Reason behind the study: Aim/ Objective of project:

To understand accelerating economic growth, progress,

Limitation of project:
Since the project highlights strategic alliance among ASEAN nations, we are left unknown of the same carried in different groups of nations such as SAARC, EU, BRICS etc.

Methodology of data collection: 1. SECONDARY DATA

Websites

1 INTRODUCTION An economy or economic system consists of the production, distribution or trade, and consumption of limited goods and services by different agents in a given geographical location. The economic agents can be individuals, businesses, organizations, or governments. Transactions occur when two parties agree to the value or price of the transacted good or service, commonly expressed in a certain currency. In the past, economic activity was theorized to be bounded by natural resources, labor, and capital. This view ignores the value of technology (automation, accelerator of process, reduction of cost functions), and creativity (new products, services, processes, new markets, expands markets, diversification of markets, niche markets, increases revenue functions), especially that which produces intellectual property. A given economy is the result of a set of processes that involves its culture, values, education, technological evolution, history, social organization, political structure and legal systems, as well as its geography, natural resource endowment, and ecology, as main factors. These factors give context, content, and set the conditions and parameters in which an economy functions. A market-based economy is where goods and services are produced without obstruction or interference, and exchanged according to demand and supply between participants (economic agents) by barter or a medium of exchange with a credit or debit value accepted within the network, such as a unit of currency and at some free market or market clearing price. Capital and labor can move freely to any area of emerging shortage, signaled by rising price, and thus dynamically and automatically relieve any such threat. Market based economies require transparency on information, such as true prices, to work, and may include various kinds of immaterial production, such as affective labor that describes work carried out that is intended to produce or modify emotional experiences in people, but does not have a tangible, physical product as a result. A command-based economy is where a central political agent commands what is produced and how it is sold and distributed. Shortages are common problems with a command-based economy, as there is no mechanism to manage the information (prices) about the systems natural supply and demand dynamics.

Exchange Rates are determined by a number of factors, among which Interest Rates and Inflation are the most important. So, Let us Study the relationship between the Exchange Rates and the Interest Rates which can also be said to be Interest Rate Parity. Our tutors at Transtutors.com providing Finance Assignment and Homework help with utmost good quality and reasonable prices without plagiarism. Interest Rate Parity is the relationship between the exchange rate and interest rate other factors remaining constant. As per Interest rate parity, interest rates around the world should be the same. However we know that interest rates in different currencies are different. So, what brings about Parity, obviously the Forex Market brings this parity

According to IRP if one country has a lower interest rate, the other currency of that country must be at a forward premium. The quantum of forward premium or discount is given byInterest Rate Differential / Interest Rate Factor Thus, if risk free interest rate in US & India are 4% & 10% respectively, then in this scenario: $ should be at a forward premium against Rupees, approximately by (10-4) = 6% and exactly by (10-4)/1.04 = 5.77% Also, $ Should be at a forward discount against $ approximately by 6% and exactly by 6/1.1 = 5.45%

Derivation Based on the above discussion we can say that Forward Premium on $ = (10-4)/1.04 i.e. (F-S)/S = (iRs. i$)/1+i$ So, we basically arrive to a conclusion that the ratio of forward rates to the spot rates is always equal to the ratio of interest rate factors. Application of IRP The application of IRP can be discussed by dividing it into three parts. They are as follows: 1) In selecting forward cover or the money market cover for hedging purposes. 2) In appraisal of International Projects. 3) In selecting currency of borrowing or investing using IRP. In Selecting forward cover or the money market cover for hedging purposes In forward cover foreign exchange exposures are covered by a forward contract. But in money market cover a homemade forward cover is created by simultaneous borrowing and lending activities in two different currencies to lock in the home currency value of a future foreign currency cash flow. In Appraisal of International Projects In case of international projects evaluation can be done by two methods:

a) Domestic currency approach: In case of Domestic currency approach the following steps are to be followedFirst of we have to convert the foreign currency cash flow into the home currency using the expected spot rates as per the IRP. Secondly have to compute the NPV in Dollars using the Dollars discount rates. b) Foreign Currency Approach: In case of foreign currency approach the steps are as follows: Firstly have to find out the risk adjusted required rate of return in foreign currency. Then have to calculate the NPV in the foreign currency. Secondly, have to convert the foreign currency IRP into Dollars using the Spot Rates. In selecting Currency of Borrowing or Investing If IRP holds good interest rates should be same across the globe on a hedged basis. So, if there are imperfections in the market it would be corrected and the effective cost of borrowing any currency should be equal to the cost of borrowing in the home currency under a covered basis. However there are certain imperfections in cases due to the government taxes, transaction costs which lower down the cost. So, we may require computing the cost of borrowing foreign currency either in percent terms or in absolute terms.

Wiki

Interest rate parity is a no-arbitrage condition representing an equilibrium state under which investors will be indifferent to interest rates available on bank deposits in two countries. The fact that this condition does not always hold allows for potential opportunities to earn riskless profits from covered interest arbitrage. Two assumptions central to interest rate parity are capital mobility and perfect substitutability of domestic and foreign assets. Given foreign exchange market equilibrium, the interest rate parity condition implies that the expected return on domestic assets will equal the exchange rate-adjusted expected return on foreign currency assets. Investors cannot then earn arbitrage profits by borrowing in a country with a lower interest rate, exchanging for foreign currency, and investing in a foreign country with a higher interest rate, due to gains or losses from exchanging back to their domestic currency at maturity. Interest rate parity takes on two distinctive forms: uncovered interest rate parity refers to the parity condition in which exposure to foreign exchange risk (unanticipated changes in

exchange rates) is uninhibited, whereas covered interest rate parity refers to the condition in which a forward contracthas been used to cover (eliminate exposure to) exchange rate risk. Each form of the parity condition demonstrates a unique relationship with implications for the forecasting of future exchange rates: the forward exchange rate and the future spot exchange rate. Economists have found empirical evidence that covered interest rate parity generally holds, though not with precision due to the effects of various risks, costs, taxation, and ultimate differences in liquidity. When both covered and uncovered interest rate parity hold, they expose a relationship suggesting that the forward rate is an unbiased predictor of the future spot rate. This relationship can be employed to test whether uncovered interest rate parity holds, for which economists have found mixed results. When uncovered interest rate parity and purchasing power parity hold together, they illuminate a relationship named real interest rate parity, which suggests that expected real interest rates represent expected adjustments in the real exchange rate. This relationship generally holds strongly over longer terms and among emerging market countries.

Assumptions Interest rate parity rests on certain assumptions, the first being that capital is mobile - investors can readily exchange domestic assets for foreign assets. The second assumption is that assets have perfect substitutability, following from their similarities in riskiness and liquidity. Given capital mobility and perfect substitutability, investors would be expected to hold those assets offering greater returns, be they domestic or foreign assets. However, both domestic and foreign assets are held by investors. Therefore, it must be true that no difference can exist between the returns on domestic assets and the returns on foreign assets. That is not to say that domestic investors and foreign investors will earn equivalent returns, but that a single investor on any given side would expect to earn equivalent returns from either investment decision.

Uncovered interest rate parity

A visual representation of uncovered interest rate parity holding in the foreign exchange market, such that the returns from investing domestically are equal to the returns from investing abroad.

When the no-arbitrage condition is satisfied without the use of a forward contract to hedge against exposure to exchange rate risk, interest rate parity is said to be uncovered. Risk-neutral investors will be indifferent among the available interest rates in two countries because the exchange rate between those countries is expected to adjust such that the dollar return on dollar deposits is equal to the dollar return on foreign deposits, thereby eliminating the potential for uncovered interest arbitrage profits. Uncovered interest rate parity helps explain the determination of the spot exchange rate. The following equation represents uncovered interest rate parity.

where is the expected future spot exchange rate at time t + k k is the number of periods into the future from time t St is the current spot exchange rate at time t i$ is the interest rate in the US ic is the interest rate in a foreign country or currency area (for this example, following a US perspective, it is the interest rate available in the Eurozone)

The dollar return on dollar deposits, return on euro deposits,

, is shown to be equal to the dollar .

Mechanics of covered interest arbitrage

A visual representation of a simplified covered interest arbitrage scenario, ignoring compounding interest. In this numerical example the arbitrageur is guaranteed to do better than would be achieved by investing domestically. An arbitrageur executes a covered interest arbitrage strategy by exchanging domestic currency for foreign currency at the current spot exchange rate, then investing the foreign currency at the foreign interest rate. Simultaneously, the arbitrageur negotiates a forward contract to sell the amount of the future value of the foreign investment at a delivery date consistent with the foreign investment's maturitydate, to receive domestic currency in exchange for the foreign-currency funds.[4] For example, as per the chart at right consider that an investor with $5,000,000 USD is considering whether to invest abroad using a covered interest arbitrage strategy or to invest domestically. The dollar deposit interest rate is 3.4% in the United States, while the euro deposit rate is 4.6% in the euro area. The current spot exchange rate is 1.2730 $/ and the six-month forward exchange rate is 1.3000 $/. For simplicity, the example ignores compounding interest. Investing $5,000,000 USD domestically at 3.4% for six months ignoring

compounding, will result in a future value of $5,170,000 USD. However, exchanging $5,000,000 dollars for euros today, investing those euros at 4.6% for six months ignoring compounding, and exchanging the future value of euros for dollars at the forward exchange rate (on the delivery date negotiated in the forward contract), will result in $5,340,927 USD, implying that investing abroad using covered interest arbitrage is the superior alternative.

Effect of arbitrage If there were no impediments, such as transaction costs, to covered interest arbitrage, then any opportunity, however minuscule, to profit from it would immediately be exploited by many financial market participants, and the resulting pressure on domestic and forward interest rates and the forward exchange rate premium would cause one or more of these to change virtually instantaneously to eliminate the opportunity. In fact, the anticipation of such arbitrage leading to such market changes would cause these three variables to align to prevent any arbitrage opportunities from even arising in the first place: incipient arbitrage can have the same effect, but sooner, as actual arbitrage. Thus any evidence of empirical deviations from covered interest parity would have to be explained on the grounds of some friction in the financial markets. Evidence for covered interest arbitrage opportunities[edit] Economists Robert M. Dunn, Jr. and John H. Mutti note that financial markets may generate data inconsistent with interest rate parity, and that cases in which significant covered interest arbitrage profits appeared feasible were often due to assets not sharing the same perceptions of risk, the potential for double taxation due to differing policies, and investors' concerns over the imposition of foreign exchange controls cumbersome to the enforcement of forward contracts. Some covered interest arbitrage opportunities have appeared to exist when exchange rates and interest rates were collected for different periods; for example, the use of daily interest rates and daily closing exchange rates could render the illusion that arbitrage profits exist.[5] Economists have suggested an array of other factors to account for observed deviations from interest rate parity, such as differing tax treatment, differing risks, government foreign exchange controls, supply or demand inelasticity, transaction costs, and time differentials between observing and executing arbitrage opportunities. Economists Jacob Frenkel and Richard M. Levich investigated the performance of covered interest arbitrage strategies during the 1970s' flexible exchange rate regimeby examining transaction costs and differentials between observing and executing arbitrage opportunities. Using weekly data, they estimated transaction costs and evaluated their role in explaining deviations from interest rate parity and found that most deviations could be explained by transaction costs. However, accommodating transaction costs did not explain observed deviations

from covered interest rate parity between treasury bills in the United States and United Kingdom. Frenkel and Levich found that executing such transactions resulted in only illusory opportunities for arbitrage profits, and that in each execution the mean percentage of profit decreased such that there was no statistically significant difference from zero profitability. Frenkel and Levich concluded that unexploited opportunities for profit do not exist in covered interest arbitrage.[6] Using a time series dataset of daily spot and forward USD/JPY exchange rates and same-maturity short-term interest rates in both the United States and Japan, economists Johnathan A. Batten and Peter G. Szilagyi analyzed the sensitivity of forward market price differentials to short-term interest rate differentials. The researchers found evidence for substantial variation in covered interest rate parity deviations from equilibrium, attributed to transaction costs and market segmentation. They found that such deviations and arbitrage opportunities diminished significantly nearly to a point of elimination by the year 2000. Batten and Szilagyi point out that the modern reliance on electronic trading platforms and real-time equilibrium prices appear to account for the removal of the historical scale and scope of covered interest arbitrage opportunities. Further investigation of the deviations uncovered a long-term dependence, found to be consistent with other evidence of temporal long-term dependencies identified in asset returns from other financial markets including currencies, stocks, and commodities Economists Wai-Ming Fong, Giorgio Valente, and Joseph K.W. Fung, examined the relationship of covered interest rate parity arbitrage opportunities with market liquidity and credit risk using a dataset of tick-by-tick spot and forward exchange rate quotes for the Hong Kong dollar in relation to the United States dollar. Their empirical analysis demonstrates that positive deviations from covered interest rate parity indeed compensate for liquidity and credit risk. After accounting for these risk premia, the researchers demonstrated that small residual arbitrage profits accrue only to those arbitrageurs capable of negotiating low transaction costs.

arbitrage
In economics and finance, arbitrage (/rbtr/) is the practice of taking advantage of a price difference between two or more markets: striking a combination of matching deals that capitalize upon the imbalance, the profit being the difference between the market prices. When used by academics, an arbitrage is a transaction that involves no negative cash flow at any probabilistic or temporal state and a positive cash flow in at least one state; in simple terms, it is the possibility of a risk-free profit after transaction costs. For instance, an arbitrage is present when there is the opportunity to instantaneously buy low and sell high. In principle and in academic use, an arbitrage is risk-free; in common use, as in statistical arbitrage, it may refer to expected profit, though losses may occur, and in practice, there are always risks in arbitrage, some minor (such as fluctuation of prices decreasing profit margins), some major (such as devaluation of a currency or derivative). In academic use, an arbitrage involves taking advantage of differences in price of a single asset or identical cash-flows; in common use, it is also used to refer to differences between similar assets (relative value or convergence trades), as in merger arbitrage. People who engage in arbitrage are called arbitrageurs (IPA /rbtrr/) such as a bank or brokerage firm. The term is mainly applied to trading in financial instruments, such asbonds, stocks, derivatives, commodities and currencies.

Arbitrage-free If the market prices do not allow for profitable arbitrage, the prices are said to constitute an arbitrage equilibrium or arbitrage-free market. An arbitrage equilibrium is a precondition for a general economic equilibrium. The assumption that there is no arbitrage is used in quantitative finance to calculate a unique risk neutral price for derivatives.

Conditions for arbitrage

Arbitrage is possible when one of three conditions is met: 1. The same asset does not trade at the same price on all markets ("the law of one price"). 2. Two assets with identical cash flows do not trade at the same price. 3. An asset with a known price in the future does not today trade at its future price discounted at the risk-free interest rate (or, the asset has significant costs of storage; as such, for example, this condition holds for grain but not for securities). Arbitrage is not simply the act of buying a product in one market and selling it in another for a higher price at some later time. The transactions must occur simultaneously to avoid exposure to market risk, or the risk that prices may change on one market before both transactions are complete. In practical terms, this is generally possible only with securities and financial products that can be traded electronically, and even then, when each leg of the trade is executed the prices in the market may have moved. Missing one of the legs of the trade (and subsequently having to trade it soon after at a worse price) is called 'execution risk' or more specifically 'leg risk'. In the simplest example, any good sold in one market should sell for the same price in another. Traders may, for example, find that the price of wheat is lower in agricultural regions than in cities, purchase the good, and transport it to another region to sell at a higher price. This type of price arbitrage is the most common, but this simple example ignores the cost of transport, storage, risk, and other factors. "True" arbitrage requires that there be no market risk involved. Where securities are traded on more than one exchange, arbitrage occurs by simultaneously buying in one and selling on the other. See rational pricing, particularly arbitrage mechanics, for further discussion. Mathematically it is defined as follows: where and denotes the portfolio value at time t.

Examples

Suppose that an exchange rate (after taking out the fees for making the exchange) in London is 5 = 1000 and the exchange rate in Tokyo is 1000 = 6. Converting 2000 to 12 in Tokyo and converting that 12 into 2400 in London, for a profit of 400, would be arbitrage. In reality, this arbitrage is so simple that it almost never occurs. But more complicated foreign exchange arbitrages, such as the spot-forward arbitrage (see interest rate parity) are much more common. One example of arbitrage involves the New York Stock Exchange and the Security Futures Exchange OneChicago (OCX). When the price of a stock on

the NYSE and its corresponding futures contract on OCX are out of sync, one can buy the less expensive one and sell it on the more expensive market. Because the differences between the prices are likely to be small (and not to last very long), this can be done profitably only with computers examining a large number of prices and automatically exercising a trade when the prices are far enough out of balance. The activity of other arbitrageurs can make this risky. Those with the fastest computers (i.e. lowest latencies to respond to the market) and the most expertise take advantage of series of small differences that would not be profitable if taken individually.

Economists use the term "global labor arbitrage" to refer to the tendency of manufacturing jobs to flow towards whichever country has the lowest wages per unit output at present and has reached the minimum requisite level of political and economic development to support industrialization. At present, many such jobs appear to be flowing towardsChina, though some that require command of English are going to India and the Philippines. In popular terms, this is referred to as offshoring. (Note that "offshoring" is not synonymous with "outsourcing", which means "to subcontract from an outside supplier or source", such as when a business outsources its payroll or cleaning. Unlike offshoring, outsourcing always involves subcontracting jobs to a different company, and that company can be in the same country, even the same building, as the outsourcing company.) Sports arbitrage numerous internet bookmakers offer odds on the outcome of the same event. Any given bookmaker will weight their odds so that no one customer can cover all outcomes at a profit against their books. However, in order to remain competitive they must keep margins usually quite low. Different bookmakers may offer different odds on the same outcome of a given event; by taking the best odds offered by each bookmaker, a customer can under some circumstances cover all possible outcomes of the event and lock a small risk-free profit, known as a Dutch book. This profit will typically be between 1% and 5% but can be much higher. One problem with sports arbitrage is that bookmakers sometimes make mistakes and this can lead to an invocation of the 'palpable error' rule, which most bookmakers invoke when they have made a mistake by offering or posting incorrect odds. As bookmakers become more proficient, the odds of making an 'arb' usually last for less than an hour and typically only a few minutes. Furthermore, huge bets on one side of the market also alert the bookies to correct the market.

Exchange-traded fund arbitrage Exchange Traded Funds allow authorized participants to exchange back and forth between shares in underlying securities held by the fund and shares in the fund itself, rather than allowing the buying and selling of shares in the ETF directly with the fund sponsor. ETFs trade in the open market, with prices set by market demand. An ETF may trade at a premium or discount to the value of the underlying assets. When a significant enough premium appears, an arbitrageur will buy the underlying securities, convert them to shares in the ETF, and sell them in the open market. When a discount appears, an arbitrageur will do the reverse. In this way, the arbitrageur makes a low-risk profit, while keeping ETF prices in line with their underlying value. Some types of hedge funds make use of a modified form of arbitrage to profit. Rather than exploiting price differences between identical assets, they will purchase and sell securities, assets and derivatives with similar characteristics, and hedge any significant differences between the two assets. Any difference between the hedged positions represents any remaining risk (such as basis risk) plus profit; the belief is that there remains some difference which, even after hedging most risk, represents pure profit. For example, a fund may see that there is a substantial difference between U.S. dollar debt and local currency debt of a foreign country, and enter into a series of matching trades (including currency swaps) to arbitrage the difference, while simultaneously entering into credit default swaps to protect against country risk and other types of specific risk. Google uses the term arbitrage to label certain advertisers who litter their website with ads. Google doesn't allow them to advertise with them because the advertiser would be making more to host these ads on their site than Google would be making from the single click.

Price convergence
Arbitrage has the effect of causing prices in different markets to converge. As a result of arbitrage, the currency exchange rates, the price of commodities, and the price of securities in different markets tend to converge. The speed at which they do so is a measure of market efficiency. Arbitrage tends to reduce price discrimination by encouraging people to buy an item where the price is low and resell it where the price is high (as long as the buyers are not prohibited from reselling and the transaction costs of buying, holding and reselling are small relative to the difference in prices in the different markets). Arbitrage moves different currencies toward purchasing power parity. As an example, assume that a car purchased in the United States is cheaper than the same car in Canada. Canadians would buy their cars across the border to exploit the arbitrage condition. At the same time, Americans would buy US cars, transport them across the border, then sell them in Canada. Canadians would have to buy American dollars to buy the cars and Americans would have to sell the Canadian dollars they received in exchange. Both actions would increase demand for US dollars and supply of Canadian dollars. As a result, there would be an appreciation of the US currency. This would make US cars more expensive and Canadian cars less so until their prices were similar. On a larger scale, international arbitrage opportunities in commodities, goods, securities and currencies tend to changeexchange rates until the purchasing power is equal. In reality, most assets exhibit some difference between countries. These, transaction costs, taxes, and other costs provide an impediment to this kind of arbitrage. Similarly, arbitrage affects the difference in interest rates paid on government bonds issued by the various countries, given the expected depreciations in the currencies relative to each other (see interest rate parity).

Risks
Arbitrage transactions in modern securities markets involve fairly low day-today risks, but can face extremely high risk in rare situations, particularly financial crises, and can lead to bankruptcy. Formally, arbitrage transactions have negative skew prices can get a small amount closer (but often no closer than 0), while they can get very far apart. The day-to-day risks are generally small because the transactions involve small differences in price, so an execution failure will generally cause a small loss (unless the trade is very big or the price moves rapidly). The rare case risks are extremely high because these small price differences are converted to large profits via leverage (borrowed money), and in the rare event of a large price move, this may yield a large loss. The main day-to-day risk is that part of the transaction fails execution risk. The main rare risks are counterparty risk and liquidity risk that a counterparty to a large transaction or many transactions fails to pay, or that one is required to post margin and does not have the money to do so. In the academic literature, the idea that seemingly very low risk arbitrage trades might not be fully exploited because of these risk factors and other considerations is often referred to as limits to arbitrage

Execution risk
Generally it is impossible to close two or three transactions at the same instant; therefore, there is the possibility that when one part of the deal is closed, a quick shift in prices makes it impossible to close the other at a profitable price. However, this is not necessarily the case. Many exchanges and inter-dealer brokers allow multi legged trades (e.g. basis block trades on LIFFE). Competition in the marketplace can also create risks during arbitrage transactions. As an example, if one was trying to profit from a price discrepancy between IBM on the NYSE and IBM on the London Stock Exchange, they may purchase a large number of shares on the NYSE and find that they cannot simultaneously sell on the LSE. This leaves the arbitrageur in an unhedged risk position. In the 1980s, risk arbitrage was common. In this form of speculation, one trades a security that is clearly undervalued or overvalued, when it is seen that the wrong valuation is about to be corrected by events. The standard example is the stock of a company, undervalued in the stock market, which is about to be the object of a takeover bid; the price of the takeover will more truly reflect the value of the company, giving a large profit to those who bought at the current priceif the merger goes through as predicted. Traditionally, arbitrage transactions in the securities markets involve high speed, high volume and low risk. At some moment a price difference exists, and the problem is to execute two or three balancing transactions while the difference persists (that is, before the other arbitrageurs act). When the transaction involves a delay of weeks or

months, as above, it may entail considerable risk if borrowed money is used to magnify the reward through leverage. One way of reducing the risk is through the illegal use of inside information, and in fact risk arbitrage with regard to leveraged buyouts was associated with some of the famous financial scandals of the 1980s such as those involving Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky.

Mismatch
Another risk occurs if the items being bought and sold are not identical and the arbitrage is conducted under the assumption that the prices of the items are correlated or predictable; this is more narrowly referred to as a convergence trade. In the extreme case this is merger arbitrage, described below. In comparison to the classical quick arbitrage transaction, such an operation can produce disastrous losses.

Counterparty risk
As arbitrages generally involve future movements of cash, they are subject to counterparty risk: if counterparty fails to fulfill their side of a transaction. This is a serious problem if one has either a single trade or many related trades with a single counterparty, whose failure thus poses a threat, or in the event of a financial crisis when many counterparties fail. This hazard is serious because of the large quantities one must trade in order to make a profit on small price differences. For example, if one purchases many risky bonds, then hedges them with CDSes, profiting from the difference between the bond spread and the CDS premium, in a financial crisis the bonds may default and the CDS writer/seller may itself fail, due to the stress of the crisis, causing the arbitrageur to face steep losses.

Liquidity risk
Arbitrage trades are necessarily synthetic, leveraged trades, as they involve a short position. If the assets used are not identical (so a price divergence makes the trade temporarily lose money), or the margin treatment is not identical, and the trader is accordingly required to post margin (faces a margin call), the trader may run out of capital (if they run out of cash and cannot borrow more) and be forced to sell these assets at a loss even though the trades may be expected to ultimately make money. In effect, arbitrage traders synthesize a put option on their ability to finance themselves. Prices may diverge during a financial crisis, often termed a "flight to quality"; these are precisely the times when it is hardest for leveraged investors to raise capital (due to overall capital constraints), and thus they will lack capital precisely when they need it most.

Types of arbitrage Spatial arbitrage

Also known as Geographical arbitrage is the simplest form of arbitrage. In case of spatial arbitrage an arbs (arbitrageurs) looks for pricing discrepancies across geographically separate markets. For example, there may be a bond dealer in Virginia is offering a bond at 100-12/23 and a dealer in Washington is bidding 100-15/23 for the same bond. For whatever reason, the two dealers have not spotted the aberration in the prices, but the arbs does. The arb immediately buys the bond from the Virginia dealer and sells it to the Washington dealer.

Merger arbitrage
Also called risk arbitrage, merger arbitrage generally consists of buying/holding the stock of a company that is the target of a takeover while shorting the stock of the acquiring company. Usually the market price of the target company is less than the price offered by the acquiring company. The spread between these two prices depends mainly on the probability and the timing of the takeover being completed as well as the prevailing level of interest rates. The bet in a merger arbitrage is that such a spread will eventually be zero, if and when the takeover is completed. The risk is that the deal "breaks" and the spread massively widens.

Municipal bond arbitrage

Also called municipal bond relative value arbitrage, municipal arbitrage, or just muni arb, this hedge fund strategy involves one of two approaches. Generally, managers seek relative value opportunities by being both long and short municipal bonds with a duration-neutral book. The relative value trades may be between different issuers, different bonds issued by the same entity, or capital structure trades referencing the same asset (in the case of revenue bonds). Managers aim to capture the inefficiencies arising from the heavy participation of non-economic investors (i.e., high income "buy and hold" investors seeking tax-exempt income) as well as the "crossover buying" arising from corporations' or individuals' changing income tax situations (i.e., insurers switching their munis for corporates after a large loss as they can capture a higher after-tax yield by offsetting the taxable corporate income with underwriting losses). There are additional inefficiencies arising from the highly fragmented nature of the municipal bond market which has two million outstanding issues and 50,000 issuers in contrast to the Treasury market which has 400 issues and a single issuer.

Second, managers construct leveraged portfolios of AAA- or AA-rated taxexempt municipal bonds with the duration risk hedged by shorting the appropriate ratio of taxable corporate bonds. These corporate equivalents are typically interest rate swaps referencing Libor or SIFMA. The arbitrage manifests itself in the form of a relatively cheap longer maturity municipal bond, which is a municipal bond that yields significantly more than 65% of a corresponding taxable corporate bond. The steeper slope of the municipal yield curve allows participants to collect more after-tax income from the municipal bond portfolio than is spent on the interest rate swap; the carry is greater than the hedge expense. Positive, tax-free carry from muni arb can reach into the double digits. The bet in this municipal bond arbitrage is that, over a longer period of time, two similar instrumentsmunicipal bonds and interest rate swapswill correlate with each other; they are both very high quality credits, have the same maturity and are denominated in U.S. dollars. Credit risk and duration risk are largely eliminated in this strategy. However, basis risk arises from use of an imperfect hedge, which results in significant, but range-bound principal volatility. The end goal is to limit this principal volatility, eliminating its relevance over time as the high, consistent, tax-free cash flow accumulates. Since the inefficiency is related to government tax policy, and hence is structural in nature, it has not been arbitraged away. Note, however, that many municipal bonds are callable, and that this imposes substantial additional risks to the strategy.

Convertible bond arbitrage

A convertible bond is a bond that an investor can return to the issuing company in exchange for a predetermined number of shares in the company. A convertible bond can be thought of as a corporate bond with a stock call option attached to it. The price of a convertible bond is sensitive to three major factors: interest rate. When rates move higher, the bond part of a convertible bond tends to move lower, but the call option part of a convertible bond moves higher (and the aggregate tends to move lower). stock price. When the price of the stock the bond is convertible into moves higher, the price of the bond tends to rise. credit spread. If the creditworthiness of the issuer deteriorates (e.g. rating downgrade) and its credit spread widens, the bond price tends to move lower, but, in many cases, the call option part of the convertible bond moves higher (since credit spread correlates with volatility). Given the complexity of the calculations involved and the convoluted structure that a convertible bond can have, an arbitrageur often relies on sophisticated quantitative models in order to identify bonds that are trading cheap versus their theoretical value.

Convertible arbitrage consists of buying a convertible bond and hedging two of the three factors in order to gain exposure to the third factor at a very attractive price. For instance an arbitrageur would first buy a convertible bond, then sell fixed income securities or interest rate futures (to hedge the interest rate exposure) and buy some credit protection (to hedge the risk of credit deterioration). Eventually what he'd be left with is something similar to a call option on the underlying stock, acquired at a very low price. He could then make money either selling some of the more expensive options that are openly traded in the market or delta hedging his exposure to the underlying shares.

Depository receipts
A depositary receipt is a security that is offered as a "tracking stock" on another foreign market. For instance a Chinese company wishing to raise more money may issue a depository receipt on the New York Stock Exchange, as the amount of capital on the local exchanges is limited. These securities, known as ADRs (American depositary receipt) or GDRs (global depository receipt) depending on where they are issued, are typically considered "foreign" and therefore trade at a lower value when first released. Many ADR's are exchangeable into the original security (known as fungibility) and actually have the same value. In this case there is a spread between the perceived value and real value, which can be extracted. Other ADR's that are not exchangeable often have much larger spreads. Since the ADR is trading at a value lower than what it is worth, one can purchase the ADR and expect to make money as its value converges on the original. However there is a chance that the original stock will fall in value too, so by shorting it one can hedge that risk.

Dual-listed companies
A dual-listed company (DLC) structure involves two companies incorporated in different countries contractually agreeing to operate their businesses as if they were a single enterprise, while retaining their separate legal identity and existing stock exchange listings. In integrated and efficient financial markets, stock prices of the twin pair should move in lockstep. In practice, DLC share prices exhibit large deviations from theoretical parity. Arbitrage positions in DLCs can be set up by obtaining a long position in the relatively underpriced part of the DLC and a short position in the relatively overpriced part. Such arbitrage strategies start paying off as soon as the relative prices of the two DLC stocks converge toward theoretical parity. However, since there is no identifiable date at which DLC prices will converge, arbitrage positions sometimes have to be kept open for considerable periods of time. In the meantime, the price gap might widen. In these situations, arbitrageurs may receive margin calls, after which they would most likely be forced to liquidate part of the position at a highly unfavorable moment and suffer a loss. Arbitrage in DLCs may be profitable, but is also very risky.

A good illustration of the risk of DLC arbitrage is the position in Royal Dutch Shellwhich had a DLC structure until 2005by the hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management(LTCM, see also the discussion below). Lowenstein (2000) describes that LTCM established an arbitrage position in Royal Dutch Shell in the summer of 1997, when Royal Dutch traded at an 8 to 10 percent premium. In total $2.3 billion was invested, half of which long in Shell and the other half short in Royal Dutch (Lowenstein, p. 99). In the autumn of 1998 large defaults on Russian debt created significant losses for the hedge fund and LTCM had to unwind several positions. Lowenstein reports that the premium of Royal Dutch had increased to about 22 percent and LTCM had to close the position and incur a loss. According to Lowenstein (p. 234), LTCM lost $286 million in equity pairs trading and more than half of this loss is accounted for by the Royal Dutch Shell trade.

Private to public equities

The market prices for privately held companies are typically viewed from a return on investment perspective (such as 25%), whilst publicly held and or exchange listed companies trade on a Price to earnings ratio (P/E) (such as a P/E of 10, which equates to a 10% ROI). Thus, if a publicly traded company specialises in the acquisition of privately held companies, from a per-share perspective there is a gain with every acquisition that falls within these guidelines. Exempli gratia, Berkshire Hathaway. A hedge fund that is an example of this type of arbitrage is Greenridge Capital, which acts as an angel investor retaining equity in private companies which are in the process of becoming publicly traded, buying in the private market and later selling in the public market. Private to public equities arbitrage is a term which can arguably be applied to investment banking in general. Private markets to public markets differences may also help explain the overnight windfall gains enjoyed by principals of companies that just did an initial public offering (IPO).

Regulatory arbitrage
Regulatory arbitrage is where a regulated institution takes advantage of the difference between its real (or economic) risk and the regulatory position. For example, if a bank, operating under the Basel I accord, has to hold 8% capital against default risk, but the real risk of default is lower, it is profitable

to securitise the loan, removing the low risk loan from its portfolio. On the other hand, if the real risk is higher than the regulatory risk then it is profitable to make that loan and hold on to it, provided it is priced appropriately. This process can increase the overall riskiness of institutions under a risk insensitive regulatory regime, as described by Alan Greenspan in his October 1998 speech on The Role of Capital in Optimal Banking Supervision and Regulation. Regulatory Arbitrage was used for the first time in 2005 when it was applied by Scott V. Simpson, a partner at law firm Skadden, Arps, to refer to a new defence tactic in hostile mergers and acquisitions where differing takeover regimes in deals involving multi-jurisdictions are exploited to the advantage of a target company under threat. In economics, regulatory arbitrage (sometimes, tax arbitrage) may be used to refer to situations when a company can choose a nominal place of business with a regulatory, legal or tax regime with lower costs. For example, an insurance company may choose to locate in Bermuda due to preferential tax rates and policies for insurance companies. This can occur particularly where the business transaction has no obvious physical location: in the case of many financial products, it may be unclear "where" the transaction occurs. Regulatory arbitrage can include restructuring a bank by outsourcing services such as IT. The outsourcing company takes over the installations, buying out the bank's assets and charges a periodic service fee back to the bank. This frees up cashflow usable for new lending by the bank. The bank will have higher IT costs, but counts on the multiplier effect ofmoney creation and the interest rate spread to make it a profitable exercise.

Example: Suppose the bank sells its IT installations for 40 million USD. With a reserve ratio of 10%, the bank can create 400 million USD in additional loans (there is a time lag, and the bank has to expect to recover the loaned money back into its books). The bank can often lend (and securitize the loan) to the IT services company to cover the acquisition cost of the IT installations. This can be at preferential rates, as the sole client using the IT installation is the bank. If the bank can generate 5% interest margin on the 400 million of new loans, the bank will increase interest revenues by 20 million. The IT services company is

free to leverage their balance sheet as aggressively as they and their banker agree to. This is the reason behind the trend towards outsourcing in the financial sector. Without this money creation benefit, it is actually more expensive to outsource the IT operations as the outsourcing adds a layer of management and increases overhead. Telecom arbitrage Telecom arbitrage companies allow phone users to make international calls for free through certain access numbers. Such services are offered in the United Kingdom; the telecommunication arbitrage companies get paid an interconnect charge by the UK mobile networks and then buy international routes at a lower cost. The calls are seen as free by the UK contract mobile phone customers since they are using up their allocated monthly minutes rather than paying for additional calls. Such services were previously offered in the United States by companies such as FuturePhone.com. These services would operate in rural telephone exchanges, primarily in small towns in the state of Iowa. In these areas, the local telephone carriers are allowed to charge a high "termination fee" to the caller's carrier in order to fund the cost of providing service to the small and sparsely populated areas that they serve. However, FuturePhone (as well as other similar services) ceased operations upon legal challenges from AT&T and other service providers.

Statistical arbitrage Statistical arbitrage is an imbalance in expected nominal values. A casino has a statistical arbitrage in every game of chance that it offersreferred to as the house advantage, house edge, vigorish or house vigorish.

The debacle of Long-Term Capital Management Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) lost 4.6 billion U.S. dollars in fixed income arbitrage in September 1998. LTCM had attempted to make money on the price difference between different bonds. For example, it would sell U.S. Treasury securities and buy Italian bond futures. The concept was that because Italian bond futures had a less liquid market, in the short term Italian bond futures would have a higher return than U.S. bonds, but in the long term, the prices would converge. Because the difference was small, a large amount of money had to be borrowed to make the buying and selling profitable. The downfall in this system began on August 17, 1998, when Russia defaulted on its ruble debt and domestic dollar debt. Because the markets were already nervous due to theAsian financial crisis, investors began selling non-U.S. treasury debt and buying U.S. treasuries, which were considered a safe investment. As a result the price on US treasuries began to increase and the return began decreasing because there were many buyers, and the return (yield) on other bonds began to increase because there were many sellers (i.e. the price of those bonds fell). This caused the difference between the prices of U.S. treasuries and other bonds to increase, rather than to decrease as LTCM was expecting. Eventually this caused LTCM to fold, and their creditors had to arrange a bail-out. More controversially, officials of the Federal Reserve assisted in the negotiations that led to this bail-out, on the grounds that so many companies and deals were intertwined with LTCM that if LTCM actually failed, they would as well, causing a collapse in confidence in the economic system. Thus LTCM failed as a fixed income arbitrage fund, although it is unclear what sort of profit was realized by the banks that bailed LTCM out.

Limitations of Arbitrage
Although riskless profit through the act of arbitrage can be calculated mathematically and through models, there are several real world limitations of

arbitrage from an efficiency standpoint. Firstly, although equities and securities can often be traded on seconds notice, commodities subject to traditional arbitrage methods run the risk of transportation and expiration costs. Likewise, many services in western developed nations are not subject to arbitrage due to the practical concern of localism. Although a haircut in London may cost an individual less money after relative purchasing power parity comparisons, it would be unrealistic to assume that an individual from New York would fly across the Atlantic ocean to exercise the difference in price. Furthermore, arbitrage opportunities are inherently transient. When price discrepancies exist arbitrageurs immediately begin to take advantage of them and the result is that prices generally converge to their "correct" value. As such, opportunities for abnormal profits without taking abnormal risks vanish quickly in open markets.