Liquidity-Based Audit of Algorithmic Trading Strategies
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We show that net demand for liquidity by algo strategies is identifiable from its trade and price history alone, with no knowledge of its signal or optimization problem. An exact multi-period regret decomposition implies that the sign of this statistic classifies a linear strategy as a net liquidity consumer or provider, recovering the Kyle (1985) informed-trader/market-maker dichotomy from observables alone. Under an AR(1) cost process, the same statistic equals the product of strategy size and the squared Roll (1984) implied spread, making the correction a direct proxy for prevailing illiquidity. Extending to endogenous price impact and aggregating across N correlated strategies yields a liquidity-balance condition whose violation produces welfare loss scaling as N squared, a closed-form fire-sale externality. We calibrate to CRSP equity data (2016-2025), tracking implied spreads through the COVID-19 and 2022 rate-shock episodes, with an estimator computable in O(Tnd) time.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 2 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Jun 2026.
Builds on
2 of 26 references.
References · 2
- 2019Introduction to Online Convex Optimizationcited by 803
- 2017Smart "Predict, then Optimize"cited by 339
Built on by
Not cited yet.