期权市场的效率与套利策略:一项元分析

IF 2.7 4区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS
Saeed Fathi, Zeinab Fazelian
{"title":"期权市场的效率与套利策略:一项元分析","authors":"Saeed Fathi, Zeinab Fazelian","doi":"10.1108/ijoem-06-2022-0935","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>The empirical studies of the options market efficiency have reported contradictory results, which sometimes confuse practitioners and academicians. The aim of this study was to clarify several aspects of options market efficiency by exploring the answers to two main questions: Under what conditions is the options market more efficient? Are the discrepancies in the estimated efficiency due to the reality of efficiency or mismeasurement?</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>Using a meta-analysis approach, 54 studies have been analyzed, which included 1,315 tests. The sum of the observations for all of the tests is 3.7 m observation sets. The effect size (type r) has been used to compare the different statistics in different studies. The cumulative effect size and its diversification have been calculated by the random effects model and Q statistic, respectively.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>The most interesting finding of the study was that the options market, in all circumstances, is significantly inefficient. Another important finding was that the heterogeneity of options market efficiency is due to the complexity of pricing relations, test time, violation index and price type. To overcome this heterogeneity and accuracy, future studies should test the no-arbitrage options pricing relations at different times and by different price types, using complex and simple pricing relations and either mean violation or violation ratio efficiency measures.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>Public disagreement about the options market efficiency in past studies means that this variable is heterogeneous in different conditions. As a significant contribution, this study develops the literature by proposing the causes of options market efficiency heterogeneity.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":47381,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Emerging Markets","volume":"48 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficiency of the options market and arbitrage strategy: a meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Saeed Fathi, Zeinab Fazelian\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/ijoem-06-2022-0935\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Purpose</h3>\\n<p>The empirical studies of the options market efficiency have reported contradictory results, which sometimes confuse practitioners and academicians. The aim of this study was to clarify several aspects of options market efficiency by exploring the answers to two main questions: Under what conditions is the options market more efficient? Are the discrepancies in the estimated efficiency due to the reality of efficiency or mismeasurement?</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\\n<p>Using a meta-analysis approach, 54 studies have been analyzed, which included 1,315 tests. The sum of the observations for all of the tests is 3.7 m observation sets. The effect size (type r) has been used to compare the different statistics in different studies. The cumulative effect size and its diversification have been calculated by the random effects model and Q statistic, respectively.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Findings</h3>\\n<p>The most interesting finding of the study was that the options market, in all circumstances, is significantly inefficient. Another important finding was that the heterogeneity of options market efficiency is due to the complexity of pricing relations, test time, violation index and price type. To overcome this heterogeneity and accuracy, future studies should test the no-arbitrage options pricing relations at different times and by different price types, using complex and simple pricing relations and either mean violation or violation ratio efficiency measures.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\\n<p>Public disagreement about the options market efficiency in past studies means that this variable is heterogeneous in different conditions. As a significant contribution, this study develops the literature by proposing the causes of options market efficiency heterogeneity.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\",\"PeriodicalId\":47381,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Emerging Markets\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Emerging Markets\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoem-06-2022-0935\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Emerging Markets","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoem-06-2022-0935","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 对期权市场效率的实证研究报告了一些相互矛盾的结果,有时会让从业人员和学术界人士感到困惑。本研究旨在通过探讨两个主要问题的答案,澄清期权市场效率的几个方面:在什么条件下期权市场更有效率?估计效率的差异是由于效率的实际情况还是测量误差造成的?设计/方法/途径采用元分析方法,分析了 54 项研究,其中包括 1,315 次测试。所有测试的观察结果总和为 370 万个观察集。效应大小(r 型)用于比较不同研究中的不同统计数据。研究结果最有趣的发现是,期权市场在任何情况下都明显缺乏效率。另一个重要发现是,期权市场效率的异质性是由定价关系、测试时间、违规指数和价格类型的复杂性造成的。为了克服这种异质性和准确性,未来的研究应该在不同的时间和不同的价格类型下,使用复杂和简单的定价关系以及平均违规或违规比率效率指标来测试无套利期权定价关系。 原创性/价值以往研究中关于期权市场效率的公开分歧意味着这一变量在不同条件下是异质性的。作为一项重大贡献,本研究通过提出期权市场效率异质性的原因,对文献进行了发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficiency of the options market and arbitrage strategy: a meta-analysis

Purpose

The empirical studies of the options market efficiency have reported contradictory results, which sometimes confuse practitioners and academicians. The aim of this study was to clarify several aspects of options market efficiency by exploring the answers to two main questions: Under what conditions is the options market more efficient? Are the discrepancies in the estimated efficiency due to the reality of efficiency or mismeasurement?

Design/methodology/approach

Using a meta-analysis approach, 54 studies have been analyzed, which included 1,315 tests. The sum of the observations for all of the tests is 3.7 m observation sets. The effect size (type r) has been used to compare the different statistics in different studies. The cumulative effect size and its diversification have been calculated by the random effects model and Q statistic, respectively.

Findings

The most interesting finding of the study was that the options market, in all circumstances, is significantly inefficient. Another important finding was that the heterogeneity of options market efficiency is due to the complexity of pricing relations, test time, violation index and price type. To overcome this heterogeneity and accuracy, future studies should test the no-arbitrage options pricing relations at different times and by different price types, using complex and simple pricing relations and either mean violation or violation ratio efficiency measures.

Originality/value

Public disagreement about the options market efficiency in past studies means that this variable is heterogeneous in different conditions. As a significant contribution, this study develops the literature by proposing the causes of options market efficiency heterogeneity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
14.80%
发文量
206
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信