Multi-market trading and arbitrage☆
Introduction
Arbitrage is one of the central tenets of financial economics, enforcing the law of one price and keeping markets efficient. It is defined as the “simultaneous purchase and sale of equivalent securities in two different markets in order to profit from discrepancies in their price relationship” (Bodie, Kane, and Marcus, 2009, p. 319). Theoretically, it requires no capital and is without risk. But, in reality, there are important impediments due to market frictions and imperfect information that can limit arbitrage. The market frictions are often explicit and observable, such as transactions costs, taxes, holding costs, and short-sale restrictions. Holding costs are incurred every period that an arbitrage position remains open and include the opportunity cost of capital, the opportunity cost of not receiving full interest on short-sales proceeds, and idiosyncratic risk exposure (Pontiff, 2006). Impediments due to information problems are implicit and more difficult to observe. Another important issue stems from potential agency problems. Many arbitrageurs specialize in this activity and this limits the degree of diversification in their portfolios. If there is a random shock that causes further divergence in an arbitrage position, the specialized arbitrageur cannot diversify away this risk and this limits how much capital he or she invests (Shleifer and Vishny, 1997, De Long et al., 1990). In models without imperfect information or capital constraints (Grossman and Miller, 1988), arbitrageurs are generally more aggressive when prices on the same security diverge further.
Existing research has identified many possible impediments to arbitrage, but, as surveys by Barberis and Thaler (2003) and Lamont and Thaler (2003a) point out, it has done so mostly in the context of a series of “special cases.”1 These special cases include most commonly studies of closed-end country funds, exchange-traded funds, dual-listed companies (DLCs, or “Siamese twins”), index inclusions/exclusions, and internet carve-outs and spin-offs. While interesting to study, one problem with mispricing phenomena associated with these special cases is that they are, by definition, special. That is, they are limited in scope and number and not always available over extended periods of time. Moreover, in each of these cases, fundamental risk may still exist because arbitrageurs cannot fully hedge their positions due to a lack of perfect substitutes or because the arbitrageur's model may not coincide with the true return-generating process. Our primary contribution is to remedy these two deficiencies in the literature on the limits to arbitrage by investigating the deviations between the prices of shares of stocks that trade simultaneously in different markets around the world. Specifically, we compare the intraday prices and quotes of American depositary receipts (ADRs) and other types of cross-listed shares in U.S. markets with synchronous prices of their home-market shares on a currency-adjusted basis. These stock pairs that trade simultaneously in different markets represent an ideal setting because the shares trade on the same underlying stock and because there are actual market mechanisms in place, such as the conversion/cancellation facilities at depositary banks, for arbitrageurs to be able to exploit these deviations.
Our goal is to determine whether the magnitude of the deviations from price parity for cross-listed pairs varies over time and across different securities in a way that is related to these explicit and implicit arbitrage costs. The sample consists of 506 pairs of cross-listed/home-market shares of stocks from 35 countries over the period between 1993 and 2004. We show that daily deviations from price parity among cross-listed pairs are, on average, economically small averaging around 4.9 basis points (as a percent of the home share price) and with a daily standard deviation of 1.4% for a typical stock pair. But we also find that the level of these deviations from price parity and their daily changes can reach extremes across stock pairs and across time; U.S. share prices relative to home prices range from a discount of as low as −40.4% to a premium as high as 127.4% and the daily changes in the price deviations can decline as much as −95.6% and rise to as high as 168.5%. We also find that these deviations are positively related to holding costs that can impede arbitrage, even after controlling for a variety of transactions costs, taxes, and foreign investment restrictions. The holding cost proxies we consider include the stock pair's idiosyncratic risk that is unrelated to the risk of other securities in either of the competing markets, the stock's dividend yield, which can lower holding costs, and interest rates, which represent an opportunity cost of capital, since arbitrageurs usually do not receive full interest on short-sale proceeds (Pontiff, 1996). Among these proxies, we find that idiosyncratic risk has a statistically reliable, positive relationship to price parity deviations across stock pairs and over time, and it is economically the most important holding cost. Together, these factors explain over 20% of the cross-sectional variation in the levels of and changes in price deviations across the cross-listed pairs.
The market for internationally cross-listed stocks provides a rich but, at the same time, complex setting within which to evaluate the sources of impediments to arbitrage. Consider, for example, the wide variety of instruments for cross-listing shares around the world. ADRs, which are receipts that represent claims against the home-market shares, are the most popular form of cross-listing in the U.S., but there are other types of cross-listed shares (e.g., Global or New York registered shares) which represent direct claims against the same set of risky cash flows as ordinary shares in the home market.2 An important distinguishing characteristic of the ADR market is that there exist institutions – namely, depositary banks like the Bank of New York, Citigroup, and JP Morgan Chase – that ensure security “fungibility” by facilitating the convertibility of ADRs into home-market shares and back again. Another special dimension of this experiment is the large cross-section of firms and countries from around the world that have shares cross-listed on U.S. markets. Not only does this allow us as researchers to investigate potential limitations on arbitrage activity at the country level, such as regulatory restrictions, currency controls, foreign ownership limits, and overall equity market development, but it also allows us to consider firm-specific factors that might capture the scope of informational barriers that impede arbitrage activity. Examples include the number of analysts following the stocks, the dispersion in the analysts’ 1-year-ahead earnings forecasts, the fraction of shares held by U.S. institutional investors, and the U.S. market's fraction of the combined shares traded in the competing markets. We find that these proxies for information-based barriers on cross-market arbitrage in internationally cross-listed stocks can explain incrementally another 8–10% of the cross-sectional and time-series variation in the deviations from price parity.
Yet another motivation for our effort is the paucity of papers on arbitrage in the market for ADRs and other types of cross-listed stocks.3 Early studies by Maldonado and Saunders (1983), Kato, Linn, and Schallheim (1991), Wahab, Lashgari, and Cohn (1992), Park and Tavokkol (1994), and Suarez (2005) were limited by a small sample of ADRs from only select countries, like Australia, France, Japan, and the UK, and usually with only weekly prices. Miller and Morey (1996) studied intraday prices for one stock, Glaxo-Wellcome, PLC, during the 2-hour overlap period for their New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) ADRs and UK shares during a 2-month period in 1995. Puthenpurackal (2006) provides a clinical study of Infosys Technologies’ (India) ADR premium around its U.S. offering in 2003.4 Rosenthal and Young (1990), Froot and Dabora (1999), Bedi, Richards, and Tennant (2003), and recently De Jong, Rosenthal, and van Dijk (2009) study the special case of dual-listed companies (DLCs, or “Siamese twins”), which effectively represent mergers between companies that agree to combine their operations and cash flows and have common dividend structures while retaining separate shareholder registries and identities, e.g., Royal Dutch and Shell, Unilever N.V. and Unilever PLC. Each of these studies finds large and systematic price parity deviations from their home-market shares which they try to explain with tax, accounting, regulatory, governance, and trading attributes. Recent papers employ special intraday data for country-specific studies of relative price discovery in cross-listed and home-market shares, such as Grammig, Melvin, and Schlag (2005) for three stocks in Germany and Eun and Sabberwal (2003) for 62 stocks in Canada. Finally, Grossmann, Ozuna, and Simpson (2007) examine ADR mispricing for a sample of 74 European firms. Few, if any, of these studies investigate the role of holding cost proxies, like idiosyncratic risk, and none have evaluated how much information-based barriers matter for price deviations in cross-listed stocks.
The next section of the paper outlines some of the important institutional aspects of arbitrage in the market for ADRs and other cross-listed stocks. Our data sample and summary statistics are presented in Section 3. We outline our key hypotheses on the limits to arbitrage in this market, describe the empirical methodology used to test them, and provide the main results in Section 4. Alternative hypotheses are explored in Section 5. A summary of our findings and a discussion about the limitations of our analysis concludes the paper.
Section snippets
The mechanics of arbitrage with ADRs and other cross-listed stocks
Non-U.S. companies list shares for trading on major U.S. exchanges in several forms: ADRs, New York or Global registered shares, and even direct listings of home-market ordinary shares. These instruments differ in their “fungibility” (or, exchangeability) with the corresponding home-market security and, therefore, in the ability of investors to arbitrage the securities across markets. A fully fungible security has several characteristics5:
Firm sample
Our sample construction begins with the complete list, as of the end of May 2004, of foreign stocks listed in the U.S. either in the form of American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) or in the form of ordinary shares, such as for Canadian cross-listings, which are available in the Thomson Reuters Datastream database (Datastream). Since our focus is on exchange-listed ordinary shares, we retain ADRs classified as exchange-listed Level II and Level III (capital-raising) programs and exclude
Key hypotheses
There are two types of costs that can impede arbitrage: transactions costs and holding costs (Pontiff, 1996). Transactions costs are incurred when positions are opened or closed, whereas holding costs are incurred every period until the arbitrage position is unwound. Transactions costs pose an obvious barrier to arbitrage. They include brokerage fees, commissions, transactions taxes, bid-ask spreads, and market impact costs. Cross-listed pairs with high transactions costs in either or both
Transactions-cost adjusted arbitrage price relatives and returns differences
We have uncovered that the magnitude of the price differences and their changes are, on average, small, but also that they are reliably and importantly related to a number of proxies for holding costs. One weakness of our approach to now has been that we have not accounted for transactions costs associated with the potential arbitrage positions. As a result, our firm-quarter averages of the arbitrage price relatives and returns differences are dominated by large numbers of days within those
Conclusion
For a comprehensive sample of 506 companies from 35 countries around the world with cross-listed shares trading on major U.S. exchanges, we compare the synchronous, intraday prices of the U.S. and home-market shares on a currency-adjusted basis. We find that the magnitude of deviations from price parity are, on average, an economically small 4.9 basis points, but they fluctuate by around 1.4% per day for the typical stock pair, and can reach extremes of a U.S.-to-home share price discount of
References (84)
- et al.
Synchronization risk and delayed arbitrage
Journal of Financial Economics
(2002) - et al.
Asset prices with illiquidity risk
Journal of Financial Economics
(2005) - et al.
Information costs and home bias: an analysis of U.S. holdings of foreign equities
Journal of International Economics
(2004) Illiquidity and stock returns: cross-section and time-series effects
Journal of Financial Markets
(2002)- et al.
Cross-border trading as a mechanism for implicit capital flight: ADRs and the Argentine crisis
Journal of Monetary Economics
(2006) - et al.
Style investing
Journal of Financial Economics
(2003) - et al.
Comovement
Journal of Financial Economics
(2005) - et al.
Investment analysis and price formation in securities markets
Journal of Financial Economics
(1995) - et al.
Are financial analysts informed traders?
Journal of Financial Markets
(1998) - et al.
A simple measure of the intensity of capital controls
Journal of Empirical Finance
(2003)
How are stock prices affected by the location of trade?
Journal of Financial Economics
Internationally cross-listed stock prices during overlapping trading hours: price discovery and exchange rate effects
Journal of Empirical Finance
Ex-day behavior with dividend preference and limitations to short-term arbitrage: the case of Swedish lottery bonds
Journal of Financial Economics
Equilibrium and welfare in markets with financially constrained arbitrageurs
Journal of Financial Economics
ADR mispricing: do costly arbitrage and consumer sentiment explain the price deviation?
Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money
Why is there a home bias? An analysis of foreign portfolio equity ownership in Japan
Journal of Financial Economics
A stock market boom during a financial crisis? ADRs and capital outflows in Argentina
Economics Letters
The information content of stock markets: why do emerging markets have synchronous stock price movements?
Journal of Financial Economics
Stock splits: signaling or liquidity? The case of ADR solo-splits
Journal of Financial Economics
Costly arbitrage and the myth of idiosyncratic risk
Journal of Accounting and Economics
The seemingly anomalous price behavior of Royal Dutch/Shell and Unilever N.V./PLC
Journal of Financial Economics
Arbitrage opportunities in the depositary receipts market: myth or reality?
Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money
A survey of behavioral finance
Multimarket trading and liquidity: theory and evidence
Journal of Finance
Market integration and investment barriers in emerging equity markets
World Bank Economic Review
Time-varying world market integration
Journal of Finance
Equity market liberalization in emerging markets
Journal of Financial Research
Liquidity and expected returns: lessons from emerging markets
Review of Financial Studies
Market integration and contagion
Journal of Business
Capital gains taxes, pricing spreads and arbitrage: evidence from U.S. cross-listed firms
Accounting Review
Closed-end country funds and U.S. market sentiment
Review of Financial Studies
Accounting choice, home bias and U.S. investment in non-U.S. firms
Journal of Accounting Research
Efficiency and the bear: short sales and markets around the world
Journal of Finance
Investments
Information asymmetry and asset prices: evidence from the China foreign share discount
Journal of Finance
Asset Pricing
The mispricing of U.S. treasury bonds: a case study
Review of Financial Studies
The risk and return of arbitrage in dual-listed companies
Review of Finance
The size and incidence of the losses from noise trading
Journal of Finance
Noise trader risk in financial markets
Journal of Political Economy
Cited by (155)
Cryptomarket discounts
2023, Journal of International Money and FinanceUS cross-listing and domestic high-frequency trading: Evidence from Canadian stocks
2023, Journal of Empirical FinanceTrading gap in holidays and price transmission: Evidence from cross-listed stocks on the A-share and H-share markets
2023, International Review of Financial AnalysisInformation flows and the law of one price
2023, International Review of Financial AnalysisHow does the exchange-rate regime affect dual-listed share price parity? Evidence from China's A- and H-share markets
2022, Journal of International Money and FinanceCross-country cultural and economic freedom influences on the relationship between economic policy uncertainty and ADR mispricing
2022, Research in International Business and Finance
- ☆
We are grateful for financial support from the D.I. McLeod Fund at Queen's University and the Dice Center for Financial Economics at Ohio State University and for useful comments from and discussions with Markus Brunnermeier, Craig Doidge, Rob Engle, Shane Corwin, Laura Field, Cam Harvey, Sergei Sarkissian, Mathijs van Dijk, Mike Weisbach, Ingrid Werner, David Hirshleifer, Chris Sparrow (ITG), Ananth Madhavan (Barclays Global Investors), Paulo Hermanny (Citibank ADR), Jack Ferrer, Claudine Cardillo-Rivot and Patrick Colle (JP Morgan), Paul Bennett, Pamela Moulton, and Bryant Seaman (NYSE), Chris Sturdy (Bank of New York), Eduardo Repetto, Stephen Clark and Karen Umland (Dimensional Fund Advisors), Tim Kuepfer (Datastream), Allen McDowell (StataCorp), and participants in seminars at the Bank of Canada, International Finance Division of the Board of Governors of the U.S. Federal Reserve, City University of London, Cornell University, Georgetown University, McGill University, Notre Dame University, Ohio State University, Queen's University, University of Alberta, University of Miami, University of North Carolina, University of Toronto, York University, and at the 2004 WFA meetings in Vancouver. We are also grateful for the assistance of Ulf Lagercrantz, Roger Loh, Nicholas Michalski, Jonathan Witmer and Scott Yonker. All remaining errors are our own.