Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 395–412 | Cite as

Shock transfer by arbitrage trading: analysis using multi-asset artificial market

Article

Abstract

Simultaneous trading of multiple assets is becoming more common in financial markets, but financial analysts argue that it may bring unintended consequences, such as an increase in volatility. Agent-based simulations are useful ways to study market dynamics and acquire information to devise market rules. In this study, we constructed a multi-asset artificial market model and investigated the effect of arbitrage trading among multiple assets on price shock transfer from one asset to the whole market. The model is composed of two sorts of asset: index futures and its underlying stocks (the components of the market index). Our simulation featured two types of agent: local traders and arbitrageurs. A local trader sells or buys a single asset. Arbitrageurs can profit from a price difference between the index futures and the underlying stocks by applying the rule: buy cheap ones and sell expensive ones simultaneously. From exhaustive simulations of various trading strategies of local traders, we found that a shock transfer can be initiated and accelerated by local traders with certain strategies and arbitrageurs. Furthermore, we investigated how arbitrageurs and a market regulation, i.e., trading halt, work together. We found some situations in which trading halts increase market volatility. The implications for market regulations are discussed.

Keywords

Artificial market Multi-asset Shock transfer  Trading regulation 

JEL Classification

G01 G17 

References

  1. Abad D, Pascual R (2013) Holding back volatility: circuit breakers, price limits, and trading halts. In: Baker H, Kiymaz H (eds) Market microstructure in emerging and developed markets, Wiley, chap 17Google Scholar
  2. Ben-David I, Franzoni F, Moussawi R (2014) Do ETFs increase volatility? Working Paper 20071, The National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  3. Chiarella C, Iori G (2002) A simulation analysis of the microstructure of double auction markets. Quant Finance 2:346–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chiarella C, Dieci R, He X (2007) Heterogeneous expectations and speculative behavior in a dynamic multi-asset framework. J Econ Behav Organ 62(3):408–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chiarella C, Iori G, Perello J (2009) The impact of heterogeneous trading rules on the limit order book and order flows. J Econ Dyn Control 33(3):525–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Darley V, Outkin AV (2007) A NASDAQ market simulation: insights on a major market from the science of complex adaptive systems. World ScientificGoogle Scholar
  7. Grudzinski C (2012) ETF arbitrage may be driving market volatility. The street. http://www.thestreet.com/story/11644440/1/etf-arbitrage-may-be-driving-marketvolatility.html
  8. Harmon D, de Aguiar MAM, Chinellato DD, Braha D, Epstein IR, Bar-Yam Y (2010) Predicting economic market crises using measures of collective panic. Tech. rep, New England Complex Systems InstituteGoogle Scholar
  9. Hommes CH (2001) Financial markets as nonlinear adaptive evolutionary systems. Quant Finance 1:149–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Izumi K, Matsui H, Matsuo Y (2007) Socially embedded multi-agent based simulation of financial market. In: Proceedings of the 6th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS 07), pp 1103–1105Google Scholar
  11. Kawakubo S, Izumi K, Yoshimura S (2014) Analysis of an option market dynamics based on a heterogeneous agent model. Intell Syst Acc Finance Manag 21(2):105–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kodia Z, Said LB, Ghedira K (2009) SiSMar: social multi-agent based simulation of stock market. In: Proceedings of the 8th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS 09), pp 1345–1346Google Scholar
  13. Leitner S, Wall F (2013) Artificial economics and self organization: agent-based approaches to economics and social systems. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  14. Lux T, Marchesi M (2000) Volatility clustering in financial markets : a microsimulation of interacting agents. Int J Theor Appl Finance 3:675–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ma CK, Rao RP, Sears RS (1989) Volatility, price resolution, and the effectiveness of price limits. J Financial Serv Res 3:165–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mandelbrot B (1963) The variation of certain speculative prices. J Bus 36(4):394–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mizuta T, Hayakawa S, Izumi K, Yoshimura S (2013) Simulation study on effects of tick size difference in stock markets competition. In: Proceedings of the 8th international workshop on agent-based approach in economic and social complex systems (AESCS2013), pp 235–246Google Scholar
  18. Mizuta T, Noritake Y, Hayakawa S, Izumi K (2015) Impacts of speed-up of market system on price formations using artificial market simulations. Working Paper 9, Japan Exchange Group (JPX)Google Scholar
  19. Murase Y, Uchitane T, Ito N (2014) A tool for parameter-space explorations. Phys Proc 57C:73–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sornette D (2002) Why stock markets crash: critical events in complex financial systems. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  21. US Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (2010) Findings regarding the market events of May 6, 2010Google Scholar
  22. Wah E, Wellman MP (2013) Latency arbitrage, market fragmentation, and efficiency: a two-market model. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM conference on electronic commerce, pp 855–872Google Scholar
  23. Westerhoff F (2003) Speculative markets and the effectiveness of price limits. J Econ Dyn Control 28:493–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Westerhoff F (2004) Multiasset market dynamics. Macroecon Dyn 8(05):596–616Google Scholar
  25. Xu HC, Zhang W, Xiong X, Zhou WX (2014) An agent-based computational model for china’s stock market and stock index futures market. Math Prob Eng 2014:563912Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Association for Evolutionary Economics 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EngineeringThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations