We develop a theory for the market impact of large trading orders, which we call metaorders because they are typically split into small pieces and executed incrementally. Market impact is empirically observed to be a concave function of metaorder size, i.e. the impact per share of large metaorders is smaller than that of small metaorders. We formulate a stylized model of an algorithmic execution service and derive a fair pricing condition, which says that the average transaction price of the metaorder is equal to the price after trading is completed. We show that at equilibrium the distribution of trading volume adjusts to reflect information, and dictates the shape of the impact function. The resulting theory makes empirically testable predictions for the functional form of both the temporary and permanent components of market impact. Based on the commonly observed asymptotic distribution for the volume of large trades, it says that market impact should increase asymptotically roughly as the square root of metaorder size, with average permanent impact relaxing to about two thirds of peak impact.

We develop a theory for the market impact of large trading orders, which we call metaorders because they are typically split into small pieces and executed incrementally. Market impact is empirically observed to be a concave function of metaorder size, i.e. the impact per share of large metaorders is smaller than that of small metaorders. We formulate a stylized model of an algorithmic execution service and derive a fair pricing condition, which says that the average transaction price of the metaorder is equal to the price after trading is completed. We show that at equilibrium the distribution of trading volume adjusts to reflect information, and dictates the shape of the impact function. The resulting theory makes empirically testable predictions for the functional form of both the temporary and permanent components of market impact. Based on the commonly observed asymptotic distribution for the volume of large trades, it says that market impact should increase asymptotically roughly as the square root of metaorder size, with average permanent impact relaxing to about two thirds of peak impact. References and Notes 23A. Proofs of the propositions 27 B. Market impact for other metaorder size distributions: stretched exponential and lognormal 32 C. Effect of finite M on impact find concave temporary impacts roughly consistent with a square root functional form. The functional form of permanent impact is harder to measure and more controversial. These studies should be distinguished from the large number of studies of the market impact of individual trades or the sum of trades in a given period of time, that do not attempt to link together the individual trades coming from a given client

In this comment we discuss the problem of reconciling the linear efficiency of price returns with the long-memory of supply and demand. We present new evidence that shows that efficiency is maintained by a liquidity imbalance that co-moves with the imbalance of buyer vs. seller initiated transactions. For example, during a period where there is an excess of buyer initiated transactions, there is also more liquidity for buy orders than sell orders, so that buy orders generate smaller and less frequent price responses than sell orders. At the moment a buy order is placed the transaction sign imbalance tends to dominate, generating a price impact. However, the liquidity imbalance rapidly increases with time, so that after a small number of time steps it cancels all the inefficiency caused by the transaction sign imbalance, bounding the price impact. While the view presented by Bouchaud et al. of a fixed and temporary bare price impact is self-consistent and formally correct, we argue that viewing this in terms of a variable but permanent price impact provides a simpler and more natural view. This is in the spirit of the original conjecture of Lillo and Farmer, but generalized to allow for finite time lags in the build up of the liquidity imbalance after a transaction. We discuss the possible strategic motivations that give rise to the liquidity imbalance and offer an alternative hypothesis. We also present some results that call into question the statistical significance of large swings in expected price impact at long times. Contents

Stock prices are known to exhibit non-Gaussian dynamics, and there is much interest in understanding the origin of this behavior. Here, we present a model that explains the shape and scaling of the distribution of intraday stock price fluctuations (called intraday returns) and verify the model using a large database for several stocks traded on the London Stock Exchange. We provide evidence that the return distribution for these stocks is non-Gaussian and similar in shape and that the distribution appears stable over intraday time scales. We explain these results by assuming the volatility of returns is constant intraday but varies over longer periods such that its inverse square follows a gamma distribution. This produces returns that are Student distributed for intraday time scales. The predicted results show excellent agreement with the data for all stocks in our study and over all regions of the return distribution.