Björn Hagströmer

Björn Hagströmer

Associate Professor

Visa sidan på svenska
Works at Stockholm Business School
Telephone 08-16 30 30
Visiting address Kräftriket, hus 3, 7, 15 och 24
Room 7:224
Postal address Företagsekonomiska institutionen 106 91 Stockholm

About me

Björn Hagströmer is Associate Professor in Finance. He joined Stockholm Business School after obtaining his PhD degree at Aston Business School (Birmingham, UK) in 2010. He is the course director for Financial Market Structure (FMS).


Björn is the course director of Financial Market Structure (FMS). He is also the PhD supervisor of Ester Feléz Viñas and Petter Dahlström.


Björn's research interests include market microstructure and asset pricing. A selection of current working papers are shown below.

Information Revelation in Decentralized Markets. Coauthored with Albert Menkveld.

Call Auction Volatility Extensions
Coauthored with Ester Félez Viñas.

Determinants of Limit Order Cancellations
Coauthored with Petter Dahlström and Lars Nordén. 

Overestimated Effective Spread: Implications for Investors​


A selection from Stockholm University publication database
  • 2018. Matthew Baron (et al.). Journal of financial and quantitative analysis

    We study performance and competition among high-frequency traders (HFTs). We construct measures of latency and find that differences in relative latency account for large differences in HFTs’ trading performance. HFTs that improve their latency rank due to colocation upgrades see improved trading performance. The stronger performance associated with speed comes through both the short-lived information channel and the risk management channel, and speed is useful for various strategies including market making and cross-market arbitrage. We find empirical support for many predictions regarding relative latency competition.

  • 2016. Björn Hagströmer, Richard Henricsson, Lars L. Nordén. Journal of futures markets 36 (6), 545-563

    We develop a structural model for the price formation and liquidity supply of an asset. Ourmodel facilitates decompositions of both the bid–ask spread and the return variance intocomponents related to adverse selection, inventory, and order processing costs. Furthermore,the model shows how the fragmentation of trading volume across trading venues influencesinventory pressure and price discovery. We use the model to analyze intraday price formationfor gold futures traded at the Shanghai Futures Exchange. We find that order processing costsexplain about 50% of the futures bid–ask spread, whereas the remaining 50% is equally due toasymmetric information and to inventory costs. About a third of the variance in futures returnsis attributable to microstructure noise. Trading at the spot market has a significant influence onfutures price discovery, but only a limited impact on the futures bid–ask spread.

  • 2015. Jonathan Brogaard (et al.). The Review of financial studies 28 (12), 3407-3443

    We exploit an optional colocation upgrade at NASDAQ OMX Stockholm to assess how speed affects market liquidity. Liquidity improves for the overall market and even for noncolocated trading entities. We find that the upgrade is pursued mainly by participants who engage in market making. Those that upgrade use their enhanced speed to reduce their exposure to adverse selection and to relax their inventory constraints. In particular, the upgraded trading entities remain competitive at the best bid and offer even when their inventories are in their top decile. Our results suggest that increasing the speed of market making participants benefits market liquidity.

  • 2014. Björn Hagströmer, Lars Nordén. Journal of futures markets 34 (4), 299-319

    We investigate the effects from the introduction of a closing call auction (CCA) at the index futures market. Limit order book models, where trader patience determines trading strategies, predict that a CCA increases trader patience and, hence, improves closing price accuracy and end‐of‐day liquidity. We find that the introduction leads to increased trader patience, improved futures closing price accuracy, unaffected tightness and resiliency, and decreased depth. Decreased depth is likely due to less order fishing activity. With the CCA, opportunistic patient traders’ posting of limit orders deep in the order book, to profit from impatient traders, is no longer feasible.

  • 2014. Björn Hagströmer, Lars Nordén, Dong Zhang. The Financial Review 49 (2), 395-419

    We study order aggressiveness of market-making high-frequency traders (MM-HFTs), opportunistic HFTs (Opp-HFTs), and non-HFTs. We find that MM-HFTs follow their own group's previous order submissions more than they follow other traders’ orders. Opp-HFTs and non-HFTs tend to split market orders into small portions submitted in sequence. HFTs submit more (less) aggressive orders when the same-side (opposite-side) depth is large, and supply liquidity when the bid–ask spread is wide. Thus, HFTs adhere strongly to the tradeoff between waiting cost and the cost of immediate execution. Non-HFTs care less about this tradeoff, but react somewhat stronger than HFTs to volatility.

  • 2013. Björn Hagströmer, Björn Hansson, Birger Nilsson. Journal of Banking & Finance 37 (11), 4476-4487

    This paper implements a conditional version of the liquidity adjusted CAPM (LCAPM). The conditional LCAPM allows for a time-varying decomposition of the total illiquidity premium into a level component and three risk components. The estimated average annual total illiquidity premium for US stocks 1927–2010 is 1.74–2.08%, which is substantially lower than in most previous studies. The contributions from illiquidity level and illiquidity risk are 1.25–1.28% and 0.46–0.83%, respectively. Of the three illiquidity risk components, risk related to the hedging of wealth shocks is the most important, while commonality risk is the least important. The illiquidity premia are clearly time-varying, with peaks in downturns and crises, but with no general tendency to decrease over time. The level premium and the risk premium are significantly positively correlated, at around 0.35; indicating that in periods of turbulence both illiquidity cost and illiquidity risk premia tend to be high.

  • 2013. Björn Hagströmer, Lars Nordén. Journal of financial markets 16 (4), 741-770

    The regulatory debate concerning high-frequency trading (HFT) emphasizes the importance of distinguishing different HFT strategies and their influence on market quality. Using data from NASDAQ-OMX Stockholm, we compare market-making HFTs to opportunistic HFTs. We find that market makers constitute the lion's share of HFT trading volume (63–72%) and limit order traffic (81–86%). Furthermore, market makers have higher order-to-trade ratios and lower latency than opportunistic HFTs. In a natural experiment based on tick size changes, we find that the activity of market-making HFTs mitigates intraday price volatility.

Show all publications by Björn Hagströmer at Stockholm University

Last updated: October 23, 2018

Bookmark and share Tell a friend