Microstructural Impact of Algorithmic Trading on African Equity Markets: A Causal Evaluation of Efficiency, Liquidity, and Stability

Authors

  • David Umoru Department of Economics, Edo State University Uzairue, Iyamho, Nigeria Author
  • Imran Enike Abu epartment of Economics, Edo State University, Uzairue Iyamho, Nigeria Author
  • Beauty Igbinovia Department of Economics, Edo State University Uzairue, Iyamho, Nigeria Author
  • Emoabino Muhammed Department of Economics, Edo State University, Uzairue Iyamho, Nigeria Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55578/jift.2606.008

Keywords:

Algorithmic Trading, Market Efficiency, Liquidity, Microstructure, Market Microstructure, African Equity Markets, Double Machine Learning, Liquidity and Volatility, Predictive Forecasting, High-Frequency Trading

Abstract

The study provides a detailed empirical evaluation of the effect of the automated trading otherwise known as algorithmic trading (AT) on market efficiency, liquidity, and steadiness in ten main African equity markets. The study offers an in-depth empirical assessment of the impact of AT on market efficiency, liquidity, and stability in ten major African equity markets. To effectively close a critical gap in the literature on research on frontier-markets, the study applies an integrative approach to methodology, which combines along with intraday market microstructure evidence, causal inference approaches and machine learning practices. The intensity of algorithmic trading was measured using microstructure tools, and the study measures the consequential variables of the which includes return autocorrelation, bid ask spread, market depth and volatility persistence. We adopt quasi-experimental designs that exploit market-structure reforms for causal identification on a methodological level. By using a Finite Mixture Model, the analysis first classifies continent exchanges into Class 1 Deep Markets (42% probability, average capitalization $245.6B) and Class 2 Thin Markets (58% probability, average capitalization $18.7B). It shows that AT intensity is highly concentrated in deep capitalized venues. Using a robust double machine learning framework with 5-fold cross-fitting, we estimate the causal effects of quoting automatically. The estimates indicate that an increase in Message-to-Trade Ratio (MTR) and Cancellation-to-Trade Ratio (CTR) compresses the transaction cost significantly. In particular, the effective spread decreases by 0.156 (p < 0.01) and 0.167 (p < 0.01), respectively, while increasing log market depth by 0.098 and 0.087. AT robustly improves informational efficiency, reducing Kyle’s  by up to 0.021 units. We quantify a distinct structural trade-off: higher AT activity also leads to a statistically significant rise in realized volatility (MTR effect: +0.027; CTR effect: +0.031). Predictive modeling based on Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) neural networks demonstrates that high AT environments considerably enhance predictability, despite an increase in baseline volatility; improving out-of-sample RMSE forecasting performance by 11.9% and boosting R2 by 18.5%. To sum up, our high-frequency anomaly detection reveals that AT does not change the market shock frequency baseline of 1.92%. However, it provides a significant shock absorber that compresses the anomaly duration by 3.6 minutes, helps the market recover post-shock in 16.6 fewer minutes, and reduces the extreme volatility multipliers from 4.2x to 3.8x. Most prominently, findings indicate that the African Trade (AT) Exchange is essential for market liquidity and resilience, although the share is not equal. The study finds that a common feature of algorithm trading is its capacity to improve informational efficiency, contributing positively to the information quality of prices. It does so by reducing the return autocorrelation and order flow predictability. Having state-dependent dynamics implies that the sensitivity to shocks runs through the rich posterior distribution of shocks for various parameters. To the point, the effects are quite heterogeneous since they are distinctly moderated by the original depth of the market and the structure of the exchange. A customized policy prescription study for African regulators and market actors to illustrate the need to measure visibility, establish robust market structures, and execute conditional reforms in line with the specifics of the market situation and liquidity needed.

References

[1] Fama, E. F. (1970). Efficient capital markets: A review of theory and empirical work. Journal of Finance, 25(2), 383–417.

[2] Cartea, Á., Payne, R., Penalva, J., & Tapia, M. (2018). Ultra-fast activity and intraday market quality. Journal of Banking & Finance, *99*, 157–181.

[3] Wongsinhirun, N., Chatjuthamard, P., Treepongkaruna, S., & Likitapiwatc, T. (2021). Do algorithm traders mitigate insider trading profits?: Evidence from the Thai stock market. PLoS ONE, *16*(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255057

[4] Litzenberger, R. H., Castura, J., & Gorelick, R. (2012). The impacts of automation and high frequency trading on market quality. Annual Review of Financial Economics, *4*(1), 59–98. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-financial-110311-101744

[5] Baillie, R. T., Bollerslev, T., & Mikkelsen, H. O. (1996). Fractionally integrated generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics, *74*(1), 3–30.

[6] Hoffmann, P. (2014). A dynamic limit order market with fast and slow traders. Journal of Financial Economics, *113*(1), 156–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2014.04.002

[7] Moriyasu, H., Wee, M., & Yu, J. (2018). The role of algorithmic trading in stock liquidity and commonality in electronic limit order markets. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, *49*, 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2018.04.004

[8] Rushdy, A., & Samak, N. (2025). Examining market quality on the Egyptian Exchange (EGX): An intraday liquidity analysis. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, *18*(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm18010032

[9] Pascual, R., Escribano, Á., & Tapia, M. (2004). On the bi-dimensionality of liquidity. European Journal of Finance, *10*(6), 542–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/13518470410001674323

[10] Ardia, D., Guidotti, E., & Kroencke, T. A. (2024). Efficient estimation of bid-ask spreads from open, high, low, and close prices. Journal of Financial Economics, *161*, 103916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2024.103916

[11] Nimalendran, M., Rzayev, K., & Sagade, S. (2024). High-frequency trading in the stock market and the costs of options market making. Journal of Financial Economics, *159*, 103900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2024.103900

[12] Boehmer, E., Fong, K. Y. L., & Wu, J. (2020). Algorithmic trading and market quality: International evidence. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, *56*(8), 2659–2688. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022109020000782

[13] Rzayev, K., Ibikunle, G., & Steffen, T. (2023). The market quality implications of speed in cross-platform trading: Evidence from Frankfurt-London microwave. Journal of Financial Markets, 66, 100853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.finmar.2023.100853

[14] Hizmeri, R. (2021). Essays on high frequency financial econometrics: (Co)Jumps, aggregation, asymmetry and measurement error [Doctoral dissertation, Lancaster University].

[15] Andersen, T. G., & Bollerslev, T. (1997). Heterogeneous information arrivals and return volatility dynamics: Uncovering the long-run in high frequency returns. The Journal of Finance, *52*(3), 975–1005. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb02722.x

[16] Benbachir, S. (2025). Assessing informational efficiency in largest African stock markets by modeling dual long memory: An ARFIMA-FIGARCH approach. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, *22*(2), 238–253. https://doi.org/10.21511/imfi.22(2).2025.19

[17] Yuferova, D. (2024). Algorithmic trading and market efficiency around the introduction of the NYSE Hybrid Market. Journal of Financial Markets, *69*, 100909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.finmar.2024.100909

[18] Bhuiyan, M. S. M., Rafi, M. O., Rodrigues, G. N., Mir, M. N. H., Ishraq, A., Mridha, M. F., & Shin, J. (2025). Deep learning for algorithmic trading: A systematic review of predictive models and optimization strategies. Array, *26*, 100390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.array.2025.100390

[19] Aitken, M., Cumming, D. J., & Zhan, F. (2023). Algorithmic trading and market quality: International evidence of the impact of errors in colocation dates. Journal of Banking & Finance, *151*, 106843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2023.106843

[20] Calonico, S., Cattaneo, M. D., & Titiunik, R. (2014). Robust nonparametric confidence intervals for regression-discontinuity designs. Econometrica, *82*(6), 2295–2326.

[21] Chernozhukov, V., Chetverikov, D., Demirer, M., Duflo, E., Hansen, C., Newey, W. K., & Robins, J. M. (2017). Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters. Econometrics Journal, *21*(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/ectj.12097

[22] Hosking, J. R. M. (1981). Fractional differencing. Biometrika, *68*(1), 165–176.

[23] Chen, Y., Chen, Z., Ma, W., & Ju, G. (2026). Double machine learning for causal inference on high-dimensional data: A flexible and robust approach to causal estimation. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-95-6465-1_9

[24] Ciganovic, M., D'Amario, F., & Tancioni, M. (2026). Double machine learning for time series. arXiv (Cornell University). http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.10999

[25] Lo, A. W., & MacKinlay, A. C. (1988). Stock market prices do not follow random walks: Evidence from a simple specification test. Review of Financial Studies, 1(1), 41–66.

[26] Glosten, L. R., & Milgrom, P. R. (1985). Bid, ask and transaction prices in a specialist market with heterogeneously informed traders. Journal of Financial Economics, 14(1), 71–100.

[27] Barndorff-Nielsen, O. E., & Shephard, N. (2002). Econometric analysis of realized volatility and its use in estimating stochastic volatility models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Statistical Methodology), *64*(2), 253–280.

[28] Nelson, D. B. (1991). Conditional heteroskedasticity in asset returns: A new approach. Econometrica, *59*(2), 347.

[29] Amihud, Y. (2002). Illiquidity and stock returns: Cross-section and time-series effects. Journal of Financial Markets, *5*(1), 31–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1386-4181(01)00024-6

[30] Kang, S. (2026). When the rules change: Adaptive signal extraction via Kalman filtering and Markov-switching regimes. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2601.05716

[31] Tayefi, M., & Ramanathan, T. V. (2016). An overview of FIGARCH and related time series models. Austrian Journal of Statistics, *41*(3). https://doi.org/10.17713/ajs.v41i3.172

[32] Basatini, F. M., & Rezakhah, S. (2019). Markov switch smooth transition HYGARCH model: Stability and estimation. Communication in Statistics-Theory and Methods, *49*(10), 2384–2409. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610926.2019.1576884

[33] Charles, A., & Darné, O. (2013). Volatility persistence in crude oil markets. Energy Policy, *65*, 729–742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.042

[34] Chkili, W., Hammoudeh, S., & Nguyen, D. K. (2013). Volatility forecasting and risk management for commodity markets in the presence of asymmetry and long memory. Energy Economics, *41*, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2013.10.011

[35] Arouri, M. E. H., Lahiani, A., Lévy, A., & Nguyen, D. K. (2011). Forecasting the conditional volatility of oil spot and futures prices with structural breaks and long memory models. Energy Economics, *34*(1), 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2011.10.015

[36] Chaboud, A., Chiquoine, B., Hjalmarsson, E., & Vega, C. (2014). Rise of the machines: Algorithmic trading in the foreign exchange market. The Journal of Finance, *69*(5), 2045–2084. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12186

[37] Courdent, A., & McClelland, D. E. (2022). The impact of algorithmic trading on market quality: Evidence from the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. Investment Analysts Journal, *51*(3), 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/10293523.2022.2090056

[38] Manahov, V. (2016). A note on the relationship between high-frequency trading and latency arbitrage. International Review of Financial Analysis, *47*, 281–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2016.06.014

[39] Biais, B., & Weill, P.-O. (2009). Liquidity shocks and order book dynamics. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1193442

[40] Malceniece, L., Malcenieks, K., & Putniņš, T. J. (2019). High frequency trading and comovement in financial markets. Journal of Financial Economics, *134*(2), 381–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2018.02.015

[41] Khomyn, M., & Putniņš, T. J. (2021). Algos gone wild: What drives the extreme order cancellation rates in modern markets? Journal of Banking & Finance, *129*, 106170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2021.106170

[42] Jegadeesh, N. (1990). Evidence of predictable behavior of security returns. The Journal of Finance, *45*(3), 881–898. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1990.tb05110.x

[43] Babu, A. S. (2017). Testing for random walk behavior in Indian bond market. Theoretical Economics Letters, *7*(4), 728–736. https://doi.org/10.4236/tel.2017.74052

[44] Charles, A., & Darné, O. (2009). The random walk hypothesis for Chinese stock markets: Evidence from variance ratio tests. Economic Systems, *33*(2), 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2008.09.003

[45] Yepes-Henao, P. A., Agudelo, D. A., & Gençay, R. (2018). Muddying the waters: Who induces volatility in an emerging market? SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3297134

[46] Colliard, J.-É., & Hoffmann, P. (2017). Financial transaction taxes, market composition, and liquidity. The Journal of Finance, *72*(6), 2685–2716. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12510

[47] Buti, S., Rindi, B., Wen, Y., & Werner, I. M. (2013). Tick size regulation and sub-penny trading. RePEc: Research Papers in Economics. https://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:igi:igierp:492

[48] Sadka, R., & Scherbina, A. (2007). Analyst disagreement, mispricing, and liquidity. The Journal of Finance, *62*(5), 2367–2403. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2007.01278.x

[49] Weller, B. (2018). Measuring tail risks at high frequency. Review of Financial Studies, *32*(9), 3571–3616. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhy133

[50] Hendershott, T., Jones, C. M., & Menkveld, A. J. (2011). Does algorithmic trading improve liquidity? The Journal of Finance, *66*(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2010.01624.x

[51] Jørgensen, K., Skjeltorp, J. A., & Ødegaard, B. A. (2014). Throttling hyperactive robots – Message to trade ratios at the Oslo Stock Exchange. RePEc: Research Papers in Economics. https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/hhsstavef/2014_5f003.htm

[52] Mlambo, C., & Biekpe, N. (2007). The efficient market hypothesis: Evidence from ten African stock markets. Investment Analysts Journal, *36*(66), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10293523.2007.11082489

[53] Humphery-Jenner, M. and Wu, E. (2013). Trading Costs and Execution Strategies in Emerging Markets. In Market Microstructure in Emerging and Developed Markets (eds H.K. Baker and H. Kiymaz). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118681145.ch23

[54] Eberhardt, M., & Teal, F. (2010). Econometrics for grumblers: A new look at the literature on cross-country growth empirics. Journal of Economic Surveys, *25*(1), 109–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2010.00624.x

[55] Neuss, L. van. (2016). The economic forces behind deindustrialization: An empirical investigation. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2817332

[56] Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, *69*(6), 709–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x

[57] Pedroni, P. (2004). Panel cointegration: Asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis. Econometric Theory, *20*(3), 597–625.

[58] Bhattacharya, S. N., & Bhattacharya, M. (2012). Long memory in stock returns: A study of emerging markets. SHILAP Revista de Lepidopterología, *5*(2), 67–88. https://doi.org/10.22059/ijms.2012.28869

[59] He, Z., & Xiong, W. (2012). Rollover risk and credit risk. The Journal of Finance, *67*(2), 391–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2012.01721.x

[60] Research, H. K. I. for M. and F. (2018). Funding constraints and market illiquidity in the European treasury bond market. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3250612

[61] Angel, J. J. (1997). Tick size, share prices, and stock splits. The Journal of Finance, *52*(2), 655–681. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb04817.x

[62] Verousis, T., Perotti, P., & Sermpinis, G. (2017). One size fits all? High frequency trading, tick size changes and the implications for exchanges: Market quality and market structure considerations. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, *50*(2), 353–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-017-0632-2

[63] Hansen, J. H., & Siggaard, M. V. (2024). Double Machine Learning: Explaining the Post-Earnings Announcement Drift. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, *59*(3), 1003–1030. doi:10.1017/S0022109023000133

[64] Foucault, T., & Moinas, S. (2018). Is trading fast dangerous? In Oxford University Press eBooks (pp. 9–27). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198829461.003.0002

[65] Nahar, J., Nishat, N., Shoaib, A. S. M., & Hossain, Q. (2024). Global Mainstream Journal, *1*(3). https://doi.org/10.62304/ijbm.v1i3

[66] Broussard, J. P., Nikiforov, A. L., & Osmekhin, S. (2020). Algorithmic trading and market quality. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3673881

Downloads

Published

2026-06-29

Data Availability Statement

The data underlying this research will be shared upon reasonable request to the corresponding author, subject to a formal proposal and verification of the intended use by the research team.

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Microstructural Impact of Algorithmic Trading on African Equity Markets: A Causal Evaluation of Efficiency, Liquidity, and Stability. (2026). Journal of International Financial Trends, 2(2), 114-154. https://doi.org/10.55578/jift.2606.008