# Literature Review on Optimal Order Execution (4)

Today we implement the order placement strategy in Almgren and Chriss (2000) s.t. for a certain order size \(Q\), we can estimate the probability to perform the optimal strategy in the paper within time horizon of \(T\).

# Mathematical Formulation

It is tolerable^{[1]} in HFT that we assume stock price evolves according to the discrete time arithmetic Brownian motion:

where \(Q(t)\) is the quantity of stock we still need to order at time \(t\). Now let \(\eta\) denote the linear coefficient for **temporary** market impact, and let \(\lambda\) denote the penalty coefficient for risks. To minimize the cost function

\[ C = \eta \int_0^T \dot{Q}^2(t) dt + \lambda\sigma\int_0^T Q(t) dt \]

we have the unique solution given by

\[ Q^*(t) = Q\cdot \left(1 - \frac{t}{T^*}\right)^2 \]

where \(Q\equiv Q(0)\) is the total and initial quantity to execute, and the optimal liquidation horizon \(T^*\) is given by

\[ T^* = \sqrt{\frac{4Q\eta}{\lambda\sigma}}. \]

Here, \(\eta\) and \(\lambda\) are exogenous parameters and \(\sigma\) is estimated from the price time series (see the previous post) within \(K\) time units, given by

\[ \hat{\sigma}^2 = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^n (\Delta_i - \hat{\mu}_{\Delta})^2}{(n-1)\tau} \]

where \(\\{\Delta_i\\}\) are the first order differences of the stock price using \(\tau\) as sample period, \(n\equiv\lfloor K / \tau\rfloor\) is the length of the array, and

\[ \hat{\mu}_{\Delta} = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^n \Delta_i}{n}. \]

Notice that \(\hat{\sigma}^2\) is proved asymptotically normal with variance

\[ Var(\hat{\sigma}^2) = \frac{2\sigma^4}{n}. \]

Now that we know

\[ \hat{\sigma}^2 \equiv \frac{16Q^2\eta^2}{\lambda^2 \hat{T}^4} \overset{d}{\to} \mathcal{N}\left(\sigma^2, \frac{2\sigma^4}{n}\right) \]

which yields

\[ \frac{16Q^2\eta^2}{\lambda^2\hat{\sigma}^2\hat{T}^4}\overset{d}{\to}\mathcal{N}\left(1, \frac{2}{n}\right), \]

to keep consistency of parameters, with \(n\equiv \lfloor K/\tau\rfloor \to\infty\) we can also write

\[ \frac{16Q^2\eta^2}{\lambda^2\hat{\sigma}^2\hat{T}^4}\overset{d}{\to}\mathcal{N}\left(1, \frac{2\tau}{K}\right). \]

with which we can estimate the probability of successful strategy performance. Specifically, the execution strategy is given above, and the expected cost of trading is

\[ C^* = \eta \int_0^{T^*} \left(\frac{2Q}{T}\left(1 - \frac{t}{T^*}\right)\right)^2 dt + \lambda\sigma\int_0^{T^*} Q\cdot \left(1 - \frac{t}{T^*}\right) dt = \frac{4\eta Q^2}{3T^*} + \frac{\lambda \sigma QT^*}{3} = \frac{4}{3}\sqrt{\eta\lambda\sigma Q^3}. \]

# Implementation

1 | import numpy as np |

`(1.465147881156472, 0.8431842483948604)`

which means there's a probability of 84.3% that we can perform our order placement strategy of size 10 within 3.6405 time units and minimize the trading cost of 1.47 at optimum.

- 1.Over long-term investment time scales or in extremely volatile markets it is important to consider geometric rather than arithmetic Brownian motion; this corresponds to letting \(\sigma\) scale with \(S\) But over the short-term trading time horizons of interest the total fractional price changes are small and the difference between arithmetic and geometric Brownian motions is negligible. (Almgren and Chriss, 2000) ↩︎