20.11.2012 Views

recent developments in high frequency financial ... - Index of

recent developments in high frequency financial ... - Index of

recent developments in high frequency financial ... - Index of

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Order aggressiveness and order book dynamics 163<br />

6 Conclusions<br />

We analyze the impact <strong>of</strong> order book <strong>in</strong>formation <strong>of</strong> traders’ order aggressiveness<br />

<strong>in</strong> the electronic trad<strong>in</strong>g on the Australian Stock Exchange. The novel feature <strong>of</strong> the<br />

paper is to analyze this issue us<strong>in</strong>g a multivariate dynamic <strong>in</strong>tensity framework.<br />

Therefore, order aggressiveness <strong>in</strong> market trad<strong>in</strong>g, limit order trad<strong>in</strong>g as well as <strong>in</strong><br />

order cancellations on both sides <strong>of</strong> the market is modelled on the basis <strong>of</strong> a sixdimensional<br />

version <strong>of</strong> the autoregressive conditional <strong>in</strong>tensity (ACI) model<br />

proposed by Russell (1999). The multivariate <strong>in</strong>tensity function gives the<br />

<strong>in</strong>stantaneous order arrival probability per time <strong>in</strong> each <strong>in</strong>stant and for each<br />

order process. Therefore, it has a natural <strong>in</strong>terpretation as a (cont<strong>in</strong>uous-time)<br />

measure for traders’ degree <strong>of</strong> aggressiveness <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>dividual dimensions. In this<br />

sense, our sett<strong>in</strong>g merges approaches where order aggressiveness is modelled <strong>in</strong><br />

terms <strong>of</strong> a categorized variable on the basis <strong>of</strong> the order classification scheme<br />

proposed by Biais et al. (1995) (see, for <strong>in</strong>stance, Griffiths et al. 2000, or Ranaldo<br />

2004), and, those approaches which model the <strong>in</strong>tensity <strong>of</strong> aggressiveness us<strong>in</strong>g<br />

univariate (ACD-type) dynamic duration models (see e.g. Coppejans and<br />

Domowitz 2002, or Pascual and Veredas 2004). A novel feature <strong>of</strong> this study is<br />

to determ<strong>in</strong>e order aggressiveness not only based on the type <strong>of</strong> the order and the<br />

correspond<strong>in</strong>g position <strong>in</strong> the book but also by the posted volume. Hence, we<br />

explicitly focus on market and limit orders with volumes which are significantly<br />

above the average. Correspond<strong>in</strong>gly, we also classify cancellations by modell<strong>in</strong>g<br />

only those with <strong>high</strong> orders. This strategy allows us to concentrate on the<br />

economically most relevant orders and to reduce the impact <strong>of</strong> noise.<br />

The usefulness <strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>dividual modell<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the s<strong>in</strong>gle order processes <strong>in</strong> a<br />

multivariate sett<strong>in</strong>g is confirmed by the f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g that the <strong>in</strong>tensities <strong>of</strong> market<br />

trad<strong>in</strong>g, limit order trad<strong>in</strong>g, and cancellations have different responses <strong>in</strong> their<br />

dependence on order book variables. This result questions the application <strong>of</strong> (too<br />

simplified) order classification schemes and supports the use <strong>of</strong> sequential<br />

classifications by dist<strong>in</strong>ctly dist<strong>in</strong>guish<strong>in</strong>g between market orders, limit orders and<br />

cancellations as implemented by Pascual and Veredas (2004).<br />

Our results show that order book <strong>in</strong>formation has significant explanatory power<br />

<strong>in</strong> expla<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g traders’ degree <strong>of</strong> aggressiveness. In particular we f<strong>in</strong>d that the<br />

<strong>in</strong>clusion <strong>of</strong> variables captur<strong>in</strong>g the current state <strong>of</strong> the order book as well as <strong>recent</strong><br />

changes <strong>in</strong> the book improves the model’s goodness-<strong>of</strong>-fit considerably. Analyz<strong>in</strong>g<br />

the <strong>in</strong>fluence <strong>of</strong> fundamental market characteristics such as the depth, queued<br />

volume, the bid-ask spread, <strong>recent</strong> movements <strong>in</strong> the order flow and <strong>in</strong> the price as<br />

well as the <strong>recent</strong> price volatility dur<strong>in</strong>g the last trad<strong>in</strong>g m<strong>in</strong>utes, we broadly<br />

confirm economic theory. Particularly with respect to market depth, clear evidence<br />

is provided for “crowd<strong>in</strong>g out effects” (cf. Parlour 1998). Depth on one particular<br />

side <strong>in</strong>duces a crowd<strong>in</strong>g out <strong>of</strong> aggressive market and limit order trad<strong>in</strong>g on that<br />

side towards the other side <strong>of</strong> the market. In addition to crowd<strong>in</strong>g out mechanisms<br />

we also f<strong>in</strong>d evidence for liquidity and volatility effects which are not <strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>e with<br />

exist<strong>in</strong>g theoretical equilibrium models. These results <strong>in</strong>dicate that traders’ order<br />

aggressiveness is not only driven by expected execution probabilities but also by<br />

price <strong>in</strong>formation revealed by the book as well as liquidity considerations.<br />

Our results provide clear evidence that the tim<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> aggressive market orders,<br />

limit orders as well as cancellations is <strong>in</strong>fluenced by the state <strong>of</strong> the order book<br />

which is consistent with the f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> Coppejans and Domowitz (2002), but <strong>in</strong>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!