The top 4 AI cryptocurrencies to know in 2024 .pdf
Dynamic Trading Volume
1. Model Results Heuristics
Dynamic Trading Volume
Paolo Guasoni1,2 Marko Weber2,3
Boston University1
Dublin City University2
Scuola Normale Superiore3
Probability, Control and Finance
A Conference in Honor of Ioannis Karatzas
Columbia University, June 5th , 2012
3. Model Results Heuristics
Price and Volume
• Geometric Brownian Motion: basic stochastic process for price.
Since Samuelson, Black and Scholes, Merton.
• Basic stochastic process for volume?
4. Model Results Heuristics
Unsettling Answers
• Volume: rate of change in total quantities traded.
• Portfolio models, exogenous prices. After Merton (1969, 1973).
Continuous rebalancing. Quantities are diffusions.
Volume infinite.
• Equilibrium models, endogenous prices. After Lucas (1973).
Representative agent holds risky asset at all times.
Volume zero.
• Multiple agents models. After Milgrom and Stokey (1982).
Prices change, portfolios don’t.
Volume zero.
• All these models: no frictions.
• Transaction costs, exogenous prices. After Constantinides (1986).
Volume finite as time-average.
Either zero (no trade region) or infinite (trading boundaries).
5. Model Results Heuristics
This Talk
• Question:
if price is geometric Brownian Motion, what is the process for volume?
• Inputs
• Price exogenous. Geometric Brownian Motion.
• Representative agent.
Constant relative risk aversion and long horizon.
• Friction. Execution price linear in volume.
• Outputs
• Stochastic process for trading volume.
• Optimal trading policy and welfare.
• Small friction asymptotics explicit.
6. Model Results Heuristics
Market
• Brownian Motion (Wt )t≥0 with natural filtration (Ft )t≥0 .
• Best quoted price of risky asset. Price for an infinitesimal trade.
dSt
= µdt + σdWt
St
• Trade ∆θ shares over time interval ∆t. Order filled at price
˜ St ∆θ
St (∆θ) := St 1+λ
Xt ∆t
where Xt is investor’s wealth.
• λ measures illiquidity. 1/λ market depth. Like Kyle’s (1985) lambda.
• Price worse for larger quantity |∆θ| or shorter execution time ∆t.
Price linear in quantity, inversely proportional to execution time.
• Same amount St ∆θ has lower impact if investor’s wealth larger.
• Makes model scale-invariant.
Doubling wealth, and all subsequent trades, doubles final payoff exactly.
7. Model Results Heuristics
Alternatives?
• Alternatives: quantities ∆θ, or share turnover ∆θ/θ. Consequences?
• Quantities (∆θ):
Kyle (1985), Bertsimas and Lo (1998), Almgren and Chriss (2000), Schied
and Shoneborn (2009), Garleanu and Pedersen (2011)
˜ ∆θ
St (∆θ) := St + λ
∆t
• Price impact independent of price. Not invariant to stock splits!
• Suitable for short horizons (liquidation) or mean-variance criteria.
• Share turnover:
Stationary measure of trading volume (Lo and Wang, 2000). Observable.
˜ ∆θ
St (∆θ) := St 1+λ
θt ∆t
• Problematic. Infinite price impact with cash position.
8. Model Results Heuristics
Wealth and Portfolio
˜ ˙ ˙t
• Continuous trading: execution price St (θt ) = St 1 + λ θXSt , cash position
t
˙t ˙ S ˙
dCt = −St 1 + λ θXSt dθt = −St θt + λ Xtt θt2 dt
t
˙
θt St
• Trading volume as wealth turnover ut := . Xt
Amount traded in unit of time, as fraction of wealth.
θt St
• Dynamics for wealth Xt := θt St + Ct and risky portfolio weight Yt := Xt
dXt
= Yt (µdt + σdWt ) − λut2 dt
Xt
dYt = (Yt (1 − Yt )(µ − Yt σ 2 ) + (ut + λYt ut2 ))dt + σYt (1 − Yt )dWt
• Illiquidity...
• ...reduces portfolio return (−λut2 ).
Turnover effect quadratic: quantities times price impact.
• ...increases risky weight (λYt ut2 ). Buy: pay more cash. Sell: get less cash.
Turnover effect linear in risky weight Yt . Vanishes for cash position.
9. Model Results Heuristics
Admissible Strategies
Definition
Admissible strategy: process (ut )t≥0 , adapted to Ft , such that system
dXt
= Yt (µdt + σdWt ) − λut2 dt
Xt
dYt = (Yt (1 − Yt )(µ − Yt σ 2 ) + (ut + λYt ut2 ))dt + σYt (1 − Yt )dWt
has unique solution satisfying Xt ≥ 0 a.s. for all t ≥ 0.
• Contrast to models without frictions or with transaction costs:
control variable is not risky weight Yt , but its “rate of change” ut .
• Portfolio weight Yt is now a state variable.
• Illiquid vs. perfectly liquid market.
Steering a ship vs. driving a race car.
µ
• Frictionless solution Yt = γσ 2
unfeasible. A still ship in stormy sea.
10. Model Results Heuristics
Objective
• Investor with relative risk aversion γ.
• Maximize equivalent safe rate, i.e., power utility over long horizon:
1
1 1−γ 1−γ
max lim log E XT
u T →∞ T
• Tradeoff between speed and impact.
• Optimal policy and welfare.
• Implied trading volume.
• Dependence on parameters.
• Asymptotics for small λ.
• Comparison with transaction costs.
11. Model Results Heuristics
Verification
Theorem
µ
If γσ 2
∈ (0, 1), then the optimal wealth turnover and equivalent safe rate are:
1 q(y )
ˆ
u (y ) = ˆ
EsRγ (u ) = β
2λ 1 − yq(y )
2
µ
where β ∈ (0, 2γσ2 ) and q : [0, 1] → R are the unique pair that solves the ODE
2 2 2
q
−β+µy −γ σ y 2 +y (1−y )(µ−γσ 2 y )q+ 4λ(1−yq) + σ y 2 (1−y )2 (q +(1−γ)q 2 ) = 0
2 2
√
and q(0) = 2 λβ, q(1) = λd − λd(λd − 2), where d = −γσ 2 − 2β + 2µ.
• A license to solve an ODE, of Abel type.
• Function q and scalar β not explicit.
• Asymptotic expansion for λ near zero?
12. Model Results Heuristics
Asymptotics
Theorem
¯
Y = µ
∈ (0, 1). Asymptotic expansions for turnover and equivalent safe rate:
γσ 2
γ ¯
ˆ
u (y ) = σ (Y − y ) + O(1)
2λ
µ2 γ ¯2 ¯
ˆ
EsRγ (u ) = 2
− σ3 Y (1 − Y )2 λ1/2 + O(λ)
2γσ 2
Long-term average of (unsigned) turnover
1 T ¯ ¯ 1/4
|ET| = lim |u (Yt )|dt = π −1/2 σ 3/2 Y (1 − Y ) (γ/2) λ−1/4 + O(λ1/2 )
ˆ
T →∞ T 0
• Implications?
13. Model Results Heuristics
Turnover
• Turnover:
γ ¯
ˆ
u (y ) ≈ σ (Y − y )
2λ
¯ ¯ ¯
• Trade towards Y . Buy for y < Y , sell for y > Y .
¯
• Trade speed proportional to displacement |y − Y |.
• Trade faster with more volatility. Volume typically increases with volatility.
• Trade faster if market deeper. Higher volume in more liquid markets.
• Trade faster if more risk averse. Reasonable, not obvious.
Dual role of risk aversion.
• More risk aversion means less risky asset but more trading speed.
17. Model Results Heuristics
Trading Volume
• Wealth turnover approximately Ornstein-Uhlenbeck:
γ 2 ¯2 ¯ γ ¯ ¯
ˆ
d ut = σ (σ Y (1 − Y )(1 − γ) − ut )dt − σ 2
ˆ Y (1 − Y )dWt
2λ 2λ
• In the following sense:
Theorem
ˆ
The process ut has asymptotic moments:
T
1 ¯ ¯
ET := lim u (Yt )dt = σ 2 Y 2 (1 − Y )(1 − γ) + o(1) ,
ˆ
T →∞ T 0
1 T 1 ¯ ¯
VT := lim (u (Yt ) − ET)2 dt = σ 3 Y 2 (1 − Y )2 (γ/2)1/2 λ1/2 + o(λ1/2 ) ,
ˆ
T →∞ T 0 2
1 ¯ ¯
QT := lim E[ u (Y ) T ] = σ 4 Y 2 (1 − Y )2 (γ/2)λ−1 + o(λ−1 )
ˆ
T →∞ T
18. Model Results Heuristics
How big is λ ?
• Implied share turnover:
T 1/4
lim 1 | u(Yt ) |dt = π −1/2 σ 3/2 (1 − Y ) (γ/2)
¯ λ−1/4
T →∞ T 0 Yt
¯
• Match formula with observed share turnover. Bounds on γ, Y .
Period Volatility Share − log10 λ
Turnover high low
1926-1929 20% 125% 6.164 4.863
1930-1939 30% 39% 3.082 1.781
1940-1949 14% 12% 3.085 1.784
1950-1949 10% 12% 3.855 2.554
1960-1949 10% 15% 4.365 3.064
1970-1949 13% 20% 4.107 2.806
1980-1949 15% 63% 5.699 4.398
1990-1949 13% 95% 6.821 5.520
2000-2009 22% 199% 6.708 5.407
¯ ¯
• γ = 1, Y = 1/2 (high), and γ = 10, Y = 0 (low).
19. Model Results Heuristics
Welfare
• Define welfare loss as decrease in equivalent safe rate due to friction:
µ2 γ ¯2 ¯
LoS = − EsRγ (u ) ≈ σ 3
ˆ Y (1 − Y )2 λ1/2
2γσ 2 2
¯
• Zero loss if no trading necessary, i.e. Y ∈ {0, 1}.
• Universal relation:
2
LoS = πλ |ET|
Welfare loss equals squared turnover times liquidity, times π.
• Compare to proportional transaction costs ε:
2/3
µ2 γσ 2 3 2 2
LoS = − EsRγ ≈ π (1 − π∗ ) ε2/3
2γσ 2 2 4γ ∗
• Universal relation:
3
LoS = ε |ET|
4
Welfare loss equals turnover times spread, times constant 3/4.
• Linear effect with transaction costs (price, not quantity).
Quadratic effect with liquidity (price times quantity).
20. Model Results Heuristics
Neither a Borrower nor a Shorter Be
Theorem
µ
If γσ 2
ˆ
≤ 0, then Yt = 0 and u = 0 for all t optimal. Equivalent safe rate zero.
µ
If γσ 2
≥ 1, then Yt = 1 and u = 0 for all t optimal. Equivalent safe rate µ − γ σ 2 .
ˆ 2
• If Merton investor shorts, keep all wealth in safe asset, but do not short.
• If Merton investor levers, keep all wealth in risky asset, but do not lever.
• Portfolio choice for a risk-neutral investor!
• Corner solutions. But without constraints?
• Intuition: the constraint is that wealth must stay positive.
• Positive wealth does not preclude borrowing with block trading,
as in frictionless models and with transaction costs.
• Block trading unfeasible with price impact proportional to turnover.
Even in the limit.
• Phenomenon disappears with exponential utility.
21. Model Results Heuristics
Control Argument
• Value function v depends on (1) current wealth Xt , (2) current risky weight
Yt , and (3) calendar time t.
˙
θt St
• Evolution for fixed trading strategy u = Xt :
dv (Xt , Yt , t) =vt dt + vx (µXt Yt − λXt ut2 )dt + vx Xt Yt σdWt
+vy (Yt (1 − Yt )(µ − Yt σ 2 ) + ut + λYt ut2 )dt + vy Yt (1 − Yt )σdWt
σ2 σ2
+ vxx Xt2 Yt2 + vyy Yt2 (1 − Yt )2 + σ 2 vxy Xt Yt2 (1 − Yt ) dt
2 2
• Maximize drift over u, and set result equal to zero:
vt + max vx µxy − λxu 2 + vy y (1 − y )(µ − σ 2 y ) + u + λyu 2
u
σ2 y 2
+ vxx x 2 + vyy (1 − y )2 + 2vxy x(1 − y ) =0
2
22. Model Results Heuristics
Homogeneity and Long-Run
• Homogeneity in wealth v (t, x, y ) = x 1−γ v (t, 1, y ).
• Guess long-term growth at equivalent safe rate β, to be found.
• Substitution v (t, x, y ) = x 1−γ (1−γ)(β(T −t)+ y
q(z)dz)
1−γ e reduces HJB equation
2
−β + maxu µy − γ σ y 2 − λu 2 + q(y (1 − y )(µ − γσ 2 y ) + u + λyu 2 )
2
2
+ σ y 2 (1 − y )2 (q + (1 − γ)q 2 ) = 0.
2
q(y )
• Maximum for u(y ) = 2λ(1−yq(y )) .
• Plugging yields
2 2 2
q
µy −γ σ y 2 +y (1−y )(µ−γσ 2 y )q+ 4λ(1−yq) + σ y 2 (1−y )2 (q +(1−γ)q 2 ) = β
2 2
µ2 µ
• β= 2γσ 2
, q = 0, y = γσ 2
corresponds to Merton solution.
• Classical model as a singular limit.
23. Model Results Heuristics
Asymptotics
µ2
• Expand equivalent safe rate as β = 2γσ 2
− c(λ)
• Function c represents welfare impact of illiquidity.
• Expand function as q(y ) = q (1) (y )λ1/2 + o(λ1/2 ).
• Plug expansion in HJB equation
2 2 2
q
−β+µy −γ σ y 2 +y (1−y )(µ−γσ 2 y )q+ 4λ(1−yq) + σ y 2 (1−y )2 (q +(1−γ)q 2 ) =
2 2
• Yields
q (1) (y ) = σ −1 (γ/2)−1/2 (µ − γσ 2 y )
q(y )
• Turnover follows through u(y ) = 2λ(1−yq(y )) .
¯
• Plug q (1) (y ) back in equation, and set y = Y .
¯ ¯
• Yields welfare loss c(λ) = σ 3 (γ/2)−1/2 Y 2 (1 − Y )2 λ1/2 + o(λ1/2 ).
24. Model Results Heuristics
Issues
• How to make argument rigorous?
• Heuristics yield ODE, but no boundary conditions!
• Relation between ODE and optimization problem?
25. Model Results Heuristics
Verification
Lemma
y
Let q solve the HJB equation, and define Q(y ) = q(z)dz. There exists a
ˆ
probability P, equivalent to P, such that the terminal wealth XT of any
admissible strategy satisfies:
1−γ 1 1
E[XT ] 1−γ ≤ eβT +Q(y ) EP [e−(1−γ)Q(YT ) ] 1−γ ,
ˆ
and equality holds for the optimal strategy.
• Solution of HJB equation yields asymptotic upper bound for any strategy.
• Upper bound reached for optimal strategy.
• Valid for any β, for corresponding Q.
• Idea: pick largest β ∗ to make Q disappear in the long run.
• A priori bounds:
µ2
β∗ < (frictionless solution)
2γσ 2
γ 2
max 0, µ − σ <β ∗ (all in safe or risky asset)
2
26. Model Results Heuristics
Existence
Theorem
µ
Assume 0 < γσ2 < 1. There exists β ∗ such that HJB equation has solution
q(y ) with positive finite limit in 0 and negative finite limit in 1.
• for β > 0, there exists a unique solution q0,β (y ) to HJB equation with
√
positive finite limit in 0 (and the limit is 2 λβ);
γσ 2
• for β > µ − 2 ,
there exists a unique solution q1,β (y ) to HJB equation
with negative finite limit in 1 (and the limit is λd − λd(λd − 2), where
γσ 2
d := 2(µ − 2 − β));
• there exists βu such that q0,βu (y ) > q1,βu (y ) for some y ;
• there exists βl such that q0,βl (y ) < q1,βl (y ) for some y ;
• by continuity and boundedness, there exists β ∗ ∈ (βl , βu ) such that
q0,β ∗ (y ) = q1,β ∗ (y ).
• Boundary conditions are natural!
27. Model Results Heuristics
Explosion with Leverage
Theorem
If Yt that satisfies Y0 ∈ (1, +∞) and
dYt = Yt (1 − Yt )(µdt − Yt σ 2 dt + σdWt ) + ut dt + λYt ut2 dt
explodes in finite time with positive probability.
• Feller’s criterion for explosions.
• No strategy admissible if it begins with levered or negative position.
28. Model Results Heuristics
Conclusion
• Finite market depth. Execution price linear in volume as wealth turnover.
• Representative agent with constant relative risk aversion.
• Base price geometric Brownian Motion.
• Trade towards frictionless portfolio.
• Dynamics for trading volume.
• Do not lever an illiquid asset!
29. Model Results Heuristics
Happy Birthday Yannis!