The procedure for estimating VPIN is as follows.  We begin by grouping sequential trades into equal volume buckets of size V.  If the last trade needed to complete a bucket was for a size greater than needed, the excess size is given to the next bucket.  Then we classify trades within each bucket into two volume groups:  Buys (V(t)_B) and Sells (V(t)_S), with V = V(t)_B + V(t)_S
The Volume-Synchronized Probability of Informed Trading is then derived as:

Typically one might choose to estimate VPIN using a moving average over n buckets, with n being in the range of 50 to 100.

Another related statistic of interest is the single-period signed VPIN. This will take a value of between -1 and =1, depending on the proportion of buying to selling during a single period t.

Fig 1. Single-Period Signed VPIN for the ES Futures Contract

It turns out that quote revisions condition strongly on the signed VPIN. For example, in tests of the ES futures contract, we found that the change in the midprice from one volume bucket the next  was highly correlated to the prior bucket’s signed VPIN, with a coefficient of 0.5.  In other words, market participants offering liquidity will adjust their quotes in a way that directly reflects the direction and intensity of toxic flow, which is perhaps hardly surprising.

Of greater interest is the finding that there is a small but statistically significant dependency of price changes, as measured by first buy (sell) trade price to last sell (buy) trade price, on the prior period’s signed VPIN.  The correlation is positive, meaning that strongly toxic flow in one direction has a tendency  to push prices in the same direction during the subsequent period. Moreover, the single period signed VPIN turns out to be somewhat predictable, since its autocorrelations are statistically significant at two or more lags.  A simple linear auto-regression ARMMA(2,1) model produces an R-square of around 7%, which is small, but statistically significant.

A more useful model, however , can be constructed by introducing the idea of Markov states and allowing the regression model to assume different parameter values (and error variances) in each state.  In the Markov-state framework, the system transitions from one state to another with conditional probabilities that are estimated in the model.

An example of such a model  for the signed VPIN in ES is shown below. Note that the model R-square is over 27%, around 4x larger than for a standard linear ARMA model.

We can describe the regime-switching model in the following terms.  In the regime 1 state  the model has two significant autoregressive terms and one significant moving average term (ARMA(2,1)).  The AR1 term is large and positive, suggesting that trends in VPIN tend to be reinforced from one period to the next. In other words, this is a momentum state. In the regime 2 state the AR2 term is not significant and the AR1 term is large and negative, suggesting that changes in VPIN in one period tend to be reversed in the following period, i.e. this is a mean-reversion state.

The state transition probabilities indicate that the system is in mean-reversion mode for the majority of the time, approximately around 2 periods out of 3.  During these periods, excessive flow in one direction during one period tends to be corrected in the
ensuring period.  But in the less frequently occurring state 1, excess flow in one direction tends to produce even more flow in the same direction in the following period.  This first state, then, may be regarded as the regime characterized by toxic flow.

Markov State Regime-Switching Model

Markov Transition Probabilities

P(.|1)       P(.|2)

P(1|.)        0.54916      0.27782

P(2|.)       0.45084      0.7221

Regime 1:

AR1           1.35502    0.02657   50.998        0

AR2         -0.33687    0.02354   -14.311        0

MA1          0.83662    0.01679   49.828        0

Error Variance^(1/2)           0.36294     0.0058

Regime 2:

AR1      -0.68268    0.08479    -8.051        0

AR2       0.00548    0.01854    0.296    0.767

MA1     -0.70513    0.08436    -8.359        0

Error Variance^(1/2)           0.42281     0.0016

Log Likelihood = -33390.6

Schwarz Criterion = -33445.7

Hannan-Quinn Criterion = -33414.6

Akaike Criterion = -33400.6

Sum of Squares = 8955.38

R-Squared =  0.2753

R-Bar-Squared =  0.2752

Residual SD =  0.3847

Residual Skewness = -0.0194

Residual Kurtosis =  2.5332

Jarque-Bera Test = 553.472     {0}

Box-Pierce (residuals):         Q(9) = 13.9395 {0.124}

Box-Pierce (squared residuals): Q(12) = 743.161     {0}

A Simple Trading Strategy

One way to try to monetize the predictability of the VPIN model is to use the forecasts to take directional positions in the ES
contract.  In this simple simulation we assume that we enter a long (short) position at the first buy (sell) price if the forecast VPIN exceeds some threshold value 0.1  (-0.1).  The simulation assumes that we exit the position at the end of the current volume bucket, at the last sell (buy) trade price in the bucket.

This simple strategy made 1024 trades over a 5-day period from 8/8 to 8/14, 90% of which were profitable, for a total of $7,675 – i.e. around ½ tick per trade.

The simulation is, of course, unrealistically simplistic, but it does give an indication of the prospects for  more realistic version of the strategy in which, for example, we might rest an order on one side of the book, depending on our VPIN forecast.

Figure 2 – Cumulative Trade PL

References

Easley, D., Lopez de Prado, M., O’Hara, M., Flow Toxicity and Volatility in a High frequency World, Johnson School Research paper Series # 09-2011, 2011

Easley, D. and M. O‟Hara (1987), “Price, Trade Size, and Information in Securities Markets”, Journal of Financial Economics, 19.

Easley, D. and M. O‟Hara (1992a), “Adverse Selection and Large Trade Volume: The Implications for Market Efficiency”,
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 27(2), June, 185-208.

Easley, D. and M. O‟Hara (1992b), “Time and the process of security price adjustment”, Journal of Finance, 47, 576-605.

Over time, many attempts have been made to address this issue, one well-known example being ridge regression.  More recent attempts include lasso, elastic net and what I term generalized regression, which appear to offer significant advantages vs traditional regression techniques in situations where the variables are correlated.

In this note, I examine a variety of these technqiues and attempt to illustrate and compare their effectiveness.

You can downlaod a pdf here.

A Mathematica notebook is also available here.

Role
Working closely with team members including developers, traders and quantitative researchers, the central focus of the role will be to research and develop high frequency trading strategies in equities, fixed income, foreign exchange and related commodities markets.

Responsibilities
The analyst will have responsibility of taking an idea from initial conception through research, testing and implementation.  The work will entail:

• Formulation of mathematical and econometric models for market microstructure
• Data collation, normalization and analysis
• Model prototyping and programming
• Strategy development, simulation, back-testing and implementation
• Execution strategy & algorithms

Qualifications & Experience

• Minimum 5 years in quantitative research with a leading proprietary trading firm, hedge fund, or investment bank
• In-depth knowledge of Equities, F/X and/or futures markets, products and operational infrastructure
• High frequency data management & data mining techniques
• Microstructure modeling
• High frequency econometrics (cointegration, VAR,error correction models, GARCH, panel data models, etc.)
• Machine learning, signal processing, state space modeling and pattern recognition
• Trade execution and algorithmic trading
• PhD in Physics/Math/Engineering, Finance/Economics/Statistics
• Expert programming skills in Java, Matlab/Mathematica essential
• Must be US Citizen or Permanent Resident

Send your resume to: jkinlay at systematic-strategies.com.

No recruiters please.

The spectral density of the combined alpha signals across twelve pairs of stocks is shown in Fig. 1 below.  It is clear that the strongest signals occur in the shorter frequencies with cycles of up to several hundred seconds. Focusing on the density within
this time frame, we can identify in Fig. 2 several frequency cycles where the alpha signal appears strongest. These are around 50, 80, 160, 190, and 230 seconds.  The cycle with the strongest signal appears to be around 228 secs, as illustrated in Fig. 3.  The signals at cycles of 54 & 80 (Fig. 4), and 158 & 185/195 (Fig. 5) secs appear to be of approximately equal strength.
There is some variation in the individual pattern for of the power spectra for each pair, but the findings are broadly comparable, and indicate that strategies should be designed for sampling frequencies at around these time intervals.

Fig. 1 Alpha Power Spectrum

Fig.2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS OF ALPHA POWER SPECTRUM
If we look at the correlation surface of the power spectra of the twelve pairs some clear patterns emerge (see Fig 6):

Fig. 6

Focusing on the off-diagonal elements, it is clear that the power spectrum of each pair is perfectly correlated with the power spectrum of its conjugate.   So, for instance the power spectrum of the Stock1-Stock3 pair is exactly correlated with the spectrum for its converse, Stock3-Stock1.

But it is also clear that there are many other significant correlations between non-conjugate pairs.  For example, the correlation between the power spectra for Stock1-Stock2 vs Stock2-Stock3 is 0.72, while the correlation of the power spectra of Stock1-Stock2 and Stock2-Stock4 is 0.69.

We can further analyze the alpha power spectrum using PCA to expose the underlying factor structure.  As shown in Fig. 7, the first two principal components account for around 87% of the variance in the alpha power spectrum, and the first four components account for over 98% of the total variation.

PCA Analysis of Power Spectra

Fig. 7

Stock3 dominates PC-1 with loadings of 0.52 for Stock3-Stock4, 0.64 for Stock3-Stock2, 0.29 for Stock1-Stock3 and 0.26 for Stock4-Stock3.  Stock3 is also highly influential in PC-2 with loadings of -0.64 for Stock3-Stock4 and 0.67 for Stock3-Stock2 and again in PC-3 with a loading of -0.60 for Stock3-Stock1.  Stock4 plays a major role in the makeup of PC-3, with the highest loading of 0.74 for Stock4-Stock2.

Fig. 8  PCA Analysis of Power Spectra

• Stationary processes and random walks
• Unit roots and autocorrelation
• ARMA models
• Seasonality
• Model testing
• Forecasting
• Dickey-Fuller and Phillips-Perron tests for unit roots

Also included are a number of detailed worked examples, including:

1. ARMA Modeling
2. Box Jenkins methodology
3. Modeling the US Wholesale Price Index
4. Pesaran & Timmermann study of excess equity returns
5. Purchasing Power Parity

The program will offer a thorough grounding in the modeling concepts, trading strategies and risk management procedures currently in use by leading investment banks, proprietary trading firms and hedge funds in US and international financial markets.  Students will also learn the necessary programming and systems design skills to enable them to make an effective contribution as quantitative analysts, traders, risk managers and developers.

I would be interested in feedback and suggestions as to the proposed content of the program.

The chart below shows the daily compounded returns for a single pair in an ETF statistical arbitrage strategy, back-tested over a 1-year period from April 2010 to March 2011.

The idea is to examine the characteristics of the returns process and assess its predictability.

The initial impression given by the analytics plots of daily returns, shown in Fig 2 below, is that the process may be somewhat predictable, given what appears to be a significant 1-order lag in the autocorrelation spectrum.  We also see evidence of the
customary non-Gaussian “fat-tailed” distribution in the error process.

An initial attempt to fit a standard Auto-Regressive Moving Average ARMA(1,0,1) model  yields disappointing results, with an unadjusted  model R-squared of only 7% (see model output in Appendix 1)

However, by fitting a 2-state Markov model we are able to explain as much as 65% in the variation in the returns process (see Appendix II).
The model estimates Markov Transition Probabilities as follows.

P(.|1)       P(.|2)

P(1|.)       0.93920      0.69781

P(2|.)     0.060802      0.30219

In other words, the process spends most of the time in State 1, switching to State 2 around once a month, as illustrated in Fig 3 below.

In the first state, the  pairs model produces an expected daily return of around 65bp, with a standard deviation of similar magnitude.  In this state, the process also exhibits very significant auto-regressive and moving average features.

Regime 1:

Intercept                   0.00648     0.0009       7.2          0

AR1                            0.92569    0.01897   48.797        0

MA1                         -0.96264    0.02111   -45.601        0

Error Variance^(1/2)           0.00666     0.0007

In the second state, the pairs model  produces lower average returns, and with much greater variability, while the autoregressive and moving average terms are poorly determined.

Regime 2:

Intercept                    0.03554    0.04778    0.744    0.459

AR1                            0.79349    0.06418   12.364        0

MA1                         -0.76904    0.51601     -1.49   0.139

Error Variance^(1/2)           0.01819     0.0031

CONCLUSION
The analysis in Appendix II suggests that the residual process is stable and Gaussian.  In other words, the two-state Markov model is able to account for the non-Normality of the returns process and extract the salient autoregressive and moving average features in a way that makes economic sense.

How is this information useful?  Potentially in two ways:

(i)     If the market state can be forecast successfully, we can use that information to increase our capital allocation during periods when the process is predicted to be in State 1, and reduce the allocation at times when it is in State 2.

(ii)    By examining the timing of the Markov states and considering different features of the market during the contrasting periods, we might be able to identify additional explanatory factors that could be used to further enhance the trading model.

Market state models are amongst the most useful analytical techniques that can be helpful in developing alpha-signal generators.  That term covers a great deal of ground, with ideas drawn from statistics, econometrics, physics and bioinformatics.  The purpose of this short note is to provide an introduction to some of the key ideas and suggest ways in which they might usefully applied in the context of researching and developing trading systems.

Although they come from different origins, the concepts presented here share common foundational principles: 

1. Markets operate in different states that may be characterized by various measures (volatility, correlation, microstructure, etc);
2. Alpha signals can be generated more effectively by developing models that are adapted to take account of different market regimes;
3. Alpha signals may be combined together effectively by taking account of the various states that a market may be in.

Market state models have shown great promise is a variety of applications within the field of applied econometrics in finance, not only for price and market direction forecasting, but also basis trading, index arbitrage, statistical arbitrage, portfolio construction, capital allocation and risk management.

 REGIME SWITCHING MODELS

These are econometric models which seek to use statistical techniques to characterize market states in terms of different estimates of the parameters of some underlying linear model.  This is accompanied by a transition matrix which estimates the probability of moving from one state to another.

 To illustrate this approach I have constructed a simple example, given in the accompanying Excel workbook.  In this model the market operates as follows:

  Where

Y_t is a variable of interest (e.g. the return in an asset over the next period t) 

e_t is an error process with constant variance s² 

S is the market state, with two regimes (S=1 or S=2) 

a₀ is the drift in the asset process 

a₁ is an autoregressive term, by which the return in the current period is dependent on the prior period return 

b₁ is a moving average term, which smoothes the error process 

 This is one of the simplest possible structures, which in more general form can include multiple states, and independent regressions X_i as explanatory variables (such as book pressure, order flow, etc):

The form of the error process e_t may also be dependent on the market state.  It may simply be that, as in this example, the standard deviation of the error process changes from state to state.  But the changes can also be much more complex:  for instance, the error process may be non-Gaussian, or it may follow a formulation from the GARCH framework.

In this example the state parameters are as follows:

What this means is that, in the first state the market tends to trend upwards with relatively low volatility.  In the second state, not only is market volatility much higher, but also the trend is 3x as large in the negative direction.

I have specified the following state transition matrix:

This is interpreted as follows:  if the market is in State 1, it will tend to remain in that state 85% of the time, transitioning to State 2 15% of the time.  Once in State 2, the market tends to revert to State 1 very quickly, with 90% probability.  So the system is in State 1 most of the time, trending slowly upwards with low volatility and occasionally flipping into an aggressively downward trending phase with much higher volatility.

The Generate sheet in the Excel workbook shows how observations are generated from this process, from which we select a single instance of 3,000 observations, shown in sheet named Sample.

The sample looks like this:

 

 As anticipated, the market is in State 1 most of the time, occasionally flipping into State 2 for brief periods.

 It is well-known that in financial markets we are typically dealing with highly non-Gaussian distributions.  Non-Normality can arise for a number of reasons, including changes in regimes, as illustrated here.  It is worth noting that, even though in this example the process in either market state follows a Gaussian distribution, the combined process is distinctly non-Gaussian in form, having (extremely) fat tails, as shown by the QQ-plot below.

If we attempt to fit a standard ARMA model to the process, the outcome is very disappointing in terms of the model’s poor explanatory power (R² 0.5%) and lack of fit in the squared-residuals:

ARIMA(1,0,1)

         Estimate  Std. Err.   t Ratio  p-Value

Intercept                      0.00037    0.00032     1.164    0.244

AR1                            0.57261     0.1697     3.374    0.001

MA1                           -0.63292    0.16163    -3.916        0

Error Variance^(1/2)           0.02015     0.0004    ——   ——

                       Log Likelihood = 7451.96

                    Schwarz Criterion = 7435.95

               Hannan-Quinn Criterion = 7443.64

                     Akaike Criterion = 7447.96

                       Sum of Squares =  1.2172

                            R-Squared =  0.0054

                        R-Bar-Squared =  0.0044

                          Residual SD =  0.0202

                    Residual Skewness = -2.1345

                    Residual Kurtosis =  5.7279

                     Jarque-Bera Test = 3206.15     {0}

Box-Pierce (residuals):         Q(48) = 59.9785 {0.115}

Box-Pierce (squared residuals): Q(50) = 78.2253 {0.007}

              Durbin Watson Statistic = 2.01392

                    KPSS test of I(0) =  0.2001    {<1} *

                 Lo’s RS test of I(0) =  1.2259  {<0.5} *

Nyblom-Hansen Stability Test:  NH(4)  =  0.5275    {<1}

MA form is 1 + a_1 L +…+ a_q L^q.

Covariance matrix from robust formula.

* KPSS, RS bandwidth = 0.

Parzen HAC kernel with Newey-West plug-in bandwidth.

However, if we keep the same simple form of ARMA(1,1) model, but allow for the possibility of a two-state Markov process, the picture alters dramatically:  now the model is able to account for 98% of the variation in the process, as shown below.

Notice that we have succeeded in estimating the correct underlying transition probabilities, and how the ARMA model parameters change from regime to regime much as they should (small positive drift in one regime, large negative drift in the second, etc).

Markov Transition Probabilities

                    P(.|1)       P(.|2)

P(1|.)            0.080265      0.14613

P(2|.)             0.91973      0.85387

                              Estimate  Std. Err.   t Ratio  p-Value

Logistic, t(1,1)              -2.43875     0.1821    ——   ——

Logistic, t(1,2)              -1.76531     0.0558    ——   ——

Non-switching parameters shown as Regime 1.

Regime 1:

Intercept                     -0.05615    0.00315   -17.826        0

AR1                            0.70864    0.16008     4.427        0

MA1                           -0.67382    0.16787    -4.014        0

Error Variance^(1/2)           0.00244     0.0001    ——   ——

Regime 2:

Intercept                      0.00838     2e-005   419.246        0

AR1                            0.26716    0.08347     3.201    0.001

MA1                           -0.26592    0.08339    -3.189    0.001

                       Log Likelihood = 12593.3

                    Schwarz Criterion = 12557.2

               Hannan-Quinn Criterion = 12574.5

                     Akaike Criterion = 12584.3

                       Sum of Squares =  0.0178

                            R-Squared =  0.9854

                        R-Bar-Squared =  0.9854

                          Residual SD =  0.002

                    Residual Skewness = -0.0483

                    Residual Kurtosis = 13.8765

                     Jarque-Bera Test = 14778.5     {0}

Box-Pierce (residuals):         Q(48) = 379.511     {0}

Box-Pierce (squared residuals): Q(50) = 36.8248 {0.917}

              Durbin Watson Statistic = 1.50589

                    KPSS test of I(0) =  0.2332    {<1} *

                 Lo’s RS test of I(0) =  2.1352 {<0.005} *

Nyblom-Hansen Stability Test:  NH(9)  =  0.8396    {<1}

MA form is 1 + a_1 L +…+ a_q L^q.

Covariance matrix from robust formula.

* KPSS, RS bandwidth = 0.

Parzen HAC kernel with Newey-West plug-in bandwidth.

There are a variety of types of regime switching mechanisms we can use in state models:

Hamiltonian – the simplest, where the process mean and variance vary from state to state

Markovian – the approach used here, with state transition matrix

Explained Switching – where the process changes state as a result of the influence of some underlying variable (such as interest rate volatility, for example)

Smooth Transition – comparable to explained Markov switching, but without and explicitly probabilistic interpretation.

This example is both rather simplistic and pathological at the same time:  the states are well-separated , by design, whereas for real processes they tend to be much harder to distinguish.  A difficulty of this methodology is that the models can be very difficult to estimate.  The likelihood function tends to be very flat and there are a great many local maxima that give similar fit, but with widely varying model forms and parameter estimates.  That said, this is a very rich class of models with a great many potential applications.

The ten emerging markets we consider comprise equity markets in Australia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka and Taiwan focusing on the major market indices for those markets.   After analyzing the characteristics of index volatility for these indices, the research goes on to develop single- and two-factor REGARCH models in the form by Alizadeh, Brandt and Diebold (2002).

Cluster Analysis of Volatility
Processes for Ten Emerging Market Indices

The research confirms the presence of a number of typical characteristics of volatility processes for emerging markets that have previously been identified in empirical research conducted in developed markets.  These characteristics include volatility clustering, long memory, and asymmetry.   There appears to be strong evidence of a region-wide regime shift in volatility processes during the Asian crises in 1997, and a less prevalent regime shift in September 2001. We find evidence from multivariate analysis that the sample separates into two distinct groups:  a lower volatility group comprising the Australian and New Zealand indices and a higher volatility group comprising the majority of the other indices.

Models developed within the single- and two-factor REGARCH framework of Alizadeh, Brandt and Diebold (2002) provide a good fit for many of the volatility series and in many cases have performance characteristics that compare favorably with other classes of models with high R-squares, low MAPE and direction prediction accuracy of 70% or more.   On the debit side, many of the models demonstrate considerable variation in explanatory power over time, often associated with regime shifts or major market events, and this is typically accompanied by some model parameter drift and/or instability.

Single equation ARFIMA-GARCH models appear to be a robust and reliable framework for modeling asset volatility processes, as they are capable of capturing both the short- and long-memory effects in the volatility processes, as well as GARCH effects in the kurtosis process.   The available procedures for estimating the degree of fractional integration in the volatility processes produce estimates that appear to vary widely for processes which include both short- and long- memory effects, but the overall conclusion is that long memory effects are at least as important as they are for volatility processes in developed markets.  Simple extensions to the single-equation models, which include regressor lags of related volatility series, add significant explanatory power to the models and suggest the existence of Granger-causality relationships between processes.

Extending the modeling procedures into the realm of models which incorporate systems of equations provides evidence of two-way Granger causality between certain of the volatility processes and suggests that are fractionally cointegrated, a finding shared with parallel studies of volatility processes in developed markets.

Download paper here.