worse concern:
– Past strategy performance may not be indicative of hypothetical past performance!
• well beyond measurable trading costs, mechanical market impact, etc.
• Standard backtesting methodologies implicitly assume an absolute model
– May be fine on longer timescales, but potentially dangerous at microstructure level
– Alternatives: only use actual past trades or live trading
Simulations
0.0025% 0.7%
A Mixture Model
fraction α of absolute traders, 1-α of relative traders, single order deletion

You might also like