[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Next Article in Journal
Impact of Information and Communication Technology Infrastructure on Economic Growth: An Empirical Assessment for the EU Countries
Next Article in Special Issue
An Event Study Analysis of Political Events, Disasters, and Accidents for Chinese Tourists to Taiwan
Previous Article in Journal
Challenges and Opportunities of a Forthcoming Strategic Assessment of the Implications of International Climate Change Mitigation Commitments for Individual Undertakings in Canada
Previous Article in Special Issue
Financial Credit Risk Evaluation Based on Core Enterprise Supply Chains
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 10
Issue 10
10.3390/su10103748
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Why Are Warrant Markets Sustained in Taiwan but Not in China?

by
Wing-Keung Wong
1,2,3,4,
Hooi Hooi Lean
5,
Michael McAleer
6,7,8,9,10 and
Feng-Tse Tsai
6,*
1
Department of Finance, Fintech Center, and Big Data Research Center, Asia University, Taichung City 41354, Taiwan
2
Department of Medical Research, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung City 404, Taiwan
3
Department of Economics and Finance, Hang Seng Management College, Hong Kong, China
4
Department of Economics, Lingnan University, Hong Kong, China
5
Economics Program, School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Gelugor, Malaysia
6
Department of Finance, Asia University, Taichung City 41354, Taiwan
7
Discipline of Business Analytics, University of Sydney Business School, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
8
Econometric Institute, Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands
9
Department of Quantitative Economics, Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain
10
Institute of Advanced Sciences, Yokohama National University, Yokohama 240-8501, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2018, 10(10), 3748; https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103748
Submission received: 12 September 2018 / Revised: 10 October 2018 / Accepted: 14 October 2018 / Published: 17 October 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainability of the Theories Developed by Mathematical Finance and Mathematical Economics with Applications)
Browse Figure
Figure 1
<p>Ascending DD statistics distribution for C23-T33. Note: <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>T</mi> <mi>j</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> is the test statistic defined in (3) for <span class="html-italic">j</span> = 1, 2 and 3. <span class="html-italic">F</span> and <span class="html-italic">G</span> are the CDFs of the excess warrant returns for C23 and T33, respectively.</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This paper uses moment analysis, capital asset pricing model (CAPM) statistics, stochastic dominance (SD) test, and volume analysis to investigating why the market for Taiwan warrants can be sustained but not in China. Our moment analysis shows that buying in China warrants has a higher likelihood of losses. Our CAPM analysis shows that both the Sharpe ratio and Jensen index for warrants from the Chinese market are too negative. The Treynor index shows that Chinese warrants are highly volatile. Our SD analysis shows that risk averters prefer to invest in Chinese warrants compared to Taiwanese warrants, implying that the warrant issuers prefer to issue Taiwanese warrants than Chinese warrants. Using volume analysis, the Chinese warrant market is much more active, implying more speculative activities in China than in Taiwan. All the above could lead to China’s decision to close its warrant market. The findings in the paper are useful for academics, investors, and policy makers.

1. Introduction

This paper compares investor preferences between the two largest warrant markets in Greater China, namely Mainland China and Taiwan. Both markets are politically, economically, and financially competitive, and always seem to be catching the eyes of the world. The comparison period was chosen such that China was experiencing reforms and opening up the securities market, while Taiwan was in the process of party rotation and economic transformation.
Warrants are one of the most commonly traded financial products in financial markets internationally. China has been developing its stock markets very well, to be one of the largest stock markets in the world, while the Taiwanese stock market is much smaller, being ranked in the top 20 stock exchanges, according to various international databases (see, for example, http://www.visualcapitalist.com/20-largest-stock-exchanges-world/). On the other hand, the market for warrants, which was initiated in 1997, is financially successful in Taiwan, while the market for warrants in China, which was initiated in 2004, was prevalent in Mainland China, especially in 2006, but closed in 2010. For this reason, among others, it is interesting to study why the market of warrants in China was prevalent in Mainland China, especially in 2006, but closed in 2010.
Most of the warrants traded in China by the end of 2008 were covered warrants, connected with the flotation of non-tradable shares (the Chinese share reform started in 2005, with two share types, tradable shares and non-tradable shares, before the reform). The unique characteristics of Chinese warrants and irrational investor behavior in the Chinese warrant market are important in the financial literature. Therefore, it is interesting to study investor performance and risk preference in the Chinese warrant market. In the case of warrants in China, the warrants can be calls or puts.
When call options are exercised by investors, non-tradable shares are issued by the Chinese company, leaving the total number of outstanding shares unchanged. Therefore, there is no issue about dilution of earnings when warrants are exercised. In this aspect, warrants in China are similar to covered warrants in Europe and Asia. However, covered warrants in Europe and Asia are issued by third parties, such as banks, whereas in China, most warrants are issued by separate companies.
After the stock reforms in 2005, China’s equity warrants market became the second largest in the world in terms of trading value, after Germany, surpassing Hong Kong in 2006. The growth in the warrants market in China has been constrained by the gradual expiration of reform-related warrants, excessive speculation, and a lack of understanding of the warrants market by its participants. The mechanism for creating special warrants designed as a transition to the development of covered warrants has been under hot debate. A more refined regulatory framework and a stronger institutional investor base are needed, and are prerequisites for a smoothly-functioning warrants market.
In order to foster the long-term development of the warrants market in China, financial experts have argued that issuing covered warrants is crucial, together with proper regulation. Domestic brokerages and exchanges have been lobbying the Chinese government to approve the issuance of covered warrants in a more formal setting. Securities firms argue that allowing brokers to launch covered warrants will significantly boost supply. That is, it is expected that the covered warrants will help in pricing securities more efficiently, thereby increasing the market depth of both the warrant and underlying stock markets. At the same time, it may effectively help curb the current speculative sentiment in China’s financial markets.
The split-share structure was a legacy of China’s initial share issue privatization (SIP), in which state-owned enterprises (SOEs) went public to issue minority tradable shares to institutional and individual investors. On the other hand, the Chinese government withheld control of these listed SOEs by owning majority non-tradable shares. Although the split-share structure played a positive role in facilitating the SIP, it jeopardized China’s continued privatization efforts by restricting the tradability of state-owned shares in the secondary market, and also caused serious corporate governance problems, encouraged speculation in the stock market, and blocked mergers and acquisitions.
In 2005, the Split-Share Structure Reform was initiated to dismantle the dual share structure by converting non-tradable shares into tradable shares. The reform effectively removed the legal and technical obstacles of transferring state-owned shares to public investors, opening up the gate to China’s secondary privatization which, in contrast to the initial SIP, would further liberalize state-owned shares in full circulation.
However, there have been very few studies, if any, comparing the Chinese and Taiwanese warrant markets in which both the main participants of securities markets are individual investors or corporate investors. The Taiwanese warrant market was established in 1997, while the Chinese warrant market began in 2004. The background of the developing warrant market in Taiwan is to provide diversified investment and hedging tools compared with a tool of compensation in the share reforms in China. The Chinese warrant market became the largest warrant market in the world in terms of trading volume in 2006, shortly after its inception. In 2006, the Taiwanese warrant market was ranked at number 9 according to the total trading volume provided by the World Federation of Exchanges (WFE).
Although Greater China shares a common culture, the background of developing warrant markets are different in China and Taiwan. In the period 2004 to 2008, Taiwan’s economy faced a huge problem because of industry transformation, with many entrepreneurs moving their factories to Mainland China. In addition, Taiwan experienced the first party transition and the ruling party was politically against Chinese authority, while Mainland China was devoted to the reform and opened its market at the same time. Therefore, in addition to political competition between Taiwan and Mainland China, the two economies were also facing industrial competition. Economic development will be reflected in the performance of the securities markets. Among other reasons, it will be interesting to compare the warrant markets in China and Taiwan.
In order to compare the Chinese and Taiwanese warrant markets, there are several differences that are worth mentioning. First, China developed its warrant market in 2004 mainly for the purpose of the share-split reform, which was intended to allow government-held non-tradable shares to become tradable in the market. In order to make up possible losses of original tradable shareholders, some corporations issued warrants and granted these warrants as compensation. However, the warrants in Taiwan and Hong Kong are issued by third parties, that is, securities corporations, and not by the corporations themselves. Securities corporations issue warrants, sell them to investors, and hedge by buying underlying stocks. Second, the Taiwanese warrant market was established in 1997, 7 years earlier than the Chinese warrant market.
In addition, they also play roles of market makers to facilitate market liquidity. In China, corporations themselves issue warrants based on their non-tradable stocks as underlying stocks, and neither hedge nor play as market makers. Third, the number of issued warrants in the two markets differs substantially. In China, there were only 55 warrants traded in the market, but the trading volume was once ranked as the largest in the world. In Taiwan, the warrant market experienced rises and falls, and currently there are more than 10 thousand warrants issued every year. Moreover, Taiwan has both vanilla and exotic types of warrants, while China has only vanilla-type warrants.
Finally, the transaction mechanism in the two markets are different. In Taiwan, trading warrants are similar to trading stocks in terms of trading rules and transaction costs. However, it is distinct from trade stocks and trade warrants in China. The detailed mechanism of the Chinese warrant market is described below.
The Chinese warrant market attracted a lot of funds from investors and became the largest in the world in terms of total trading volume, even though there were only 55 warrants in the market. The high turnover of warrants in China could be attributed to the warrants “T+0” trading rule, high volatility, and exemption from transaction taxes. Warrants were the only security in China with a “T+0” trading mechanism, that is, investors are able to sell warrants on the same trading day when they are purchased. On the other hand, stocks could only be sold on the next trading day (that is, the “T+1” rule).
Additionally, stock prices are restricted to fluctuate within 10% of the closing price on the previous trading day, while the range was usually over 25% of the closing price for the warrant on the preceding trading day. Moreover, trading in warrants was exempted from the 0.2% to 0.3% transaction tax or stamp duty, and hence trading warrants benefits from a tax advantage. These special characteristics provided greater flexibility for investors on trading warrants. Therefore, warrants were the only securities for intraday trading, and hence attracted significant trading activities.
In this paper, we bridge a gap in the literature by using moment analysis, CAPM statistics, SD test, and volume analysis to examine investor preferences for warrants between China and Taiwan, and investigate why the market for Taiwan warrants can be sustained but not in China. Using moment analysis, buying Chinese warrants has a much higher opportunity for making losses as compared with Taiwan. This could make investors avoid investing in Chinese warrants which, in turn, could lead to the closure of the market for warrants.
Using CAPM analysis, we conclude that, in general, both the Sharpe ratio and Jensen index for warrants from the Taiwanese market are more attractive financially, while the Chinese market is too negative. On the other hand, the Treynor index for Chinese warrants shows that they are highly volatile. Therefore, China closed its warrant market after the end of the share-split reform, where the warrants expired completely in 2010.
Based on SD analysis, it can be inferred that there are no arbitrage opportunities between the Chinese and Taiwanese warrant markets, the markets of Chinese and Taiwanese warrants are not efficient, and second- and third-order risk averters prefer to invest in China compared with Taiwan. This implies that warrant issuers prefer to Taiwanese warrants to their counterparts in China. This could be another reason why the market for Taiwanese warrants can be sustained but not in China.
Using volume analysis, the Chinese warrant market is clearly much more active than the Taiwanese warrant market. This could imply that there are more speculative activities in China than in Taiwan which, in turn, could lead to China’s decision to close its warrant market. The findings in the paper are important for investors for their investment decisions regarding Taiwanese and Chinese warrants, challenging to academics for their study on modeling Taiwan and China warrants, and useful for policy makers for their policy making related to Taiwan and China warrants. In the future, China should seriously reconsider reopening its warrant market and learning from mature-covered warrant markets, such as Taiwan’s, on how to inhibit excess speculation and to educate warrant investors.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 briefly reviews the literature pertaining to covered warrants and the stochastic dominance rules, as well as the rationale behind the SD tests. The data, sample characteristics, and methodology are discussed in Section 3. The empirical results are analysed in Section 4, while Section 5 gives some concluding remarks.

2. Literature Review

Many studies have investigated Chinese and Taiwanese warrant markets. For example, Xiong and Yu [1] find that the daily trading volume of many warrants is more than 3 times that of the issuance volume, even though this put warrants extremely out of money between 2005 and 2008. The market is useful for examining price bubbles because of observable underlying stock prices and the limited life of the warrants to determine the values of the associated contingent claims. Bubbles can be used to test bubble theories, such as rational bubbles, agency problems, gambling behaviour, resale option theory, non-common knowledge of rationality, feedback loop theory, among other interesting topics. The authors conclude that short selling restrictions and heterogeneous beliefs drive bubbles.
Some previous studies have focused on issuance, hedging, and expiration effects of warrants on stock returns [2,3,4,5]. For example, Chung et al. [5] examine the impact of covered warrant hedging on underlying stocks on the Taiwan Stock Exchange. They find significant positive abnormal returns and trading volume before the announcement of issuing warrants, especially for large hedging demand warrants. Their findings show that stock return volatility is positively related to the price elasticity of hedging demand.
Additionally, the authors discover a significant negative effect on stock prices after a call warrant has expired in-the-money because of the liquidation of the hedging portfolio. In China, Liao and Chen [4] find that the expiration of call warrants has a significantly negative price effect during the last four days of the exercise period, whereas the expiration of put warrants exhibits no significant price effects. Overall, the trading activities of call warrants have a more profound effect than their put counterparts around the expiration day.
Previous studies have also compared the prices of warrants and options with the same underlying stocks. For instance, Li and Zhang [6] and Chan and Pinder [7] find derivative warrants generally have higher prices than corresponding options, with the price differences reflecting the liquidity premiums of derivative warrants over options in the Hong Kong and Australian markets, respectively. Horst and Veld [8] compare the price differences between 16 Euronext Amsterdam options and warrants, and find that investors may perceive warrants as another type of instrument, and that the warrants are over-priced over the first five trading days.
Bartram and Fehle [9] examine the degree of the bid-ask spread between warrants and options in Germany, and find that, with overlapped underlying, both warrants and options experienced lower bid-ask spreads due to competition between options and warrants. Petrella [10] examines the bid-ask spread of covered warrants in Italy, and finds that the reservation spread plays an important role in determining the warrant spreads that are connected with the underlying spreads.
As the Chinese warrant market is relatively young and speculative, investors have largely participated in the market for its special characteristics, namely the speculative behaviour of retail investors in Chinese warrant markets [1]. Additionally, speculative activities in the warrant market can be contagious and spill over across stock markets [11]. Tang and Wang [12] examine warrant return properties, volatility behaviour, and pricing errors, and document a stylized fact that call warrants have considerable linkage with their underlying financial assets, but put warrants have almost none.
The combination of the arbitrage pricing theory and the resale-option bubble theory proposed by Scheinkman and Xiong [13] is adopted to explain this stylized fact. In addition, Liao et al. [14] examine the incidence of two types of irrational exercise behaviour in the Chinese warrants market and find that 121.64 million shares of warrants were either exercised with an immediate loss, or failed to be exercised because of warrant holder ignorance and/or negligence of warrant mechanics.
Furthermore, several studies analysed pricing errors of warrants and hedging risks. For example, Chang et al. [15] find that the market price of warrants is far higher than the prices from Black–Scholes models using historical volatilities. In addition, warrant prices and their underlying stock prices are not monotonic, perfectly correlated, and follow option redundancy properties. Cumulative delta hedge profits for most mature warrants are negative, and these negative profits are mainly from volatility risks, trading value of put warrants, and market risk of call warrants.
Powers and Xiao [16] adopt three standard pricing models and document that put warrant market prices averaged 1.2 yuan more than model-generated prices (over-priced), while call warrant prices averaged 1.9 yuan less (under-priced). The authors explain the mispricing due to an implicit discount on the value of stocks when pricing warrants as investors take the potential burst of a stock market bubble into account and a premium on warrants to fulfill speculation purpose or tax advantage.
Liao et al. [17] observe that creation mechanics (that is, increasing the supply of securities) similar with the short-selling property is useful for reducing bubble issues in Chinese warrant markets but additional warrant supply can only reduce instead of eliminating bubbles. Fung et al. [18] review the development of the China warrants market, and highlight the issues of over-speculation and lacking of recognition of participants. The authors suggest that the market requires a more regulated structure and more institutional investors as the cornerstone of the market.
Some studies have applied mean variance (MV), CAPM, and SD to warrant markets. For example, Chan et al. [19] examine in the UK covered warrants market by using SD. Their empirical results show that neither covered warrants nor their underlying shares stochastically dominate each other, implying both markets are efficient. They also find that UK covered warrant returns efficiently reflect the return information of the underlying shares from a likelihood ratio (LR) test. As distinct from their analysis on warrants and their underlying shares, we compare warrants in the Chinese and Taiwanese markets with similarities (for example, retail investors are main market participants) and differences (for example, the issuers are share-reform companies in China and securities companies in Taiwan) in terms of stochastic dominance.
A variety of interesting papers have applied the MV rule, CAPM statistics, and SD tests to examine the performance of other markets. For example, applying the SD test and other techniques, Abid et al. [20] investigate the performance of different option strategies; Qiao et al. [21,22] and Lean et al. [23,24] evaluate the relationship between spot and futures prices; Bouri et al. [25] study the role of wine investment within a portfolio of different assets; Qiao and Wong [26] and Tsang et al. [27] examine whether the housing market in Hong Kong is efficient; Hoang et al. [28,29,30] and Khamlichi et al. [31] examine the role of gold in the diversification of portfolios; Vieito et al. [32] and Zhu et al. [33] investigate whether the financial crisis had any positive impacts on stock markets; Broll et al. [34,35] analyse banks behaviour; Egozcue and Wong [36], Egozcue et al. [37], Abid et al. [38], and Lozza et al. [39] examine investor behaviour in diversification; Fong et al. [40,41] and Lean et al. [42] study investor behaviour in stock markets; Ma and Wong [43], Alghalith et al. [44], Guo et al. [45], and Niu et al. [46] examine different risk measures; and Chiang et al. [47] and Lean et al. [48] evaluate the performance of different funds.

3. Data and Methodology

3.1. Data

The warrant data are obtained from the Taiwan Economic Journal (TEJ). There are 55 warrants listed in the Shanghai and Shenzen Stock Exchanges between 2005 and 2009 (65 warrants were issued in the period, but only 55 of them were listed). For comparison, we randomly select 44 covered warrants of which the underlying stocks are in the list of the Taiwan 50 index in the same period (from 2005 to 2009, 44 of the top 50 Taiwan companies were issued corresponding warrants) (Since the listed Chinese warrants belong to large firms in China, we choose the warrants of the largest 50 firms from Taiwan 50 index constituents for comparison. However, in the corresponding period of Chinese warrants, there were only 44 firms in Taiwan with warrants issued. Thus, we randomly select 1 warrant for each firm (in Taiwan, all securities companies can issue warrants for the same firm and hence one firm can have more than 1 warrant)). The daily data include tickers, warrant prices, underlying stock prices, adjusted strike prices, data dates, issuance dates, maturity dates, and others. The conclusions are drawn based on the selected data.
Chinese and Taiwanese warrants are denoted by C and T, respectively. As there are too many warrants in both the Chinese and Taiwanese markets, we follow Wong et al. [49] in selecting the most representative warrants that have the maximum and minimum values of the of mean, standard deviation, and Sharpe ratio for both China and Taiwan. In addition, we include the maximum and minimum of the beta value, Jensen index, and Treynor index for both China and Taiwan.
The China warrants are denoted as: C06 for the minimum Sharpe ratio; C12 for the maximum Treynor index; C14 for the minimum mean and the minimum Jensen index; C23 for the maximum mean, the maximum Sharpe ratio, and the maximum Jensen index; C44 for the minimum standard deviation; C47 for the maximum standard deviation and the minimum beta value; C52 for the maximum beta value; and C55 for the minimum Treynor index.
The Taiwanese warrants are denoted as: T1 for the minimum Jensen index; T12 for the maximum standard deviation; T13 for the minimum mean; T15 for the minimum Sharpe ratio; T17 for the minimum standard deviation, the maximum Sharpe ratio, the minimum beta value, and the maximum Treynor index; T25 for the minimum Treynor index; T26 for the maximum beta value; and T33 for the maximum mean and the maximum Jensen index.

3.2. Methodology

In this paper, we use the MV rule, CAPM statistics, SD test, and volume analysis to examine the investor preferences towards the warrants between China and Taiwan. We first discuss the MV rule in the following subsection.

3.2.1. Mean-Variance (MV) Criteria

Define Uj as the set of utility functions such that:
U j = { u : ( − 1 ) i + 1 u ( i ) ≥ 0 , i = 1 , ⋯ , j }  
where u(i) is the ith derivative of the utility function U.
For the returns Y and Z of any two assets or portfolios with means µy and µz and standard deviations σy and σz, respectively, the MV rule (Markowitz [50]; Bai, et al. [51]; Leung, et al. [52]) is such that Y is said to dominate Z if µy ≥ µz and σy ≤ σz, and if the inequality holds in at least one of the two conditions. Wong [53] and Guo and Wong [54] show that if Y dominates Z by the MV rule, denoted by Y ≻ M V Z , then risk averters with u(1) > 0 and u(2) < 0 will attain higher expected utility by holding Y than Z under certain conditions. The theory can be extended to non-differentiable utilities (see Wong and Ma, [55]).

3.2.2. Stochastic Dominance (SD) Approach

Let Y and Z represent the returns of two assets or portfolios with a common support of Ω = [ a , b ] (a < b), cumulative distribution functions (CDFs), F and G, and corresponding probability density functions (PDFs), f and g, respectively, so that we define:
  H 0 = h , H j ( x ) = ∫ a x H j − 1 ( t ) d t  
for h = f ,   g ; H = F ,   G ; for any integer j.
We call the integral H j the jth-order integral for H = F ,   G . Y is said to dominate Z by FSD (SSD, TSD), denoted by Y ≻ 1 Z   ( Y ≻ 2 Z ,   Y ≻ 3 Z ) , if F 1 ( x ) ≤ G 1 ( x ) ( F 2 ( x ) ≤ G 2 ( x ) ,   F 3 ( x ) ≤ G 3 ( x ) ) for all possible returns x, and the strict inequality holds for at least one small open interval of x, where FSD (SSD, TSD) denotes first-order (second-order, third-order) SD, respectively. For Y ≻ 3 Z , we need a further condition: μ Y ≥ μ Z (see Sriboonchitta et al. [56], Levy [57], Guo and Wong [54]), and the references listed therein, for further information on the SD definitions for any order.
The SD tests have been well developed (Davidson and Duclos, DD, [58]; Bai, et al. [59,60]; Ng, et al. [61]) to allow statistical significance to be determined. The SD test developed by DD is found to be powerful, less conservative in size, and robust to non-iid and heteroscedastic data (Lean et al., [62]). As Bai et al. [59] derive the limiting process of the DD statistic when the underlying processes are dependent or independent, we use their SD tests in the empirical analysis.
Let { f i } ( i = 1 ,   2 , ⋯ n f ) and { g i }   ( i = 1 ,   2 , ⋯ n g ) be observations drawn from the returns of any two assets or portfolios, Y and Z, with CDFs F and G, respectively. For a grid of pre-selected points x1, x2, … xk, the jth-order SD test statistic, T j ( x ) (j = 1, 2, and 3), is defined as:
  T j ( x ) = F ^ j ( x ) − G ^ j ( x ) V ^ j ( x )  
where
V ^ j ( x ) = V ^ F j ( x ) + V ^ G j ( x ) − 2 V ^ F G j ( x ) ;   H ^ j ( x ) = 1 N h ( j − 1 ) ! ∑ i = 1 N h ( x − h i ) + j − 1 ,  
V ^ H j ( x ) = 1 N h [ 1 N h ( ( j − 1 ) ! ) 2 ∑ i = 1 N h ( x − h i ) + 2 ( j − 1 ) − H ^ j ( x ) 2 ] ,   H = F , G ;   h = f , g ; V ^ F G j ( x ) = 1 N h [ 1 N h ( ( j − 1 ) ! ) 2 ∑ i = 1 N h ( x − f i ) + j − 1 ( x − g i ) + j − 1 − F ^ j ( x ) G ^ j ( x ) ] ,
F j and G j are defined in (2). For all i = 1 ,   2 , … , k , we test the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
F j ( x i ) = G j ( x i ) ,   f o r   a l l   x i .
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
F j ( x i ) ≠ G j ( x i )   f o r   s o m e   x i .
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
F j ( x i ) ≤ G j ( x i )   f o r   a l l   x i ,   F j ( x i ) < G j ( x i )   f o r   s o m e   x i .
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
F j ( x i ) ≥ G j ( x i )   f o r   a l l   x i ,   F j ( x i ) > G j ( x i )   f o r   s o m e   x i .
Not rejecting either H1 or H2 implies the non-existence of any SD relationship between Y and Z. If H3 (H4) of order one is accepted, then Y ( Z ) stochastically dominates Z ( Y ) at first order, denoted by Y ≻ 1 Z   ( Z ≻ 1 Y ) . If H3 (H4) is accepted at order two [three], then Y ( Z ) stochastically dominates Z ( Y ) at second order, denoted by Y ≻ 2 Z   ( Z ≻ 2 Y ) , [ Y ≻ 3 Z   ( Z ≻ 3 Y ) ]. Readers may refer to Bai et al. [59] for the decision rules and further information on the tests, and Chan et al. [63] for testing the third-order SD.
Bai et al. [59] derive the limiting process of the SD statistic T j ( x ) so that the SD test can be performed by using m a x x | T j ( x ) | to account for the dependency of the partitions. We follow their recommendation in the empirical analysis. As Fong et al. [41], Lean et al. [48,62], among others, recommend a limited number (100) of grids for comparison, we adopt their suggestion. In order to minimize Type II errors and to accommodate the effect of almost SD (Leshno and Levy [64]; Guo, et al. [65,66,67]), we follow Gasbarro et al. [68], Clark et al. [69], among others, to use a conservative 5% cut-off point in examining the proportion of test statistics to draw inferences.

4. Empirical Results

This section discusses the empirical results. We use moment analysis, CAPM statistics, SD test, and volume analysis to examine investor preferences for warrants between China and Taiwan, and investigate why the market for Taiwanese warrants can be sustained but not in China. We note that the moment analysis (Chan et al. [70]) includes the mean-variance (MV) rule and the analysis of higher-order moments.

4.1. Moments Analysis

The MV rule is used to examine the performance between Chinese and Taiwanese warrants. In order to do so, we examine the descriptive statistics of daily excess returns in Table 1 and the results of the t and F tests in Table 2 for selected Chinese and Taiwanese warrants.
We compare warrants with minimum daily excess returns from China and Taiwan, which are represented by C14 and T13, respectively. From Table 1, the mean excess return of T13 is higher than that of C14, while the standard deviation of the former is smaller. However, the insignificant t and F statistics in Table 2 conclude there is no MV dominance between T13 and C14 using the MV approach. We also compare warrants with maximum daily excess returns from China and Taiwan, which are represented by C23 and T33, respectively. Although T33 has larger mean excess returns, it also has a higher standard deviation than C23. Therefore, there is no MV dominance between T33 and C23 using the MV approach.
Next we compare warrants with minimum (maximum) daily standard deviations from China and Taiwan, which are represented by C44 and T17 (C47 and T12), respectively. It is found that T17 has significantly higher mean excess return and significantly higher standard deviation than C44, so there is no MV dominance between T33 and C23 using the MV approach. However, T12 has insignificantly higher mean excess return and significantly higher standard deviation than C47, implying that C47 dominates T12 using the MV approach. With the MV criterion, we find that five pairs of China warrants dominate Taiwan warrants, and three pairs of Taiwanese warrants dominate Chinese warrants. The other four pairs have not shown any dominance between Chinese and Taiwanese warrants.
Table 1 and Table 2 indicate the following. First, the mean excess returns are, in general, higher for Taiwanese warrants, while most of the mean excess returns for both Chinese and Taiwanese warrants are negative, which implies that the mean excess returns of Chinese warrants are more negative. This could make investors avoid investing in Chinese warrants which, in turn, could lead to the closure of the Chinese warrant market.
In addition, most of the Chin ese warrants are significant and negatively skewed, while most of the Taiwan ese warrants are either significantly and positively skewed or are not significantly skewed.

4.2. CAPM Analysis

For the CAPM statistics, the Sharpe ratio that measures the excess return per unit of risk is the conventional formula for stock evaluation where the risk is determined by the standard deviation. The higher the Sharpe ratio, the better the portfolio return is relative to risk, or the larger the excess return is per unit of risk in a portfolio. All Sharpe ratios are negative, except for C23, T17, and T33, while the Sharpe ratio of T17 is higher than all the eight selected warrants in China. Nearly all the Sharpe ratios are negative, which implies that, in general, investors are losing money in both Chinese and Taiwanese warrant markets.
The Sharpe ratio of T17 is higher than all the eight selected warrants in China. In general, the Sharpe ratio for warrants for Taiwan is higher than those in China, which indicates that Taiwanese warrants perform better than their counterparts in China. It can be concluded that, in general, the Sharpe ratio for warrants for Taiwan is more appealing, while that from China is too negative. This could make investors avoid investing in China warrants which, in turn, could lead to the closure of its market.
Similar to the Sharpe ratio, all Jensen indexes are also negative, except for T17 and T33. T33 has the highest Jensen index among all the warrants. A higher Jensen index suggests a higher level of return given the level of risk (systematic or market) on the investment. A low Jensen index, such as a negative number, indicates an inferior performance given the level of risk. The empirical findings that the values of the Jensen index for most warrants from both China and Taiwan are negative imply a poor performance of both warrant markets during the sample period. It is interesting that T33 is higher than all eight selected warrants in China. Nevertheless, the Jensen index of T1 (the Taiwan warrant with minimum Jensen index) is also larger than its counterpart in China, namely C14.
In general, the Jensen index for warrants for Taiwan is higher than in China, inferring that Taiwanese warrants perform better than Chinese warrants. Thus, we can conclude that, in general, the Jensen index for warrants for Taiwan is more appealing, while that from China is too negative. This could make investors avoid investing in Chinese warrants which, in turn, could lead to the closure of the market in China.
The Treynor ratio expresses the relationship of excess fund return, with the beta lying along the security market line taking account of the systematic risk or market volatility as its measure of risk, instead of the standard deviation, as in the Sharpe ratio. The Treynor index for China ranges from −61 to +20, indicating that Chinese warrants are very volatile. The higher volatility in the China warrants could make investors avoid investing in China warrants which, in turn, could lead to the closure of the market.
In summary, CAPM analysis demonstrates that Taiwanese warrants perform better than Chinese warrants in terms of the Sharpe ratio and Jensen index. In addition, the Chinese warrant market is volatile for investors according to the Treynor ratio. Therefore, China closed its warrant market after the end of the share-split reform, which expired completely in 2010. In the future, China might rethink reopening its warrant market and learning from mature-covered warrant markets, such as Taiwan, as to how it might be possible to inhibit excess speculation and to educate warrant investors.

4.3. SD Analysis

Table 3 reports the SD results based on the modified DD statistics. From the SD results, most of the Chinese warrants stochastically dominate Taiwanese warrants at the second and third orders, implying that risk averters prefer investing in Chinese warrants to Taiwanese warrants. However, there are still some pairs of Chinese and Taiwanese warrants that do not dominate each other. For example, for the pair of minimum mean return, C14 does not dominate T13 for any order. For the comparison among the maximum Jensen ratio, there is no SD between C14 and T33 for any order.
In order to illustrate the SD relationship better, we plot the distributions of the excess returns, F and G, for Chinese and Taiwanese warrants, and the corresponding DD statistics for the pair of C23 and T33, as shown in Figure 1. From Figure 1, we find that F is below G for some negative returns, while G is below F for some positive returns, implying that the excess return in the Chinese warrant is preferred in the negative domain, while the excess return in the Taiwanese warrant is preferred in the positive domain. In addition, it is clear that the first-order DD statistic (T1) is negative when the returns are negative, and becomes positive when the returns are positive. These results imply that the excess return in the Chinese warrant is preferred in the negative return and the excess return in the Taiwanese warrant is preferred in the positive return. It is also worth noting that both the second- and third-order DD statistics (T2 and T3) are negative, with some regions being significant.
In general, all investors with increasing utility functions prefer the negative excess return in Chinese warrants and prefer the positive excess return in Taiwanese warrants. For these reasons, there is no first-order SD between Chinese and Taiwanese warrants, and no arbitrage opportunity (see Guo et al. [71] and the references listed therein for further information) in the markets for Chinese and Taiwanese warrants.
However, Chinese warrants dominate Taiwanese warrants at the second and third orders, implying that second- and third-order risk averters prefer to invest in China as compared with Taiwan. This implies that the markets for Chinese and Taiwanese warrants are not efficient if investors are risk averters (see Qiao et al. [21], Clark et al. [69], and the references cited therein, for further information).
It can be concluded that Chinese warrants could be underpriced, so that it is more difficult for Chinese warrant issuers to make profits. This could be one of the main reasons why the market for Chinese warrants is not sustainable. Another reason that China presently has no warrant market is that the warrants issued by companies were used for compensation in the share reform from 2004 to 2008, and they expired in 1 to 2 years. China closed its warrants market because of the gradual expiration of reform-related warrants, excessive speculation, and lack of understanding of the warrants market by its participants.

4.4. Volume Analysis

We further examine the market activities between the Chinese and Taiwanese warrants. To do so, we analyse the daily trading volumes of Chinese and Taiwanese warrants that were selected in Section 3.1. In order to make the comparison practical, we convert both currencies in USD and exhibit the daily trading dollar value when the prices are in USD. These results are presented in Table 4 for Chinese and Taiwanese warrants.
From Table 4, we find that the average daily trading volume of most Chinese warrants is of order 105, while that of most Taiwanese warrants are of the order 102. The average daily trading volume of individual Chinese warrants is 103 times greater than that of individual Taiwanese warrants. Thus, it can be concluded that the Chinese warrant market is much more active than its Taiwanese counterpart.
In China, there were only 55 warrants traded in the market, but the trading volume was once ranked the highest in the world. In Taiwan, the warrant market has experienced rises and falls, but there are currently more than 10 thousand warrants issued every year. Although the total trading volumes of warrants in China and Taiwan are the highest in the world, China had far fewer warrants than Taiwan. Thus, it is not surprising that the trading volume for “each warrant” in China is much greater than in Taiwan. Investors in China prefer warrants to stocks because of trading rules and transaction costs, as mentioned in Section 1. Thus, they are keen to trade fewer warrants available in the market, and hope to chase for the prices of warrants (Xiong and Yu, [1]). In other words, the Chinese warrant market is predominantly speculative, which can cause a greater number of trades.

5. Concluding Remarks

Academics, practitioners, and policy makers are interested in examining why the warrant market in China is not sustainable. In order to study this phenomenon, Fung et al. [18] point out the issues of over-speculation and lack of recognition of participants. Liao and Chen [4] determine that the expiration of call warrants have a significantly negative price effect during the last few days of the sample period. Xiong and Yu [1] find that the daily trading volume of many warrants is more than 3 times of the issuance volume.
Chang et al. [15] discovered that the market price of warrants is far higher than the prices from Black–Scholes models using historical volatilities. Liao et al. [14] find that 121.64 million shares of warrants were either exercised with an immediate loss, or failed to be exercised. Powers and Xiao [16] show that put warrant market prices averaged 1.2 yuan more than model-generated prices (over-priced), while call warrant prices averaged 1.9 yuan less (under-priced).
In this paper, we bridge a gap in the literature by using moment analysis, CAPM statistics, SD test, and volume analysis to examine investor preferences towards warrants between China and Taiwan, and investigate why the market for warrants in China is not sustainable while the market for Taiwanese warrants is succeeding.
Using moment analysis, we find that the mean excess returns are, in general, higher for Taiwanese warrants, while most of the mean excess returns for Chinese warrants are negative. In addition, most of the Chinese warrants have more significant and negative skewness, and significant and greater kurtosis than Taiwanese warrants. This information implies that buying Chinese warrants has a much higher chance for sustaining losses than Taiwanese warrants. This could make investors avoid investing in Chinese warrants which, in turn, could lead to the closure of the market for Chinese warrants.
Using CAPM analysis, the Sharpe ratio for warrants for Taiwan is higher than for China, and the Jensen index for warrants in Taiwan is higher than in China, inferring that Taiwan warrants perform better than China warrants. In general, both the Sharpe ratio and Jensen index for warrants for Taiwan are more attractive, while those for China are too negative. This could make investors avoid investing in Chinese warrants which, in turn, could lead to the closure of the market for Chinese warrants. On the other hand, the Treynor index for Chinese warrants shows that they are very volatile which, in turn, could also lead to the closure of the market of Chinese warrants.
In summary, CAPM analysis demonstrates that Taiwanese warrants perform better than Chinese warrants in terms of the Sharpe ratio and Jensen index. In addition, the Chinese warrant market is volatile for investors, according to the Treynor ratio. Therefore, China closed its warrant market after the end of the share-split reform and the warrants expired completely in 2010. In the future, China might think about reopening its warrant market and learning from mature-covered warrant markets, such as Taiwan’s, how to inhibit excess speculation and to educate warrant investors.
Using SD analysis, there are no arbitrage opportunities between the Chinese and Taiwanese warrant markets, but the warrant markets in China and Taiwan are not efficient because the Chinese warrant market dominates Taiwan at the second and third orders, implying that second-order and third-order risk averters prefer to invest in China compared with Taiwan. This implies that the warrant issuers prefer to issue Taiwanese warrants than Chinese warrants, which could be another reason why the warrant market in China is not sustainable.
Based on volume analysis, the empirical findings show that the average daily trading volume of individual Chinese warrants is 103 times higher than individual Taiwanese warrants, so that the Chinese warrant market is much more active than its counterpart in Taiwan. This would seem to suggest that there are more speculative activities in the China warrant market than the Taiwanese warrant market which, in turn, could lead to China’s decision to close its warrant market.
Another reason for China presently having no warrant market is that warrants issued by companies were used for compensation in the share reform during the period of 2004 to 2008, which expired in 1–2 years. China closed the warrant market because of the gradual expiration of reform-related warrants, excessive speculation, and lack of understanding of the warrants market by its participants.
The findings in the paper are important for investors for their investment decisions regarding Taiwanese and Chinese warrants, challenging for academics in modelling Taiwanese and Chinese warrants, and useful for policy makers for their policy making related to Taiwanese warrants and Chinese warrants. In the future, China might rethink reopening its warrant market and learning from mature-covered warrant markets such as Taiwan how to inhibit excess speculation and to educate warrant investors.
The paper investigated the preferences of risk averters to invest in warrants between China and Taiwan. Extensions include using other tools to compare the preferences for risk averters to invest in warrants between China and Taiwan, as well as investigate the preferences of other types of investors (see Chang et al. [72,73,74,75,76] for further information).
We note that this paper is studying whether the warrant market is sustainable. There are many other studies investigating whether other markets are sustainable, see, for example, Moslehpour, et al. [77] and Li, et al. [78,79]. We also note that there could be many directions for further studies. One of them is to study the preference of other types investors, for example, investors with S-shaped and reversed S-shaped utility functions, see, for example, Wong and Chan [80] and the references therein for more information.

Author Contributions

The authors contributed equally to this work.

Funding

Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan (Grant No. 104-2410-H-468-010) and Asia University (Grant No. 102-asia-35).

Acknowledgments

Wing-Keung Wong is grateful to the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong, Asia University, Hang Seng Management College, Lingnan University, and the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), Taiwan, and would also like to thank Robert B. Miller and Howard E. Thompson for their continuous guidance and encouragement. Michael McAleer wishes to thank the Australian Research Council and the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), Taiwan. Feng-Tse Tsai is grateful to the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan and Asia University.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Xiong, W.; Yu, J. The Chinese warrants Bubble. Am. Econ. Rev. 2011, 101, 2723–2753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Draper, P.; Mak, B.S.C.; Tang, G.Y.N. The Derivative Warrant Market in Hong Kong: Relationships with Underlying Assets. J. Deriv. 2001, 8, 72–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Aitken, M.; Segara, R. Impact of warrant introductions on the behaviour of underlying stocks: Australian evidence. Account. Financ. 2005, 45, 127–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Liao, X.-H.; Chen, K.C. Expiration Effects of Covered Warrants in China. Chin. Econ. 2010, 43, 54–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Chung, S.-L.; Liu, W.-R.; Tsai, W.-C. The impact of derivatives hedging on the stock market: Evidence from Taiwan’s covered warrants market. J. Bank. Financ. 2014, 42, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Li, G.; Zhang, C. Why Are Derivative Warrants More Expensive Than Options? An Empirical Study. J. Financ. Quant. Anal. 2011, 46, 275–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chan, H.W.-H.; Pinder, S.M. The value of liquidity: Evidence from the derivatives market. Pacific-Basin Financ. J. 2000, 8, 483–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Horst, J.T.; Veld, C. An Empirical Analysis of the Pricing of Bank Issued Options versus Options Exchange Options. Eur. Financ. Manag. 2008, 14, 288–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Bartram, S.M.; Fehle, F. Competition without fungibility: Evidence from alternative market structures for derivatives. J. Bank. Financ. 2007, 31, 659–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Petrella, G. Option bid-ask spread and scalping risk: Evidence from a covered warrants market. J. Futures Mark. 2006, 26, 843–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Liu, Y.-J.; Zhang, Z.; Zhao, L. Speculation Spillovers. Manag. Sci. 2014, 61, 649–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tang, K.; Wang, C. Are China warrants derivatives? Evidence from connections to their underlying stocks. Quant. Financ. 2013, 13, 1225–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Scheinkman, J.A.; Xiong, W. Overconfidence and Speculative Bubbles. J. Political Econ. 2003, 111, 1183–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Liao, L.; Li, Z.; Zhang, W.; Zhu, N. Exercise to Lose Money? Irrational Exercise Behavior from the China warrants Market. J. Futures Mark. 2014, 34, 399–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chang, E.C.; Luo, X.; Shi, L.; Zhang, J.E. Is warrant really a derivative? Evidence from the China warrant market. J. Financ. Mark. 2013, 16, 165–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Powers, E.; Xiao, G. Mispricing of China warrants. Pac.-Basin Financ. J. 2014, 30, 62–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Liao, L.; Li, Z.; Zhang, W.; Zhu, N. Security Supply and Bubbles: A Natural Experiment from the China Warrants Market; Working Paper; Hsinghua University: Beijing, China, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  18. Fung, H.-G.; Zhang, G.; Zhao, L. China’s Equity Warrants Market: An Overview and Analysis. Chin. Econ. 2009, 42, 86–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chan, C.Y.; de Peretti, C.; Qiao, Z.; Wong, W.K. Empirical test of the efficiency of UK covered warrants market: Stochastic dominance and likelihood ratio test approach. J. Empir. Financ. 2012, 19, 162–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Abid, F.; Mroua, M.; Wong, W.K. The Impact of Option Strategies in Financial Portfolios Performance: Mean-Variance and Stochastic Dominance Approaches. Financ. India 2009, 23, 503–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Qiao, Z.; Clark, E.; Wong, W.K. Investors’ Preference towards Risk: Evidence from the Taiwan Stock and Stock Index Futures Markets. Account. Financ. 2012, 54, 251–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Qiao, Z.; Wong, W.K.; Fung, J.K.W. Stochastic Dominance Relationships between Stock and Stock Index Futures Markets: International Evidence. Econ. Model. 2013, 33, 552–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lean, H.H.; McAleer, M.; Wong, W.K. Market Efficiency of Oil Spot and Futures: A Mean-Variance and Stochastic Dominance Approach. Energy Econ. 2010, 32, 979–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lean, H.H.; McAleer, M.; Wong, W.K. Preferences of risk-averse and risk-seeking investors for oil spot and futures before, during and after the Global Financial Crisis. Int. Rev. Econ. Financ. 2015, 40, 204–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bouri, E.; Gupta, R.; Wong, W.K.; Zhu, Z.Z. Is Wine a Good Choice for Investment? Pac.-Basin Financ. J. 2018, 51, 171–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Qiao, Z.; Wong, W.K. Which is a better investment choice in the Hong Kong residential property market: A big or small property? Appl. Econ. 2015, 47, 1670–1685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Tsang, C.K.; Wong, W.K.; Horowitz, I. Arbitrage Opportunities, Efficiency, and the Role of Risk Preferences in the Hong Kong Property Market. Stud. Econ. Financ. 2016, 33, 735–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hoang, T.H.V.; Lean, H.H.; Wong, W.K. Is gold good for portfolio diversification? A stochastic dominance analysis of the Paris stock exchange. Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 2015, 42, 98–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hoang, T.H.V.; Wong, W.K.; Xiao, B.; Zhu, Z.Z. The seasonality of gold prices in China: Does the risk-aversion level matter? Account. Financ. 2018, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hoang, T.H.V.; Wong, W.K.; Zhu, Z.Z. Is gold different for risk-averse and risk-seeking investors? An empirical analysis of the Shanghai Gold Exchange. Econ. Model. 2015, 50, 200–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Khamlichi, A.E.; Hoang, T.H.V.; Wong, W.K.; Zhu, Z.Z. Does the Shari’ah Screening Impact the Gold-Stock Nexus? A Sectorial Analysis. Resour. Policy 2018. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328073570_Does_the_Shari%27ah_Screening_Impact_the_Gold-Stock_Nexus_A_Sectorial_Analysis (accessed on 11 October 2018).
  32. Vieito, J.P.; Wong, W.K.; Zhu, Z.Z. Could The Global Financial Crisis Improve the Performance of the G7 Stocks Markets? Appl. Econ. 2015, 48, 1066–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zhu, Z.Z.; Bai, Z.D.; Vieito, J.P.; Wong, W.K. The Impact of the Global Financial Crisis on the Efficiency of Latin American Stock Markets. Estudios de Economía 2018. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326758644_The_Impact_of_the_Global_Financial_Crisis_on_the_Efficiency_and_Performance_of_Latin_American_Stock_Markets (accessed on 11 October 2018). [CrossRef]
  34. Broll, U.; Guo, X.; Welzel, P.; Wong, W.K. The banking firm and risk taking in a two-moment decision model. Econ. Model. 2015, 50, 275–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Broll, U.; Jack, E.; Wahl, J.E.; Wong, W.K. Elasticity of Risk Aversion and International Trade. Econ. Lett. 2006, 92, 126–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Egozcue, M.; Fuentes García, L.; Wong, W.K.; Zitikis, R. Do Investors Like to Diversify? A Study of Markowitz Preferences. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2011, 215, 188–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Egozcue, M.; Wong, W.K. Gains from Diversification on Convex Combinations: A Majorization and Stochastic Dominance Approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2010, 200, 893–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Abid, F.; Leung, P.L.; Mroua, M.; Wong, W.K. International Diversification versus Domestic diversification: Mean-Variance Portfolio Optimization and stochastic dominance approaches. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2014, 7, 45–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lozza, S.O.; Wong, W.K.; Fabozzi, F.J.; Egozcue, M. Diversification versus Optimal: Is There Really a Diversification Puzzle? Appl. Econ. 2018, 50, 4671–4693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Fong, W.M.; Lean, H.H.; Wong, W.K. Stochastic Dominance and Behavior towards Risk: The Market for Internet Stocks. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2008, 68, 194–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Fong, W.M.; Wong, W.K.; Lean, H.H. International momentum strategies: A stochastic dominance. J. Financ. Mark. 2005, 8, 89–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lean, H.H.; Smyth, R.; Wong, W.K. Revisiting Calendar Anomalies in Asian Stock Markets Using a Stochastic Dominance Approach. J. Multinatl. Financ. Manag. 2007, 17, 125–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ma, C.; Wong, W.K. Stochastic dominance and risk measure: A decision-theoretic foundation for VaR and C-VaR. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2010, 207, 927–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Alghalith, M.; Guo, X.; Wong, W.K.; Zhu, L.X. A General Optimal Investment Model in the Presence of Background Risk. Ann. Financ. Econ. 2016, 11, 1650001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Guo, X.; Jiang, X.J.; Wong, W.K. Stochastic Dominance and Omega Ratio: Measures to Examine Market Efficiency. Arbitr. Oppor. Anomaly Econ. 2017, 5, 38. [Google Scholar]
  46. Niu, C.Z.; Wong, W.K.; Xu, Q.F. Kappa Ratios and (Higher-Order) Stochastic Dominance. Risk Manag. 2017, 19, 245–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chiang, T.C.; Lean, H.H.; Wong, W.K. Do REITs Outperform Stocks and Fixed-Income Assets? New Evidence from Mean-Variance and Stochastic Dominance Approaches. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2008, 1, 1–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lean, H.H.; Phoon, K.F.; Wong, W.K. Stochastic Dominance Analysis of CTA Funds. Rev. Quant. Financ. Account. 2013, 40, 155–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wong, W.K.; Phoon, K.F.; Lean, H.H. Stochastic dominance analysis of Asian hedge funds. Pacific-Basin Financ. J. 2008, 16, 204–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Markowitz, H.M. Portfolio selection. J. Financ. 1952, 7, 77–91. [Google Scholar]
  51. Bai, Z.D.; Liu, H.X.; Wong, W.K. Enhancement of the applicability of Markowitz’s portfolio optimization by utilizing random matrix theory. Math. Financ. 2009, 19, 639–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Leung, P.L.; Ng, H.Y.; Wong, W.K. An Improved Estimation to Make Markowitz’s Portfolio Optimization Theory Users Friendly and Estimation Accurate with Application on the US Stock Market Investment. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2012, 222, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wong, W.K. Stochastic Dominance and Mean-Variance Measures of Profit and Loss for Business Planning and Investment. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2017, 182, 829–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Guo, X.; Wong, W.K. Multivariate Stochastic Dominance for Risk Averters and Risk Seekers. RAIRO Oper. Res. 2016, 50, 575–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wong, W.K.; Ma, C. Preferences over Meyer’s location-scale family. Econ. Theory 2008, 37, 119–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Sriboonchitta, S.; Wong, W.K.; Dhompongsa, S.; Nguyen, H.T. Stochastic Dominance and Applications to Finance, Risk and Economics; Chapman and Hall/CRC, Taylor and Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  57. Levy, H. Stochastic Dominance: Investment Decision Making under Uncertainty; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  58. Davidson, R.; Duclos, J.Y. Statistical inference for stochastic dominance and for the measurement of poverty and inequality. Econometrica 2000, 68, 1435–1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Bai, Z.D.; Li, H.; McAleer, M.; Wong, W.K. Stochastic dominance statistics for risk averters and risk seekers: An analysis of stock preferences for USA and China. Quant. Financ. 2015, 15, 889–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bai, Z.D.; Li, H.; Liu, H.X.; Wong, W.K. Test Statistics for Prospect and Markowitz Stochastic Dominances with Applications. Econ. J. 2012, 14, 278–303. [Google Scholar]
  61. Ng, P.; Wong, W.K.; Xiao, Z.J. Stochastic dominance via quantile regression with applications to investigate arbitrage opportunity and market efficiency. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2017, 261, 666–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lean, H.H.; Wong, W.K.; Zhang, X.B. The size and power of some stochastic dominance tests: A Monte Carlo study for correlated heteroskedastic distributions. Math. Comput. Simul. 2008, 79, 30–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Chan, R.H.; Clark, E.; Wong, W.K. On the Third Order Stochastic Dominance for Risk-Averse and Risk-Seeking Investors with Analysis of their Traditional and Internet Stocks; MPRA Paper No. 75002; University Library of Munich: Munich, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  64. Leshno, M.; Levy, H. Preferred by “all” and preferred by “most” decision makers: Almost stochastic dominance. Manag. Sci. 2002, 48, 1074–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Guo, X.; Post, T.; Wong, W.K.; Zhu, L.X. Moment Conditions for Almost Stochastic Dominance. Econ. Lett. 2014, 124, 163–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Guo, X.; Wong, W.K.; Zhu, L.X. Almost Stochastic Dominance for Risk Averters and Risk Seeker. Financ. Res. Lett. 2016, 19, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Guo, X.; Zhu, X.H.; Wong, W.K.; Zhu, L.X. A Note on Almost Stochastic Dominance. Econom. Lett. 2013, 121, 252–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Gasbarro, D.; Wong, W.K.; Zumwalt, J.K. Stochastic Dominance Analysis of iShares. Eur. J. Financ. 2007, 13, 89–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Clark, E.; Qiao, Z.; Wong, W.K. Theories of Risk: Testing Investor Behaviour on the Taiwan Stock and Stock Index Futures Markets. Econ. Inquiry 2016, 54, 907–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Chan, R.H.; Chow, S.C.; Guo, X.; Wong, W.K. Central Moments, Stochastic Dominance, and The Moment Rules; Social Science Research Network Working Paper Series 3034903; SSRN: Rochester, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  71. Guo, X.; Wagener, A.; Wong, W.K.; Zhu, L.X. The Two-Moment Decision Model with Additive Risks. Risk Manag. 2017, 20, 77–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Chang, C.L.; McAleer, M.; Wong, W.K. Behavioural, Financial, and Health & Medical Economics: A Connection. J. Health Med. Econ. 2016, 2, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  73. Chang, C.L.; McAleer, M.; Wong, W.K. Informatics, Data Mining, Econometrics and Financial Economics: A Connection. J. Inform. Data Min. 2016, 1, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  74. Chang, C.L.; McAleer, M.; Wong, W.K. Management Science, Economics and Finance: A Connection. Int. J. Econ. Manag. Sci. 2016, 5, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  75. Chang, C.L.; McAleer, M.; Wong, W.K. Management Information, Decision Sciences, and Financial Economics: A Connection. J. Manag. Inf. Decis. Sci. 2017, 20. Available online: https://ideas.repec.org/p/tin/wpaper/20180004.html (accessed on 11 October 2018). [CrossRef]
  76. Chang, C.L.; McAleer, M.; Wong, W.K. Big Data, Computational Science, Economics, Finance, Marketing, Management, and Psychology: Connections. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2018, 11, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Moslehpour, M.; Pham, V.K.; Wong, W.K.; Bilgiçli, İ. e-Purchase Intention of Taiwanese Consumers: Sustainable Mediation of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use. Sustainability 2018, 10, 234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Li, Z.; Li, X.; Hui, Y.C.; Wong, W.K. Maslow Portfolio Selection for Individuals with Low Financial Sustainability. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Li, C.S.; Wong, W.K.; Peng, S.C.; Tsendsuren, S. The effects of health status on life insurance holding in 16 European countries. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3454. [Google Scholar]
  80. Wong, W.K.; Chan, R. Prospect and Markowitz Stochastic Dominance. Ann. Financ. 2008, 4, 105–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 10 03748 g001 550
Figure 1. Ascending DD statistics distribution for C23-T33. Note: T j is the test statistic defined in (3) for j = 1, 2 and 3. F and G are the CDFs of the excess warrant returns for C23 and T33, respectively.
Figure 1. Ascending DD statistics distribution for C23-T33. Note: T j is the test statistic defined in (3) for j = 1, 2 and 3. F and G are the CDFs of the excess warrant returns for C23 and T33, respectively.
Sustainability 10 03748 g001
Table
Table 1. Summary statistics and CAPM using daily excess returns for selected Chinese and Taiwanese warrants.
Table 1. Summary statistics and CAPM using daily excess returns for selected Chinese and Taiwanese warrants.
Warrant CodeMeanStd. Dev.SkewnessKurtosisJBSharpeBetaTreynorJensen
C06−0.02010.0781−3.719633.941110084.75−0.25790.0150−1.3384−0.0186
C12−0.01860.1440−13.0898242.24791160912.00−0.1294−0.000920.5741−0.0183
C14−0.06380.2956−8.323580.902330407.42−0.2157−0.005910.8959−0.0624
C230.00110.05550.43515.123852.020.02040.01750.0647−0.0056
C44−0.00570.03002.787924.60266885.69−0.15270.0115−0.4943−0.0058
C47−0.03650.3155−13.5417197.7772377048.90−0.1158−0.01742.0965−0.0298
C52−0.02700.2297−13.2963195.6075373322.80−0.11750.0397−0.6796−0.0405
C55−0.01890.1171−2.250729.52477117.58−0.16150.0003−60.9548−0.0190
T1−0.05110.2409−0.424212.6574454.26−0.21210.0814−0.6280−0.0565
T12−0.03410.4486−0.049420.95761679.60−0.07600.0289−1.1812−0.0307
T13−0.05730.27301.373115.5192800.82−0.21000.0232−2.4702−0.0560
T15−0.03740.1388−2.282822.04872925.68−0.26930.0225−1.6632−0.0343
T170.00530.05881.944011.7270475.410.08920.00560.93100.0037
T25−0.04340.17420.286311.0227336.94−0.24910.0103−4.2091−0.0441
T26−0.00320.22470.92455.118641.19−0.01440.1324−0.0245−0.0109
T330.01280.1545−1.040910.6930320.220.08290.05230.24510.0094
Notes: C06—min Sharpe; C12—max Treynor; C14—min mean, min Jensen; C23—max mean, max Sharpe & max Jensen; C44—min s.d.; C47—max s.d., min beta; C52—max beta; C55—min Treynor; T1—min Jensen; T12—max s.d.; T13—min mean; T15—min Sharpe; T17—min s.d., max Sharpe, min beta, max Treynor; T25—min Treynor; T26—max beta; T33—max mean & max Jensen.
Table
Table 2. MV Results for selected pairwise comparison.
Table 2. MV Results for selected pairwise comparison.
Pairwise Comparisont TestF TestMV Dominance
C14-T13µC < µT
−0.1474		σC > σT
1.1529		No
C23-T33µC < µT
−1.041		σC < σT
7.7611 ***		C23 ≻ M V T33
C44-T17µC < µT
−2.6106 ***		σC < σT
3.8564 ***		No
C47-T12µC < µT
−0.0597		σC < σT
2.0222 ***		C47 ≻ M V T12
C06-T15µC > µT
1.6191		σC < σT
3.1598 ***		C06 ≻ M V T15
C23-T17µC < µT
−0.6578		σC < σT
1.1249		No
C47-T17µC < µT
−1.4663		σC > σT
28.7523 ***		C47 ≻ M V T17
C52-T26µC < µT
−0.9425		σC > σT
1.0449		No
C55-T25µC < µT
1.5869		σC < σT
2.2131 ***		C55 ≻ M V T25
C12-T17µC < µT
−1.8125 *		σC > σT
5.9872 ***		T17 ≻ M V C12
C23-T01µC > µT
3.1743 ***		σC < σT
18.8615 ***		C23 ≻ M V T01
C14-T33µC < µT
−2.4578 **		σC > σT
3.5309 ***		T33 ≻ M V   C14
Notes: C14-T13 is the pair of mean min, C23-T33 is the pair of mean max; C44-T17 is the pair of s.d min, C47-T12 is the pair of s.d max; C06-T15 is the pair of Sharpe ratio min, C23-T17 is the pair of Sharpe ratio max; C47-T17 is the pair of beta min, C52-T26 is the pair of beta max; C55-T25 is the pair of Treynor ratio min, C12-T17 is the pair of Treynor ratio max; C23-T01 is the pair of Jensen ratio min, C14-T33 is the pair of Jensen ratio max. ***, ** and * denotes significant at 1%, 5% and 10% levels respectively.
Table
Table 3. SD Results for selected pairwise comparison.
Table 3. SD Results for selected pairwise comparison.
Pairwise ComparisonAscending SD
C14-T13No SD
C23-T33 C ≻ 2 , 3 T
C44-T17 C ≻ 2 , 3 T
C47-T12 C ≻ 2 , 3 T
C06-T15 C ≻ 2 , 3 T
C23-T17 C ≻ 2 , 3 T
C47-T17No SD
C52-T26 C ≻ 2 , 3 T
C55-T25 C ≻ 2 , 3 T
C12-T17 C ≻ 2 , 3 T
C23-T01 C ≻ 2 , 3 T
C14-T33No SD
Notes: C14-T13 is the pair of mean min, C23-T33 is the pair of mean max; C44-T17 is the pair of s.d min, C47-T12 is the pair of s.d max; C06-T15 is the pair of Sharpe ratio min, C23-T17 is the pair of Sharpe ratio max; C47-T17 is the pair of beta min, C52-T26 is the pair of beta max; C55-T25 is the pair of Treynor ratio min, C12-T17 is the pair of Treynor ratio max; C23-T01 is the pair of Jensen ratio min, C14-T33 is the pair of Jensen ratio max.
Table
Table 4. Summary statistics of trading volume (in USD) for selected Chinese and Taiwanese warrants.
Table 4. Summary statistics of trading volume (in USD) for selected Chinese and Taiwanese warrants.
Warrant CodeMeanStd. Dev.SkewnessKurtosisJB
C0696,150.950073,283.12002.184310.0706690.7704
C12173,603.0000324,388.60003.494917.01664926.9010
C1446,306.640044,987.50001.88377.1179150.5576
C2355,458.490046,573.73001.95088.4068440.8489
C44214,101.4000178,940.00001.95637.5217718.0678
C4740,012.990040,078.60002.340610.4683760.7066
C5259,475.670051,874.55002.487810.7968848.3305
C5548,996.580060,061.53003.230216.51662216.2940
T115.3537103.614310.5616113.355361,544.3700
T1218.458872.06699.8558105.407957,098.5700
T1325.7770127.757010.4158111.579760,098.8800
T1511.423575.409113.2409178.1744240,636.5000
T170.14050.46664.871829.53154194.0060
T2537.789474.46482.39088.2631265.4654
T2679.8744149.21587.294969.350724,230.2100
T33107.3186117.90722.816314.5546839.9515

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wong, W.-K.; Lean, H.H.; McAleer, M.; Tsai, F.-T. Why Are Warrant Markets Sustained in Taiwan but Not in China? Sustainability 2018, 10, 3748. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103748

AMA Style

Wong W-K, Lean HH, McAleer M, Tsai F-T. Why Are Warrant Markets Sustained in Taiwan but Not in China? Sustainability. 2018; 10(10):3748. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103748

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wong, Wing-Keung, Hooi Hooi Lean, Michael McAleer, and Feng-Tse Tsai. 2018. "Why Are Warrant Markets Sustained in Taiwan but Not in China?" Sustainability 10, no. 10: 3748. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103748

APA Style

Wong, W. -K., Lean, H. H., McAleer, M., & Tsai, F. -T. (2018). Why Are Warrant Markets Sustained in Taiwan but Not in China? Sustainability, 10(10), 3748. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103748

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop