Reasons for a warrant's intrinsic value and price not adding up?
While on the surface it may seem that the warrant you described is trading below intrinsic value, there are many reasons why that might not be the case. It's more likely that you are lacking information, than having identified a derivative instrument that the market has failed to reasonably price. For instance, might there be a conversion ratio on the warrants other than the 1:1 ratio that you seem to be assuming? Sometimes, warrant terms are such that multiple warrants are required to buy one share of stock. Consider: The conversion ratio is the number of warrants needed in order to buy   (or sell) one investment unit. Therefore, if the conversion ratio to   buy stock XYZ is 3:1, this means that the holder needs three warrants   in order to purchase one share. Usually, if the conversion ratio is   high, the price of the share will be low, and vice versa. (source) Conversion ratios are sometimes used so that warrants can be issued on a 1:1 basis to existing stockholders, but where the potential number of new shares to be issued is much less. Conversion ratio is just one such example that could lead to perceived mispricing, and there may be other restrictions on exercise. Warrants are not issued by an options exchange using standardized option contract terms, and so warrant terms vary considerably from issuer to issuer. Even series of warrants from the same issuer may have differing terms. Always look beyond any warrant quote to find a definitive source of the warrant's precise terms — and read those terms carefully before taking any position.
I think the key to intrinsic value is that if you have something with *intrinsic* value, you can derive some direct benefit from it without trading.  For example a house has intrinsic value because without trading it, you can use it to stay warm and dry, and use it to store your stuff. Money - whether it's federal currency or bitcoin - has a very low intrinsic value. What can you do with cash without trading it? Maybe make some paper art or patch a leaking boat, but a $20 bill has very little practical (intrinsic) value until you trade it for goods or services. The same with bitcoin - you can't play it like a video game or drink it if you're thirsty, all you can do is trade it for things that you can use directly. "I'm not familiar with the Dupire model; I'll have to take a look at (it sounds cool though).  I think that all arbitrage-free models are ""incomplete"" in the sense that they don't say, ""This is a price that doesn't imply any arbitrage opportunities *anywhere*,"" but instead say, ""This is a price that doesn't imply any arbitrage opportunities within a specific set of securities.""  What set you're using will vary from one model to another, and I'd say (although other people might reasonably disagree) that taking a volatility structure as given is as much no-arbitrage as taking a term structure as given.  As a side note, I'd say that what (theoretically) distinguishes an equilibrium model is that you're supposed to *know* the parameters, not guess at them or observe them from the real world.  By that definition, a really complete CAPM or Black-Scholes would explain how to derive the correct beta or volatility from fundamental analysis.  Also, I've upvoted you elsewhere for some really good comments you made about intrinsic value." If markets were perfectly efficient, the price should reflect everything that is currently known about the future of a commodity.  If it is known that silver is currently under-valued, then investors would be buying it -- driving the price up.  Conversely, if silver is currently over-valued, then investors would be selling and the price would be going down.  Added to that is emotion.  If the price is currently trending up, then people expect it to keep going up, and the price continues to rise.  Until enough people think it can't go any higher and start selling, which drives the price down.  Since this is driven by emotion, it cannot be predicted when this will happen. In Australia there are 2 type of warrants (I don't know if it is the same in the US, UK and other countries), the first are trading warrants and the second are instalment warrants. The trading warrants are exactly what it says, they are used for trading. They are similar to option and have calls and puts. As Cameron says, they differ from exchange traded options in that they are issued by the financial companies whereas options are generally written by other investors. Instalment warrants on the other hand are usually bought and sold by investors with a longer term view. There are no calls and puts and you can just go long with them. They are also issued by financial companies, and how they work is best explained through an example: if I was to buy a stock directly say I would be paying $50 per share, however an instalment warrant in the underlying stock may be offered for $27 per warrant. I could buy the warrant directly from the company when it is issued or on the secondary market just like shares. I would pay the $27 per warrant upfront, and then in 2 years time when the warrant expires I have the choice to purchase the underlying stock for the strike price of say $28, roll over to a new issue of warrants, sell it back on the secondary market, or let it expire, in which case I would receive any intrinsic value left in the warrant. You would have noticed that the warrant purchase price plus the strike price adds up to more than the share price ($55 compared to $50). This is the interest component inherent in the warrant which covers the borrowing costs until expiry, when you pay the second portion (the strike price) and receive the underlying shares. Another difference between Instalment warrants and trading warrants (and options) is that with instalment warrants you still get the full dividends just like the shares, but at a higher yield than the shares. "I don't have a formula for anything like this, but it is important to note that the ""current value"" of any asset is really theoretical until you actually sell it. For example, let's consider a house.  You can get an appraisal done on your house, where your home is inspected, and the sales of similar houses in your area are compared.  However, this value is only theoretical.  If you found yourself in a situation where you absolutely had to sell your house in one week, you would most likely have to settle for much less than the appraised value. The same hold true for collectibles.  If I have something rare that I need cash for immediately, I can take it to a pawn shop and get cash.  However, if I take my time and locate a genuinely interested collector, I can get more for it. This is comparable to someone who holds a significant percentage of shares in a publicly held corporation.  If the current market value of your shares is $10 million, but you absolutely need to sell your entire stake today, you aren't going to get $10 million.  But if you take your time selling a little at a time, you are more likely to get much closer to this $10 million number. A ""motivated seller"" means that the price will drop." "I'll tackle number 2. It's one which many academics dismissed as an impossibility; after all, how could that be rational? What could cause negative yields (ie effectively giving an entity cash and paying for the privilege of doing so!) is something we've experiencing currently: fear. Back in the financial crisis, investors were actually paying to store their cash in treasuries, because of the  fear that if they left it with a bank they might not get it back.   What about the FDIC Insurance you may ask quite logically. The problem is that we're talking about massive entities, like pension funds, asset managers, corporations, who normally would store some (think millions - billions) in cash and cash equivalents (bank accounts, money market funds, short-term paper), they really aren't protected. So, they do what turns out to be the rational thing, which is pay a premium on ""safe assets"" ie US Gov't bills to guarantee you get most of your money back.  The same thing is currently happening with German front-end paper, as Europeans pull their money out of banks/periphery assets and search for safety.  Hope that helped." "Whoops, responded to the wrong person. Reposting for you in case you didn't see it.       Here's a source for the $3.7 trillion number.      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-08/u-s-municipal-bond-market-28-larger-than-estimated-federal-reserve-says.html    It's not 'incorrect data'.        EDIT:  Furthermore, in order to know the ""extent"" of the crime (your own admission) we NEED to know the size of the entire market otherwise you can't have any perspective or determine extent.  So there's no reason it shouldn't be mentioned in the article." "The first thing that it is important to note here is that the examples you have given are not individual bond prices.  This is what is called the ""generic"" bond price data, in effect a idealised bond with the indicated maturity period.  You can see individual bond prices on the UK Debt Management Office website. The meaning of the various attributes (price, yield, coupon) remains the same, but there may be no such bond to trade in the market.  So let's take the example of an actual UK Gilt, say the ""4.25% Treasury Gilt 2019"".  The UK Debt Management Office currently lists this bond as having a maturity date of 07-Mar-2019 and a price of GBP 116.27.  This means that you will pay 116.27 to purchase a bond with a nominal value of GBP 100.00.  Here, the ""nominal price"" is the price that HM Treasury will buy the bond back on the maturity date.   Note that the title of the bond indicates a ""nominal"" yield of 4.25%.  This is called the coupon, so here the coupon is 4.25%.  In other words, the treasury will pay GBP 4.25 annually for each bond with a nominal value of GBP 100.00.  Since you will now be paying a price of GBP 116.27 to purchase this bond in the market today, this means that you will be paying 116.27 to earn the nominal annual interest of 4.25.  This equates to a 3.656% yield, where 3.656% = 4.25/116.27.   It is very important to understand that the yield is not the whole story.  In particular, since the bond has a nominal value of GBP100, this means that as the maturity date approaches the market price of the bond will approach the nominal price of 100. In this case, this means that you will witness a loss of capital over the period that you hold the bond.  If you hold the bond until maturity, then you will lose GBP 16.27 for each nominal GBP100 bond you hold.  When this capital loss is netted off the interest recieved, you get what is called the gross redemption yield.  In this case, the gross redemption yield is given as approximately 0.75% per annum. NB.  The data table you have included clearly has errors in the pricing of the 3 month, 6 month, and 12 month generics."