Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T19:38:49.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Box Spread Arbitrage Profits following the 1987 Market Crash: Real or Illusory?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Michael L. Hemler  and
Thomas W. Miller Jr
Michael L. Hemler
Affiliation:
College of Business Administration, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556
Thomas W. Miller Jr
Affiliation:
College of Business and Public Administration, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examine market efficiency before and after the 1987 Market Crash using the box spread strategy implemented with European-style S&P 500 Index (SPX) options. Before the Crash, apparent arbitrage opportunities were rare and simulated trades were unprofitable assuming a one-minute execution delay. After the Crash, apparent arbitrage opportunities were frequent and simulated trades were profitable even assuming a five-minute execution delay. Our analysis makes the routine assumption that quotes are good until updated to construct a time series of prevailing quotes sampled at 30-second intervals. If this assumption is valid, then arbitrage profits were actually available. If this assumption is invalid, then such profits could have been illusory. Either scenario, however, implies that SPX market efficiency decreased following the Crash—prevailing price quotes repeatedly failed to satisfy the fundamental parity relation underlying the box spread.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , March 1997 , pp. 71 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1997

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

Billingsley, R. S., and Chance, D. M.. “Options Market Efficiency and the Box Spread Strategy.” Financial Review, 20 (11 1985), 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chance, D. M. “Parity Tests of Index Options.” Advances in Futures and Options Research, 2 (1987), 47–64.Google Scholar
Chicago Board Options Exchange. CBOE Constitution and Rules: The Official Constitution and Rules of the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. Chicago, IL: Commerce Clearing House (1996).Google Scholar
Fleming, J.; Ostdiek, B.; and Whaley, R. E.. “The Integration of Stock, Futures, and Option Markets: Evidence from the Index Derivatives.” The Journal of Futures Markets, 16 (06 1996), 353–387.3.0.CO;2-H>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gastineau, G.Dictionary of Financial Risk Management. Chicago, IL: Probus (1992).Google Scholar
Harris, L. “The October 1987 S&P 500 Stock-Futures Basis.” Journal of Finance, 44 (03 1989), 77–99.Google Scholar
Kamara, A., and Miller, T. W. Jr., “Daily and Intradaily Tests of European Put-Call Parity.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 30 (12 1995), 519–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamphuis, R. W. Jr.,; Kormendi, R. W.; and Watson, J. W. H., eds. Black Monday and the Future of Financial Markets. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin (1989).Google Scholar
Kleidon, A. W., and Whaley, R. E.. “One Market? Stocks, Futures, and Options during October 1987.” Journal of Finance, 47 (07 1992), 851–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knorring, T. Personal letter to the authors (06 1996).Google Scholar
Marchand, P. A.; Lindley, J. T.; and Followill, R. A.. “Further Evidence on Parity Relationships in Options on S&P 500 Index Futures.” Journal of Futures Markets, 14 (09 1994), 757–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, M.; Scholes, M.; Malkiel, B.; and Hawke, J. Jr., Final Repon of the Committee of Inquiry Appointed by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange to Examine the Events surrounding October 19, 1987. Chicago, IL: Chicago Mercantile Exchange (1988).Google Scholar
Presidential Task Force on Market Mechanisms. Brady Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (1988).Google Scholar
Ronn, A. G., and Ronn, E. I.. “The Box Spread Arbitrage: Theory, Tests, and Investment Strategies.” Review of Financial Studies, 2 (Spring 1989), 91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheikh, A. M., and Ronn, E. I.. “A Characterization of the Daily and Intraday Behavior of Returns on Options.” Journal of Finance, 49 (07 1994), 557–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Final Repon on Stock Index Futures and Cash Market Activity during October 1987. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (1988).Google Scholar
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The October 1987 Market Break: Report by the Division of Market Regulation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office (1988).Google Scholar