Skip to main content

Financial markets arbitrage: reassuring or lovely?

John Cochrane has a new blog post summarizing recent research by Budish, Cramton and Shim on the effects of high frequency trading. The paper shows that as high frequency trading spreads the correlation of a particular asset price across two US markets (Chicago and New York) has become higher at intervals that are very short. Any price deviations across the two markets disappear in less than one second. As Cochrane puts it,
It is lovely to see the effect of "arbitrageurs" making markets "more efficient."
As an academic I enjoyed reading the post as it provides a very nice example of a clean empirical test of how high frequency trading makes the comovements of two markets stronger. This is what we look for in academic papers, a clean test of a very simple theory that produces very credible and robust results.

But as much as I enjoyed reading the post, it also reminded me of how limited is the ability of academic research to help us understand phenomena that really matter. In this particular case, the analysis compares the price of the same security in two nearby markets (geographically but also linked by very fast communications). As communications and trade become faster and faster, price deviations between the two markets disappear in a shorter period of time. This is really nice to see but is this a big surprise? One would expect that at a minimum, very basic arbitrage opportunities do not exist in integrated financial markets. So it is reassuring that arbitrageurs help markets be more efficient but I am not sure I would go as far as saying that this is "lovely".

What would be more interesting (at least to me) is understand whether high frequency trading helps getting financial prices right. And by "right" I mean prices that are consistent with economic fundamentals, prices that do not generate volatile dynamics and bubble-type behavior. If we could prove that this is the case then I would find the result "lovely".

Antonio Fatás


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What Happens When You Drink Enough Water

Tridona Bestsellers If you’re reading this: Drink a glass of water. You likely need it, as 75 percent of Americans are described as “chronically dehydrated.” While achieving a state of hydration might seem enviable and impossible, fret not because it’s doable. And the health benefits are not only encouraging, but they are also downright inspiring in the immediate short term, but especially in the long run. “Long-term hydration is the single best thing we can do to prevent chronic illness,” says Dr. Dana Cohen, an integrative medicine specialist in New York and coauthor of Quench: Beat Fatigue, Drop Weight, and Heal Your Body Through the New Science of Optimum Hydration . Though the eight-cup rule is popular, there is no one-size-fits-all number. Instead, it’s more of an individual approach. The new general rule of thumb is half your weight in ounces, according to Dr. Cohen. For example, if you weigh 120 pounds, you need to drink 60 ounces of water a day.
Post a Comment
Read more

COVID-Economics Links (April 26)

Health versus wealth: On the distributional effects of controlling a pandemic  - Jonathan Heathcote, Andrew Glover, Dirk Krueger, Víctor Ríos-Rull (VoxEU) The deflation threat from the virus will be long lasting - Gavyn Davies (FT) CBO’s Current Projections of GDP, Unemployment and Federal Deficit  - Congressional Budget Office Coronavirus Projected to Trigger Worst Economic Downturn Since 1940s - WSJ Cash in the time of corona  - Andreas Joseph, Christiane Kneer, Neeltje van Horen, Jumana Saleheen (VoxEU) Reweaving the social fabric after the crisis - Andrew Haldane (FT) German shops reopen but celebrations in Berlin muted - FT.com We need a better head start for the next pandemic  - Mehdi Shiva (VoxEU) Forecasting recoveries is difficult: Evidence from past recessions  - Zidong An, Prakash Loungani (VoxEU) Will central banks serve up fresh stimulus? - FT.com
Post a Comment
Read more

Where did the saving glut go?

I have written before about the investment dearth that took place in advanced economies at the same time that we witnessed a global saving glut as illustrated in the chart below. In particular, the 2002-2007 expansion saw lower investment rates than any of the previous two expansions. If one thinks about a simple demand/supply framework using the saving (supply) and investment (demand) curves, this means that the investment curve for these countries must have shifted inwards at the same time that world interest rates were coming down. But what about emerging markets? Emerging markets' investment did not fall during the last 10 years, to the contrary it accelerated very fast after 2000. This is more what one would expect as a reaction to the global saving glut. The additional saving must be going somewhere (saving must equal investment in the world). As interest rates are coming down, emerging markets engage in more investment (whether this is simply a move along a downward-sloppin...
Post a Comment
Read more