|
|
|
|
|
|
by qubex
3091 days ago
|
|
|
That’s actually a bit of a loaded argument... we assert that all arbitrage profit must be at least counterbalanced by various kinds of risk (including liquidity risk, counterparts risk, & cetera) because we're assuming that we're operating in an efficient market. We should actually reason the opposite way around: analytically evaluate all sources of risk, compare it to the expected profit, and if the latter is no greater than the former, deduce that we are in an efficient market. |
|
|
Arbitrage is, by definition, the refutation of a strong-form efficient market [1].
> liquidity risk, counterparts risk
The presence of these risks betrays the absence of a true arbitrage. A pure arbitrage involves simultaneous execution, thereby negating liquidity risk. It also involves instantaneous settlement, thereby negating counterparty risk. In the real world, I've only seen it in specialized real-time foreign exchange and money markets.
The risk you can't get rid of is the "risk-free" risk. If the U.S. government blows up, you will not make money on your triangular arbitrage [2].
> analytically evaluate all sources of risk, compare it to the expected profit, and if the latter is no greater than the former, deduce that we are in an efficient market
This is an interesting area of theoretical finance [3]. It is practically useless. There is no list of "all sources of risk," much less any way to price it.
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/strongform.asp
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_arbitrage
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_prices