REVIEW 2 cited by
The Cost of Misspecifying Price Impact
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Portfolio managers' orders trade off return and trading cost predictions. Return predictions rely on alpha models, whereas price impact models quantify trading costs. This paper studies what happens when trades are based on an incorrect price impact model, so that the portfolio either over- or under-trades its alpha signal. We derive tractable formulas for these misspecification costs and illustrate them on proprietary trading data. The misspecification costs are naturally asymmetric: underestimating impact concavity or impact decay shrinks profits, but overestimating concavity or impact decay can even turn profits into losses.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Automated Market Making: the case of Pegged Assets
A new AMM model uses nested Ornstein-Uhlenbeck dynamics with filtering to quote stablecoin and liquid-staking token pairs, and beat geometric Brownian motion-based AMMs in simulation.
-
Market Making and Transient Impact in Spot FX
For an FX dealer, optimal hedging and quoting under exponentially decaying market impact are governed by a simple closed-form factor β/(β+ω) that interpolates between permanent and instantly-resilient impact.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.