# Request for market depth NASDAQ stock



## Gringotts Bank (20 February 2012)

If you have access to NASDAQ market depth, I wonder if you'd mind posting the market depth for SSH?  Wanting to know if the arbitrage opportunity is real.  ASX code is SHC.

Thanks.


----------



## skyQuake (20 February 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> If you have access to NASDAQ market depth, I wonder if you'd mind posting the market depth for SSH?  Wanting to know if the arbitrage opportunity is real.  ASX code is SHC.
> 
> Thanks.




Volume is atrocious. 2k shares on the 16th and 2k on the 17th. Also I very significantly doubt you can get borrow in the US line to short sell.

Lots of nasdaq stocks like that. Thin vol, but at prem to Au because of a) spread b) illiquidity


----------



## skc (20 February 2012)

Unless there's meaningful after hour trading (there is no overlap of trading hours between US and Aus) and liquidity for shorts it's not much of an arbitrage.

Can still be profitable, however.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (20 February 2012)

skyQuake said:


> Volume is atrocious. 2k shares on the 16th and 2k on the 17th. Also I very significantly doubt you can get borrow in the US line to short sell.
> 
> Lots of nasdaq stocks like that. Thin vol, but at prem to Au because of a) spread b) illiquidity




Sky the premium at the moment is nearly 90%, which seems out of balance.  0.042*200 = $8.60  versus $15.  Presumably either SHC will continue to gap up strongly, or SSH will gap down strongly to make it more even.

I see the volume is very low, but the depth might tell if there are buyers in line, giving an indication of likely support... and where that support lies.

skc, I'm thinking long SHC rather than short SSH.


----------



## skc (20 February 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Sky the premium at the moment is nearly 90%, which seems out of balance.  0.042*200 = $8.60  versus $15.  Presumably either SHC will continue to gap up strongly, or SSH will gap down strongly to make it more even.
> 
> I see the volume is very low, but the depth might tell if there are buyers in line, giving an indication of likely support... and where that support lies.
> 
> skc, I'm thinking long SHC rather than short SSH.




Unless you short SSH it's not an arbitrage in the true sense.

It's only listed on Nasdaq for 2 days? It's pretty hard to tell which exchange is leading and which is following. I do remember reading that US investors tend to value healthcare higher than Aussies.

The market depth for SSH shows 100 bids at 3.5 and 500 ask at 20. 

Doesn't seem to have a great deal of meaning...


----------



## Gringotts Bank (20 February 2012)

skc said:


> Unless you short SSH it's not an arbitrage in the true sense.
> 
> The market depth for SSH shows 100 bids at 3.5 and 500 ask at 20.




A spread of $16.50!  Maybe the half way mark of $11.75 is close to where it will settle.  If so that would translate to .058c.  Currently .043.

I think I'll take a small punt.

Thanks.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (21 February 2012)

Sheer luck.  Risky.


----------



## skc (21 February 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Sheer luck.  Risky.




Keynesian beauty contest... 



> Keynes described the action of rational agents in a market using an analogy based on a fictional newspaper contest, in which entrants are asked to choose a set of six faces from photographs of women that are the "most beautiful". Those who picked the most popular face are then eligible for a prize.
> 
> A naÃ¯ve strategy would be to choose the six faces that, in the opinion of the entrant, are the most beautiful. A more sophisticated contest entrant, wishing to maximize the chances of winning a prize, would think about what the majority perception of beauty is, and then make a selection based on some inference from their knowledge of public perceptions. This can be carried one step further to take into account the fact that other entrants would each have their own opinion of what public perceptions are. Thus the strategy can be extended to the next order, and the next, and so on, at each level attempting to predict the eventual outcome of the process based on the reasoning of other rational agents.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_beauty_contest

Doesn't matter if you are wrong, as long as there are others who are also wrong.

Feels like that over at JIN as well.


----------

