IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1811.05524.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cross-Sectional Variation of Intraday Liquidity, Cross-Impact, and their Effect on Portfolio Execution

Author

Listed:
  • Seungki Min
  • Costis Maglaras
  • Ciamac C. Moallemi

Abstract

The composition of natural liquidity has been changing over time. An analysis of intraday volumes for the S&P500 constituent stocks illustrates that (i) volume surprises, i.e., deviations from their respective forecasts, are correlated across stocks, and (ii) this correlation increases during the last few hours of the trading session. These observations could be attributed, in part, to the prevalence of portfolio trading activity that is implicit in the growth of ETF, passive and systematic investment strategies; and, to the increased trading intensity of such strategies towards the end of the trading session, e.g., due to execution of mutual fund inflows/outflows that are benchmarked to the closing price on each day. In this paper, we investigate the consequences of such portfolio liquidity on price impact and portfolio execution. We derive a linear cross-asset market impact from a stylized model that explicitly captures the fact that a certain fraction of natural liquidity providers only trade portfolios of stocks whenever they choose to execute. We find that due to cross-impact and its intraday variation, it is optimal for a risk-neutral, cost minimizing liquidator to execute a portfolio of orders in a coupled manner, as opposed to a separable VWAP-like execution that is often assumed. The optimal schedule couples the execution of the various orders so as to be able to take advantage of increased portfolio liquidity towards the end of the day. A worst case analysis shows that the potential cost reduction from this optimized execution schedule over the separable approach can be as high as 6% for plausible model parameters. Finally, we discuss how to estimate cross-sectional price impact if one had a dataset of realized portfolio transaction records that exploits the low-rank structure of its coefficient matrix suggested by our analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Seungki Min & Costis Maglaras & Ciamac C. Moallemi, 2018. "Cross-Sectional Variation of Intraday Liquidity, Cross-Impact, and their Effect on Portfolio Execution," Papers 1811.05524, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1811.05524
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1811.05524
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Itzhak Ben-David & Francesco A. Franzoni & Rabih Moussawi, 2016. "Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs)," Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper Series 16-64, Swiss Finance Institute.
    2. Aur'elien Alfonsi & Antje Fruth & Alexander Schied, 2007. "Optimal execution strategies in limit order books with general shape functions," Papers 0708.1756, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2010.
    3. Obizhaeva, Anna A. & Wang, Jiang, 2013. "Optimal trading strategy and supply/demand dynamics," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 1-32.
    4. M. Schneider & F. Lillo, 2019. "Cross-impact and no-dynamic-arbitrage," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(1), pages 137-154, January.
    5. David B. Brown & Bruce Ian Carlin & Miguel Sousa Lobo, 2010. "Optimal Portfolio Liquidation with Distress Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(11), pages 1997-2014, November.
    6. Iacopo Mastromatteo & Michael Benzaquen & Zoltan Eisler & Jean-Philippe Bouchaud, 2017. "Trading Lightly: Cross-Impact and Optimal Portfolio Execution," Papers 1702.03838, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2017.
    7. Aurelien Alfonsi & Antje Fruth & Alexander Schied, 2010. "Optimal execution strategies in limit order books with general shape functions," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(2), pages 143-157.
    8. Karolyi, G. Andrew & Lee, Kuan-Hui & van Dijk, Mathijs A., 2012. "Understanding commonality in liquidity around the world," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 82-112.
    9. Michael Benzaquen & Iacopo Mastromatteo & Zoltan Eisler & Jean-Philippe Bouchaud, 2016. "Dissecting cross-impact on stock markets: An empirical analysis," Papers 1609.02395, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2016.
    10. Gur Huberman & Werner Stanzl, 2005. "Optimal Liquidity Trading," Review of Finance, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 165-200, June.
    11. Jim Gatheral, 2010. "No-dynamic-arbitrage and market impact," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(7), pages 749-759.
    12. Ioanid Rosu, 2009. "A Dynamic Model of the Limit Order Book," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(11), pages 4601-4641, November.
    13. Kyle, Albert S, 1985. "Continuous Auctions and Insider Trading," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(6), pages 1315-1335, November.
    14. Bertsimas, Dimitris & Lo, Andrew W., 1998. "Optimal control of execution costs," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 1-50, April.
    15. Ioanid Rosu, 2009. "A Dynamic Model of the Limit Order Book," Post-Print hal-00515873, HAL.
    16. Robert Almgren, 2003. "Optimal execution with nonlinear impact functions and trading-enhanced risk," Applied Mathematical Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18.
    17. Jennings, Robert H & Starks, Laura T & Fellingham, John C, 1981. "An Equilibrium Model of Asset Trading with Sequential Information Arrival," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 36(1), pages 143-161, March.
    18. Gur Huberman & Werner Stanzl, 2004. "Price Manipulation and Quasi-Arbitrage," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(4), pages 1247-1275, July.
    19. Andrew Koch & Stefan Ruenzi & Laura Starks, 2016. "Editor's Choice Commonality in Liquidity: A Demand-Side Explanation," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 29(8), pages 1943-1974.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Masamitsu Ohnishi & Makoto Shimoshimizu, 2022. "Optimal Pair–Trade Execution with Generalized Cross–Impact," Asia-Pacific Financial Markets, Springer;Japanese Association of Financial Economics and Engineering, vol. 29(2), pages 253-289, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Beomsoo Park & Benjamin Van Roy, 2015. "Adaptive Execution: Exploration and Learning of Price Impact," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1058-1076, October.
    2. Beomsoo Park & Benjamin Van Roy, 2012. "Adaptive Execution: Exploration and Learning of Price Impact," Papers 1207.6423, arXiv.org.
    3. Gerry Tsoukalas & Jiang Wang & Kay Giesecke, 2019. "Dynamic Portfolio Execution," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2015-2040, May.
    4. Martin D. Gould & Mason A. Porter & Stacy Williams & Mark McDonald & Daniel J. Fenn & Sam D. Howison, 2010. "Limit Order Books," Papers 1012.0349, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2013.
    5. Olivier Guéant, 2016. "The Financial Mathematics of Market Liquidity: From Optimal Execution to Market Making," Post-Print hal-01393136, HAL.
    6. Antje Fruth & Torsten Schöneborn & Mikhail Urusov, 2014. "Optimal Trade Execution And Price Manipulation In Order Books With Time-Varying Liquidity," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(4), pages 651-695, October.
    7. Kashyap, Ravi, 2020. "David vs Goliath (You against the Markets), A dynamic programming approach to separate the impact and timing of trading costs," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 545(C).
    8. Nico Achtsis & Dirk Nuyens, 2013. "A Monte Carlo method for optimal portfolio executions," Papers 1312.5919, arXiv.org.
    9. Olivier Guéant & Charles-Albert Lehalle, 2015. "General Intensity Shapes In Optimal Liquidation," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(3), pages 457-495, July.
    10. Vayanos, Dimitri & Wang, Jiang, 2012. "Market liquidity - theory and empirical evidence," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 119044, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Jan Kallsen & Johannes Muhle-Karbe, 2014. "High-Resilience Limits of Block-Shaped Order Books," Papers 1409.7269, arXiv.org.
    12. Dupret, Jean-Loup & Hainaut, Donatien, 2023. "Optimal liquidation under indirect price impact with propagator," LIDAM Discussion Papers ISBA 2023012, Université catholique de Louvain, Institute of Statistics, Biostatistics and Actuarial Sciences (ISBA).
    13. Takashi Kato, 2011. "An Optimal Execution Problem with a Geometric Ornstein-Uhlenbeck Price Process," Papers 1107.1787, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2014.
    14. Martin D. Gould & Mason A. Porter & Stacy Williams & Mark McDonald & Daniel J. Fenn & Sam D. Howison, 2013. "Limit order books," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(11), pages 1709-1742, November.
    15. Samuel N. Cohen & Lukasz Szpruch, 2011. "A limit order book model for latency arbitrage," Papers 1110.4811, arXiv.org.
    16. Aurélien Alfonsi & Alexander Schied, 2010. "Optimal trade execution and absence of price manipulations in limit order book models," Post-Print hal-00397652, HAL.
    17. Ningyuan Chen & Steven Kou & Chun Wang, 2018. "A Partitioning Algorithm for Markov Decision Processes with Applications to Market Microstructure," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(2), pages 784-803, February.
    18. Danny Lo, 2015. "Essays in Market Microstructure and Investor Trading," PhD Thesis, Finance Discipline Group, UTS Business School, University of Technology, Sydney, number 4-2015, January-A.
    19. Aur'elien Alfonsi & Pierre Blanc, 2014. "Dynamic optimal execution in a mixed-market-impact Hawkes price model," Papers 1404.0648, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2015.
    20. Olivier Gu'eant, 2013. "Permanent market impact can be nonlinear," Papers 1305.0413, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2014.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1811.05524. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.