Finite-Horizon Buying Thresholds for Mean-Reverting Prices
Summary
The discussion considers how to choose when to buy a required quantity of an asset whose price follows an Ornstein–Uhlenbeck mean-reverting process, given a finite deadline. One response frames this as an execution problem: wait for prices to move favorably relative to a defined mean, while deciding how far they must move and how much to trade. It recommends accounting for execution costs, volatility, possible regime changes, and whether to submit the order at once or in smaller pieces.
Another response outlines a dynamic programming approach to reservation prices. Starting from a terminal condition, it compares selling or buying now with waiting, uses the conditional OU price distribution to value continuation, and recursively derives thresholds. A further response points to continuous-time optimal stopping and Hamilton–Jacobi–Bellman methods. These are exploratory leads rather than a validated prescription: one contributor notes their threshold estimates did not match simulation profits, and practical trading costs and model fit remain central caveats.
Key ideas
- A finite deadline turns mean-reverting execution into a choice between trading now and waiting.
- Threshold policies can be derived by comparing immediate execution value with discounted continuation value.
- An Ornstein–Uhlenbeck model supplies conditional price expectations and distributions for that calculation.
- Execution costs, volatility, regime changes, and order sizing can materially affect the policy.
- The responses present incomplete theoretical and empirical guidance rather than a proven universal solution.
Tags
Full text
# Threshold calculation for buying a mean-reverting asset
# Threshold calculation for buying a mean-reverting asset
I am trying to figure-out an optimal policy for buying a unit when its price follows a mean-reverting price process (Ornstein–Uhlenbeck), when I have a finite time deadline for buying the unit.
I tried to search the literature for it, but couldn't find anything. I would very much appreciate any help.
## Answer by Matt Wolf (score 2)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/4849
I think a good way to think about your problem is the example of finding an optimal VWAP trading strategy. You basically have a finite point in time by which you must have performed your transaction and you trade a similar asset than the one you are considering, one with the same underlying assumptions of mean-reversion (I make such assumption in the same way than you make the assumption of mean-reversion).
With this assumption in mind and given you must at some point in time transact you are now faced with the following optimization problem: By how much does the asset have to traverse away from whatever you define as mean point in order to induce you to transact and in what size?
Also, contrary to a pairs trading strategy you do not want to transact at the point where an asset moved away from its mean but in the same direction as your order direction. You believe in mean-reversion and assume you can transact the asset more optimally at a later point.
I cannot provide an optimization function (because its very closely related to something I have been working on in the past and do not want to make it public) but here couple points I would consider:
- Does the asset really mean-revert more often than it trends in order to overcome each and every cost of execution, including commission, market impact,...? Does it pay to consider implementing a hybrid strategy in which you measure regime changes and only employ a mean-reversion approach when price dynamics favor such approach?
- Get a firm grasp at how volatile the asset is. By how many standard deviations does the asset trade away from its mean?
- Are you willing to take on more proprietary risk in that you are willing to potentially transact the full size of your order at once given the asset diverted sufficiently much away from your defined mean? Or do you want to split the order into many child orders and trade smaller sizes at smaller diversions?
I would first try to answer and consider those points before proceeding. Please note I am sharing my own experience here and do not present an academic approach. I implemented a VWAP strategy with systematic proprietary overlay that performed at a close to zero tracking error over a longer period of time in several Asian equity markets, including names that were generally not considered to be executed through standard DMA engines either for lack of liquidity, or other anomalies.
## Answer by Richi Wa (score 1)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/7117
you find theoretical results for the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process if you search for "pairs trading". In pairs trading it is assumed that the ratio of the pair is mean reverting. Then one often models this ratio as Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process.
You find something on page 11 here
Further theoretical results that might be of interest can be found here.
All these results are theoretical and you can play with them. I don't know how much they help you in practice.
## Answer by wcampbell (score 1)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/7639
I'm seriously trying to figure out the exact same thing for my dissertation. I can easily solve for reservation (threshold) prices when offered prices are independent, but I haven't yet solved for the case of mean reversion.
There's an example in Bertsekas (1987) page 83 with an autocorrelated asset sale model, but it's too brief for me to follow all the way.
Here are my first steps. The asset must be sold before period $T$. We know the final reservation price is zero: $RP_{T} = 0$. In the next to last period, the agent compares the payoff with selling in period $T-1$ or waiting until period $T$. The value function is
> $J(T-1) = \max[P_{T-1},\beta E[P_T|P_{T-1}]$,
where $\beta$ is a discount factor. The threshold price at time $T-1$ is the value that makes the asset holder indifferent to selling in either of the two periods. Substituting the expected value of the OU process,
> $P_{T-1}= \beta(\mu+e^{-\eta}\left(P_{T-1}-\mu\right)) $,
Where $\eta$ is the level of mean reversion. Solving for $P_{T-1}$ yields the reservation price:
> $RP_{T-1}=\frac{\beta \mu (1-e^{-\eta})}{1-\beta e^{-\eta}}$.
(check the algebra, but I think it's correct). Then, I derived the remainder of the reservation prices using the equation
> $J(t) = \max[P_t,\beta E[J(t+1)|P_t]]$
where
> $E[J(t+1)|P_t] = \mbox{Pr}\left(P_{t+1}\geq RP_{t+1}\right)\times\left(E\left[P_{t+1}|P_{t+1}\geq RP_{t+1}\right]\right) + \mbox{Pr}\left(P_{t+1}<RP_{t+1}\right)\times\left(RP_{t+1}\right)$.
For the OU process,
> $P_{t+s}|P_{t}\sim N\left(\mu+e^{-\eta s}\left(P_{t}-\mu\right),\frac{\sigma^{2}}{2\eta}\left(1-\exp\left(-2\eta s\right)\right)\right).$
I used `R`'s `etruncnorm` function to calculate the probabilities in the value equation.
I have more details in my dissertation, pages 35-41: http://people.clemson.edu/~campbwa/dissertation/WAC_dissertation_3-15-2013.pdf
I have derived a full set of reservation prices, but they're too high. If I shift them down in the simulation model, profits increase!
## Answer by Brian B (score 1)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/8003
Following references from the answer provided by @Richard, we see that the optimality condition for a continuous process in general (and therefore an OU process in particular) is covered in Section 2 concluding on page 6 of Thompson 2002, where he also represents the solution in terms of the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equations.
If you change the limits of the integral on the top of that page (and its antecedents) to $ \min( T,H_S \wedge H_B ) $ and then solve (which I don't think is necessarily possible in closed form) then you will have your optimum for the finite time horizon $T$.
If you actually try to trade this, pay close attention to the practical issues raised by @Freddy.Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)
This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.