V Mechanism Stability—Flash Crashes and Avalanche Effects

Chapter

Abstract

Flash crashes, perceived as sharp drops in market prices that rebound shortly after, have turned the public eye towards the vulnerability of IT-based stock trading. In this paper, we explain flash crashes as a result of actions made by rational agents. We argue that the advancement of information technology, which has long been associated with competitive advantages, may cause ambiguities with respect to the game form that give rise to a Hypergame. We employ Hypergame Theory to demonstrate that a market crash constitutes an equilibrium state if players misperceive the true game. Once the ambiguity is resolved, prices readjust to the appropriate level, creating the characteristic flash crash effect. By analyzing the interaction with herd behavior, we find that flash crashes may be unavoidable and a systemic problem of modern financial markets. Furthermore, we outline that flash-crash-like effects are also relevant in other applications that rely on increasing automation, such as the automated management of energy demand.

Keywords

Migration Toxicity Nash Volatility Rium 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aldridge, I. (2010). High-frequency trading: A practical guide to algorithmic strategies and trading systems. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Barlevy, G. & Veronesi, P. (2003). Rational panics and stock market crashes. Journal of Economic Theory, 110 (2), 234–263.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, P. G. (1977). Toward a theory of hypergames. Omega, 5 (6), 749–751.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, P. G. (1980). Hypergames: Developing a model of conflict. Futures, 12 (6), 489–507.Google Scholar
  5. Budish, E. B., Cramton, P. & Shim, J. J. (2013). The High-Frequency Trading Arms Race: Frequent Batch Auctions as a Market Design Response. SSRN Working Paper Series.Google Scholar
  6. Carr, N. G. (2004). Does IT matter? Information technology and the corrosion of competitive advantage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  7. Carr, N. G. (2008). Is Google Making Us Stupid? Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 107 (2), 89–94.Google Scholar
  8. CFTC and SEC. (2010). Findings Regarding the Market Events of May 6, 2010. Report of the Staffs of the CFTC and SEC to the Joint Advisory Committee on Emerging Regulatory Issues. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  9. Chlistalla, M. (2011). High-frequency trading: Better than its reputation? Clemons, E. K. & Weber, B. W. (1990). London’s Big Bang: A Case Study of Information Technology, Competitive Impact, and Organizational Change. Journal of Management Information Systems, 6 (4), 41–60.Google Scholar
  10. Copeland, T. E. & Friedman, D. (1987). The Effect of Sequential Information Arrival on Asset Prices: An Experimental Study. The Journal of Finance, 42 (3), 763–797.Google Scholar
  11. Darby, S. (2006). The Effectivesness of Feedback on Energy Consumption. Devenow, A. & Welch, I. (1996). Rational herding in financial economics. European Economic Review, 40 (3-5), 603–615.Google Scholar
  12. Easley, D., Lopez de Prado, M. M. & O’Hara, M. (2012). Flow Toxicity and Liquidity in a High-frequency World. Review of Financial Studies, 25 (5), 1457–1493.Google Scholar
  13. Easley, D., Lpez de Prado, Marcos M & O’Hara, M. (2011). The Microstructure of the “Flash Crash”: Flow Toxicity, Liquidity Crashes, and the Probability of Informed Trading. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 37 (2), 118–128.Google Scholar
  14. Feuerriegel, S., Bodenbenner, P. & Neumann, D. (2013). Is More Information Better Than Less? Understanding The Impact Of Demand Response Mechanisms In Energy Markets. ECIS 2013 Completed Research, Paper 167.Google Scholar
  15. Feuerriegel, S., Str¨uker, J. & Neumann, D. (2012). Reducing Price Uncertainty through Demand Side Management. ICIS 2012 Proceedings, Paper 7.Google Scholar
  16. Filimonov, V. & Sornette, D. (2012). Quantifying reflexivity in financial markets: Toward a prediction of flash crashes. Physical Review E, 85 (5), 056108.Google Scholar
  17. Gomber, P. & Haferkorn, M. (2013). High-Frequency-Trading - High-Frequency-Trading Technologies and Their Implications for Electronic Securities Trading. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 5 (2), 97–99.Google Scholar
  18. Gottwalt, S., Ketter, W., Block, C., Collins, J. & Weinhardt, C. (2011). Demand side management—A simulation of household behavior under variable prices. Energy Policy, 39 (12), 8163–8174.Google Scholar
  19. Groth, S. (2010). Enhancing Automated Trading Engines To Cope With News-Related Liquidity Shocks. ECIS 2010 Proceedings, Paper 111.Google Scholar
  20. Katz, R. H., Culler, D. E., Sanders, S., Alspaugh, S., Chen, Y., Dawson-Haggerty, S., … Shankar, S. (2011). An informationcentric energy infrastructure: The Berkeley view. Sustainable Computing: Informatics and Systems, 1 (1), 7–22.Google Scholar
  21. Kirilenko, A. A., Kyle, A. S., Samadi, M. & Tuzun, T. (2011). The Flash Crash: The Impact of High Frequency Trading on an Electronic Market. SSRN Working Paper Series.Google Scholar
  22. Lattemann, C., Loos, P., Gomolka, J., Burghof, H.-P., Breuer, A., Gomber, P., … Zajonz, R. (2012). High Frequency Trading - Costs and Benefits in Securities Trading and its Necessity of Regulations. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 4 (2), 93–108.Google Scholar
  23. Lee, H. G. & Clark, T. H. (1996/1997). Market Process Reengineering through Electronic Market Systems: Opportunities and Challenges. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13 (3), 113–136.Google Scholar
  24. Lucas, H., Agarwal, R., Sawy, O. E. & Weber, B. (2013). Impactful Research on Transformational Information Technology: An Opportunity to Inform New Audiences. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 37 (2), 371–382.Google Scholar
  25. Lux, T. (1995). Herd Behaviour, Bubbles and Crashes. The Economic Journal, 105 (431), 881–896.Google Scholar
  26. Premkumar, G., Ramamurthy, K. & Saunders, C. S. (2005). Information Processing View of Organizations: An Exploratory Examination of Fit in the Context of Interorganizational Relationships. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22 (1), 257–298.Google Scholar
  27. Ramchurn, S. D., Vytelingum, P., Rogers, A. & Jennings, N. (2011). Agent-based control for decentralised demand side management in the smart grid. In The 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (pp. 5–12). Ann Arbor: IFAAMAS.Google Scholar
  28. Rapoport, A. & Chammah, A. M. (1966). The Game of Chicken. American Behavioral Scientist, 10 (3), 10–28.Google Scholar
  29. Sakaki, T., Okazaki, M. & Matsuo, Y. (2010). Earthquake shakes Twitter users: real-time event detection by social sensors. WWW ’10 Proceedings, 851–860.Google Scholar
  30. Sasaki, Y. & Kijima, K. (2012). Hypergames and bayesian games: A theoretical comparison of the models of games with incomplete information. Journal of Systems Science and Complexity, 25 (4), 720–735.Google Scholar
  31. Schelling, T. (1990). The Strategy of Conflict (Reprint). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Strueker, J. & Dinther, C. (2012). Demand Response in Smart Grids: Research Opportunities for the IS Discipline. AMCIS 2012 Proceedings, Paper 7.Google Scholar
  33. Walczak, S. (1999). Gaining Competitive Advantage for Trading in Emerging Capital Markets with Neural Networks. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16 (2), 177–192.Google Scholar
  34. Wang, E., Tai, C.-F. & Grover, V. (2013). Examining the Relational Benefits of Improved Interfirm Information Processing Capability in Buyer–Supplier Dyads. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 37 (1), 149–173.Google Scholar
  35. Watson, R., Boudreau, M.-C. & Chen, A. (2010). Information Systems and Environmentally Sustainable Development: Energy Informatics and New Directions for the IS Community. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 34 (1), 23–38.Google Scholar
  36. White, M. (2011). Information anywhere, any when: The role of the smartphone. Business Information Review, 27 (4), 242–247.Google Scholar
  37. Xu, S. & Zhang, X. (2009). How Do Social Media Shape the Information Environment in the Financial Market? ICIS 2009 Proceedings, Paper 56.Google Scholar
  38. Zhang, S. & Riordan, R. (2011). Technology and Market Quality: The Case of High Frequency Trading. ECIS 2011 Proceedings, Paper 95.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Abteilung für WirtschaftsinformatikAlbert-Ludwigs-Universität FreiburgFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations