4 ms·
Edit: if you remove the second 'at' it makes sense. I think they mean that the buyer will agree to pay $5000 now for say 10 shares (close to current valuation)
by scajanus 4y ago
Edit: if you remove the second 'at' it makes sense.
I think they mean that the buyer will agree to pay $5000 now for say 10 shares (close to current valuation), and get it in a week regardless if they will be worth $0, $5000 or $100000 at that point. They would prefer to buy it now, but can't, and thus are willing to pay a fee to make it happen.
However, the motivation (and pricing) is different from futures trading: here the buyer would prefer to buy the asset immediately, but because of market inefficiencies or unavailability it's not possible. So some dealer figures he can make that happen in a week, takes a small fee, and agrees to the trade. In the meantime, the dealer might want to buy something that correlates with the value of the actual asset to cover his bet -- e.g. they might be able to buy most of the stocks in the ETF in roughly the same amounts, and just accept the remaining risk.
There is however a chance that they will not be able to complete the transaction.
- josu 4y agoNo, the original statement is correct. Page 3 of the linked paper has a diagram. https://www.janestreet.com/wp-content/themes/janestreet/pdf/Important_Considerations_for_NAV_Based_ETF_Trading.pdf https://www.janestreet.com/wp-content/themes/janestreet/pdf/...