Mathematics and Financial Economics

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 215–239 | Cite as

Hedging with temporary price impact

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

We consider the problem of hedging a European contingent claim in a Bachelier model with temporary price impact as proposed by Almgren and Chriss (J Risk 3:5–39, 2001). Following the approach of Rogers and Singh (Math Financ 20:597–615, 2010) and Naujokat and Westray (Math Financ Econ 4(4):299–335, 2011), the hedging problem can be regarded as a cost optimal tracking problem of the frictionless hedging strategy. We solve this problem explicitly for general predictable target hedging strategies. It turns out that, rather than towards the current target position, the optimal policy trades towards a weighted average of expected future target positions. This generalizes an observation of Gârleanu and Pedersen (Dynamic portfolio choice with frictions. Preprint, 2013b) from their homogenous Markovian optimal investment problem to a general hedging problem. Our findings complement a number of previous studies in the literature on optimal strategies in illiquid markets as, e.g., Gârleanu and Pedersen (Dynamic portfolio choice with frictions. Preprint, 2013b), Naujokat and Westray (Math Financ Econ 4(4):299–335, 2011), Rogers and Singh (Math Financ 20:597–615, 2010), Almgren and Li (Option hedging with smooth market impact. Preprint, 2015), Moreau et al. (Math Financ. doi: 10.1111/mafi.12098, 2015), Kallsen and Muhle-Karbe (High-resilience limits of block-shaped order books. Preprint, 2014), Guasoni and Weber (Mathematical Financ. doi: 10.1111/mafi.12099, 2015a; Nonlinear price impact and portfolio choice. Preprint, 2015b), where the frictionless hedging strategy is confined to diffusions. The consideration of general predictable reference strategies is made possible by the use of a convex analysis approach instead of the more common dynamic programming methods.

Keywords

Hedging Illiquid markets Portfolio tracking 

Mathematics Subject Classification

91G10 91G80 91B06 60H30 

JEL Classification

G11 C61 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The financial support by Einstein Foundation through project “Game options and markets with frictions” is gratefully acknowledged. Soner’s research done while visiting the Technische Universität Berlin and was partially supported by a research grant from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and by the Swiss National Foundation through grant 200021_153555.

References

  1. 1.
    Alfonsi, A., Fruth, A., Schied, A.: Optimal execution strategies in limit order books with general shape functions. Quant. Financ. 10(2), 143–157 (2010). doi: 10.1080/14697680802595700 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Almgren, R., Chriss, N.: Optimal execution of portfolio transactions. J. Risk 3, 5–39 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Almgren, R., Li, T.M.: Option hedging with smooth market impact. Preprint, June 2015Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Almgren, R.F.: Optimal execution with nonlinear impact functions and trading-enhanced risk. Appl. Math. Financ. 10(1), 1–18 (2003). doi: 10.1080/135048602100056 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Black, F., Scholes, M.: The pricing of options and corporate liabilities. J. Polit. Econ. 81, 637–654 (1973)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cai, J., Rosenbaum, M., Tankov, P.: Asymptotic lower bounds for optimal tracking: a linear programming approach. Preprint, October 2015Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cartea, Á., Jaimungal, S.: A closed-form execution strategy to target VWAP. Preprint, January 2015Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ekeland, I., Témam, R.: Convex Analysis and Variational Problems. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia (1999). doi: 10.1137/1.9781611971088
  9. 9.
    Föllmer, H., Sondermann, D.: Hedging of non-redundant contingent claims. In: Contributions to Mathematical Economics, pp. 205–223. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1986)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frei, C., Westray, N.: Optimal execution of a VWAP order: a stochastic control approach. Math. Financ. (2013). doi: 10.1111/mafi.12048
  11. 11.
    Gârleanu, N., Pedersen, L.H.: Dynamic trading with predictable returns and transaction costs. J. Financ. 68(6), 2309–2340 (2013a). ISSN 1540-6261. doi: 10.1111/jofi.12080
  12. 12.
    Gârleanu, N., Pedersen, L.H.: Dynamic portfolio choice with frictions. Preprint, May 2013bGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gökay, S., Roch, A.F., Soner, H.M.: Liquidity models in continuous and discrete time. In: Di Nunno, G., Øksendal, B. (eds.) Advanced Mathematical Methods for Finance, pp. 333–365. Springer, Berlin (2011). ISBN 978-3-642-18412-3. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-18412-3_13
  14. 14.
    Guasoni, P., Weber, M.: Dynamic trading volume. Math. Financ. (2015a). ISSN 1467-9965. doi: 10.1111/mafi.12099
  15. 15.
    Guasoni, P., Weber, M.: Nonlinear price impact and portfolio choice. Preprint, June 2015bGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guéant, O., Pu, J.: Option pricing and hedging with execution costs and market impact. Preprint, April 2015. arxiv:1311.4342
  17. 17.
    Kallsen, J., Muhle-Karbe, J.: High-resilience limits of block-shaped order books. Preprint, September 2014Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kohlmann, M., Tang, S.: Global adapted solution of one-dimensional backward stochastic Riccati equations, with application to the mean-variance hedging. Stoch. Process. Appl. 97(2), 255–288 (2002). ISSN 0304-4149. doi: 10.1016/S0304-4149(01)00133-8
  19. 19.
    Merton, R.C: Theory of rational option pricing. Bell J. Econ. Manag. Sci. 4, 141–183 (1973). ISSN 0741-6261Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moreau, L., Muhle-Karbe, J., Soner, H.M.: Trading with small price impact. Math. Financ. (2015). ISSN 1467-9965. doi: 10.1111/mafi.12098
  21. 21.
    Naujokat, F., Westray, N.: Curve following in illiquid markets. Math. Financ. Econ. 4(4), 299–335 (2011). ISSN 1862-9679. doi: 10.1007/s11579-011-0042-5
  22. 22.
    Obizhaeva, A.A., Wang, J.: Optimal trading strategy and supply/demand dynamics. J. Financ. Mark. 16(1), 1–32 (2013). ISSN 1386-4181. doi: 10.1016/j.finmar.2012.09.001. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386418112000328
  23. 23.
    Predoiu, S., Shaikhet, G., Shreve, S.: Optimal execution in a general one-sided limit-order book. SIAM J. Financ. Math. 2(1), 183–212 (2011). doi: 10.1137/10078534X MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rogers, L.C.G., Singh, S.: The cost of illiquidity and its effects on hedging. Math. Financ. 20, 597–615 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schied, A., Schöneborn, T.: Risk aversion and the dynamics of optimal liquidation strategies in illiquid markets. Financ. Stoch. 13(2), 181–204 (2009). ISSN 0949-2984MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für MathematikTechnische Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Departement für MathematikETH ZürichZurichSwitzerland
  3. 3.Swiss Finance Institute, Switzerland

Personalised recommendations