波动是你的天敌还是最好的朋友?这取决于你问谁

M. Borkovec, K. Tyurin
{"title":"波动是你的天敌还是最好的朋友?这取决于你问谁","authors":"M. Borkovec, K. Tyurin","doi":"10.3905/jot.2016.11.1.013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article summarizes results of an extensive empirical study motivated by the intuitively appealing statement that institutional clients’ average transaction costs are sensitive to market conditions. Using a comprehensive sample of client execution data covering two years of trading, we confirm that the average cost of institutional trades varies considerably and systematically with volatility, volume, and trade imbalance surprises. For the overwhelming majority of buy-side institutions, implementation shortfall is higher than normal when volatility and volume exceed their historical average values. However, the deviations of trading volume in excess of the values typically observed in high volatility conditions dampen the effect of a high volatility environment on the execution costs of institutional orders. We document a strong dependence of transaction costs on contemporaneous trade imbalances, which is amplified by higher than normal contemporaneous volatility. We observe that cost curves are more sensitive to order size in times of less favorable buy-sell trade imbalances, reflecting the role played by directional market pressure indicators. In summary, buy-side institutions should not neglect market conditions monitoring, as failure to adjust promptly to market conditions may result in deteriorated performance and missed cost savings opportunities.","PeriodicalId":254660,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Trading","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is Volatility Your Nemesis or Best Friend? It Depends on Who You Ask\",\"authors\":\"M. Borkovec, K. Tyurin\",\"doi\":\"10.3905/jot.2016.11.1.013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article summarizes results of an extensive empirical study motivated by the intuitively appealing statement that institutional clients’ average transaction costs are sensitive to market conditions. Using a comprehensive sample of client execution data covering two years of trading, we confirm that the average cost of institutional trades varies considerably and systematically with volatility, volume, and trade imbalance surprises. For the overwhelming majority of buy-side institutions, implementation shortfall is higher than normal when volatility and volume exceed their historical average values. However, the deviations of trading volume in excess of the values typically observed in high volatility conditions dampen the effect of a high volatility environment on the execution costs of institutional orders. We document a strong dependence of transaction costs on contemporaneous trade imbalances, which is amplified by higher than normal contemporaneous volatility. We observe that cost curves are more sensitive to order size in times of less favorable buy-sell trade imbalances, reflecting the role played by directional market pressure indicators. In summary, buy-side institutions should not neglect market conditions monitoring, as failure to adjust promptly to market conditions may result in deteriorated performance and missed cost savings opportunities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":254660,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Trading\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Trading\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3905/jot.2016.11.1.013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Trading","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3905/jot.2016.11.1.013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文总结了一项广泛的实证研究的结果,该研究的动机是直观地吸引人的陈述,即机构客户的平均交易成本对市场状况敏感。使用涵盖两年交易的客户执行数据的综合样本,我们确认机构交易的平均成本随着波动性、交易量和交易不平衡的意外而有相当大的系统性变化。对于绝大多数买方机构而言,当波动性和成交量超过其历史平均值时,实施缺口高于正常水平。然而,在高波动条件下,超过通常观察到的值的交易量偏差会抑制高波动环境对机构订单执行成本的影响。我们记录了交易成本对同期贸易失衡的强烈依赖,这种依赖被高于正常同期波动放大。我们观察到,在不利的买卖贸易不平衡时期,成本曲线对订单规模更敏感,反映了定向市场压力指标的作用。总之,买方机构不应忽视市场状况监测,因为未能及时调整市场状况可能导致业绩恶化,并错失节约成本的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Is Volatility Your Nemesis or Best Friend? It Depends on Who You Ask
This article summarizes results of an extensive empirical study motivated by the intuitively appealing statement that institutional clients’ average transaction costs are sensitive to market conditions. Using a comprehensive sample of client execution data covering two years of trading, we confirm that the average cost of institutional trades varies considerably and systematically with volatility, volume, and trade imbalance surprises. For the overwhelming majority of buy-side institutions, implementation shortfall is higher than normal when volatility and volume exceed their historical average values. However, the deviations of trading volume in excess of the values typically observed in high volatility conditions dampen the effect of a high volatility environment on the execution costs of institutional orders. We document a strong dependence of transaction costs on contemporaneous trade imbalances, which is amplified by higher than normal contemporaneous volatility. We observe that cost curves are more sensitive to order size in times of less favorable buy-sell trade imbalances, reflecting the role played by directional market pressure indicators. In summary, buy-side institutions should not neglect market conditions monitoring, as failure to adjust promptly to market conditions may result in deteriorated performance and missed cost savings opportunities.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Phantom Liquidity and High-Frequency Quoting COMMENTARY: Commentary on “If Best Execution Is a Process, What Does That Process Look Like?”1 Editor’s Letter Machine Learning for Algorithmic Trading and Trade Schedule Optimization COMMENTARY: A Market Structure That Fits the Needs of Portfolio Managers
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1