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
  • Request a Demo
  • 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
  • Request a Demo
  • 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 Winter 2015, 23 (2) 1-3; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3905/jod.2015.23.2.001
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

So many risks and so little real information! After a very dull spring and early summer when the Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index (VIX), often referred to as the Market’s Fear Gauge, stayed below 16% except for a handful of days, we saw a spike to over 40% for a day in late August. Since then, however, it has been falling steadily, receding to 14%–16% as of early November. The market plainly seems not too fearful these days.

Objectively, considering the size and variety of uncertainties that we currently face, we should probably be terrified. Once again, this situation illustrates the difference between volatility as it is estimated from returns data and volatility that leads to a major change in the level of stock prices over the relatively short lifetime of an option. If an asset’s price follows a logarithmic random walk with constant instantaneous volatility, the two manifestations of “volatility” amount to the same thing: Over a period of any length T, the standard deviation of the return is volatility per period multiplied by the square root of T.

But even with constant volatility along a random walk path, the realized final asset price and option payoff can end up anywhere within a broad range. Thus, it is not inconsistent to expect low volatility over the immediate short run, because new information becomes available slowly, while anticipating that the total price change over a longer holding period may be very large. This distinction plays out in terms of a potentially vast difference between how an investor might think of volatility over an option’s life in terms of the effect on its payoff at maturity, versus how day-to-day volatility affects the hedging cost for a market maker who takes the opposite side of the investor’s trade. The investor wants a big price move and does not care which path the stock takes to get there, whereas the market maker wants smooth price paths without large changes of direction that would whipsaw his or her hedge. It does not matter much to the market maker where the stock price ultimately goes. Sharp price jumps are fine for the investor (in the right direction), but they are terrible (in either direction) for the market maker’s delta hedge.

So, briefly, what are market makers worrying about right now? Corporate earnings announcements, daily twitches in the oil market, comments by Fed Chairman Janet Yellen parsed extremely finely, weekly announcements of employment and other economic data, and anything new out of China. All of these things are volatile, but they have shown many reversals, and so the jiggles over hours and days have not added up to large changes over weeks and months.

What are longer term investors worrying about? Whether Congress will raise the debt ceiling and pass a budget without shutting down the government (both resolved, remarkably, as of the time of this letter); when (not whether) the Fed will begin raising interest rates; how the current strength in the U.S. economy, weakness in much of the Eurozone, distress in emerging market countries from collapsing commodity prices, and slowing economic growth plus stock market disruption in China will play out.

Then, of course, there are concerns such as global warming, desperate refugees heading toward Europe by the thousands, a presidential election coming up in the United States, a possible Brexit (Britain leaving the European Union), and more. And let’s not even think about any part of the Middle East.

But what is the scariest thing of all? We are seeing sharp declines in the number of students who want to go to business school, the number of business students taking finance courses, and the fraction of finance students taking courses on derivatives. Forget about drowning polar bears and massive default by Puerto Rico, this is getting serious!

Turning to this issue of The Journal of Derivatives, the first three articles are all related to credit risk. Leading off, Gatarek and Jabłecki introduce a new way of modeling default correlation. The now-standard Gaussian copula model runs into a number of problems with real world risky assets, including, in particular, great difficulty in generating correlated defaults. Their new approach models the common risk as a set of Poisson shocks of increasing size, such that if a type n shock occurs, it wipes out firm n and all less creditworthy firms at the same time. The general model is applied to the problem of evaluating counterparty risk exposure, which involves a double credit event.

The next article, by Černý and Witzany, develops a semi-closed form model of correlation in credit risk to calculate the appropriate credit value adjustment on an over-the-counter derivative, depending on whether it involves wrong-way or right-way risk. Gupta and Sundaram then describe and discuss the current auction system for settling credit default swaps after a credit event. They show that prices for the defaulted bonds in the auction appear to be worse than their prices in the open market both before and after an auction. Yet when the various risks are properly considered, including the winner’s curse (i.e., winning an auction with the most over-optimistic bid), the auction is actually found to produce substantial information and justifiable pricing.

Correlation is clearly important for any derivative tied to the behavior of more than one risk factor. A common example is a quanto option, which pays off in a currency different from the currency in which the underlying asset is denominated. Superficially, this is not a hard problem, but it is when considered practically. Finding a quanto formula that is consistent with the observed volatility smiles in both the foreign underlying market and the exchange rate is a challenge. Without assuming a specific pricing model, Tsuzuki is able to derive model-independent upper and lower bounds for quanto values.

The next article, by Jarnecic, Liu, and Issa, looks at a market microstructure topic that many of us would think was already settled, but they find some surprises. Specifically, they analyze the returns earned by options market makers, large institutions, and retail traders to determine what part of each group’s return comes from providing liquidity and what part from position taking. The common belief, that market makers provide liquidity and are paid by outsiders who hope to profit from their positions, turns out not to be true, at least not in Australia: market makers absorb liquidity that public traders provide, and they profit over the short run on their positions. Finally, in the last article, Yang, Fabozzi, and Bianchi address a very practical question: Does using an explicitly stochastic volatility model, the stochastic alpha-beta-rho (SABR) model in this case, produce better hedge performance in practice for foreign exchange options than the simpler, potentially more robust but theoretically inferior Black–Scholes model? The answer, which is a little bothersome for theorists but not so bad for practitioners, is that although the SABR model fits observed option prices pretty well, it does not perform better in hedging.

By the time you read this, the holidays will be upon us. Assuming you survive the probable December increase in the Fed’s target interest rate, as well as the shopping crush on Black Friday, let me offer:

My Best Wishes for the Season and for the New Year 2016.

Stephen Figlewski

Editor

  • © 2015 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: 23 (2)
The Journal of Derivatives
Vol. 23, Issue 2
Winter 2015
  • 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 Nov 2015, 23 (2) 1-3; DOI: 10.3905/jod.2015.23.2.001

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 Nov 2015, 23 (2) 1-3; DOI: 10.3905/jod.2015.23.2.001
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