Strategic Traders and Liquidity Crashes

Similar documents
Liquidity-Solvency Nexus: A Stress Testing Tool

Global Games and Illiquidity

Liquidity, Asset Price, and Welfare

Bank Runs, Deposit Insurance, and Liquidity

Advanced Macroeconomics I ECON 525a - Fall 2009 Yale University

An agent-based model for bank formation, bank runs and interbank networks

Global Games and Illiquidity

Optimal margins and equilibrium prices

Global Games and Financial Fragility:

Social Preferences in the Labor Market

Dynamic Trading and Asset Prices: Keynes vs. Hayek

Ambiguous Information and Trading Volume in stock market

Crises and Prices: Information Aggregation, Multiplicity and Volatility

Estimating Macroeconomic Models of Financial Crises: An Endogenous Regime-Switching Approach

Bailouts, Bail-ins and Banking Crises

Blind Portfolio Auctions via Intermediaries

Capital Structure with Endogenous Liquidation Values

Imperfect Information and Market Segmentation Walsh Chapter 5

UCLA Department of Economics Ph.D. Preliminary Exam Industrial Organization Field Exam (Spring 2010) Use SEPARATE booklets to answer each question

EC202. Microeconomic Principles II. Summer 2009 examination. 2008/2009 syllabus

LECTURE 12: FRICTIONAL FINANCE

M. R. Grasselli. February, McMaster University. ABM and banking networks. Lecture 3: Some motivating economics models. M. R.

Game Theory I 1 / 38

Game Theory I 1 / 38

Mathematics in Finance

Game Theory: Global Games. Christoph Schottmüller

So we turn now to many-to-one matching with money, which is generally seen as a model of firms hiring workers

Feedback Effect and Capital Structure

Contagious Adverse Selection

Government Safety Net, Stock Market Participation and Asset Prices

CUR 412: Game Theory and its Applications, Lecture 11

Adverse Selection, Reputation and Sudden Collapses in Securitized Loan Markets

Leverage, Moral Hazard and Liquidity. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, February

Problem 3 Solutions. l 3 r, 1

A Theory of Endogenous Liquidity Cycles

Microeconomic Theory II Preliminary Examination Solutions Exam date: August 7, 2017

Market Size Matters: A Model of Excess Volatility in Large Markets

Institutional Finance

Microeconomics II. CIDE, MsC Economics. List of Problems

Financial Fragility A Global-Games Approach Itay Goldstein Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania

05/05/2011. Degree of Risk. Degree of Risk. BUSA 4800/4810 May 5, Uncertainty

Eliciting Informative Feedback: The Peer-Prediction Method

A Model of the Reserve Asset

Supplement to the lecture on the Diamond-Dybvig model

SHORT-HORIZON TRADING AND MARKET MOVEMENT. 18 February Jeremy Large St Hugh s College, University of Oxford Tudor Investment Corp

Motivation: Two Basic Facts

Understanding Financial Crises: the Contribution of Experimental Economics

Information Acquisition and Response in Peer-Effects Networks

Lecture 10 Game Plan. Hidden actions, moral hazard, and incentives. Hidden traits, adverse selection, and signaling/screening

Liquidity Creation as Volatility Risk

FDPE Microeconomics 3 Spring 2017 Pauli Murto TA: Tsz-Ning Wong (These solution hints are based on Julia Salmi s solution hints for Spring 2015.

CUR 412: Game Theory and its Applications, Lecture 4

Microeconomic Theory II Preliminary Examination Solutions

Federal Reserve Tools for Managing Rates and Reserves

Macroeconomics of Financial Markets

Optimal Taxation : (c) Optimal Income Taxation

Foreign Competition and Banking Industry Dynamics: An Application to Mexico

Bayesian games and their use in auctions. Vincent Conitzer

1 Dynamic programming

PhD Qualifier Examination

Signal or noise? Uncertainty and learning whether other traders are informed

University of Hong Kong

Discussion of Corporate Bond Liquidity Before and After the Onset of the Subprime Crisis by J. Dick-Nielsen, P. Feldhütter, D.

Monetary Economics. Lecture 23a: inside and outside liquidity, part one. Chris Edmond. 2nd Semester 2014 (not examinable)

Interest Rates and Currency Prices in a Two-Country World. Robert E. Lucas, Jr. 1982

CUR 412: Game Theory and its Applications, Lecture 4

A Model of Safe Asset Determination

A Baseline Model: Diamond and Dybvig (1983)

Estimating Market Power in Differentiated Product Markets

Notes for Section: Week 7

DYNAMIC DEBT MATURITY

China's Model of Managing the Financial System

Equilibrium Fast Trading

Almost essential MICROECONOMICS

Up till now, we ve mostly been analyzing auctions under the following assumptions:

A Model of Rational Speculative Trade

CS188 Spring 2012 Section 4: Games

Risk and Wealth in Self-Fulfilling Currency Crises

Impact of Imperfect Information on the Optimal Exercise Strategy for Warrants

Inflation & Welfare 1

Bayesian Nash Equilibrium

Do Low Interest Rates Sow the Seeds of Financial Crises?

Booms and Busts in Asset Prices. May 2010

$1,000 1 ( ) $2,500 2,500 $2,000 (1 ) (1 + r) 2,000

Capital Adequacy and Liquidity in Banking Dynamics

Lecture 6 Applications of Static Games of Incomplete Information

MACROECONOMICS. Prelim Exam

Oligopoly Games and Voting Games. Cournot s Model of Quantity Competition:

Bernanke and Gertler [1989]

In Diamond-Dybvig, we see run equilibria in the optimal simple contract.

Price Impact, Funding Shock and Stock Ownership Structure

Ph.D. Preliminary Examination MICROECONOMIC THEORY Applied Economics Graduate Program June 2017

A Game Theoretic Approach to Promotion Design in Two-Sided Platforms

Evaluating Electricity Generation, Energy Options, and Complex Networks

Analyses of an Internet Auction Market Focusing on the Fixed-Price Selling at a Buyout Price

Liquidity Creation as Volatility Risk

14.13 Economics and Psychology (Lecture 19)

We examine the impact of risk aversion on bidding behavior in first-price auctions.

Corporate Control. Itay Goldstein. Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania

Financial Liberalization and Neighbor Coordination

Transcription:

Strategic Traders and Liquidity Crashes Alexander Remorov 6.254 Final Project December 7, 2013 Remorov Strategic Traders and Liquidity Crashes 1 / 21

Introduction Most of the time markets functioning well Prices don t move much Supply and demand for stock relatively balanced What happens if everyone wants to sell? Remorov Strategic Traders and Liquidity Crashes 2 / 21

Volume Price CREG Stock, Nov. 17, 2013 4.25 4.2 4.15 4.1 4.05 4 3.95 3.9 3.85 3.8 3.75 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 Data obtained from Google Finance Remorov Strategic Traders and Liquidity Crashes 3 / 21

Liquidity Crashes What happens if almost everyone wants to sell? Much lower price needed for someone to buy the stock Selling even a small position causes a large price decline This is caused an illiquid market Everyone selling at the same time causes a liquidity crash Remorov Strategic Traders and Liquidity Crashes 4 / 21

Strategic Traders Can view traders as playing a simultaneous game Need to decide on positions in the stock throughout the period Could wait it out since will price likely return to previous level However may be forced to sell when price is low: Due to an exogenous liquidity shock: Bernardo and Welch (2004) Loss limits: Morris and Shin (2004) Remorov Strategic Traders and Liquidity Crashes 5 / 21

Maket Participants Short-term strategic investors Risk-neutral; don t have price impact by their own trades May be forced to sell stock External liquidity shock: Bernardo and Welch (2004) Loss limit: Morris and Shin (2004) Market-makers/long-term investors Risk-averse Buy asset from short-term investors Set lower price if receive more sell orders Remorov Strategic Traders and Liquidity Crashes 6 / 21

Bernardo and Welch Model Three dates: t = 0: investors (possibly) trade t = 1: liquidity shock with prob. s, affected investors must trade t = 2: liquidation; investors are paid Investor behavior: α: fraction of investors selling at time 0 1 α: fraction selling at time 1 (assume correlated shocks) Prices p 0 (α) = v cα: price at time 0 p 1 (α) = v c(1 + α): price at time 1 v: expected value at time 2 Remorov Strategic Traders and Liquidity Crashes 7 / 21

Strategic investor s problem Decide on probability α to sell now Payoff to sell one share now: p 0 (α) Payoff to wait until date 2: { p 1 (α), if experiences shock u = v, if no shock Therefore will sell now if and only if: p 0 (α) s p 1 (α) + (1 s) v Remorov Strategic Traders and Liquidity Crashes 8 / 21

Deriving Equilibrium Define F (α) to be expected benefit to sell now: s 1 2 : mixed NE α = s > 1 2 : pure NE α = 1 F (α) = p 0 (α) s p 1 (α) (1 s) v s 1 s = c(s(1 + α) α) If probability of shock is high enough, everyone will sell right away before the shock even occurs Drawback: model too discrete; all investors acting the same Remorov Strategic Traders and Liquidity Crashes 9 / 21

Morris and Shin Model Two dates: t = 0: investors (possibly) trade, some get fired t = 1: liquidation; investors are paid Investor behavior: α: number of investors selling at time 0 loss limit q i ; if breached, investor is fired distribution: q i = θ + ω i, ω i IID Unif [ ɛ, ɛ] Prices Time 0 orders executed at an uncertain price v cu, U Unif [0, α] Price at the end of time 0 is v cα v: expected liquidation value at time 1 Remorov Strategic Traders and Liquidity Crashes 10 / 21

Strategic investor s problem Investor has stop limit q i. It is breached if ˆα i investors sell, where: q i = v c ˆα i Thus, if decides to hold the stock, expected payoff is: { v, if α ˆα i u(α) = 0, if α > ˆα i If decides to sell, then payoff is equal to expected sell price if loss limit not breached, and zero otherwise { v 1 w(α) = 2 cα, if α ˆα i ˆα i α (v 1 2 c ˆα i), if α > ˆα i Remorov Strategic Traders and Liquidity Crashes 11 / 21

Deriving Equilibrium Will look for threshold strategies: { sell, if q i > q (v) (v, q i ) hold, if q i q (v) In equilibrium, the fraction α of traders selling, conditional on your limit being q, is uniform [0, 1] Equilibirum condition: 1 Substituting formulas, becomes: 0 (u(α) w(α))dα = 0 v q i = c exp [ qi v ] 2(v + q i ) Remorov Strategic Traders and Liquidity Crashes 12 / 21

Loss Limit q Optimal Loss Limit Threshold Optimal Loss Limit Threshold, v = 100 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Loss Limit Threshold Lowest Price 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Price Sensitivity c Remorov Strategic Traders and Liquidity Crashes 13 / 21

Discussion and Modification Desired effect: trader sells as if most of other traders sell When c is small, act as if everyone else is selling Unrealistic! End up selling even if the price is 20% above limit... Remorov Strategic Traders and Liquidity Crashes 14 / 21

New Equilibrium Introduce transaction costs τ if successfully sell stock Furthermore if limit is breached, payoff is R > 0 Old equilibrium condition: [ qi v ] v q i = c exp 2(v + q i ) New condition: [ (qi v)(1 τ) 4vτ ] v q i = c exp 2(v + q i )(1 τ) 4R Remorov Strategic Traders and Liquidity Crashes 15 / 21

Loss Limit q Modified Model Results Optimal Loss Limit Threshold, v = 100 100 98 96 94 92 90 88 86 84 82 80 Lowest Price Tau = 0 %, R = 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Price Sensitivity c Remorov Strategic Traders and Liquidity Crashes 16 / 21

Loss Limit q Modified Model Results Optimal Loss Limit Threshold, v = 100 100 98 96 94 92 90 88 86 84 82 80 Lowest Price Tau = 0 %, R = 0 Tau = 5 %, R = 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Price Sensitivity c Remorov Strategic Traders and Liquidity Crashes 17 / 21

Loss Limit q Modified Model Results Optimal Loss Limit Threshold, v = 100 100 98 96 94 92 90 88 86 84 82 80 Lowest Price Tau = 0 %, R = 0 Tau = 5 %, R = 20 Tau = 5 %, R = 40 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Price Sensitivity c Remorov Strategic Traders and Liquidity Crashes 18 / 21

Loss Limit q Modified Model Results Optimal Loss Limit Threshold, v = 100 100 98 96 94 92 90 88 86 84 82 80 Lowest Price Tau = 0 %, R = 0 Tau = 5 %, R = 20 Tau = 5 %, R = 40 Tau = 20%, R = 40 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Price Sensitivity c Remorov Strategic Traders and Liquidity Crashes 19 / 21

Conclusion Nice framework for modeling liquidity crashes In equilibrium investors sell in fear that other investors may sell Due to a potential external shock Due to a loss limit When introduce transaction costs as well as positive payoffs if limit breached, results become more realistic Remorov Strategic Traders and Liquidity Crashes 20 / 21

Further extensions Want a multi-period model; things get more complicated Possible extension: three dates, two types of strategic investors: First type can sell at time 0 or 1 Second type can sell only at time 1 Then we get an optimal price drop for two periods more realistic Consider possibility of investors buying at the low price Example - Brunnermeier and Pedersen (2005) Large investor forced to sell others sell with him, then buy at the resulting very low price Remorov Strategic Traders and Liquidity Crashes 21 / 21