This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Why do the LIFFE and DTB bund futures contracts trade at different prices?

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Francis Breedon

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

The German Bund futures contract is the most important bond futures contract in Europe. It is also unusual in that it trades on competing Exchanges - LIFFE in London and the DTB in Frankfurt. This paper looks at a surprising aspect of this dually traded contract, namely that the contract trades slightly more expensively (1.5 basis points) in LIFFE than in the DTB. LIFFE argue that this price difference helps make their contract more attractive. The paper investigates three possible explanations for the price difference. First, the calculation of price factors (conversion factors that make bonds in the basket of deliverables more comparable) differs slightly between Exchanges. Second, the DTB contract carries on trading for one day longer than the LIFFE one giving the short one more days to choose which bund in the basket to deliver (the so-called quality option) and so makes the contract slightly less valuable to the trader with a long position. Third, the penalty for late delivery is harsher on LIFFE than on the DTB and so investors fearing a short squeeze (where investors that are supposed to deliver the underlying bunds cannot acquire them) will be more nervous of holding a LIFFE contract than a DTB one. It concludes that none of these factors are important enough to explain the observed price difference and so it is hard to explain why the price difference occurs.

Download Info
To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Bank of England in its series Bank of England working papers with number 57.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation:
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:boe:boeewp:57

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Publications Group Bank of England Threadneedle Street London EC2R 8AH
Phone: +44 (0)171 601 4030
Fax: +44 (0)171 601 5196
Email:
Web page: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Publications Group).

Related research
Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

Cited by:
(explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)
  1. Francis Breedon & Allison Holland, . "Electronic versus open outcry markets: The case of the Bund futures contract," Bank of England working papers 76, Bank of England. [Downloadable!]
  2. Cantillon, Estelle & Yin, Pai-Ling, 2008. "Competition between Exchanges: Lessons from the Battle of the Bund," CEPR Discussion Papers 6923, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Jo Corkish, Allison Holland and Anne Fremault Vila, . "The Determinants of Successful Financial Innovation: an Empirical Analysis of Futures Innovation on LIFFE," Bank of England working papers 70, Bank of England. [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? Use the JEL tree to browse through the database by subfields.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-27.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.