2016
DOI: 10.1002/fut.21789
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Differences in the Prices of Vulnerable Options with Different Counterparties

Abstract: In this paper, a new pricing model is proposed to investigate the differences in the prices of vulnerable options with different counterparties. I start by specifying the dynamics of the market portfolio, and then break down the risk of the underlying asset and the assets of the counterparties into systematic and idiosyncratic risk, which allows me to distinguish the counterparties from these two kinds of risk. Finally, the derived pricing formulae are used to illustrate the differences between vulnerable opti… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
20
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

2
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
0
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Wang's (2017a) model and a special case of the proposed model, where idiosyncratic volatilities of the underlying asset and the asset of the issuer are constants, that is, To this end, we contrast the numerical results implied by the proposed model with those implied by X.…”
Section: Effects Of Stochastic Volatilitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Wang's (2017a) model and a special case of the proposed model, where idiosyncratic volatilities of the underlying asset and the asset of the issuer are constants, that is, To this end, we contrast the numerical results implied by the proposed model with those implied by X.…”
Section: Effects Of Stochastic Volatilitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Wang's (2017a) model and the special case of the proposed model mentioned above shows the effect of stochastic volatility of the market index. Hence, the difference between option prices from X.…”
Section: Effects Of Stochastic Volatilitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations