Inventory management in customised liquidity pools

We consider “customised liquidity pools” (CLP), which are trading venues that offer over-the-counter brokerage and dealer services to selected market participants. The dealer activity, whereby two-sided liquidity is offered to a limited pool of clients, shares in common similarities with the market-...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: M. Alessandra Crisafi, Andrea Macrina
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Taylor & Francis Group 2017-01-01
Series:Cogent Mathematics
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311835.2017.1281594
id doaj-04f52f3a225c4acebd31be8dfef00cdf
record_format Article
spelling doaj-04f52f3a225c4acebd31be8dfef00cdf2020-11-24T21:14:46ZengTaylor & Francis GroupCogent Mathematics2331-18352017-01-014110.1080/23311835.2017.12815941281594Inventory management in customised liquidity poolsM. Alessandra Crisafi0Andrea Macrina1University College LondonUniversity College LondonWe consider “customised liquidity pools” (CLP), which are trading venues that offer over-the-counter brokerage and dealer services to selected market participants. The dealer activity, whereby two-sided liquidity is offered to a limited pool of clients, shares in common similarities with the market-making problem. The arrival flow of client orders is assumed random. The CLP offers a stream of two-way prices to its clients, which are functions of the amount traded by the client and the CLP holding. The concern is inventory risk, which increases for critically small or large numbers of held positions. The CLP controls its inventory by choosing the size and the skew of its spread, so to encourage, e.g. buy orders instead of sell orders. Furthermore, it can submit limit orders to standard exchanges, of which execution is uncertain, and market orders, which are expensive. In either case, the CLP risks information leakage, which is discouraged by a penalty for trading in standard exchanges. We numerically solve a double-obstacle impulse-control problem associated with the optimal management of the inventory. We observe that the CLP skews its spread before resorting to limit orders, and ultimately crosses the spread in the standard exchange. We learn that it is optimal to post limit orders deeper in the book when the inventory is relatively small and to progressively move towards the best price as the inventory increases. The CLP adjusts its pricing-hedging strategy according to its profit and losses (P&L) target, a feature we analyse by considering various degrees of the CLP’s risk appetite.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311835.2017.1281594electronic tradingmarket makinginventory riskimpulse-control problemquasi variational inequalityviscosity solutions
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author M. Alessandra Crisafi
Andrea Macrina
spellingShingle M. Alessandra Crisafi
Andrea Macrina
Inventory management in customised liquidity pools
Cogent Mathematics
electronic trading
market making
inventory risk
impulse-control problem
quasi variational inequality
viscosity solutions
author_facet M. Alessandra Crisafi
Andrea Macrina
author_sort M. Alessandra Crisafi
title Inventory management in customised liquidity pools
title_short Inventory management in customised liquidity pools
title_full Inventory management in customised liquidity pools
title_fullStr Inventory management in customised liquidity pools
title_full_unstemmed Inventory management in customised liquidity pools
title_sort inventory management in customised liquidity pools
publisher Taylor & Francis Group
series Cogent Mathematics
issn 2331-1835
publishDate 2017-01-01
description We consider “customised liquidity pools” (CLP), which are trading venues that offer over-the-counter brokerage and dealer services to selected market participants. The dealer activity, whereby two-sided liquidity is offered to a limited pool of clients, shares in common similarities with the market-making problem. The arrival flow of client orders is assumed random. The CLP offers a stream of two-way prices to its clients, which are functions of the amount traded by the client and the CLP holding. The concern is inventory risk, which increases for critically small or large numbers of held positions. The CLP controls its inventory by choosing the size and the skew of its spread, so to encourage, e.g. buy orders instead of sell orders. Furthermore, it can submit limit orders to standard exchanges, of which execution is uncertain, and market orders, which are expensive. In either case, the CLP risks information leakage, which is discouraged by a penalty for trading in standard exchanges. We numerically solve a double-obstacle impulse-control problem associated with the optimal management of the inventory. We observe that the CLP skews its spread before resorting to limit orders, and ultimately crosses the spread in the standard exchange. We learn that it is optimal to post limit orders deeper in the book when the inventory is relatively small and to progressively move towards the best price as the inventory increases. The CLP adjusts its pricing-hedging strategy according to its profit and losses (P&L) target, a feature we analyse by considering various degrees of the CLP’s risk appetite.
topic electronic trading
market making
inventory risk
impulse-control problem
quasi variational inequality
viscosity solutions
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311835.2017.1281594
work_keys_str_mv AT malessandracrisafi inventorymanagementincustomisedliquiditypools
AT andreamacrina inventorymanagementincustomisedliquiditypools
_version_ 1716746261643657216