Search Results

Information Content of Iron Butterfly Arbitrage Bounds
Informed traders trade options on underlying securities to lower transaction costs and increase financial leverage for price trend and variance strategies. Options markets play a significant role in price discovery by incorporating private information about future prices for an underlying security into option prices. I generate a new model-free volatility measure to calculate the "distance from arbitrage bounds" from minute-by-minute option series for the S&P 500 index and 30 individual underlying stocks. These iron butterfly arbitrage bounds (IBBs) use intraday call and put option prices from the Bloomberg database. Narrow and wide IBBs are expected to reveal the options market valuation of volatility by market participants. Data series is gathered by using successive one-minute intervals from the Bloomberg database. The data comprise the most recent bid and ask option prices and volumes. I collect S&P 500 index values and index options and use 30 underlying stock prices and option prices for the contracts that have the largest option trading volume during the sampling interval. These bid and ask prices reflect the information generated by intraday price pressures implied by S&P 500 index options or stock options. Consistent with the option micro-structure literature, I find that the IBB measure for actively traded stock options attains its highest level immediately after the open of the market, declines steadily throughout the first trading hour and remains relatively stable until market close. However, index IBBs behave differently. S&P 500 index option IBB attains its lowest level during the first hour of the trading day, then increases and remains relatively stable until market close. I present new evidence regarding the dynamic relation between stock returns and innovations in expected volatility by using the minute-by-minute change in implied volatility (IV) as a proxy. Unlike the relationship between individual stock returns and their respective changes in implied …
Is 100 Percent Debt Optimal? Three Essays on Aggressive Capital Structure and Myth of Negative Book Equity Firms
This dissertation comprises of three related essays in regard of puzzling negative book equity phenomenon among U.S. public firms. In essay 1, I present the evidence that there is an increasing trend of negative book equity firms over the past 50 years, from 0.3% up to over 5% among publicly traded firms in US. In contrast to previous research which generally classify these firms as distressed firms with highly likelihood of bankruptcy, I propose a new method to separate Healthy Negative Book Equity Firms (HNBEF) from relatively more distressed negative book equity firms. The results show that HNBEF have much higher net income and interest coverage ratio, they survive longer, and pay more dividends. More interestingly, these firms are often actively increase share repurchases and debt issuance. These facts, combined with their strong profitability, indicate that managers of these firms are actively increasing their leverage and choose to be negative book equity firms. To explain the existence of HNBEF, in essay 2, I investigate several possible reasons that may contribute to the extreme leverage of these firms. I find that HNBEF are substantially undervalued by their book assets as stated on the balance sheet. In addition, the value of intangible assets, especially those off-balance sheet intangible assets, is positively related to the probability of becoming HNBEF. Moreover, I find that characteristics of intangible assets and firms also play important role on existence of HNBEF. Specifically, I find that both liquidity and redeployability of intangible assets are positively related with the probability of becoming HNBEF. Also, firms associated with closer borrower-lender relationship are more likely to become HNBEF. To investigate if the aggressive capital structure adopted by HNBEF is optimal, in essay 3, I performed several tests to analyze how these firms differ from other firms in terms of operating performance, …
Market Efficiency, Arbitrage and the NYMEX Crude Oil Futures Market
Since Engle and Granger formulated the concept of cointegration in 1987, the literature has extensively examined the unbiasedness of the commodity futures prices using the cointegration-based technique. Despite intense attention, many of the previous studies suffer from the contradicting empirical results. That is, the cointegration test and the stationarity test on the differential contradict each other. In marked contrast, my dissertation develops the no-arbitrage cost-of-carry model in the NYMEX light sweet crude oil futures market and tests stationarity of the spot-futures differential. It is demonstrated that the primary cause of the "cointegration paradox" is the model misspecifications resulting in omitted variable bias.
Back to Top of Screen