World Scientific
  • Search
  •   
Skip main navigation

Cookies Notification

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By continuing to browse the site, you consent to the use of our cookies. Learn More
×
Our website is made possible by displaying certain online content using javascript.
In order to view the full content, please disable your ad blocker or whitelist our website www.worldscientific.com.

System Upgrade on Tue, Oct 25th, 2022 at 2am (EDT)

Existing users will be able to log into the site and access content. However, E-commerce and registration of new users may not be available for up to 12 hours.
For online purchase, please visit us again. Contact us at [email protected] for any enquiries.
https://doi.org/10.1142/S2382626620500045Cited by:1 (Source: Crossref)

The latent order book of [Donier et al., 2015, A fully consistent, minimal model for nonlinear market impact, Quantitative Finance 15(7), 1109–1121] is one of the most promising agent-based models for market impact. This work extends the minimal model by allowing agents to exhibit mean-reversion, a commonly observed pattern in real markets. This modification leads to new order book dynamics, which we explicitly study and analyze. Underlying our analysis is a mean-field assumption that views the order book through its average density. We show how price impact develops in this new model, providing a flexible family of solutions that can potentially be calibrated to real data. While no closed-form solution is provided, we complement our theoretical investigation with extensive numerical results, including a simulation scheme for the entire order book.

References

  • Bak, P., P. Maya, and S. Martin, 1996, Price Variations in a Stock Market with Many Agents, arXiv: cond-mat/9609144. Google Scholar
  • Bouchaud, J.-P., G. Yuval, P. Marc, and W. Matthieu, 2004, Fluctuations and response in financial markets: The subtle nature of ‘random’ price changes, Quantitative Finance 4(2), 176–190. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bucci, F., B. Michael, L. Fabrizio, and J.-P. Bouchaud, 2019, Crossover from linear to square-root market impact, Physical Review Letters 122(10), 108302. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Chakraborty, T., and M. Kearns, 2011, Market making and mean reversion, Proc. 12th ACM Conf. Electronic Commerce, pp. 307–314. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Donier, J., and B. Julius, 2015, A million metaorder analysis of market impact on the Bitcoin, Market Microstructure and Liquidity 1(2), 1550008. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Donier, J., B. Julius, M. Iacopo, and J.-P. Bouchaud, 2015, A fully consistent, minimal model for nonlinear market impact, Quantitative Finance 15(7), 1109–1121. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Farmer, J. D., P. Paolo, and Z. I. Ilija, 2005, The predictive power of zero intelligence in financial markets, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102(6), 2254–2259. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Glosten, L. R., and P. R. Milgrom, 1985, Bid–ask and transaction prices in a specialist market with heterogeneously informed traders, Journal of Financial Economics 14(1), 71–100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Guéant, O., 2013, Permanent market impact can be nonlinear, arXiv:1305.0413. Google Scholar
  • Huang, W., R. Mathieu, and S. Pamela, 2019, From Glosten–Milgrom to the whole limit order book and applications to financial regulation, Available at SSRN 3343779. Google Scholar
  • Huberman, G., and S. Werner, 2005, Optimal liquidity trading, Review of Finance 9(2), 165–200. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kyle, A. S., 1985, Continuous auctions and insider trading, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 1315–1335. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lasry, J.-M., and P.-L. Lions, 2007, Mean field games, Japanese Journal of Mathematics 2(1), 229–260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Loeb, T. F., 1983, Trading cost: The critical link between investment information and results, Financial Analysts Journal 39(3), 39–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Mastromatteo, I., T. Bence, and J.-P. Bouchaud, 2014, Agent-based models for latent liquidity and concave price impact, Physical Review E 89(4), 042805. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Narayan, P., A. Prasad et al., 2007, Mean reversion in stock prices: New evidence from panel unit root tests for seventeen European countries, Economics Bulletin 3(34), 1–6. Google Scholar
  • Palwasha, R. I., A. Nawaz, A. R. Raheem, V. Jolita, and D. Štreimikienė, 2018, Speed of mean reversion: An empirical analysis of KSE, LSE and ISE indices, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 24(4), 1435–1452. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Poterba, J. M., and L. H. Summers, 1988, Mean reversion in stock prices: Evidence and implications, Journal of Financial Economics 22(1), 27–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Taranto, D. E., G. Bormetti, J.-P. Bouchaud, F. Lillo, and B. Tóth, 2018, Linear models for the impact of order flow on prices I: History dependent impact models, Quantitative Finance 18(6), 903–915. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Torre, N., and M. J. Ferrari, 1998, The market impact model, BARRA. Google Scholar
  • Tóth, B., Z. Eisler, J.-P. Bouchaud, 2016, The Square-Root Impact Law also Holds for Option Markets, Wilmott 85, 70–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Tóth, B., Y. Lemperiere, C. Deremble, J. De Lataillade, J. Kockelkoren, J.-P. Bouchaud, 2011, Anomalous price impact and the critical nature of liquidity in financial markets, Physical Review X 1(2), 021006. CrossrefGoogle Scholar