We compare two different bilateral counterparty valuation adjustment (BVA) formulas. The first formula is an approximation and is based on subtracting the two unilateral Credit Valuation Adjustment (CVA)'s formulas as seen from the two different parties in the transaction. This formula is only a simplified representation of bilateral risk and ignores that upon the first default closeout proceedings are ignited. As such, it involves double counting. We compare this formula with the fully specified bilateral risk formula, where the first to default time is taken into account. The latter correct formula depends on default dependence between the two parties, whereas the simplified one does not. We also analyze a candidate simplified formula in case the replacement closeout is used upon default, following ISDA's recommendations, and we find the simplified formula to be the same as in the risk free closeout case. We analyze the error that is encountered when using the simplified formula in a couple of simple products: a zero coupon bond, where the exposure is unidirectional, and an equity forward contract where exposure can go both ways. For the latter case we adopt a bivariate exponential distribution due to Gumbel [19] to model the joint default risk of the two parties in the deal. We present a number of realistic cases where the simplified formula differs considerably from the correct one.

We integrate two approaches to portfolio management problems: that of Morton and Pliska (1995) for a portfolio with risky and riskless assets under transaction costs, and that of Cadenillas and Pliska (1999) for a portfolio with a risky asset under taxes and transaction costs. In particular, we show that the two surprising results of the latter paper, results shown for a taxable market consisting of only a single security, extend to a financial market with one risky asset and one bond: it can be optimal to realize not only losses but also gains, and sometimes the investor prefers a positive tax rate.

We develop a unified valuation theory that incorporates credit risk (defaults), collateralization and funding costs, by expanding the replication approach to a generality that has not yet been studied previously and reaching valuation when replication is not assumed. This unifying theoretical framework clarifies the relationship between the two valuation approaches: the adjusted cash flows approach pioneered for example by Brigo, Pallavicini and co-authors ([12, 13, 34]) and the classic replication approach illustrated for example by 8]). In particular, results of this work cover most previous papers where the authors studied specific replication models.

We illustrate a problem in the self-financing condition used in the papers "Funding beyond discounting: collateral agreements and derivatives pricing" (Risk Magazine, February 2010) and "Partial Differential Equation Representations of Derivatives with Counterparty Risk and Funding Costs" (The Journal of Credit Risk, 2011). These papers state an erroneous self-financing condition. In the first paper, this is equivalent to assuming that the equity position is self-financing on its own and without including the cash position. In the second paper, this is equivalent to assuming that a subportfolio is self-financing on its own, rather than the whole portfolio. The error in the first paper is avoided when clearly distinguishing between price processes, dividend processes and gain processes. We present an outline of the derivation that yields the correct statement of the self-financing condition, clarifying the structure of the relevant funding accounts, and show that the final result in "Funding beyond discounting" is correct, even if the self-financing condition stated is not.