Kshama Dwarakanath
ABSTRACT
We look at discovering the impact of market microstructure on equitability for market participants at public exchanges such as the New York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ. Are these environments equitable venues for low-frequency participants (such as retail investors)? In particular, can market makers contribute to equitability for these agents? We use a simulator to assess the effect a market marker can have on equality of outcomes for consumer or retail traders by adjusting its parameters. Upon numerically quantifying market equitability by the entropy of the price returns distribution of consumer agents, we demonstrate that market makers indeed support equitability and that a negative correlation is observed between the profits of the market maker and equitability. We then use multi objective reinforcement learning to concurrently optimize for the two objectives of consumer agent equitability and market maker profitability, which leads us to learn policies that facilitate lower market volatility and tighter spreads for comparable profit levels.
- James Angel and Douglas McCabe. 2013. Fairness in Financial Markets: The Case of High Frequency Trading. Journal of Business Ethics (2013).Google Scholar
- Marco Avellaneda and Sasha Stoikov. 2008. High-frequency trading in a limit order book.Google Scholar
- Tucker Balch. 1998. Behavioral diversity in learning robot teams. Ph.D. Dissertation. Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
- Tucker R. Balch. 2000. Hierarchic Social Entropy: An Information Theoretic Measure of Robot Group Diversity. Autonomous Robots 8 (2000), 209--238.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rachel KE Bellamy, Kuntal Dey, Michael Hind, Samuel C Hoffman, Stephanie Houde, Kalapriya Kannan, Pranay Lohia, Jacquelyn Martino, Sameep Mehta, Aleksandra Mojsilovic, et al. 2018. AI Fairness 360: An extensible toolkit for detecting, understanding, and mitigating unwanted algorithmic bias. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.01943 (2018).Google Scholar
- Christopher Bone and Suzana Dragićević. 2009. GIS and Intelligent Agents for Multiobjective Natural Resource Allocation: A Reinforcement Learning Approach. Transactions in GIS 13, 3 (2009), 253--272. arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-9671.2009.01151.x Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stephen Boyd, Stephen P Boyd, and Lieven Vandenberghe. 2004. Convex optimization. Cambridge university press.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tanmoy Chakraborty and Michael Kearns. 2011. Market making and mean reversion. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM conference on Electronic commerce. ACM, 307--314.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nicholas Tung Chan and Christian Shelton. 2001. An electronic market-maker. (2001).Google Scholar
- Cynthia Dwork, Moritz Hardt, Toniann Pitassi, Omer Reingold, and Richard Zemel. 2012. Fairness through awareness. In Proceedings of the 3rd innovations in theoretical computer science conference. 214--226.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Thierry Foucault, Ohad Kadan, and Eugene Kandel. 2009. Liquidity cycles and make/take fees in electronic markets. Technical Report.Google Scholar
- Corrado Gini. 1936. On the measure of concentration with special reference to income and statistics. Colorado College Publication, General Series 208, 1 (1936), 73--79.Google Scholar
- EG Gladyshev. 1965. On stochastic approximation. Theory of Probability & Its Applications 10, 2 (1965), 275--278.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Martin D Gould, Mason A Porter, Stacy Williams, Mark McDonald, Daniel J Fenn, and Sam D Howison. 2013. Limit order books. Quantitative Finance 13, 11 (2013), 1709--1742.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Andrei Kirilenko, Albert Kyle, MEHRDAD SAMADI, and Tugkan Tuzun. 2017. The Flash Crash: High Frequency Trading in an Electronic Market. The Journal of Finance (06 2017).Google Scholar
- Andrei Kirilenko and Andrew Lo. 2013. Moore's Law vs. Murphy's Law: Algorithmic Trading and Its Discontents. Journal of Economic Perspectives (03 2013).Google Scholar
- Albert S Kyle. 1985. Continuous auctions and insider trading. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society (1985), 1315--1335.Google Scholar
- Tian Lan, David Kao, Mung Chiang, and Ashutosh Sabharwal. 2010. An Axiomatic Theory of Fairness in Network Resource Allocation. In Proceedings of the 29th Conference on Information Communications (INFOCOM'10).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hervé Moulin. 2003. Fair Division and Collective Welfare. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Y. Nojima, F. Kojima, and N. Kubota. 2003. Local episode-based learning of multi-objective behavior coordination for a mobile robot in dynamic environments. In The 12th IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems, 2003. FUZZ '03., Vol. 1. 307--312 vol.1. Google ScholarCross Ref
- JOHN RAWLS. 1999. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvkjb25mGoogle Scholar
- Herbert Robbins and Sutton Monro. 1951. A stochastic approximation method. The annals of mathematical statistics (1951), 400--407.Google Scholar
- Elizabeth Roberto. 2016. Measuring inequality and segregation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.01167 (2016).Google Scholar
- Diederik M Roijers, Peter Vamplew, Shimon Whiteson, and Richard Dazeley. 2013. A survey of multi-objective sequential decision-making. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 48 (2013), 67--113.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ioanid Rosu. [n.d.]. A dynamic model of the limit order book. Review of Financial Studies ([n. d.]), 2009.Google Scholar
- Jeff Schwartz. 2010. Fairness, utility and market risk. Oregon Law Review (2010).Google Scholar
- Securities and Exchange Commission. 2012. Order Instituting Proceedings to Determine Whether to Approve or Disapprove Proposed Rule Changes Relating to Market Maker Incentive Programs for Certain Exchange-Traded Products. (2012).Google Scholar
- Christian Robert Shelton. 2001. Importance sampling for reinforcement learning with multiple objectives. (2001).Google Scholar
- Till Speicher, Hoda Heidari, Nina Grgic-Hlaca, Krishna P Gummadi, Adish Singla, Adrian Weller, and Muhammad Bilal Zafar. 2018. A unified approach to quantifying algorithmic unfairness: Measuring individual & group unfairness via inequality indices. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 2239--2248.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Thomas Spooner, John Fearnley, Rahul Savani, and Andreas Koukorinis. 2018. Market Making via Reinforcement Learning. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Richard S Sutton and Andrew G Barto. 2018. Reinforcement learning: An introduction. MIT press.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Henri Theil. 1967. Economics and information theory. Amsterdam: North-Holland 1967.Google Scholar
- P. Twu, Y. Mostofi, and M. Egerstedt. 2014. A measure of heterogeneity in multi-agent systems. In 2014 American Control Conference.Google Scholar
- Kumar Venkataraman and Andrew C. Waisburd. 2007. The Value of the Designated Market Maker. The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 42, 3 (2007), 735--758. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27647318Google ScholarCross Ref
- Elaine Wah, Mason Wright, and Michael P Wellman. 2017. Welfare effects of market making in continuous double auctions. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 59 (2017), 613--650.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Xintong Wang and Michael P Wellman. 2017. Spoofing the limit order book: An agent-based model. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems. 651--659.Google Scholar
- Christopher JCH Watkins and Peter Dayan. 1992. Q-learning. Machine learning 8, 3--4 (1992), 279--292.Google Scholar
- H. Peyton Young. 1994. Equity: In Theory and Practice. Princeton University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv10crfx7Google Scholar
- Profit equitably: an investigation of market maker's impact on equitable outcomes
Recommendations
Asset Market Volatility and New Keynesian Macroeconomics: A Game-Theoretic Approach
This study develops a game-theoretic approach to asset market bubbles. In our model, portfolio investments consist of risk-free and risky assets. Risky assets attract more investors who may adopt a hawk strategy, because they promise a higher return ...
Sovereign credit ratings, market volatility, and financial gains
The reaction of EU bond and equity market volatilities to sovereign rating announcements (Standard & Poor's, Moody's, and Fitch) is investigated using a panel of daily stock market and sovereign bond returns. The parametric volatilities are defined ...
Estimating stochastic volatility models of stock returns in Chinese markets
Volatility plays a key role in microstructure issues in the study of financial markets. Stochastic volatility (SV) models have been applied to the study of the behavior of financial variables. Two stock markets exist in China: Shanghai Stock Exchange ...
Comments