We tried to explain the premium and could not
It tracks dividend yield closely enough to look solved, then two stocks break it and an experiment we ran on the day came back empty. What follows is what we measured, including the parts that do not fit.
- Usable samples
- 1,025 Across four stocks
- Observed time
- 13.5 hours 5 sampling sessions
- Sampling cadence
- 3 minutes Intraday coverage only
- Research status
- Unresolved Measured, not explained
First, is it even stable?
Everything below this is one measurement per stock at one moment, which cannot tell a structural premium from a number that happened to be there when we looked. So we sampled every three minutes and asked a different question: does each sample predict the next one?
Premium over the sampling period
Basis points · session gaps removedThe shape is the argument. SPY holds a band roughly five basis points wide for hours at a time; Tesla crosses its own zero line again and again. Same sampler, same three-minute cadence, same moments.
| Stock | Samples | Mean ± SD | Persistence (lag 1) |
|---|---|---|---|
| SPY | 260 | 54.9 ± 5.9 bp | 0.929 |
| AAPL | 261 | 27.4 ± 11.1 bp | 0.846 |
| NVDA | 247 | 12.3 ± 10.5 bp | 0.439 |
| TSLAControl | 257 | -3.5 ± 8.6 bp | 0.034 |
Persistence is the correlation with the next sample. TSLA control: the one stock with no premium, and the only one with no structure.
Tesla is what makes the rest readable. Every stock carrying a premium predicts itself three minutes later at 0.85 or better. Tesla, which carries none, sits at 0.05 — indistinguishable from noise. The sampler finds structure where a premium exists and none where it does not, which is what rules out our own measurement as the thing producing it.
1,025 usable samples over 13.5 hours in 5 sessions. Three were discarded by a stated 1% spread rule — one a genuine after-hours route failure at 36%, two merely wide at 1.2%; the 99th percentile of every other sample is 0.80%. Premium correlates with oracle staleness at −0.34 to +0.02, so a stale price is not it. This is intraday evidence only — we have no overnight or weekend coverage.
It is not pool size, and it is not liquidity
If demand drove the premium, the biggest wrappers would carry the most of it. Dividend yield plotted against each stock’s premium:
Dividend yield vs premium
6-stock snapshot| Stock | Yield | Premium | AUM |
|---|---|---|---|
| SPY | 0.98% | 57.1 bp | $72.9m |
| QQQ | 0.40% | 27.3 bp | $60.8m |
| AAPL | 0.32% | 26.6 bp | $51.9m |
| GOOGL | 0.23% | 19.3 bp | $56.5m |
| NVDA | 0.46% | 9.2 bp | $70.6m |
| TSLA | 0.00% | 0.0 bp | $83.6m |
pays more than AAPL, carries a third of its premium
largest wrapper here, premium of exactly zero
- premium vs yield
- 0.887
- excluding NVDA
- 0.986
- premium vs liquidity
- 0.780
- premium vs AUM
- −0.235
Tesla settles it. It is the largest wrapper in the set, it trades actively, and its premium is zero to the decimal. No size or demand variable predicts that. Paying no dividend does.
The experiment, and the null result
SPY went ex-dividend during the build. A $1.90 dividend against a $759 share predicts a step of roughly 25 bp at the opening bell — widening, since the share drops while the token keeps the claim. We watched it happen.
The step that did not appear
Change from the pre-open premium (bp)View the four recorded values
| Recorded time | Observation | Premium |
|---|---|---|
| 03:50 | before the open | 70.5 bp |
| 11:59 | after the open | 65.1 bp |
| 12:11 | Later observation | 60.5 bp |
| 15:07 | Later observation | 53.1 bp |
Across the opening bell the premium moved 5.4 bp, and downward. The spread on SPY is 3 bp, so a 25 bp step in either direction would have been impossible to miss. There was no step.
Where that leaves it
The premium follows dividend yield and sits at zero for the one stock paying none. It also ignores an ex-dividend date, implies seven to ten months of accrual on a wrapper that launched fourteen months ago, and inverts on Nvidia. We did not force a story onto that.
What holds without qualification: the premium is measurable, it reproduces, and no quote anywhere shows it. That is what the guard checks against — not the reason behind it.