Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Videos
  • Submit an article
  • More
    • About JOD
    • Editorial Board
    • Published Ahead of Print (PAP)
  • IPR Logo
  • About Us
  • Journals
  • Publish
  • Advertise
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • More
    • Awards
    • Article Licensing
    • Academic Use
  • Follow IIJ on LinkedIn
  • Follow IIJ on Twitter

User menu

  • Sample our Content
  • Subscribe Now
  • Log in

Search

  • ADVANCED SEARCH: Discover more content by journal, author or time frame
The Journal of Derivatives
  • IPR Logo
  • About Us
  • Journals
  • Publish
  • Advertise
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • More
    • Awards
    • Article Licensing
    • Academic Use
  • Sample our Content
  • Subscribe Now
  • Log in
The Journal of Derivatives

The Journal of Derivatives

ADVANCED SEARCH: Discover more content by journal, author or time frame

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Videos
  • Submit an article
  • More
    • About JOD
    • Editorial Board
    • Published Ahead of Print (PAP)
  • Follow IIJ on LinkedIn
  • Follow IIJ on Twitter
Article
Open Access

Editor’s Letter

Stephen Figlewski
The Journal of Derivatives Spring 2012, 19 (3) 1-2; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3905/jod.2012.19.3.001
Stephen Figlewski
Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

The “January Effect” is still in effect (S&P 500 +5.29% on the month), but where did all the volatility go? During the last three months of 2011, the standard deviation of the daily return on the S&P 500 Index was 1.68%. During January 2012, it was 0.49%. What happened? Did we somehow solve all of our economic problems at the turn of the year? How could I have missed that?

December in the U.S. ended with the Senate quickly leaving town for the rest of the year after tossing a small bomb to the House of Representatives, in the form of a vote to keep taxes on 160 million workers from going up on January 1 that a number of Republican Congressmen opposed but didn’t want to vote against. With Congress gone, a couple of weeks went by with no self-inflicted crises emanating from Washington. And even after they returned, Obama’s State of the Union address and the drama of the Republican Presidential primaries keptWashington distracted for the rest of the month, apparently to the relief of the financial markets.

Meanwhile, discussion continued in Europe, with much confidence expressed about the prospects for achieving an accepted and workable plan to resolve the euro crisis. With only a few dissenters (e.g., Britain) and with a few successful bond sales by the weaker countries (despite credit rating downgrades of nine Eurozone countries by Standard and Poor’s) and, notably, with no hard deadlines to be met during the month, the anxiety levels on both sides of the Atlantic have ticked down. What could possibly go wrong now?

Leaving that poignant question hanging, let us turn to this issue of The Journal of Derivatives. The recent financial crisis revealed serious problems in pricing collateralized debt instruments, such as subprime CMO tranches. But credit researchers have long known that market tranche prices are not consistent with theoretical values from the standard models, as shown by the existence and persistence of the “correlation skew.” In our lead article, Hamerle, Igl, and Plank explore the fact that the main focus in modeling default risk for a credit portfolio has been on the correlations, not so much on the market risk premia for the individual credits’ downside risk. They extract information on left tail risk from options on an obligor’s stock and show that treating the risk premium more carefully can substantially reduce the mispricing implied by the typical skew in tranche correlations. The next article looks at the market for single-stock futures at the Eurex. These futures contracts have only been allowed to trade in Europe and the U.S. in the last few years. Bialkowski and Jakubowski explore what factors are most important in explaining the relative success or lack of success for futures on a particular stock. Active trading and high volatility in the underlying increase futures activity, while greater institutional ownership reduces it. A larger sized contract hurts futures trading, but a larger tick size appears to help it. And the stock’s beta seems not to matter at all.

Mortgages have figured prominently in our recent market disruption, which has brought increased focus on one of the hardest major classes of securities to value. Prepayment risk has always been a problem with mortgages, since it depends not just on the level of the interest rate, but on its whole time path, which led to models that have to be solved by Monte Carlo simulation. Adding default risk too, for the increasing number of non-guaranteed mortgages, makes things much worse. Tsai and Chiang offer a different modeling approach that treats mortgage prepayment and default as Poisson jumps, the same way reducedform models for risky corporate bonds do. This allows closed-form valuation equations and a major increase in computational efficiency.

The next article looks at “charm.”No, it isn’t a piece about quarks in particle physic or a report on New York’s “Fashion Week.” Here charm refers to the partial derivative of an option’s delta with respect to the time to expiration. As Mastinsek shows, charm should not be ignored in delta hedging an option when it gets close to expiration. At a given stock price, delta changes rapidly in the last few days before expiration, and it pays to adjust the hedge ratio to account for the option’s charm.

Finally, in the last article, Chang, Chen, and Wu show how to substantially improve computational efficiency for the spread and basket option pricing model originally proposed by Borovkova, Permana, and Weide in the Summer 2007 issue of JOD.

As this is being written, I find myself in a period of watchful waiting between two major events in the U.S. that are fraught with uncertainty. On February 2, Punxsutawney Phil, the official U.S. Groundhog, revealed his meteorological forecast that we would have six more weeks of winter. (Non-U.S. readers should search the Internet for “groundhog day” to read about our quaint customs.) The other event of great consequence is the Super Bowl. With no inside information at this time, beyond the fact that the New York Giants obviously ought to win, because … well …we’re so deserving, I leave you with the fervent hope: “Go Giants!”

Stephen Figlewski

Editor

  • © 2012 Pageant Media Ltd

PreviousNext
Back to top

Explore our content to discover more relevant research

  • By topic
  • Across journals
  • From the experts
  • Monthly highlights
  • Special collections

In this issue

The Journal of Derivatives: 19 (3)
The Journal of Derivatives
Vol. 19, Issue 3
Spring 2012
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on The Journal of Derivatives.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Editor’s Letter
(Your Name) has sent you a message from The Journal of Derivatives
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the The Journal of Derivatives web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Editor’s Letter
Stephen Figlewski
The Journal of Derivatives Feb 2012, 19 (3) 1-2; DOI: 10.3905/jod.2012.19.3.001

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Save To My Folders
Share
Editor’s Letter
Stephen Figlewski
The Journal of Derivatives Feb 2012, 19 (3) 1-2; DOI: 10.3905/jod.2012.19.3.001
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Tweet Widget Facebook Like LinkedIn logo

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Similar Articles

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Editor’s Letter
  • Editor’s Letter
  • Interviews with Researchers Who Started Their Career in Physics but Moved to Finance
Show more Article
LONDON
One London Wall, London, EC2Y 5EA
United Kingdom
+44 207 139 1600
 
NEW YORK
41 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10010
USA
+1 646 931 9045
pm-research@pageantmedia.com
 

Stay Connected

  • Follow IIJ on LinkedIn
  • Follow IIJ on Twitter

MORE FROM PMR

  • Home
  • Awards
  • Investment Guides
  • Videos
  • About PMR

INFORMATION FOR

  • Academics
  • Agents
  • Authors
  • Content Usage Terms

GET INVOLVED

  • Advertise
  • Publish
  • Article Licensing
  • Contact Us
  • Subscribe Now
  • Log In
  • Update your profile
  • Give us your feedback

© 2021 Pageant Media Ltd | All Rights Reserved | ISSN: 1074-1240 | E-ISSN: 2168-8524

  • Site Map
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookies