arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
北美退伍军人节(Veterans Day),12 日无更新
arXiv 1804.09151q-fin.MFmath.OC
收藏

价格冲击下的最优投资、需求与套利

Optimal Investment, Demand and Arbitrage under Price Impact

Michail Anthropelos, Scott Robertson, Konstantinos Spiliopoulos

摘要:

本文研究了一类基于库存的价格冲击模型中随机禀赋条件下的最优投资问题。我们的目标是分析价格影响如何影响最优策略,以及定价规则和或有债权的需求时间表。对于指数做市商偏好,我们建立了两个影响,由于价格的影响:约束交易,和非线性对冲成本。对于前者,影响模型中的财富过程与没有影响但具有约束交易的模型中的财富过程相同,其中(随机)约束集一般既不是封闭的也不是凸的。关于套期保值,非线性套期保值成本促使研究索赔的无套利价格。我们提供了三个这样的概念,这在无摩擦的情况下是一致的,但在价格影响的存在下却有很大的不同。此外,我们发现套利机会,如果他们从索赔价格,可以利用只有有限的头寸规模,并可能被忽略,如果超过对冲的考虑。我们还表明,套利诱导价格可能在均衡中内生地产生,均衡头寸与做市商的代表性风险厌恶程度成反比。因此,无论是在做市商风险中性的限制下,还是在做市商数量众多的限制下,都内生地产生了大量头寸。

英文摘要:

This paper studies the optimal investment problem with random endowment in an inventory-based price impact model with competitive market makers. Our goal is to analyze how price impact affects optimal policies, as well as both pricing rules and demand schedules for contingent claims. For exponential market makers preferences, we establish two effects due to price impact: constrained trading, and non-linear hedging costs. To the former, wealth processes in the impact model are identified with those in a model without impact, but with constrained trading, where the (random) constraint set is generically neither closed nor convex. Regarding hedging, non-linear hedging costs motivate the study of arbitrage free prices for the claim. We provide three such notions, which coincide in the frictionless case, but which dramatically differ in the presence of price impact. Additionally, we show arbitrage opportunities, should they arise from claim prices, can be exploited only for limited position sizes, and may be ignored if outweighed by hedging considerations. We also show that arbitrage inducing prices may arise endogenously in equilibrium, and that equilibrium positions are inversely proportional to the market makers' representative risk aversion. Therefore, large positions endogenously arise in the limit of either market maker risk neutrality, or a large number of market makers.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑