Robustness or Crowding: Experimental Design for Trading Strategy Capacity

Abstract

How much capital a trading strategy can absorb before its edge disappears is a causal question about how much is deployed, but it is answered with observational proxies that rest on incompatible assumptions. We ask what experiment would answer it instead, and show that two features of the problem interact to constrain any answer. Deployed capital erodes the edge gradually, so a trial of fixed length measures less than the eventual effect; and parallel implementations of one strategy trade the same securities, so they are not independent units. Comparing implementations on the same date removes market-wide shocks, which is what makes the comparison credible. But the crowding created by the strategy's own accumulated position is common to those implementations too, and an arbitrary date effect absorbs it exactly: the comparison that makes the experiment robust is the one that prevents it from measuring the crowding capacity is about. A same-date design recovers one implementation's private response at the prevailing level of aggregate positioning, and reaching the aggregate effect requires either implementations with deliberately different exposure to that position or variation in it over time. We characterise what each route identifies and what it costs, establish how far a fixed holding period understates the eventual effect and how to correct for it, and show what a finite set of deployment levels can and cannot reveal. A calibration on a purpose-built panel illustrates the resulting design rules and prices a study that would follow them.