Limit Order Strategic Placement with Adverse Selection Risk and the Role of Latency

This paper is split in three parts: first we use labelled trade data to exhibit how market participants accept or not transactions via limit orders as a function of liquidity imbalance; then we develop a theoretical stochastic control framework to provide details on how one can exploit his knowledge on liquidity imbalance to control a limit order. We emphasis the exposure to adverse selection, of paramount importance for limit orders. For a participant buying using a limit order: if the price has chances to go down the probability to be filled is high but it is better to wait a little more before the trade to obtain a better price. In a third part we show how the added value of exploiting a knowledge on liquidity imbalance is eroded by latency: being able to predict future liquidity consuming flows is of less use if you have not enough time to cancel and reinsert your limit orders. There is thus a rational for market makers to be as fast as possible as a protection to adverse selection. Thanks to our optimal framework we can measure the added value of latency to limit orders placement. To authors' knowledge this paper is the first to make the connection between empirical evidences, a stochastic framework for limit orders including adverse selection, and the cost of latency. Our work is a first stone to shed light on the roles of latency and adverse selection for limit order placement, within an accurate stochastic control framework.

[1]  Charles-Albert Lehalle,et al.  Simulating and Analyzing Order Book Data: The Queue-Reactive Model , 2013, 1312.0563.

[2]  Paul Besson,et al.  To Cross or Not to Cross the Spread: That Is the Question , 2016, The Journal of Trading.

[3]  A. Menkveld High frequency trading and the new market makers , 2013 .

[4]  Á. Cartea,et al.  Incorporating Order-Flow into Optimal Execution , 2015 .

[5]  R. Cont Empirical properties of asset returns: stylized facts and statistical issues , 2001 .

[6]  A. Lo,et al.  Econometric Models of Limit-Order Executions , 1997 .

[7]  Julian Lorenz,et al.  Bayesian Adaptive Trading with a Daily Cycle , 2006 .

[8]  J. Bouchaud,et al.  Fluctuations and Response in Financial Markets: The Subtle Nature of 'Random' Price Changes , 2003, cond-mat/0307332.

[9]  Thibault Jaisson,et al.  Market impact as anticipation of the order flow imbalance , 2014, 1402.1288.

[10]  Pierre-Louis Lions,et al.  Efficiency of the price formation process in presence of high frequency participants: a mean field game analysis , 2013, 1305.6323.

[11]  Mathieu Rosenbaum,et al.  Large tick assets: implicit spread and optimal tick size , 2012, 1207.6325.

[12]  Olivier Guéant,et al.  Dealing with the inventory risk: a solution to the market making problem , 2011, 1105.3115.

[13]  Huyên Pham,et al.  Semi-Markov Model for Market Microstructure , 2013, 1305.0105.

[14]  Bruno Biais,et al.  Who Supplies Liquidity, How and When? , 2016 .

[15]  Fabrizio Lillo,et al.  How does the market react to your order flow? , 2011, 1104.0587.

[16]  E. Bacry,et al.  Market Impacts and the Life Cycle of Investors Orders , 2014, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[17]  Michael G Sotiropoulos,et al.  Trade arrival dynamics and quote imbalance in a limit order book , 2013, 1312.0514.

[18]  Austin Gerig,et al.  Too fast or too slow? Determining the optimal speed of financial markets , 2016 .

[19]  Charles-Albert Lehalle,et al.  How to Predict the Consequences of a Tick Value Change? Evidence from the Tokyo Stock Exchange Pilot Program , 2015 .

[20]  Eric Budish,et al.  The High-Frequency Trading Arms Race: Frequent Batch Auctions as a Market Design Response , 2015 .

[21]  Olivier Guéant,et al.  Optimal Portfolio Liquidation with Limit Orders , 2011, SIAM J. Financial Math..

[22]  A. Kyle Continuous Auctions and Insider Trading , 1985 .

[23]  Rama Cont,et al.  Price Dynamics in a Markovian Limit Order Market , 2011, SIAM J. Financial Math..