Paper detail

Unravelling the trading invariance hypothesis

We confirm and substantially extend the recent empirical result of Andersen et al. \cite{Andersen2015}, where it is shown that the amount of risk $W$ exchanged in the E-mini S\&P futures market (i.e. price times volume times volatility) scales like the 3/2 power of the number of trades $N$. We show that this 3/2-law holds very precisely across 12 futures contracts and 300 single US stocks, and across a wide range of time scales. However, we find that the "trading invariant" $I=W/N^{3/2}$ proposed by Kyle and Obizhaeva is in fact quite different for different contracts, in particular between futures and single stocks. Our analysis suggests $I/{\cal C}$ as a more natural candidate, where $\cal C$ is the average spread cost of a trade, defined as the average of the trade size times the bid-ask spread. We also establish two more complex scaling laws for the volatility $σ$ and the traded volume $V$ as a function of $N$, that reveal the existence of a characteristic number of trades $N_0$ above which the expected behaviour $σ\sim \sqrt{N}$ and $V \sim N$ hold, but below which strong deviations appear, induced by the size of the~tick.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.