Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T13:48:30.713Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Are Derivative Warrants More Expensive Than Options? An Empirical Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2010

Gang Li  and
Chu Zhang
Gang Li
Affiliation:
Hong Kong Baptist University (HKBU), Kowloon Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong. garyli@hkbu.edu.hk
Chu Zhang
Affiliation:
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST), Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong. czhang@ust.hk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Derivative warrants typically have higher prices than do otherwise identical options. Using data from the Hong Kong market during 2002–2007, we show that the price difference reflects the liquidity premium of derivative warrants over options. Newly issued derivative warrants are much more liquid than options with similar terms. As a result, long-term derivative warrants are preferred by traders who trade frequently. In spite of their higher prices, short-term returns on long-term derivative warrants are, in fact, higher than the hypothetical short-term returns on options. The differences in price and liquidity measures decline as the contracts get closer to maturity.

Type
Research Articles
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , February 2011 , pp. 275 - 297
Copyright
Copyright © Michael G. Foster School of Business, University of Washington 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amihud, Y.. “Illiquidity and Stock Returns: Cross-Section and Time-Series Effects.” Journal of Financial Markets, 6 (2002), 31–56.Google Scholar
Amihud, Y., and Mendelson, H.. “Asset Pricing and the Bid-Ask Spread.” Journal of Financial Economics, 17 (1986), 223–249.Google Scholar
Amihud, Y., and Mendelson, H.. “The Effects of Beta, Bid-Ask Spread, Residual Risk, and Size on Stock Returns.” Journal of Finance, 44 (1989), 479–486.Google Scholar
Amihud, Y., and Mendelson, H.. “Liquidity, Maturity, and the Yields on U.S. Treasury Securities.” Journal of Finance, 46 (1991), 1411–1425.Google Scholar
Black, F., and Scholes, M.. “The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities.” Journal of Political Economy, 81 (1973), 637–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollen, N. P. B., and Whaley, R. E.. “Does Net Buying Pressure Affect the Shape of the Implied Volatility Functions?” Journal of Finance, 59 (2004), 711–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, M. J., and Subrahmanyam, A.. “Market Microstructure and Asset Pricing: On the Compensation for Illiquidity in Stock Returns.” Journal of Financial Economics, 41 (1996), 441–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenner, M.; Eldor, R.; and Hauser, S.. “The Price of Options Illiquidity.” Journal of Finance, 56 (2001), 789–805.Google Scholar
Çetin, U.; Jarrow, R.; Protter, P.; and Warachka, M.. “Pricing Options in an Extended Black Scholes Economy with Illiquidity: Theory and Empirical Evidence.” Review of Financial Studies, 19 (2006), 493–529.Google Scholar
Chan, H. W., and Pinder, S. M.. “The Value of Liquidity: Evidence from the Derivatives Market.” Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 8 (2000), 483–503.Google Scholar
Chan, J. S. P.; Hong, D.; and Subrahmanyam, M. G.. “A Tale of Two Prices: Liquidity and Asset Prices in Multiple Markets.” Journal of Banking and Finance, 32 (2008), 947–960.Google Scholar
Chan, Y., and Wei, K. C. J.. “Price and Volume Effects Associated with Derivative Warrant Issuance on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong.” Journal of Banking and Finance, 25 (2001), 1401–1426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, K. C., and Wu, L.. “Introduction and Expiration Effects of Derivative Equity Warrants in Hong Kong.” International Review of Financial Analysis, 10 (2001), 37–52.Google Scholar
Chow, Y.; Li, J.; and Liu, M.. “Making Hong Kong’s Derivative Warrants Market.” Working Paper, Chinese University of Hong Kong (2007).Google Scholar
Deuskar, P.; Gupta, A.; and Subrahmanyam, M. G.. “Liquidity Effect in OTC Options Markets: Premium or Discount?” Journal of Financial Markets, 14 (2011), 127–160.Google Scholar
Draper, P.; Mak, B. S. C.; and Tang, G. Y. N.. “The Derivative Warrant Market in Hong Kong: Relationships with Underlying Assets.” Journal of Derivatives, 8 (2001), 72–84.Google Scholar
Duan, J. C., and Yan, Y.. “Semi-Parametric Pricing of Derivative Warrants.” Working Paper, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (1999).Google Scholar
Garleanu, N.; Pedersen, L. H.; and Poteshman, A. M.. “Demand-Based Option Pricing.” Review of Financial Studies, 22 (2009), 4259–4299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glosten, L. R.; Jagannathan, R.; and Runkle, D. E.. “On the Relation between the Expected Value and the Volatility of the Nominal Excess Return on Stocks.” Journal of Finance, 48 (1993), 1779–1801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarrow, R. A., and Protter, P.. “Liquidity Risk and Option Pricing Theory.” In Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science: Financial Engineering, Vol. 15, Birge, J. R. and Linetsky, V., eds. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier (2008).Google Scholar
Kyle, A. S. “Continuous Auctions and Insider Trading.” Econometrica, 53 (1985), 1315–1335.Google Scholar
Newey, W. K., and West, K. D.. “A Simple, Positive Semi-Definite, Heteroskedasticity and Autocorrelation Consistent Covariance Matrix.” Econometrica, 55 (1987), 703–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silber, W. L. “Discounts on Restricted Stock: The Impact of Illiquidity on Stock Prices.” Financial Analyst Journal, 47 (1991), 60–64.Google Scholar