arxiv: v1 [q-fin.pr] 18 Sep 2016

Transcription

1 Static vs optimal execution strategies in two benchmark trading models arxiv: v1 [q-fin.pr] 18 Sep 16 Damiano Brigo Dept. of Mathematics Imperial College London Clément Piat Dept. of Mathematics Imperial College London First Version: 7 Sept. 16. his version: September, 16 Abstract We consider the optimal solutions to the trade execution problem in the two different classes of i) fully or adaptive and ii) or static strategies, comparing them. We do this in two different benchmark models. he first model is a discrete time framework with an information flow process, dealing with both permanent and temporary impact, minimizing the expected cost of the trade. he second model is a continuous time framework where the objective function is the sum of the expected cost and a value at risk (or expected shortfall) type risk criterion. Optimal solutions are known in both frameworks from the original works of Bertsimas and Lo (1998) and Gatheral and Schied (11). In this paper we derive the optimal static strategies for both benchmark models and we study quantitatively the improvement in optimality when moving from static strategies to fully ones. We conclude that, in the benchmark models we study, the difference is not relevant, except for extreme unrealistic cases for the model or impact parameters. his indirectly confirms that in the similar framework of Almgren and Chriss () one is fine deriving a static optimal solution, as done by those authors, as opposed to a fully one, since the static solution happens to be tractable and known in closed form. AMS Classication Codes: 6H1, 6J6, 91B7; JEL Classication Codes: C51, G1, G13 Keywords: Optimal trade execution, Optimal Scheduling, Algorithmic rading, Calculus of Variations, Risk Measures, Value at Risk, Market Impact, Permanent Impact, emporary Impact, Static Solutions, Adapted Solutions, Dynamic Programming.

2 D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models 1 Introduction A basic stylized fact of trade execution is that when a trader buys or sells a large amount of stock in a restricted amount of time, the market naturally tends to move in the opposite direction. If one assumes an unaffected price dynamics for the traded asset, trading activity will impact this price and lead to an affected price. Supply and demand based analysis says that if a trader begins to buy large amounts, other traders will notice and the affected price will tend to increase. Similarly, if one begins to sell large amounts, the affected price will tend to decrease. his is particularly important when the market is highly illiquid, since in that case no trade goes unnoticed. he goal of optimal execution, or more properly optimal scheduling, is to find how to execute the order in a way such that the expected profit or cost is the best possible, taking into account the impact of the trade on the affected price. As far as we are concerned in this paper, there are two main categories of trading strategies:, also called static in the execution literature jargon, and, or adaptive. We will use static / and / adaptive interchangeably. Deterministic strategies are set before the execution, so that they are independent of the actual path taken by the price. hey only rely on information known initially. Adapted strategies are not known before the execution. he amount executed at each time depends on all information known up to this time. Clearly market operators, in reality, will monitor market prices and trade based on their evolution, so that the strategy is the more natural one. However, in some models it is much harder to find an optimal trading strategy in the class of strategies than in the class of static ones. In 1998, Bertsimas and Lo [6] have defined the best execution as the strategy that minimizes the expected cost of trading over a fixed period of time. hey derive the optimal strategy by using dynamic programming, which means that they go backwards in time. he optimal solution is therefore sought in the class of strategies, as is natural from backward induction, but is found to be anyway. However, once an information process is added, influencing the affected price, the optimal solutions are and no longer static. his approach minimizes the expected trade cost only, without including any risk in the criterion to be optimized. In particular, the criterion does not take into account the variance of the cost function. wo years later, Almgren and Chriss [] consider the minimization of an objective function that is the sum of the expected execution cost and of a cost-variance risk criterion. Unlike the previous model, this setting includes in the criterion the possibility to penalize large variability in the trading cost. o solve the resulting mean-variance optimization, Almgren and Chriss assume the solution to be from the start. his allows them to obtain a closed-form solution. his solution, however, is only the best solution in the class of static strategies, and not in the broader and more natural class of ones. Gatheral and Shied [1] later solve a similar problem, the main difference being that they assume a more realistic model for the unaffected price. Gatheral and Schied derive an solution by using an alternative risk criterion, the time-averaged value-at-risk function. hey obtain closed-form expressions for the strategy and the optimal cost. he

3 D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models 3 solution is not static. However, this does not seem to lead to a solution that is very different, qualitatively, from the static one. Indeed, Brigo and Di Graziano (14), adding a displaced diffusion dynamics, find that in many situations only the rough statistics of the signal matter in the class of simple regular diffusion models [7]. In this paper we will compare the static and fully solutions in detail. Since the solutions obtained in the setting of Almgren and Chriss [] are, they may be sub-optimal in the set of fully solutions under a cost-variance risk criterion, so several papers have attempted to find solutions by changing the framework slightly. his allows one to take the new price information into account during the execution, and to have more precise models. For example, in 1 Almgren [5] assumes that the volatility and liquidity are random. He numerically obtains results under these assumptions. Almgren and Lorenz [4] obtain solutions by using an appropriate dynamic programming technique. Similarly, in this paper we will focus on what one gains from adopting a more general strategy over a simple strategy in the classic discrete time setting of Bertsimas and Lo [6] with information flow and in the continous time setting of Gatheral and Schied with time-averaged value-at-risk criterion [1]. he paper is structured as follows. In Section we will introduce the discrete time model by Bertsimas and Lo, looking at the cases of temporary and permanent market impact on the unaffected price, and including the solution for the case where the price is also affected by an information flow process. We will derive and study the optimal static and fully solutions and compare them, quantifying in a few numerical examples how much one gains from going fully. In Section 3 we will introduce the continuous time model as in Gatheral and Schied, allowing for both temporary and permanent impact and for a risk criterion based on value at risk. We will report the optimal fully solution as derived in [1] and we will derive the optimal static solution using a calculus of variation technique, similar for example to the calculations in [1]. We will compare the two solutions and optimal criteria in a few numerical examples, to see again how much one gains from going fully. Section 4 concludes the paper, summarizing its findings, and points to possible future research directions. Discrete time trading with information flow.1 Model formulation with cost based criterion Let X t be the number of units left to execute at time t, such that X = X is the initial amount and X = at the final time. In this section we consider a buy order, so that the purpose of the strategy is to buy an amount X of asset by time, minimizing the expected cost of the trade. he amount to be executed during the time interval [t, t + 1) is V t := X t X t+1. We expect V t to be non-negative, since we would like to implement a

4 D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models 4 pure buy program. However we do not impose a constraint of positivity on V, so that the optimal solution, in principle, might consider a mixed buy/sell optimal strategy. Since the problem is in discrete time, it is only updated every period so we will assume that the price does not change between two update times. With that in mind, we assume that the unaffected mid-price process S is given by S t = S t 1 + γy t + σ S W t 1, (.1) Y t = ρy t 1 + σ Y Z t 1, (.) where the information coefficient γ, and the volatilities σ and σ Y are positive constants, W and Z are independent standard Brownian motions and the parameter ρ is in ( 1, 1). We define W t = W t+1 W t, Z t = Z t+1 Z t. S would be the price if there were no impact from our executions. It follows an arithmetic Brownian motion (ABM) to which an information component Y has been added. he information process Y is an AR(1) process. It could be for example the return of the S&P5 index, or some information specific to the security being traded. γ represents the relevance of that information, that is how much it impacts the price. here are two dynamics that we will consider for the real price S, depending on whether the market impact is assumed to be permanent or temporary. We will explain what those terms mean when defining the price dynamics below. We assume that the market impact is linear in both settings, which means that the market reacts proportionally to the amount executed. In the case of permanent market impact the mid-price dynamics are changed by each execution. his means that when we compute the trade cost, the unaffected price S is replaced, during the execution, by the impacted or affected price S: S t = S t 1 + θ V t 1 + γy t + σs W t 1, S = S, (.3) where the permanent impact parameter θ is a positive constant. In the case of temporary market impact each execution only changes the price for the current time period. he mid-price S is still given by (.1), and the effective price S is derived from S each period. S has the following dynamics: S t = S t + η V t 1, S = S, (.4) where the temporary impact parameter η is a positive constant. Remark.1. Since one case assumes that the impact lasts for the whole trade, and the other assumes that the impact is instantaneous and affects only an order at the time it is done, both are limit cases of a more general impact pattern that is more progressive, see for example Obizhaeva and Wang [17]. We will keep the two more stylized impact cases and analyze them separately. he problem in both cases is to minimize the expected cost of execution. Since we are considering a

5 D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models 5 buy order, X t is the number of units left to buy. Hence the optimal expected execution cost at time is [ 1 ] C (X, S ) := min C(X, S, { V }) = min E S t+1 V t, (.5) { V } { V } subject to X = X, X =. Remark.. As we mentioned earlier, we do not enforce any constraint on the sign of V, which means that we are allowed to sell in our buy order. We now present some calculations deriving the optimal solution of problem (.5) in the cases of permanent and temporary impact. Our calculations in the general setting follow essentially Bertsimas and Lo [6] but with a slightly different notation, as done initially in Bonart, Brigo and Di Graziano [8] and Kulak [15]. We further derive the optimal solution in the static class, using a more straightforward method.. Permanent market impact: optimal solution In this section, we solve problem (.5) reproducing the solution of Bertsimas and Lo [6], assuming that the market impact is permanent, which means that the affected price follows (.3). In the setting, the problem is solved recursively. At any time t, we consider the problem as if t was the initial time, and the execution was optimal from time t + 1. We only have to make a decision for the period t, ignoring the past and having already solved the future. For any t, the execution cost from time t onward is the sum of the cost at time t and the cost from time t + 1 onward. aking the minimum of the expectation, this can be written as the Bellman equation: C (X t, S t ) = min V E t [S t+1 V t + C (X t+1, S t+1 )]. (.6) Since the execution should be finished by time (X = ), all the remaining shares must be executed during the last period : V 1 = X 1. Substituting this value into the Bellman equation (.6) taken at t = 1 gives us the optimal expected cost at time 1: C (X 1, S 1 ) = min V E 1[S V 1 ] = E 1 [S X 1 ] t= = E 1 [(S 1 + θx 1 + γy )X 1 ] = S 1 X 1 + θx 1 + ργx 1 Y 1,

6 D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models 6 where we used the fact that Y 1, X 1 and S 1 are known at time 1, as well as the null expectation of standard Brownian motion increments. We now move one step backward to obtain the optimal strategy at time, plugging the expression above in (.6) taken at t = and noting that X 1 = X V. C (X, S ) = min V E [S 1 V + C (X 1, S 1 )] = min V E [(S + θ V + γρy ) V + S 1 X 1 + θx 1 + ργx 1 Y 1 ] = min V [(S + θ V + γρy ) V + (S + θ V + γρy + γρ Y )(X V ) + θ(x V ) ] = min V [S X + γρy X (1 + ρ) (γρ Y + θx ) V + θx + θ V ]. In order to find the minimum of this expression, we set to zero its derivative with respect to V : C(X, S ) V = θx γρ Y + θ V =. he solution of this equation is the optimal amount to execute at time : V = X he optimal expected cost at time is + γρ Y. θ C (X, S ) = S X + γρy X (1 + ρ) (γρ Y + θx ) V + θx + θ( V ( ) = S X + γρy X (1 + ρ) (γρ X Y + θx ) + γρ Y θ ( ) + θx X + θ + γρ Y θ = S X + 3θ 4 X + γρ(1 + ρ )X Y γ ρ 4 4θ Y. We resume the recursion using the expression above, and obtain the optimal strategy at time 3. )

7 D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models 7 C (X 3, S 3 ) = min V E 3[S V 3 + C (X, S )] = min E 3[S V 3 + S X + 3θ V 4 X + γρ(1 + ρ )X Y γ ρ 4 4θ Y ] = min [(S 3 + θ V 3 + γρy 3 )X 3 + 3θ V 4 ( V 3 X 3 ) + γρ (1 + ρ )( V 3 X 3 )Y 3 γ ρ 4 4θ (ρ Y 3 + σy )] ( = min [3θ V 4 V θx γρ (1 + ρ ) )Y 3 V 3 + S 3 X 3 + 3θ 4 X 3 + γρy 3 X 3 (1 + ρ + ρ ) γ ρ 4 4θ (ρ Y 3 + σy )]. In order to find the minimum of this expression, we set to zero its derivative with respect to V 3 : C(X 3, S 3 ) = 3θ V 3 V 3 θ X 3 γρ (1 + ρ )Y 3 =. he solution of this equation is the optimal amount to execute at time 3: V 3 = X 3 + γρ (ρ + ) Y θ We then compute the optimal expected cost at time 3: C (X 3, S 3 ) = 3θ ( 4 ( V 3) θx 3 + γρ (1 + ρ ) )Y 3 V 3 + S 3 X 3 + 3θ 4 X 3 + γρy 3 X 3 (1 + ρ + ρ ) γ ρ 4 4θ (ρ Y 3 + σy ) = 3θ ( ) X 3 + γρ (ρ + ) Y 3 + S 3 X 3 + 3θ 4 3 3θ 4 X 3 γ ρ 4 4θ (ρ Y 3 + σy ) ( θx 3 + γρ (1 + ρ ) ( ) )Y X γρ (ρ + ) Y 3 + γρy 3 X 3 (1 + ρ + ρ 3 3θ ) = S 3 X 3 + θ ) 3 X 3 + ρ + ρ + 3 γρx 3 Y 3 γ ρ 4 (ρ + ) (( + ρ )Y 3 + σy. 3 4θ 3 More generally, we can see a pattern emerging from the three previous optimal strategies and expected costs results, which can be proven formally by induction. Proposition.3 (Optimal execution strategy). For any i 1 the optimal execution strategy at time i is V i = X i + a i Y i i with a i = γ i 1 k=1 (i k)ρk+1 iθ for i, and a 1 =.

8 D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models 8 Remark.4. a i can be simplified to Proof. Let i. and a 1 =. a i = a i = γ i 1 (i k)ρ k+1 iθ k=1 γρ iθ(1 ρ) (ρi iρ + i 1) for i 1. = γ i θ ρ ρ k γ i 1 iθ ρ k= k=1 kρ k 1 = γ 1 ρi 1 ρ θ 1 ρ γ (i 1)ρi iρ i iθ ρ (1 ρ) γρ ( = i iρ i 1 iρ + iρ i (i 1)ρ i + iρ i 1 1 ) iθ(1 ρ) Proposition.5 (Optimal expected cost). For any i 1, the minimum expected cost at time i is C ad(x i, S i ) = S i X i + i + 1 i with b i = i k= θρ (i k) k (k 1) a k for i. θx i + (i + 1)θa i+1 X i Y i b i Y iρ i 1 i ( k= b k )σ Y Remark.6. b i can be simplified to b i = γ ρ 4 θ(1 ρ) 3 ( 1 ρ i 1 + ρ (1 ρi ) i(1 ρ) ) for i.

9 D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models 9 Proof. Let i. i b i = ρ (i k) γ ρ 4 (k 1)kθ(1 ρ) 4 (ρk kρ + k 1) k= = γ ρ i+4 θ(1 ρ) 4 = γ ρ i+4 θ(1 ρ) 4 = γ ρ i+4 θ(1 ρ) 4 = γ ρ i+4 θ(1 ρ) 4 = = = γ θ(1 ρ) 4 γ θ(1 ρ) 4 γ θ(1 ρ) 4 i ρ k ρk kρ k+1 + (k 1)ρ k + k ρ k(k 1)ρ + k k + 1 (k 1)k k= i [ ] 1 (k 1)k ρ1 k k 1 + ρ k + kρ(1 k) k k 1 (k 1)ρ k ρ1 k + k k= [ i ( 1 k 1 1 ) ] i 1 ρ k i ρ k i 1 (k + 1)ρ k i i + + ρ 1 k (k 1)ρ k + k k k k k k= k=1 k= k=1 k= k= [( 1 1 ) ) )] + ( ρ 1 + ρ i + (ρ + ρ 4 ρ 3 ) ρ (i 1) 1 + (ρ ρ i i i ρ 1 i [( 1 1 ) ] ρ i+4 ρ i+3 + ρi+4 + (1 ρ) ρ ρ i i i ρ (1 ρ ) + ρi+ ρ4 i ] [(ρ ρ + 1)ρ i+ + (1 ρ) ρ4 ρ i+ + ρi+4 + ρ i+4 ρ ρ i [ (1 ρ)(ρ i+ ρ i+4 ) + (1 ρ)(ρ 4 ρ i+ ) (1 ] ρi ) ρ ρ i Corollary.1. In particular, the optimal expected cost at time is Cad(X, S ) = S X θx + ( + 1)θa 1 +1 XY b Y ( b k )σy. (.7) ρ k= Remark.7. Although this strategy is, it does not take into account the price, but only the information process. his makes sense because if there was no information, the optimal strategy would be as shown in [6]..3 Permanent market impact: optimal solution We will now constrain the solutions of (.5) to be, so that the strategy is known at time and can be executed with no further calculations, independently of the path taken by the price. heorem.8 (Optimal execution strategy). When we restrict the solutions to the subset of strategies, the optimal strategy is Xt = t X + γy [ ρ ρ t 1 + (1 ρ ) t ]. (.8) θ(1 ρ)

10 D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models 1 Proof. o solve (.5), we will simply assume that every X t is known at time and compute the expected cost at time : [ 1 ] C(X, S, { V }) = E S t+1 V t t= 1 = V t E [S t+1 ] t= 1 = V t (E [S t ] + θ V t + γe [Y t+1 ]) t= 1 = V t (S + θ t= since V t = X t X t+1 is ) t t+1 V i + γy ρ i i= ( 1 = S X + (X t X t+1 ) θ t= t= Problem (.5) can be rewritten as t i= i=1 by induction (X i X i+1 ) + γy ρ 1 ρt+1 1 ρ 1 1 = S X + θ (X t X t+1 )(X X t+1 ) + γy ρ C (X, S ) = min C(x). x t= ) 1 ρ t+1 1 ρ (X t X t+1 ). o find the minimum, we set to zero the partial derivatives of the expected cost with respect to X 1,..., X 1. For t = 1,..., 1 it gives us ( C 1 ρ t+1 = θ(x X t+1 ) θ(x X t ) θ(x t 1 X t ) + γρy X t 1 ρ 1 ) ρt =. 1 ρ We obtain the difference equation X t+1 X t + X t 1 = γy θ ρt+1, (.9) with boundary conditions X = X and X =. he solution of (.9) is of the form A+Bt+Cρ t for some constants A, B and C. Plugging this expression back in the equation yields A + B(t + 1) + Cρ t+1 (A + Bt + Cρ t ) + A + B(t 1) + Cρ t 1 = γy θ ρt+1 Cρ t (ρ + ρ 1 ) = γy θ ρt+1 C = γy ρ θ(1 ρ).

11 D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models 11 From the boundary conditions we have and X = A + C = X, A = X γy ρ θ(1 ρ), X = A + B + Cρ =, B = X + γy ρ (1 ρ ) θ(1 ρ). Combining those, we obtain the closed-form formula of the optimal strategy. Remark.9. If Y = (no initial information), ρ = (information is just noise) or γ = (information is irrelevant), the strategy consists in splitting the execution in orders of equal amounts over the period. his is a particular case of the strategy more generally known as VWAP (volume-weighted average price), and is the strategy obtained when there is no information. heorem.1 (Optimal expected cost associated with the strategy). he expected cost at time associated with the optimal strategy is Cdet(X, S ) = S X+ + 1 θx + γy ρx ( ρ 1 ( )+ ρ γ Y ρ 4 (1 ρ ) (1 ρ) 1 ρ θ(1 ρ) 3 (1 ρ) 1 ) ρ. 1 + ρ (.1) Proof. For lighter calculations, we set he optimal expected cost at time is t= C = γy ρ θ(1 ρ). 1 1 C (X, S ) = S X + θ (Xt Xt+1)(X Xt+1) + γy ρ We compute the two sums in (.11) separately for clarity: t= C (X, S ) = S X + θs 1 + γy ρs. he second sum is 1 ( 1 ρ t+1 X S = 1 ρ + C(ρt (1 ρ) + ρ 1 t= X = ( ρ 1 ) ρ (1 ρ) 1 ρ X = ( ρ 1 ) ρ (1 ρ) 1 ρ ) ) 1 ρ t+1 1 ρ (X t X t+1). (.11) + C ( 1 ρ 1 ρ 1 ρ (1 ρ) + ρ 1 ρ 1 ρ 1 ρ (1 ρ) + ρ(1 ρ ) (1 ρ) Cρ(1 ρ ) 1 ρ + Cρ(1 ρ ) (1 ρ). )

12 D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models 1 he first sum is 1 ( ) ( X S 1 = + C(ρt (1 ρ) + ρ 1 t + 1 ) X C(ρt (1 ρ ) t + 1 ) ) t= ) 1 = t= 1 + = t= t CX X + t= ( C ρ t (1 ρ) + ρ 1 ( + 1) 1 X CX + t= ( 1 ρ t+1 + (ρ 1) t ) ( 1 ρ t+1 + (ρ 1) t t= ( (t + )ρ t+1 + (t + 1)ρ t + (t + 1) ρ ) ( t + 1 CX ρ t (1 ρ) + ρ 1 1 ( + C ρ t (1 ρ ρ t+1 + ρ t+ ) + ( (t + 1)ρ t (t + )ρ t ) ) ρ 1 + (t + 1) (ρ 1) t= = CX ( ( 1)ρ + + ρ +1 ρ ρ ρ +1 + ) ρ +1 ( + 1)ρ ( + 1)ρ 1 (1 ρ) 1 ρ (1 ρ) 1 ( + C ρ t+1 (ρ 1) + (1 ( ) ) ρ)(ρ 1) tρ t + 1 ρ + ρ 1 ( ρ + 1) ρ t + (ρ 1) (t + 1) t= 1 + C t= ρ X = CX ( 1)ρ + + ( + 1)ρ +1 + ρ ( + 1)ρ + 1 ρ + (( + 1)ρ 1)(1 + ρ ρ) (1 ρ) ( ρ + C ρ ρ + ρ 1 ρ ( 1)ρ ρ ρ + (1 ) ρ)(ρ 1) 1 ρ 1 ρ 1 ρ ( ) C (ρ 1) + ρ X C ( = ρ +1 ρ ρ + + ρ + (ρ +1 ρ + ρ + ρ )(( 1)ρ ρ 1 + 1) ) (1 ρ ) C ( + ( ρ + ρ 1 ρ +1 + ρ)(1 ρ + ρ ρ +1 ) ) (1 ρ ) ( ) C (1 + ρ ρ ρ ρ + + ρ + ) + ρ ρ + + ρ (1 ρ ) X (( C 1 = ρ + ρ + 1 ) ρ ρ + + ρ ρ ρ + 1 ) (1 ρ ) X = C (1 ρ)(1 ρ ) (1 + ρ) C (1 ρ ) X. ) )

13 D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models 13 Substituting those results in (.11), we obtain ( C C (1 ρ)(1 ρ ) (X, S ) = S X + θ C (1 ρ ) (1 + ρ) ( X + γy ρ ( ρ 1 ) ρ (1 ρ) 1 ρ = S X + γ Y ρ 4 (1 ρ ) + γy ρx (1 ρ) ) X Cρ(1 ρ ) + Cρ(1 ρ ) 1 ρ (1 ρ) (1 + ρ)θ(1 ρ) γ Y ρ 4 (1 ρ ) θ(1 ρ) 4 θx ( ρ 1 ) ρ γ Y ρ 4 (1 ρ ) 1 ρ (1 ρ )θ(1 ρ) + γ Y ρ 4 (1 ρ ). (1 ρ) 4 θ ).4 Permanent market impact: vs solution We will now quantify the difference between the two strategies obtained above. First, we define the difference. Definition.1 (Absolute difference). he absolute difference between the and the optimal expected cost at time is ɛ abs := C det(x, S ) C ad(x, S ). Proposition.11 (Value of the absolute difference). he value of the absolute difference is Proof. By definition, 1 ɛ abs = ( b k )σy. (.1) k= ( ɛ abs = γ Y ρ 4 (1 ρ ) θ(1 ρ) 3 (1 ρ) 1 ) ρ 1 + b Y + ( b k )σy. 1 + ρ Substituting the value of b obtained in Remark.6 in this expression yields the result. Corollary.. he two strategies have the same expected cost when the information process is not random (σ Y = ). Corollary.3. As expected, the strategy is always better than the one. Proof. For any k, b k is a sum of products of non-negative terms by definition, so it is non-negative. Hence their sum is non-negative. Multiplying this sum by the non-negative term σ Y, we conclude that ɛ abs is non-negative. k=

14 D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models 14 Definition. (Relative difference). he relative difference between the and the optimal expected cost at time is ɛ rel := ɛ abs C det (X, S ). We now quantify the difference between the and the strategies through a few numerical examples. he amount of shares to execute X is set at 1 6, big enough to have an impact on the market. he initial price of the stock is S = $1, making it intuitive to take the percentage volatility. he number of periods is = 14 so that there is around one execution every 3 minutes over a trading day for example. he market impact θ = 1 5 is chosen to increase the expected price by a total of 1% over the execution, as done in Bertsimas and Lo [6]: X(S + θx) = 1.1S X. he percentage standard deviation of the price over a time period σ =.51% is chosen such that the annual volatility is around 3%, or equivalently the daily volatility is around 1.89%: σ 14 = 1.89%. he information process is positively auto-correlated ρ =.5. Its importance γ = 1 is chosen arbitrarily. Its volatility σ Y =.44 is chosen such that the standard deviation of the information component is of the same order as that of the stock price: E[(γYt ) ] γσ Y 1 ρ =.51 for t large enough. By default we assume that there is no initial information Y =. he values described above are summarized in able 1. X 1 6 S 1 14 θ 1 5 σ.51% ρ.5 γ 1 σ Y.44 Y able 1: Benchmark parameter values Remark.1. In order to obtain an order of magnitude for the expected cost, note that the best we can do is the cost of an instantaneous execution, which is the cost without market impact, and this would be S X = 1 8.

15 Remaining shares Stock price D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models 15 o get an idea of the influence of the initial information on both strategies, we give a few examples of unaffected and affected price paths obtained with different values of Y, and their associated strategies in Figures 1, and unaffected Price evolution ime #1 5 Optimal strategies ime Figure 1: One path of a simulated strategy with benchmark parameters (Y = ) he upper plot in Figure 1 represents the evolution of the price throughout the execution. As we can see, the affected price S would be higher than the unaffected price S with both strategies since the market is reacting against a buy order. he lower plot in Figure 1 represents the amount of shares X t left to be executed throughout the execution. he red curve is the optimal fully strategy. he blue curve is the optimal static or strategy. Since Y =, the strategy is simply a straight line going from the initial value X at time to the final value at time : the execution is done evenly over the time horizon and this is the well known VWAP strategy. he strategy is roughly the same, but it is less smooth since the strategy changes according to the path taken by the price during the execution. With the benchmark parameters, we find that Cdet (X, S ) = , Cad (X, S ) = and ɛ rel = In particular, the costs obtained with the path shown in Figure 1 are C det (X, S ) = and C ad (X, S ) = so the strategy would have been better than the one in retrospect. Remark.13. he first step is always the same for both strategies since it relies purely on information known at time.

16 Remaining shares Stock price D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models unaffected Price evolution ime #1 5 Optimal strategies ime Figure : One path of a simulated strategy with positive initial information (Y = 5) Since the information process is cumulative and positively auto-correlated, a positive initial information suggests that the information term will be increasing throughout the trade. o minimize the impact of the information, the trade is shifted towards the beginning of the time horizon: we increase the rate at which we buy in a first part. With Y = 5, we find that the optimal costs for the static and cases are, respectively, C det (X, S ) = , C ad (X, S ) = and ɛ rel = In particular, the costs obtained in the single path shown in Figure are C det (X, S ) = and C ad (X, S ) = On the other hand, a negative initial information suggests that the information term will be more and more negative throughout the term, so its impact on the price will be to reduce it more and more. Hence we want to begin buying as late as we can, even selling shares in a first part to maximize the benefits from the price decrease. Indeed, with Y = 5, we find that C det (X, S ) = , C ad (X, S ) = and ɛ rel = In particular, the costs obtained in the single path shown in Figure 3 are C det (X, S ) = and C ad (X, S ) = Note that since we begin by selling shares, the effective price goes below the unaffected price at first. Remark.14. In some situations it might be natural to impose a constraint on the sign of V, since one may not wish to sell during a buy order. Now that we have in mind the path taken by the price and by the strategies for a

17 Remaining shares Stock price D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models unaffected Price evolution ime #1 5 Optimal strategies ime Figure 3: One path of a simulated strategy with negative information Y = 5. few examples, we will study the influence of each parameter separately, analyzing in a few numerical examples the impact of the parameters and inputs X,, θ, ρ, γ, σ Y. In each numerical example, the parameters will be those of able 1 except for the one whose influence we study. his allows us to study one parameter at a time. Remark.15. Since σ does not appear in the formulas in either case, it has no influence on the optimal expected cost. We begin by studing the influence of X. Figure 4 shows the evolution of the expected costs and the relative difference when X varies from 1 5 to 1 7. he absolute difference does not depend on the amount of shares to execute X, while the expected cost grows with X, so the relative error decreases when X increases. his can be explained by the fact that the market impact parameter θ has been calibrated for a certain X, and its total permanent influence becomes considerable when X is very large. For example, when X = 1 7 the permanent impact doubles the price over the execution: the affected price at time is roughly twice the unaffected price. his is not really representative of the impact of X since θ should be a function of X: the impact we have on the market should not grow linearly with the amount executed, as opposed to our assumption.

18 Expected cost Relative difference Expected cost Relative difference D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models 18 # # Y=-5 Y= Y= Intitial amount of shares # Initial amount of shares #1 6 Figure 4: Influence of X on the expected costs and relative difference We now consider the influence of. # # Y=-5 Y= Y= ime horizon ime horizon Figure 5: Influence of on the expected costs and relative difference Figure 5 shows the evolution of the expected costs and the relative difference when the time horizon varies from half an hour ( = 1) to a trading week of 5 days ( = 7). he relative difference between the two strategies increases linearly with the time horizon for large enough. his stems from the fact that the strategy is set at time, and does not benefit from the information that arrives after, while the strategy will do the best of what is given. Given a full trading week to execute the order, the strategy is almost.% better than the one. We now turn to the influence of θ.

19 Expected cost Relative difference D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models 19 # Y=-5 Y= Y= Market impact parameter # Market impact parameter #1-5 Figure 6: Influence of θ on the expected costs and relative difference As said in the study of the influence of X, when θ increases, the impact we have on the market increases. More and more of the expected cost is unavoidable so it becomes more and more difficult to reduce the expected cost. Hence the relative difference decreases as θ increases. Figure 6 shows the evolution of the expected costs and the relative difference when θ varies from 1 8 to 1 4. For a total increase of 1% of the price over the execution (θ = 1 6 ), the relative difference is.1%. Remark.16. It would be interesting to study the joint influence of X and θ, as they depend strongly on each other financially. For example, θ could be taken as a function of X (one could start with a linear function). We have an interesting pattern on the optimal expected cost when θ. Proposition.17. As long as σ Y, the optimal expected cost tends to when θ tends to. When there is initial information (Y ), the expected cost associated with the best strategy tends to when θ tends to. o understand the intuition behind this, we will look at a few examples of strategies used for a small value of θ, and initial information. As we can see in Figure 7, the strategies are extremely aggressive when the market impact parameter is small, since we accelerate the execution when the price goes against us. here are strategies related to idealized round trips: due to the cumulative effect of information on the trading price, we quickly buy way more than needed, and sell back later, with a higher information-increased price, until we reach our goal. Without market impact, it seems there is no foreseeable punishment for massively leveraging the information benefit. Note that it is impossible to do this in reality since there is a finite number of shares and this would be prohibited as market manipulation.

20 Remaining shares Stock price Remaining shares Stock price D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models unaffected Price evolution ime #1 8 Optimal strategies ime Figure 7: One path of a simulated strategy with positive initial information (Y = 5) and small market impact (θ = 1 8 ) 1 95 unaffected Price evolution ime #1 8 Optimal strategies ime Figure 8: One path of a simulated strategy with negative initial information (Y = 5) and small market impact (θ = 1 8 )

21 Expected cost Relative difference D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models 1 As we can see in Figure 8, when there is negative initial information the strategies are the opposite of the case of positive initial information, since now information will tend to decrease the price cumulatively in time. We sell a lot of shares initially, since we know that the price will go down later due to information, when we will be able to buy back at a much reduced price. We consider now the influence of ρ. Figure 9 shows the evolution of the expected costs and the relative difference when ρ varies from.9 to.9. Although there is some noticeable difference in the expected costs for large negative auto-correlations (ρ <.8), the relative difference is particularly relevant when the information process is strongly positively autocorrelated (ρ >.8). It then explodes, up to 8.7% when Y = 5 and ρ =.9, but such a huge value does not seem realistic for ρ. # Y=-5 Y= Y= AR(1) coefficient AR(1) coefficient Figure 9: Influence of ρ on the expected costs and relative difference As concerns the influence of γ, we have the following results. he relative difference grows with γ, which is intuitive since the more relevant the information is, the more important it is to update our strategy when we receive new information. his seems especially true when the initial information is negative. Figure 1 shows the evolution of the expected costs and the relative difference when γ varies from 1 to 1. We finally study the influence of σ Y. Figure 11 shows the evolution of the expected costs and the relative difference when σ Y varies from to 4. he volatility of the information process has no influence on the expected cost, while the expected cost decreases with σ Y. Hence the relative difference increases with σ Y.

22 Expected cost Relative difference Expected cost Relative difference D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models # Y=-5 Y= Y= Importance of the information Importance of the information Figure 1: Influence of γ on the expected costs and relative difference # Y=-5 Y= Y= Volatility of Y Volatility of Y Figure 11: Influence of σ Y on the expected costs and relative difference.5 emporary market impact: optimal solution In this section, we solve problem (.5) reproducing the solution of Bertsimas and Lo [6], assuming that the market impact is temporary, which means that the affected price follows (.4). In the setting, the problem is again solved by dynamic programming. he steps followed are the same as in the permanent impact case. he Bellman equation (.6) holds, and the final condition too: V 1 = X 1.

23 D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models 3 From this we can calculate the expected cost at time 1 C (X 1, S 1 ) = min V E 1[S V 1 ] = E 1 [S X 1 ] = E 1 [( S 1 + ηx 1 + γy )X 1 ] = S 1 X 1 + γρx 1 Y 1 + ηx 1. We then iterate the procedure to the previous time step: C (X, S ) = min V E [S 1 V + C (X 1, S 1 )] = min V [( S + γρy + η V ) V + ( S + γρy )(X V ) + γρ (X V )Y + η(x V ) ] = min V [η V (γρ Y + ηx ) V + ( S + γρ(1 + ρ)y )X + ηx ]. In order to find the minimum of this expression, we set to zero its derivative with respect to V : C(X, S ) V = 4η V γρ Y ηx =. he solution of this equation is the optimal amount to execute at time : V = X + γρ 4η Y. Substituting this expression in the expected cost yields: C (X, S ) = η( V ) (γρ Y + ηx ) V + ( S + γρ(1 + ρ)y )X + ηx ( ) ( ) X = η + γρ 4η Y (γρ X Y + ηx ) + γρ 4η Y + ( S + γρ(1 + ρ)y )X + ηx = S X + η X + γρ(1 + ρ )X Y γ ρ 4 8η Y. Using this expression, we can now compute the optimal strategy one step backward.

24 D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models 4 C (X 3, S 3 ) = min V E 3[S V 3 + C (X, S )] = min E 3[S V 3 + S X + η X + γρ(1 + ρ V )X Y γ ρ 4 8η Y ] = min V [( S 3 + γρy 3 + η V 3 ) V 3 + ( S 3 + γρy 3 )(X 3 V 3 ) + η (X 3 V 3 ) + γρ (1 + ρ )Y 3(X 3 V 3 ) γ ρ 4 8η (ρ Y 3 + σ Y )] = min V [3η V 3 (ηx 3 + γρ (1 + ρ )Y 3) V 3 + S 3 X 3 + η X 3 + γρ(1 + ρ + ρ )Y 3X 3 γ ρ 4 8η (ρ Y 3 + σ Y )]. In order to find the minimum of this expression, we set to zero its derivative with respect to V 3 : C(X 3, S 3 ) V 3 = 3η V 3 ηx 3 γρ (1 + ρ )Y 3 =. he solution of this equation is the optimal amount to execute at time 3: V 3 = X 3 3 We can compute the expected cost at time 3. + γρ (ρ + ) Y 3. 6η C (X 3, S 3 ) = 3η ( V 3) (ηx 3 + γρ (1 + ρ )Y 3) V 3 + S 3 X 3 + η X 3 + γρ(1 + ρ + ρ )Y 3X 3 γ ρ 4 8η (ρ Y 3 + σy ) = 3η ( X γρ (ρ + ) 6η (ηx 3 + γρ (1 + ρ )Y 3) ) Y 3 + S 3 X 3 + η X 3 + γρ(1 + ρ + ρ )Y 3X 3 ( ) X 3 + γρ (ρ + ) Y 3 γ ρ 4 3 6η 8η (ρ Y 3 + σy ) = S 3 X 3 + η 3 X 3 + ρ + ρ + 3 γρx 3 Y 3 γ ρ 4 3 8η (( (ρ + ) 3 In a similar way as in the case of a permanent impact, we deduce from these results a formula for the optimal execution strategy: + ρ )Y 3 + σ Y ). Proposition.18 (Optimal execution strategy). For any i 1 the optimal execution strat-

25 D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models 5 egy at time i is V i = X i i with a i = γ i 1 k=1 + a iy i (i k)ρk+1 for i, and a 1 =. iη Remark.19. a i can be simplified to a i = γρ iη(1 ρ) (ρi iρ + i 1) for i 1. Proof. he proof is the same as in the permanent impact case. Proposition.. For any i 1 the optimal expected cost at time i is C ad(x i, S i ) = S i X i + η X i i with b i = i k= ηiρ (i k) i 1 (a k) for i. + (i + 1)ηa i 1 i+1 X i Y i b iρ iy i ( k= b k)σ Y Remark.1. b i can be simplified to ( b γ ρ 4 1 ρ i i = 4η(1 ρ) ρ (1 ) ρi ) i(1 ρ) for i. Proof. he proof is the same as in the permanent impact case. Corollary.4. In particular, the optimal expected cost at time is Cad(X, S ) = S X + η X + ( + 1)ηa 1 +1 XY b Y ( b ρ k)σy. (.13).6 emporary market impact: optimal solution heorem. (Optimal execution strategy). When we restrict the solutions to the subset of strategies, the optimal strategy is Xt = t X + γy [ ρ ρ t 1 + (1 ρ ) t ]. (.14) η(1 ρ) k=

26 D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models 6 Proof. We constrain the solution of (.5) to be, using the same method as in the case of a permanent impact. he expected cost at time is [ 1 ] C(X, S, { V }) = E ( S t+1 + η V t ) V t t= t= 1 = (E [ S ) t+1 ] + η V t V t since the strategy is ( ) 1 t+1 = S + γ ρ i Y + η V t V t t= i=1 1 1 ρ ρ t+ 1 = S V t + γy V t 1 ρ + η ( V t ) t= 1 = S X + γρy Problem (.5) can be rewritten as t= t= t= 1 ρ t+1 1 ρ (X 1 t X t+1 ) + η t= (X t X t+1 ). C (X, S ) = min x C(x). (.15) o find the minimum, we set to zero the partial derivatives of the expected cost with respect to X 1,..., X 1. For t = 1,..., 1 it gives us ( C 1 ρ t+1 = γρy X t 1 ρ 1 ) ρt + η(x t X t+1 X t 1 ) =. (.16) 1 ρ We obtain the difference equation X t+1 X t + X t 1 = γy η ρt+1, (.17) with boundary conditions X = X and X =. he solution of (.17) is of the form A + Bt + Cρ t for some constants A, B and C. Substituting this expression back in the equation yields A + B(t + 1) + Cρ t+1 (A + Bt + Cρ t ) + A + B(t 1) + Cρ t 1 = γy η ρt+1 Cρ t (ρ + ρ 1 ) = γy η ρt+1 C = γy ρ η(1 ρ).

27 D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models 7 From the boundary conditions we have and X = A + C = X, A = X γy ρ η(ρ 1), X = A + B + Cρ =, B = X + γy ρ (1 ρ ) η(ρ 1). Combining those, we obtain the closed-form formula of the optimal optimal solution. Remark.3. As in the case of a permanent impact, the strategy is a VWAP when there is no relevant initial information. heorem.4 (Optimal expected cost associated with the strategy). he expected cost at time obtained when using the optimal strategy is Cdet(X, S ) = S X+η X + γρy X ( ρ 1 ( )+ ρ γ Y ρ 4 (1 ρ ) (1 ρ) 1 ρ 4η(1 ρ) 3 (1 ρ) 1 ) ρ. 1 + ρ (.18) Proof. Replacing X t with X t in the expression of the expected cost at time gives

28 D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models 8 1 C (X, S ) = S X + γρy t= 1 ρ t ρ (X t Xt+1) + η t= (X t X t+1) 1 ( 1 ρ t+1 X = S X + γρy 1 ρ + γy ρ (ρ t (1 ρ) 1 )) ρ η(1 ρ) t= 1 ( X + η + γy ρ (ρ t (1 ρ) 1 )) ρ η(1 ρ) t= = S X + γρy X 1 1 ρ t+1 1 ρ + γ Y ρ ρ (ρ t+1 t (1 ρ) 1 ) ρ η(1 ρ) 1 ρ t= t= ( 1 X + η + γ Y ρ (ρ 4 t (1 ρ) 1 ) ρ + X γy ρ (ρ t (1 ρ) 1 ) ) ρ 4η (1 ρ) 4 η(1 ρ) t= = S X + γρy X ( ρ 1 ) ρ + γ Y ρ 3 1 ((1 ρ)(ρ t ρ t+1 ) (1 ρ t+1 ) 1 ) ρ + η X (1 ρ) 1 ρ η(1 ρ) 3 t= 1 γ Y ρ + (ρ 4 t (1 ρ) + (1 ρ ) ρ t (1 ρ) 1 ) ρ + XγY ρ 1 (ρ t (1 ρ) 1 ) ρ 4η(1 ρ) 4 (1 ρ) t= t= = S X + γρy X ( ρ 1 ) ρ + γ Y ρ (1 3 ρ ρ 1 ( ρ (1 ρ) 1 ρ η(1 ρ) ρ ρ 1 ) ) ρ 1 ρ 1 ρ ( + η X + γ Y ρ 4 1 ρ 4η(1 ρ) 4 1 ρ (1 ρ) + (1 ρ ) (1 ) ρ ) + XγY ρ ( 1 ρ 1 + ρ ) (1 ρ) = S X + γρy X ( ρ 1 ) ρ + γ Y ρ ( 4 1 ρ (1 ρ) 1 ρ η(1 ρ) ρ + (1 ) ρ ) + η X (1 ρ) ( + γ Y ρ 4 1 ρ 4η(1 ρ) ρ (1 ) ρ ). (1 ρ).7 emporary market impact: vs solution We define the absolute and relative differences the same way as in the case of a permanent impact: Definition.3 (Absolute difference). ɛ abs := C det(x, S ) C ad(x, S ) = γ Y ρ 4 4η(1 ρ) 3 ( (1 ρ ) (1 ρ) 1 ρ 1 + ρ ) + b Y 1 + ( k= b k)σ Y.

29 D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models 9 Proposition.5 (Value of the absolute difference). he value of the absolute difference is 1 ɛ abs = ( b k)σy. (.19) Proof. he proof is the same as in the case of a permanent market impact. k= Corollary.5. he two strategies have the same expected cost when the information process is not random (σ Y = ). In this case the optimal solution turns out to be static. Corollary.6. As expected, the fully strategy is always better (or equal) than the one, in that it results in a smaller or equal criterion value. Definition.4 (Relative difference). ɛ rel := ɛ abs C det (X, S ). We now quantify the difference between the and the strategies through a few numerical examples. As in the permanent impact case, we set X = 1 6, S = $1, = 14, σ =.51%, ρ =.5, γ = 1, σ Y =.44. he market impact η = 1 5 is chosen to increase the expected price by 1% if the execution is made entirely in the first period, assuming no initial information: (S + ηx)x = 1.1S X In a first part we assume that there is no initial information Y =. he values described above are summarized in able. X 1 6 S 1 14 η 1 5 σ.51% ρ.5 γ 1 σ Y.44 Y able : Benchmark parameter values o get an idea of the influence of the initial information on the strategies, we give a few examples of paths for different values of Y in Figures 1, 13 and 14.

30 Remaining shares Stock price Remaining shares Stock price D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models unaffected Price evolution ime #1 5 Optimal strategies ime Figure 1: One path of a simulated strategy with benchmark parameters (Y = ) unaffected Price evolution ime #1 5 Optimal strategies ime Figure 13: One path of a simulated strategy with positive initial information (Y = 5) With the benchmark parameters, we find that C det (X, S ) = , C ad (X, S ) = and ɛ rel = In particular, the costs obtained with the path shown in

31 Remaining shares Stock price D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models unaffected Price evolution ime #1 5 Optimal strategies ime Figure 14: One path of a simulated strategy with negative initial information (Y = 5) Figure 1 are C det (X, S ) = and C ad (X, S ) = With Y = 5, we find that C det (X, S ) = , C ad (X, S ) = and ɛ rel = In particular, the costs obtained with the path shown in Figure 13 are C det (X, S ) = and C ad (X, S ) = With Y = 5, we find that C det (X, S ) = , C ad (X, S ) = and ɛ rel = In particular, the costs obtained with the path shown in Figure 14 are C det (X, S ) = and C ad (X, S ) = For this path, the strategy is less effective than the one. As in the case of a permanent impact, both strategies are aggressive. Now that we have a feel for the paths obtained in a few examples, we will study the influence of each parameter separately, as we did for the permanent impact case, considering parameters X,, η, ρ, γ, σ Y. In each numerical example, the parameters will be those of able except for the one whose influence we study. his allows us to study one parameter at a time. Remark.6. Since σ does not appear in the formulas in either case, it has no influence on the optimal expected cost. We begin by considering the influence of X. Figure 15 shows the evolution of the expected costs and the relative difference when X varies from 1 5 to 1 7. he influence of X is similar as in the case of a permanent impact. his is due to the fact that the market impact parameter η has been calibrated for a certain X, and its influence becomes overwhelming

32 Expected cost Relative difference Expected cost Relative difference D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models 3 #1 8 1 # Y=-5 Y= Y= Intitial amount of shares # Initial amount of shares #1 6 Figure 15: Influence of X on the expected costs and relative difference when X is too big. It is not really representative of the impact of X since η should be a function of X. As regards the influence of, figure 16 shows the evolution of the expected costs and the relative difference when varies from 1 to 7. he relative difference between the two strategies increases linearly with the time horizon for large enough, for the same reason as with a permanent impact. For a time horizon of 5 days, the strategy is.1% better than the one. # # Y=-5 Y= Y= ime horizon ime horizon Figure 16: Influence of on the expected costs and relative difference We now move to the Influence of η. Figure 17 shows the evolution of the expected costs and the relative difference when η varies from 1 8 to 1 4. Similarly to the permanent market impact, when the temporary impact parameter η increases it becomes difficult to reduce its impact on the cost. Hence the difference between the two strategies is crushed

33 Expected cost Relative difference D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models 33 # Y=-5 Y= Y= Market impact parameter # Market impact parameter #1-5 Figure 17: Influence of η on the expected costs and relative difference by the total expected cost. For a small market impact, for example an increase of only 1% if the execution is fully done in one period (η = 1 6 ), the strategy is.1% better than the one. Remark.7. As long as σ Y, the optimal expected cost tends to when η tends to. When there is initial information (Y ), the expected cost associated with the best strategy tends to when η tends to. he reasons why this is the case are the same as with a permanent impact, which is intuitive since when there is no impact, it does not matter whether it would be permanent or temporary. We now analyze the influence of ρ. Figure 18 shows the evolution of the expected costs and the relative difference when ρ varies from.9 to.9. As in the permanent impact case, the relative difference is particularly relevant when the information process is strongly positively auto-correlated (ρ >.8), where it explodes. But once again, such huge autocorrelation doesn t seem very realistic. As concerns the influence of γ, we have the following.

34 Expected cost Relative difference Expected cost Relative difference D. Brigo, C. Piat: Static vs optimal solutions in benchmark trade execution models 34 # Y=-5 Y= Y= AR(1) coefficient AR(1) coefficient Figure 18: Influence of ρ on the expected costs and relative difference # Y=-5 Y= Y= Importance of the information Importance of the information Figure 19: Influence of γ on the expected costs and relative difference Figure 19 shows the evolution of the expected costs and the relative difference when γ varies from 1 to 1. he relative difference grows with γ the same way as in the case of a permanent impact. Finally, we consider the influence of σ Y.