Determinants of Triangular Arbitrage Liquidity vs Volatility

Market liquidness and market volatility that are considered to hold impacts on arbitrage chances in foreign market.

Abstraction

With the purpose to detect a new corner in the field of fiscal economic, this paper examines market liquidness and market volatility that are considered to hold impacts on arbitrage chances in foreign market. Linear arrested developments are built in order to research these relationships. Empirically, there are significantly impact of volatility and liquidness, separately or jointly proving, on the arbitrage divergences. Furthermore, this pilot survey besides look intoing the important of counter party hazard and event survey for proclamation which make all the theoretical accounts more robust. An highly elaborate informations set of three chief braces of currency is used is besides a part for this paper compared to old researches.

Recognitions

I would wish to grateful appreciate my supervisor, Dr. Roman Kozhan for his helpful counsel and remarks throughout my thesis procedure.

Table of Contentss

Introduction

One of the bedrocks in economic and finance is the term “ arbitrage ” . Exploiting arbitrage and the issues around that ever receive a batch of attending in fiscal economic sciences. There are two nomenclatures for arbitrage: hazardous arbitrage and riskless arbitrage. More specific, Liu and Timmermann ( 2009 ) define hazardous arbitrages as “ self-financing trading schemes that have a purely positive market monetary value but a nothing expected cumulative final payment. A uninterrupted clip cointegrated system is used to pattern hazardous arbitrages as originating from a mean-reverting mispricing constituent ” . On the other manus, riskless arbitrage involved risk-free scheme with the intent of doing a riskless net income. Risk-free arbitrage can be defined as “ the coincident purchase and sale of the same, or basically similar, security in two different markets for well different monetary values ” ( Sharpe and Alexander, 1990 ) .

Several surveies focused on the being of arbitrage ( such as: Engle and Granger ( 1987 ) , Shleifer and Vishny ( 1997 ) , Emmons and Schmid ( 2002 ) ) , other researches try to set up optimum schemes to work arbitrage ( such as: Yu ( 2005 ) , Duarte, Longstaff and Yu ( 2007 ) , Bajlum and Larsen ( 2007 ) and Cserna and Imbierowicz ( 2008 ) . In this research, a different attack is taken. Alternatively of analyze the being of arbitrage or how to work those arbitrage chances ; the paper is traveling to look into the chief determiners of arbitrage chances. The chief focal point of the paper is on triangular arbitrages on three chief currencies: American Dollar ( USD ) , British Pound ( GBP ) and Euro ( EUR ) .

My research is largely inspired by Kozhan and Tham ( 2009 ) ; they extend the triangular arbitrage literature in the FX market with an alternate hypothesis for the being of triangular arbitrage chances. By constructing a liquidity-based theoretical theoretical account for executing hazard and utilizing a more elaborate information set that allows look intoing the relation between arbitrage and market illiquidity utilizing the bound order book, Kozhan and Tham ‘s paper contribute a farther measure in current empirical analysis and literature in this country of research.

This paper will widen farther paper of Kozhan and Tham ( 2009 ) , utilizing volatility and liquidness as chief variables which have an impact on accomplished returns of triangular arbitrages. Particularly, the paper is traveling to analyze the relation between the size of arbitrage divergence and market liquidness utilizing alternate placeholders for liquidness. Further, this pilot survey considers volatility is an of import variable which have an impact on arbitrage. For that ground, the paper is traveling to analyze volatility separately towards to the size of arbitrage divergence and jointly proving with market liquidness.

My part, related to this paper, is lying on supplying a incorporate for proving determiners of arbitrage which including different placeholders for liquidness and volatility. I besides extend the model to adding one more factor – macro proclamation and trial if there is any difference between determiners of arbitrage divergence during those yearss and those where were no macro-announcements. My paper is traveling to utilize TED spread as a placeholder to see whether counterparty hazard taking topographic point in these arbitrage chances.

The informations used to analyze is collected from Reuters merchandising system Covering 3000 for three currency braces: US dollar per lb sterling ( USD/EUR ) , US dollar per euro ( USD/EUR ) and lb sterling per euro ( GBP/EUR ) . The pick of these informations is motivated by the fact that, although there are significant researches on this topic ( e.g. Marshall, Treepongkaruna, and Young ( 2008 ) , Akram, Rime, and Sarno ( 2008 ) ) , nevertheless, to the best of my cognition this set of informations is the most sufficient compared to old research. Therefore, the purpose of this survey is to utilize the more recent and elaborate dataset to make full in this spread of the arbitrage probe literature.

The paper found that there is a statistically important relation between arbitrage divergences and measurings of market liquidness and market volatility. Particularly, there is a positively correlativity between arbitrage net incomes and measuring of market illiquidity ( Slope and Spread ) and a negatively relationship between divergences and measuring of market liquidness ( Depth and Breadth ) . The paper is consistent with Kozhan & A ; Tham ( 2009 ) when they besides found the same relationship between arbitrage divergence and market illiquidity. Furthermore, there is an grounds supports that volatility has a positive impact on arbitrage net income. The consequence is still robust in the context of proclamation. Most of the variables ‘ coefficients are non improved inside the proclamation clip. Counterparty hazard seems play a weak function in explicating the arbitrage divergences for this peculiar set of informations.

The paper is organized as follows: Section II includes some old literatures involved in this research. In Section III, the paper will depict the testable hypothesis and informations description. In Section IV, the empirical consequences will be presented based on the hypotheses described before and give an analysis of the consequences in comparing with anterior researches. We will reason in Section V.

Literature Review

Prior researches besides found empirical groundss that support for the being of riskless arbitrage chances in foreign exchange rate market such as Marshall, Treepongkaruna, and Young ( 2008 ) , Akram, Rime, and Sarno ( 2008 ) . Marshall et al conclude that exploitable triangular arbitrage chances exist in the foreign exchange market cyberspace of the bid-ask spread. Using adhering bid-ask quotation marks at which trades could happen they show these chances exist over the full 24 hr trading twenty-four hours. Besides, divergences are found by Lamont and Thaler ( 2003 ) and Ofek, Richardson, and Whitelaw ( 2004 ) from put-call para.

In theory, many believe that working “ riskless ” arbitrage is widely recognized to be riskless. However, in existent market, it is non easy to take advantage of arbitrage chance as economic experts one time had assumed. It is because the fiscal markets are non complete and frictionless, so arbitrage is considered hazardous and dearly-won. Furthermore, the figure of informed arbitragers or the supply of fiscal resources they have to put in arbitrage schemes is illimitable. Previous literatures on limits-to-arbitrage that highlight the legion clashs faced in undertaking arbitrage. In the other words, arbitrage has its restrictions. Many recent researches try to analyze about restriction of arbitrage and relevant hazards associated with it.

There are many old researches that demonstrate the of import of market liquidness. Roll, Schwartz, and Subrahmanyam ( 2007 ) , who support the of import function of market liquidness in traveling monetary values to extinguish arbitrage chances. Chordia et Al ( 2005 ) look into the commonalties in day-to-day aggregative spreads and deepnesss in equity and U.S. Treasury Bond markets over an drawn-out period. Hasbrouck ( 2001 ) , Huberman ( 2001 ) , and Chordia et Al ( 2000, 2001 ) look into the co-movements in trading activity and liquidness in the equity markets. Amihud and Mendelson ( 1986 ) and Jacoby, Fowler, and Gottesman ( 2000 ) supply theoretical statements to demo how liquidity impacts i¬?nancial market monetary values.

Kozhan and Tham ( 2009 ) suggest a new bound to arbitrage, one which exists because of the uncertainness of finishing a proi¬?table arbitrage portfolio due to the herding consequence of arbitragers viing for the scarce supply of the needed assets. They call this “ executing hazard in arbitrage development. ”[ 1 ]They examine the relation between the size of the arbitrage divergence and market illiquidity and i¬?nd a statistically signii¬?cant relation in which the divergence is positively correlated with steps of market illiquidity.

In the paper of Bandi et Al ( 2008 ) , they emphasis the of import of market volatility and market liquidness as two successful strands of the recent plus pricing literature about systematic hazard factors in the cross-section of stock returns. Their statement is supported by many literatures such as Ang et al. , 2006, Adrian and Rosenberg, 2006, and Moise, 2006 for market volatility and Acharya and Pedersen, 2005, Pastor and Stambaugh, 2003, and Sadka, 2003 for liquidness.

Galati and Ho ( 2003 ) survey about motions of the Euro-Dollar ( EUR-USD ) rate and found the chief driven is the macroeconomic state of affairs in the US and Eurozone country over the period January 1999-December. Evans and Speight ( 2010 ) look into how the macro-economic proclamation intelligence affects Euro exchange rate return. Kim ( 2010 ) investigates the function macro-economic proclamation intelligence on exchange rates.

Furthermore, the paper is to look into if other variables impact arbitrage divergence once more through bounds to arbitrage such as counterparty hazard. Coffey N. , et Al ( 2009 ) show a divergence in the covered involvement rate para ( CIP ) relation does be. They emphasis the of import of two variables the deficiency of capital and heightened counterparty recognition hazard as important determiners of the CIP divergences, particularly during the crisis period. Their consequences indicate “ a dislocation of arbitrage minutess in the international capital markets that owes partially to miss of capital and partially to heightened counterparty recognition hazard ” . ( Coffey N. , et Al ( 2009 ) ) .

Triangular arbitrage in the FX market:

Triangular arbitrage refers to work arbitrage state of affairs between three foreign exchange markets. It involves taking advantage of differences in monetary value for the same exchange rate traded straight and indirectly in other two currencies. The net income is accounted by the differences between the market monetary values when making purchasing at low monetary value and merchandising at high monetary value at the same time. In theory, trigon arbitrage offers a riskless net income. However, the instability of market does non prevail for long clip.[ 2 ]

See the triangular no-arbitrage conditions: change overing one currency to another and so change overing it once more to a 3rd currency, and eventually, change overing it back to the original currency within a short clip span will give us a same value for the original currency ( absence of arbitrage ) .

A/B: intending units of currency A per unit of currency B

Similarly notations for A/C and C/B

If A, B and C are three currencies, so we have no – arbitrage status:

( A/B ) = ( A/C ) A- ( C/B )

( B/A ) = ( B/C ) A- ( C/A )

Notice this status is hold in the instance of absence of dealing cost. The paper will analyze the relationship of three braces of currencies in the instance of dealing cost. On the other words, there is bid-ask spread among these currency monetary values.[ 3 ]The ask rate is higher than the command rate ( positive bid/ask spread ) because it involves cost of trader services, inauspicious choice and stock list hazard. Since dealing cost involved, the no-arbitrage conditions are expressed:

A/Bask: the monetary value has to be paid to purchase one unit of currency B utilizing currency A.

A/Bbid: the figure of unit of currency A received when sell one unit of currency B

( A/Bask ) a‰? ( C/B command ) A- ( A/C command )

( A/Bask ) – ( C/B command ) A- ( A/C command ) a‰? 0

( B/A ask ) a‰? ( C/A command ) A- ( B/C command )

( B/A ask ) – ( C/A command ) A- ( B/C command ) a‰? 0

If there is any misdemeanor from these conditions, riskless arbitrage can be obtained.

Many researches find the presence of exploitable chances such as Aiba et Al. ( 2002 ) and Marshall et Al. ( 2008 ) . However, there is still restriction in their paper chiefly due to miss of informations.

Testable Hypothesiss and Datas:

Testable hypotheses:

In this subdivision we specify chief hypothesis. Linear arrested development will be exploited to sketch the relationship between arbitrage divergences as dependent variable and selected independent variables. The impact of both volatility and liquidness will be examined via proving the undermentioned hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: The size of arbitrage divergences is relative to market volatility. Arbitrage divergence is positively related to volatility variables.

Hypothesis 2: The size of arbitrage divergences is relative to market liquidness. Arbitrage divergence is positively related to illiquidity variables and negatively related to liquidness variables.

2. a. Liquid and volatility jointly have an impact on arbitrage net income.

Hypothesis 3: Liquid and Volatility have jointly impact on arbitrage divergence in the event of macro-announcement. These volatility and liquidness variables have more power in explicating arbitrage net incomes in proclamation period.

3. B. We will add TED spread as a control variable in all the arrested developments in order to look into whether there is an being of counterparty hazard and avoid misspecification of the theoretical account and observe the job of excluding variables.

A. Regression of single impact of volatility:

R = a0 + I?1A- VGBP/USD + I?2 A- VEUR/USD + I?3 A- VEUR/GBP +u ( 1 )

The volatility factors in this theoretical account are the volatility of each currency pairs: VEUR/USD is discrepancy of EUR/USD, VGBP/EUR is the discrepancy of GBP/EUR, and VGBP/USD is the discrepancy of GBP/USD.

A. Regression theoretical account for the single consequence of liquidness

Let donate R as market return on triangular arbitrage. The theoretical account includes liquidity factors:

R = I±0 + I?1A- LGBP/USD + I?2 A- LEUR/USD + I?3 A- LEUR/GBP +u ( 2 )

Where LC is a step of liquidness in the market c. And degree Celsius includes three braces of currency: GBP/USD, EUR/USD and GBP/EUR. There are four options in order to mensurate market liquidness:

1. Slope and Spread step for illiquidity

2. Depth and Breadth step for liquidness

C. Multiple Regressions for jointly proving of volatility and liquidness:

R = I±0 + I?1A- LGBP/USD + I?2 A- LEUR/USD + I?3 A- LEUR/GBP + b1A- VGBP/USD + b2 A- VEUR/USD

+ b3 A- VEUR/GBP + u ( 3 )

Again, LC and VC represents for liquidness variables for three braces of currency: GBP/USD, EUR/USD and GBP/EUR.

D. Multiple Regressions with silent person variable – macro-announcement:

R = I±0 + I?1A- LGBP/USD + I?2 A- LEUR/USD + I?3 A- LEUR/GBP + I±2 A-A + I?4A- AA-LGBP/USD

+ I?5 A- AA- LEUR/USD + I?6 A- AA- LEUR/GBP + u ( 4 )

R = a0 + I?1A- VGBP/USD + I?2 A- VEUR/USD + I?3 A- VEUR/GBP + I±2 A- A+ I?4A- AA-VGBP/USD + I?5 A- AA-VEUR/USD + I?6 A- AA- VEUR/GBP +u ( 5 )

R = I±0 + I?1A- LGBP/USD + I?2 A- LEUR/USD + I?3 A- LEUR/GBP + d1A- VGBP/USD + d2 A- VEUR/USD + d3 A- VEUR/GBP + I±2 A-A + I?4A- AA-LGBP/USD + I?5A- AA- LEUR/USD + I?6 A- AA- LEUR/GBP+ d4 A- A A-VGBP/USD + d5 A- AA-VEUR/USD + d6 A- AA- VEUR/GBP +u ( 6 )

We continue analyze all the variables by adding one silent person variable – Macro-announcement ( donate A as proclamation variable ) in all the arrested developments. Macro-announcement is a 0,1 coded variable. A = 0 agencies outside the proclamation clip, A = 1 agencies inside the proclamation clip. The arrested development examines the impact of proclamation on all the variables to see tell whether the difference in the two arrested developments ( proclamation and non-announcement ) was because of differences in the intercept footings or the incline coefficients or both. If there is an impact from macro-announcement, so the power of explaining of the theoretical accounts will alter. For case, the coefficient I?1 of LC ( liquidness variables ) shows the additive relationship between dependant variable – arbitrage net income and independent variables – volatility. If the variables: Announcement A- LC are statistical important with differential incline coefi¬?cient I?4, so there will be a different in incline coefficient of this variable. Coefficients of liquidness variables now should be ( I?1+ I?4 ) in order to explicate for the arbitrage divergence.

The deduction of equation ( 4 ) , and presuming every bit usual that E ( u ) = 0, should be:

Inside proclamation clip map ( 4.a ) :

E ( R|A=1, LC ) = ( I±0 + a1 ) + ( I?1+ I?4 ) A- LGBP/USD + ( I?2 + I?5 ) A- LEUR/USD + ( I?3+ I?6 ) A- LEUR/GBP

Outside proclamation clip map ( 4.b ) :

E ( R|A=0, LC ) = I±0 + I?1A- LGBP/USD + I?2 A- LEUR/USD + I?3 A- LEUR/GBP

E. Multiple Regressions with control variable TED spread:

R = I±0 + I?1A- LGBP/USD + I?2 A- LEUR/USD + I?3 A- LEUR/GBP + TED +u ( 7 )

R = a0 + I?1A- VGBP/USD + I?2 A- VEUR/USD + I?3 A- VEUR/GBP +TED +u ( 8 )

R = I±0 + I?1A- LGBP/USD + I?2 A- LEUR/USD + I?3 A- LEUR/GBP + b1A- VGBP/USD + b2 A- VEUR/USD

+ b3 A- VEUR/GBP+TED +u ( 9 )

R = I±0 + I?1A- LGBP/USD + I?2 A- LEUR/USD + I?3 A- LEUR/GBP + I±2 A-A + I?4A- AA-LGBP/USD

+ I?5 A- AA- LEUR/USD + I?6 A- AA- LEUR/GBP + TED + u ( 10 )

R = a0 + I?1A- VGBP/USD + I?2 A- VEUR/USD + I?3 A- VEUR/GBP + I±2 A- A+ I?4A- AA-VGBP/USD + I?5 A- AA-VEUR/USD + I?6 A- AA- VEUR/GBP + TED + u ( 11 )

R = I±0 + I?1A- LGBP/USD + I?2 A- LEUR/USD + I?3 A- LEUR/GBP + d1A- VGBP/USD + d2 A- VEUR/USD + d3 A- VEUR/GBP + I±2 A-A + I?4A- AA-LGBP/USD + I?5A- AA- LEUR/USD + I?6 A- AA- LEUR/GBP+ d4 A- A A-VGBP/USD + d5 A- AA-VEUR/USD + d6 A- AA- VEUR/GBP + TED + u ( 12 )

Concluding measure in all our procedure is to look into all the theoretical accounts by adding one control variable for counterparty hazard. The TED spread can function as an index of recognition hazard. The TED spread can be calculated by utilizing Eurodollar sedimentation rates and the U.S. Treasury. An increasing in TED spread besides implies an increasing in illiquidity and counterparty hazard.

Datas

Data description:

In this paper, we exploit the trigon arbitrage for three chief currencies: Euro, US dollar and Sterling lb. The information is collected from Reuters merchandising system Covering 3000 in signifier of three currency braces: US dollar per Pound Sterling ( USD/EUR ) , US dollar per Euro ( USD/EUR ) and Pound Sterling per Euro ( GBP/EUR ) . Harmonizing to the Bank for International Settlement ( BIS, 2004 ) , these currencies are the most traded currencies in FX market. All the information is run from January 2, 2003 to December 31, 2004 with continuously recorded minutess and citations between 07:00-17:00 GMT, all weekends and vacations are excluded, which is more sufficient compared to old researches.

The set of informations is highly elaborate which consist of volume in all quotation marks every bit good as all trades and concealed orders such as measure traded, order type, dealing identifier of order entered and removed, position of market order, entry type of orders, remotion ground, clip of orders entered and removed.[ 4 ]

We obtained the macro-announcement informations from MMS – Money market service. The information set is besides from January 2, 2003 to December 31, 2004. The information set besides includes relevant information which is considered as really of import macro-announcements in the US, Europe and UK, obtained from Money Market Services International ( MMS ) . Furthermore, the information captures information about triangular arbitrages measured by the MMS average study prognosis, consisting 37 indexs for the US, 21 for the Eurozone and 19 for the UK. Then once more, the arbitrage divergence will be match with proclamation informations set to demo every clip divergence occurs whether there is an being of macro-announcement.

TED spread informations is collected from Datastream with the same period from January 2, 2003 to December 31, 2004 for US involvement rate.

conjecture it would be better if you could compose more how the variables are constructed. You have asked me if you should, now I think — yes. Find the descriptions someplace in literature, this is standard variables. Realized discrepancy is computed as amount of squared one-minute returns over half-hour ( or 15 proceedingss, whichever you use here ) .

Preliminary Data Analysis

In this subdivision, we will describe the Preliminary Data Analysis for all variables regarded as placeholders for liquidness, arbitrage divergences and bunchs[ 5 ]of profitable triangular arbitrage divergence. In our sample, there are 38,184 arbitrage bunchs. The information is recorded in signifier of command and ask figures. There are two sets of informations for arbitrage divergences, one for clockwise scheme and one for anticlockwise scheme. For convenience intent, we pooled both datasets ( command and ask ) together, so each arbitrage bunch is matched with the matching variable ( Slope, Depth, Spread, Breadth, Variance ) depending if it is clockwise or anticlockwise[ 6 ].

Table 1 provides Preliminary Data Analysis on mean bid-ask spread, mean incline of demand and supply agenda in basic points per billion of the base currency, the mean deepness ( in 1000000s of base currency ) and the mean comprehensiveness ( in 1000000s of base currency ) .

I do non believe you should describe this one, you instead describe variables you are utilizing in the analysis. They will be liquidness and volatility steps for the whole period, instead for times when arbitrage opportunies arise, but it will be representative of what you are making

Table 1: Preliminary Data Analysis: Liquid

Exchange rate

EUR/GBP

EUR/USD

GBP/USD

Average bid-ask spread

1.01

1.92

1.89

Average incline of demand agendas

35.36

98.24

77.79

Average incline of supply agendas

39.89

111.60

83.74

Average deepness of demand agendas

33.40

24.65

32.88

Average deepness of supply agendas

100.31

21.72

31.09

Average comprehensiveness of demand agendas

0.69

2.88

2.93

Average comprehensiveness of supply agendas

3.42

2.81

2.81

On the norm, the bid-ask spreads during the arbitrage bunch are 1.01, 1.92, 1.89 pips[ 7 ]for EUR/GBP, EUR/USD, and GBP/USD, severally, bespeaking the market is comparatively tight ( Tham 2009 ) . The mean inclines of the demand agendas are 35.36, 98.24 and 77.79 basic point per billion of currency trade for EUR/GBP, EUR/USD and GBP/USD, severally. The mean inclines of the supply agendas are 39.89, 111.60, and 83.74 footing point per billion of currency trade for EUR/GBP, EUR/USD and GBP/USD, severally. These figures show that these braces of currencies are traded in a really liquid market.

Table 2 examines the descriptive statistics of the divergence from triangular arbitrage. Average arbitrage divergence has a mean of 1.52 pips and a standard divergence of 1.085. Therefore, there is arbitrage divergences exist after deducted for dealing costs. Furthermore, the scope of arbitrage net income is rather high with 86.39 pips. The arbitrage net income has the assurance degree of the mean at a significance of 5 per centum is statistically important.

Table 2: Preliminary Data Analysis on Arbitrage Deviation

Arbitrage Deviation

Mean

Standard Error

Median

Manner

Standard Deviation

Sample Variance

Kurtosis

Lopsidedness

Scope

Minimum

Maximum

Table 3 represents all the statistic analysis of all three discrepancies regarded as placeholders for volatility. The discrepancies have the mean of 0.03, 0.01 and 0.016 for EUR/GBP, EUR/USD and GBP/USD, severally. Meanwhile the standard divergences of three brace of currency are 0.098, 0.018 and 0.041 for EUR/GBP, EUR/USD and GBP/USD, severally. These three braces of currency are traded in a really volatile market.

Table 3: Descriptive Statisticss for Volatility

A

VGBP/USD

VEUR/USD

VEUR/GBP

Mean

0.030235054

0.010185048

0.0163528

Standard Error

0.000504178

9.31864E-05

0.000213596

Median

0.010302552

0.005662419

0.007640559

Manner

0.535147373

0.106793328

0.193064541

Standard Deviation

0.09852009

0.018209303

0.041738116

Sample Variance

0.009706208

0.000331579

0.00174207

Kurtosis

88.979216

62.35307974

96.32711028

Lopsidedness

8.829752435

6.823189767

9.005805441

Scope

1.634860244

0.331404592

0.552626425

Minimum

3.58257E-05

9.44939E-05

0.000150143

Maximum

1.634896069

0.331499086

0.552776568

Sum

1154.49529

388.9058821

624.4153018

Count

38184

38184

38184

Largest ( 1 )

1.634896069

0.331499086

0.552776568

Smallest ( 1 )

3.58257E-05

9.44939E-05

0.000150143

Assurance Level ( 95.0 % )

0.000988202

0.000182648

0.000418653

A

A

A

We plot the information for discrepancies and observe some biased-values. Therefore, in order to avoiding biasness in arrested development, we cut some informations which is non considered as representative of the whole set of the information ( either excessively big or excessively little compared to the remainder of the sample ) . Each arbitrage divergence so is matched with corresponding independent variable depending on which one-fourth of hr, arbitrage divergence appeared for the same twenty-four hours.

Empirical consequences:

The undermentioned arrested development ( 10 ) is run for proving all the hypothesises:

R = b0 + b1A- LGBP/USD + b2 A- LEUR/USD + b3 A- LEUR/GBP + d1A- VGBP/USD + d2 A- VEUR/USD + d3 A- VEUR/GBP +A + e1A- AA-LGBP/USD + e2A- AA- LEUR/USD + e3 A- AA- LEUR/GBP+ f1A- AA-VGBP/USD + f2 A- AA-VEUR/USD + f3 A- AA- VEUR/GBP + TED

Where Vj and Lj are step of volatility and liquidness, in severally, of three braces of currency, J = GBP/USD, EUR/USD and EUR/GBP ; A = Announcement, AVj and ALj are measurings of Announcement x Variance and Announcement A- Volatility, in severally, of three braces of currency, J = GBP/USD, EUR/USD and EUR/GBP ; TED is TED spread.

Hypothesis 1:

Table 4 ( Appendix ) exhibits the coefficient estimations and t-value for volatility based theoretical theoretical account. For the arrested development ( 1 ) , the coefficients of discrepancies for two braces of currency EUR/USD and EUR/GBP are statistically important different from nothing at 0.001 and 0.01 degree severally. The estimated coefficients of braces of currency EUR/USD and EUR/GBP are 1.658 and 1.1834 severally. The estimated parametric quantity for GBP/USD is non statistical important suggests that the volatility altering in exchange rate of brace GBP/USD does non hold an important impact on arbitrage divergence. All of the coefficients have positive mark which imply the arbitrage divergence is positively correlated with the volatility. The consequence supports the hypothesis at least for two chief braces of currency EUR/USD and EUR/GBP. The higher the degree of volatility will bring forth higher degree of arbitrage net income. In this instance of our sample, the currency brace EUR/USD plays an of import function on explicating the arbitrage net income.

Our consequences are qualitatively similar to those in Federico ( 2008 ) when they all agree on market returns ia positively correlated to volatility.

Hypothesis 2:

We farther test the relation between market illiquidity and arbitrage divergences by regressing the ascertained divergence against the inclines of demand and supply agendas of the three currency braces. All the consequences for proving Slopes variable are shown in the tabular array 5 ( Appendix ) . When proving Slopes variables separately, the estimations and t-statistics show that all the estimated parametric quantities are positive and signii¬?cantly dii¬ˆerent from zero, with p-values less than 0.0001. The consequences indicate that the grounds is strongly in support of our hypothesis.

Implementing the same arrested development on Spread of demand and supply agendas of the three currency braces, Spreads represent an alternate measuring for illiquidity, output similar consequences. All the coefficients are statically important different from nothing at 0.0001 degree with a positive mark. The mark is being positive in visible radiation of the reading of Slopes, as discussed above.

All these consequences imply that we can non reject our hypothesis. Then there is a positive relationship between arbitrage divergence and illiquidity of market. Our consequences are qualitatively similar to those in Roll et.al. ( 2007 ) , Amihud ( 2002 ) , Bandi et Al ( 2008 ) and Kozhan & A ; Tham ( 2009 ) . They all have the same decision on a positive relationship between arbitrage divergences and market illiquidity, the more liquidness in the market, the smaller the divergences.

For hardiness, we further prove the relation between market liquidness and arbitrage divergence by regressing the ascertained divergence against the Depth of demand and supply agendas of the three currency braces. Depth is an alternate measuring for market liquidness, as widening Depths reflects the higher liquid degree of the market. Table 7 ( Appendix ) shows all the empirical analysis for arrested development ( 2 ) for Depths. The estimations and t-statistics show that the estimated parametric quantities of two braces of currency GBP/USD and EUR/USD at 0.001 and 0.01 degree severally. Both of these coefficients of these two braces of currency are negative mark. This implies a negative relationship between divergences and market liquidness. On the other words, it supports for the hypothesis as arbitrage divergences is possitively correlated with market illiquidity. However, the estimations and t-statistics of EUR/GBP brace are non statistically important different from nothing.

For the Breadth variables, table 8 ( Appendix ) represents all the empirical consequences for arrested development between dependent divergence variable and independent comprehensivenesss variables of three braces of currency. All the estimations and t-statistics of three braces of currency are important different from nothing. The coefficients for two brace GBP/USD and EUR/USD have a positive mark ; meanwhile merely brace EUR/GBP has a negative mark. In the statement we made above, we should anticipate a negative mark for all important coefficients of these three currency braces. Therefore, we can see the power of the theoretical account when proving Breadth variables is economically negligible. For a preliminary analysis, this theoretical account is non robust for Breadth variables when the theoretical account output adjusted R2 merely at 0.05 % which indicates that the theoretical account does non hold much explicating power for arbitrage divergences.

Hypothesis2.a.

We now concern about the power parametric quantity estimations on liquidness and volatility when they are jointly tested. For the jointly proving of volatility and Slope, we found that all the parametric quantity estimations on inclines remain strongly statistically important at the 0.0001 degree with positive mark of coefficients. There is a different in term of important of parametric quantities for volatility variables. When jointly proving with illiquidity variables, the coefficients of discrepancies for the currency brace GBP/USD becomes statistically important different from nothing with the p-value is less than 0.01. Meanwhile, the parametric quantity estimations on discrepancy of currency brace EUR/USD remains strongly important at 0.0001. The arrested development has an addition adjusted R2 up to 9.18 % ( from 2.8 % for merely volatility variables arrested development and 7.8 % for separately proving illiquidity variables arrested development ) which indicates that we add more valuable variables that have more power of explicating to arbitrage divergences.

We implement the same arrested development for volatility and Spread on divergences. We found the consequences for this arrested development in table 6 ( Appendix ) . All the estimations parametric quantities remain strongly for all the illiquidity variables – Spreads at 0.0001 degree. Merely the parametric quantity estimation on discrepancy for the brace currency EUR/USD is still important at 0.0001 degree with positive mark. However, the adjusted R2 of the arrested development increases up to 3.66 % compared to 2.8 % in separately proving volatility arrested development and 1.62 % for separately proving Spreads arrested development.

From the tabular array 7 & A ; 8 ( Appendix ) , we found that the estimation coefficients of all variables, either for discrepancies or liquidness, remain their power when jointly proving. In peculiar for Depths, the estimated parametric quantities of two braces of currency GBP/USD and EUR/USD at 0.001 and 0.01 degree severally. Both of these coefficients of these two braces of currency are negative mark. Meanwhile, the coefficients of discrepancies for two braces of currency EUR/USD and EUR/GBP are still statistically important different from nothing at 0.001 and 0.01 degree severally. All the coefficients that are important in old trials remain unchanged. The lone thing improved is the adjusted R2 of the arrested development goes up to 2.86 % . The similar consequence has found for the Breadths ‘ estimation parametric quantities. All the coefficients remain unchanged apart from the adjusted R2 of the theoretical account.

From these empirical consequence, we can see that joint consideration of volatility and liquidness leads to parameter estimations on illiquidity remains statistically important while driving out the statistical important of parametric quantity estimations associated with volatility. This consequence is opposite with what Federico ( 2008 ) found on their paper when they conclude that the consequence of volatility is more robust than liquidness.

There is a common on these arrested developments. They all increase the adjusted R2. The adjusted R2 increases merely if the new term improves the theoretical account more than would be expected by opportunity. On the other words, by adding more explanatory variables, this jointly arrested development between volatility and illiquidity has increase the power of explanatory to arbitrage divergences.

Hypothesis 3:

We test volatility variables in a multiple arrested development ( 4 ) with silent person variable – macro proclamation. When adding one silent person variable, the coefficient of the brace EUR/USD remains strongly important at 0.001 degree. Meanwhile, the coefficient for the brace of currency EUR/GBP is no more important different from nothing. Most of differential incline coefficients are undistinguished, although the differential incline coefficient for EUR/GBP is important at 0.01 degree, nevertheless, its coefficient is really little with 0.0001 compared to the coefficient of the currency brace EUR/USD. In general, empirical consequences show that the impact of volatility on arbitrage net income is non much different in two period proclamation and non- proclamation.

Arrested development consequences for proving event of proclamation for all the liquidness and illiquidity variables are reported in table 5, 6, 7, and 8 ( Appendix ) for Slope, Spread, Depth and Breadth severally. For Slopes and Depths, all the differential incline coefficients ( for proclamation A- illiquidityj ) are statistically important, largely negative mark. This consequence indicates that there is a different on the consequence of illiquidity on arbitrage net income on two periods: proclamation and non-announcement. Most of the consequence of illiquidity is diminishing in the period of proclamation ( coefficients lessening ) .

When we come to prove the consequence of Depths and Breadths with the event of proclamation, all of the differential incline coefficients are negative, but statistically-insignificant, consequence on arbitrage divergences. On the other words, there is no different on the consequence of liquidness on returns within or without proclamation event.

Hypothesis 3.a.

Finally, we control for counterparty hazard in all the arrested development theoretical accounts by adding control variable – Ted spread. We found all the estimations parametric quantities for TED spread are statistically important with negative mark. However, they are economically negligible. Adding TED spread variable in all arrested development does non altering other variables ‘ power to explicate the net income. The adjusted R2 of all our arrested developments do non increase. This implies that the consequence of counterparty hazard is non important in our sample. My consequence is against what Coffey N. , et Al ( 2009 ) found, they emphasis the of import of counterparty hazard in relationship with market returns. This determination is consistent with the statement in Kozhan & A ; Tham ( 2009 ) . They claim that the ground for that might due to debut of uninterrupted linked colony that reduces colony failure and counterparty hazard. The difference between these decision chiefly due to the important different from information set, that the paper usage more recent and elaborate recorded informations.

Decision:

With the purpose to touch in a new portion of the old issue on fiscal economic, the paper considers relationship of arbitrage divergences with market illiquidity and market volatility, jointly proving. Have received a much attending in recent researches, nevertheless, the jointly consideration between these two is rarely been investigated. We contribute alternate measurings for market liquidness and a well-done set of informations which we believe will make full in this spread of literature.

We can reason as follow, volatility have a positive and statistically important consequence on arbitrage divergences. However, the relationship is non truly strong when we combine volatility with other variables of illiquidity. The lone brace of currency that ever remains their important ( i.e. in single and joint theoretical accounts ) is EUR/GBP for volatility. On the other manus, the correlativities are ever extremely statistically important for all illiquidity variables, i.e. Slope and Spread. Empirical consequences besides show that there is a negative relationship between returns and liquidness variables, i.e. Depths and Breadths, but either statistically undistinguished or economically negligible. This indicates that Depths and Breadth might non be good indexs for market liquidness. The significance of illiquidity remains despite the inclusion of macro-announcement silent person variable and control variable TED spread.

Appendixs:

Table 4: The consequence of volatility on Arbitrage Deviation in the context of Macro-announcement and Counterparty Risk

Number of observations: 38184

VarGBP/USD

VarEUR/USD

VarEUR/GBP

A

AVarGBP/USD

AVarEUR/USD

AVarEUR/GBP

Ted

Adj R2

0.1089

1.658***

1.1834**

A

A

A

A

A

0.0283

( 0.43 )

( 14.73 )

( 2.83 )

-0.0356

1.8099***

0.3055

-0.0237

0.000

0.000

0.0001**

0.0285

( -0.13 )

( 14.74 )

( 0.63 )

( -1.25 )

( -0.46 )

( 0.32 )

( 2.81 )

0.1443

1.6515***

1.1256**

-0.3633**

0.0285

( 0.57 )

( 14.67 )

( 2.69 )

( -3.14 )

0.0083

1.8005***

0.2473

-0.0229

0.000

0.000

0.0001**

-0.3603**

0.0288

( 0.03 )

( 14.66 )

( 0.51 )

( -1.21 )

( -0.57 )

( 0.32 )

( 2.86 )

( -3.12 )

1. Abbreviations: Varj is discrepancy of three braces of currency in the market J ; A = Announcement ; AVj is Announcement A- Discrepancy of three braces of currency in the market J ; With J = GBP/USD, EUR/USD and EUR/GBP

2. Significance degrees:

* statistically important at 0.05 degree

** statistically important at 0.01 degree

*** statistically important at 0.001 degree

Table 5: The Effect of Volatility and Liquidity – Slope in context of Macro-announcement and Counterparty Risk

VarGBP/USD

VarEUR/USD

VarEUR/GBP

I»GBP/USD

I»EUR/USD

I»EUR/GBP

A

AVarGBP/USD

AVarEUR/USD

AVarEUR/GBP

AI»GBP/USD

AI»EUR/USD

AI»EUR/GBP

Ted

Adj R2

0.0028***

0.0013***

0.001***

0.0782

( 42.03 )

( 33.31 )

( 8.00 )

0.6529**

0.9853***

0.6278

0.0026***

0.0011***

0.0007***

0.0918

( 2.63 )

( 8.94 )

( 1.53 )

( 39.16 )

( 30.27 )

( 5.72 )

0.003***

0.0013***

0.0008***

0.1551***

-0.0019***

-0.0005**

0.0015***

0.0806

( 42.75 )

( 33.07 )

( 6.39 )

( 5.95 )

( -8.72 )

( -2.74 )

( 3.92 )

0.5994*

1.0595***

0.0404

0.0028***

0.0012***

0.0006***

0.1445***

0.000

0.000

0.0001*

-0.0018***

-0.0005**

0.0014***

0.0939

( 2.26 )

( 8.80 )

( 0.09 )

( 39.78 )

( 30.06 )

( 4.44 )

( 5.36 )

( -0.90 )

( 0.54 )

( 2.00 )

( -8.04 )

( -2.98 )

( 3.44 )

0.0028***

0.0013***

0.001***

-0.297**

0.0784

( 42.02 )

( 33.33 )

( 7.81 )

( -2.64 )

0.6793**

0.9806***

0.5894

0.0026***

0.0011***

0.0007***

-0.3058**

0.092

( 2.73 )

( 8.90 )

( 1.44 )

( 39.14 )

( 30.30 )

( 5.55 )

( -2.73 )

0.003***

0.0013***

0.0008***

0.1552***

-0.0019***

-0.0005**

0.0015***

-0.2929**

0.0808

( 42.73 )

( 33.09 )

( 6.21 )

( 5.95 )

( -8.71 )

( -2.75 )

( 3.91 )

( -2.60 )

0.6332*

1.0523***

0.002

0.0028***

0.0012***

0.0006***

0.1449***

0.000

0.000

0.0001*

-0.0018***

-0.0005**

0.0014***

-0.3026**

0.0941

( 2.38 )

( 8.74 )

( 0.00 )

( 39.76 )

( 30.09 )

( 4.28 )

( 5.38 )

( -0.99 )

( 0.55 )

( 2.04 )

( -8.02 )

( -2.98 )

( 3.43 )

( -2.71 )

1. Abbreviations: I»j is the Slopes of three braces of currency in the market J ; AI»j is Announcement A- Slope of three braces of currency in the market J ; Varj is discrepancy of three braces of currency in market J ; AVarj is Announcement A- Discrepancy of three braces of currency ; With J = GBP/USD, EUR/USD and EUR/GBP ; A = Announcement

2. Significance degrees:

* statistically important at 0.05 degree

** statistically important at 0.01 degree

*** statistically important at 0.001 degree

Table 6: The Effect of Volatility and Liquidity – Spread in context of Macro-announcement and Counterparty Risk

VarGBP/USD

VarEUR/USD

VarEUR/GBP

SGBP/USD

SEUR/USD

SEUR/GBP

A

AVarGBP/USD

AVarEUR/USD

AVarEUR/GBP

ASGBP/USD

ASEUR/USD

ASEUR/GBP

Ted

Adj R2

0.0243***

0.0154***

0.0966***

0.0161

( 10.46 )

( 8.11 )

( 19.74 )

0.0952

1.5341***

0.4228

0.0179***

0.0084***

0.0749***

0.0366

( 0.38 )

( 13.61 )

( 1.01 )

( 7.72 )

( 4.44 )

( 15.25 )

0.0224***

0.0154***

0.102***

0.008

0.0163*

-0.0002

-0.0411**

0.0164

( 9.08 )

( 7.75 )

( 19.43 )

( 0.31 )

( 2.23 )

( -0.03 )

( -2.84 )

-0.0666

1.6912***

-0.4248

0.0159***

0.0083***

0.0791***

-0.0107

0.000

0.000

0.0001**

0.0165*

0.0003

-0.0287*

0.037

( -0.25 )

( 13.74 )

( -0.88 )

( 6.47 )

( 4.16 )

( 15.00 )

( -0.40 )

( -0.57 )

( -0.20 )

( 2.92 )

( 2.24 )

( 0.04 )

( -1.98 )

0.0242***

0.0152***

0.0963***

-0.2748*

0.0163

( 10.43 )

( 8.02 )

( 19.68 )

( -2.37 )

0.122

1.5302***

0.3818

0.0178***

0.0083***

0.0746***

-0.2893*

0.0367

( 0.48 )

( 13.58 )

( 0.91 )

( 7.69 )

( 4.36 )

( 15.19 )

( -2.51 )

0.0224***

0.0152***

0.1017***

0.0086

0.016*

-0.0002

-0.0411**

-0.2707*

0.0165

( 9.07 )

( 7.65 )

( 19.38 )

( 0.33 )

( 2.18 )

( -0.03 )

( -2.84 )

( -2.33 )

-0.0337

1.6852***

-0.466

0.0159***

0.0082***

0.0788***

-0.0098

0.000

0.000

0.0001**

0.0161*

0.0004

-0.0287*

-0.2828*

0.0371

( -0.12 )

( 13.69 )

( -0.96 )

( 6.46 )

( 4.08 )

( 14.94 )

( -0.37 )

( -0.64 )

( -0.19 )

( 2.96 )

( 2.20 )

( 0.05 )

( -1.98 )

( -2.45 )

1. Abbreviations: Sj is the Spreads of three braces of currency in the market J ; ASj is Announcement A- Spreads of three braces of currency in the market J ; Varj is discrepancy of three braces of currency in market J ; AVarj is Announcement A- Discrepancy of three braces of currency ; With J = GBP/USD, EUR/USD and EUR/GBP

2. Significance degrees:

* statistically important at 0.05 degree

** statistically important at 0.01 degree

*** statistically important at 0.001 degree

Table 7: The Effect of Volatility and Liquidity – Depth in context of Macro-announcement and Counterparty Risk

VarGBP/USD

VarEUR/USD

VarEUR/GBP

DGBP/USD

DEUR/USD

DEUR/GBP

A

AVarGBP/USD

AVarEUR/USD

AVarEUR/GBP

ADGBP/USD

ADEUR/USD

ADEUR/GBP

Ted

Adj R2

-0.001***

-0.001*

0.000

0.0004

( -3.60 )

( -2.40 )

( -0.20 )

0.1334

1.6553***

1.1226**

-0.0009***

-0.001*

0.000

0.0286

( 0.53 )

( 14.71 )

( 2.68 )

( -3.33 )

( -2.36 )

( -0.15 )

-0.001**

-0.0009

0.000

0.0544

-0.0005

-0.0008

-0.0009

0.0004

( -3.11 )

( -1.96 )

( -0.20 )

( 1.01 )

( -0.65 )

( -0.65 )

( -1.15 )

-0.0037

1.8024***

0.2632

-0.0009**

-0.001*

0.000

-0.0028

0.000

0.000

0.0001**

-0.0004

0.000

-0.0001

0.0288

( -0.01 )

( 14.68 )

( 0.55 )

( -2.87 )

( -2.09 )

( -0.15 )

( -0.05 )

( -0.47 )

( 0.38 )

( 2.69 )

( -0.53 )

( -0.02 )

( -0.14 )

-0.0009**

-0.0011*

0.000

-0.3617**

0.0006

( -3.20 )

( -2.52 )

( -0.18 )

( -3.07 )

0.1645

1.6499***

1.0704*

-0.0008**

-0.001*

0.000

-0.3339**

0.0288

( 0.65 )

( 14.66 )

( 2.56 )

( -2.96 )

( -2.48 )

( -0.14 )

( -2.87 )

-0.0009**

-0.001*

0.000

0.052

-0.0005

-0.0008

-0.0009

-0.3583**

0.0006

( -2.78 )

( -2.06 )

( -0.19 )

( 0.97 )

( -0.58 )

( -0.66 )

( -1.10 )

( -3.04 )

0.0352

1.7943***

0.2113

-0.0008*

-0.001*

0.000

-0.0039

0.000

0.000

0.0001**

-0.0004

0.000

-0.0001

-0.3295**

0.029

( 0.13 )

( 14.61 )

( 0.44 )

( -2.57 )

( -2.20 )

( -0.14 )

( -0.07 )

( -0.56 )

( 0.38 )

( 2.74 )

( -0.47 )

( -0.04 )

( -0.10 )

( -2.83 )

1. Abbreviations: Dj is the Depths of three braces of currency in the market J ; ADj is Announcement A- Depths of three braces of currency in the market J ; Varj is discrepancy of three braces of currency in market J ; AVarj is Announcement A- Discrepancy of three braces of currency ; With J = GBP/USD, EUR/USD and EUR/GBP

2. Significance degrees:

* statistically important at 0.05 degree

** statistically important at 0.01 degree

*** statistically important at 0.001 degree

Table 8: The Effect of Volatility and Liquidity – Breadth in context of Macro-announcement and Counterparty Risk

VarGBP/USD

VarEUR/USD

VarEUR/GBP

BGBP/USD

BEUR/USD

BEUR/GBP

A

AVarGBP/USD

AVarEUR/USD

AVarEUR/GBP

ABGBP/USD

ABEUR/USD

ABEUR/GBP

Ted

Adj R2

0.0055***

-0.0042*

0.0024*

0.0005

( 3.78 )

( -2.06 )

( 2.20 )

0.0879

1.6659***

1.1515**

0.0035*

-0.0049*

0.0024*

0.0286

( 0.35 )

( 14.80 )

( 2.75 )

( 2.42 )

( -2.44 )

( 2.25 )

0.0059***

-0.0044*

0.0023

-0.0149

-0.0028

0.0013

0.0009

0.0005

( 3.75 )

( -2.00 )

( 1.91 )

( -0.52 )

( -0.64 )

( 0.22 )

( 0.29 )

-0.0584

1.8182***

2.3758

0.0037*

-0.0051*

0.0023*

-0.0321

0.000

0.000

0.0001**

-0.0013

0.0023

0.0014

0.0288

( -0.22 )

( 14.81 )

( 0.56 )

( 2.38 )

( -2.37 )

( 1.96 )

( -1.06 )

( -0.43 )

( 0.37 )

( 2.80 )

( -0.31 )

( 0.38 )

( 0.46 )

0.0056***

-0.0043*

0.0025*

-0.4114***

0.0008

( 3.85 )

( -2.11 )

( 2.24 )

( -3.52 )

0.124

1.6593***

1.0908**

0.0036*

-0.005*

0.0025*

-0.3765**

0.0289

( 0.49 )

( 14.74 )

( 2.61 )

( 2.48 )

( -2.48 )

( 2.29 )

( -3.26 )

0.006***

-0.0044*

0.0023

-0.014

-0.0028

0.001

0.0009

-0.4109***

0.0008

( 3.82 )

( -2.03 )

( 1.95 )

( -0.49 )

( -0.64 )

( 0.16 )

( 0.30 )

( -3.51 )

-0.0135

1.8087***

0.2095

0.0038*

-0.0052*

0.0024*

-0.0305

0.000

0.000

0.0001**

-0.0013

0.002

0.0014

-0.3728**

0.0291

( -0.05 )

( 14.73 )

( 0.43 )

( 2.43 )

( -2.40 )

( 2.00 )

( -1.00 )

( -0.53 )

( 0.37 )

( 2.85 )

( -0.30 )

( 0.33 )

( 0.47 )

( -3.22 )

1. Abbreviations: Bj is the Breadths of three braces of currency in the market J ; ABj is Announcement A- Breadths of three braces of currency in the market J ; Varj is discrepancy of three braces of currency in market J ; AVarj is Announcement A- Discrepancy of three braces of currency ; With J = GBP/USD, EUR/USD and EUR/GBP

2. Significance degrees:

* statistically important at 0.05 degree

** statistically important at 0.01 degree

*** statistically important at 0.001 degree