开发者:上海品职教育科技有限公司 隐私政策详情

应用版本:4.2.11(IOS)|3.2.5(安卓)APP下载

carolwang · 2023年08月15日

Strategy 1 没有表达市场观点

NO.PZ2022123002000023

问题如下:

Traldi suggests that the use of put options might be a better way to hedge currency exposure. Campos responds that there are better options-based strategies that can exploit market views and reduce hedging costs. She suggests the following strategies:

Ÿ Strategy 1. For AUD exposure, the appropriate strategy is to be long put options at a strike price of 2.1046, short put options with a strike price 2.1006, and short call options with a strike price of 2.1456.

Ÿ Strategy 2. For CHF exposure, the appropriate strategy is to be long put options at a strike price of 2.5309, short put options with a strike price 2.5049, and short call options with a strike price of 2.5669.

Is Campos most likely correct that Strategy 1 and Strategy 2 will accomplish the goals of exploiting market views and reducing hedging costs?

选项:

A.

No, she is incorrect about reducing hedging costs

B.

Yes

C.

No, she is incorrect about exploiting market views

解释:

Correct Answer: C

Campos suggests that both strategies help reduce hedging costs and allow the manager to exploit a market view. While it is true that both strategies help reduce hedging costs through premiums collected on short calls and puts, they both do not exploit the market view on the currencies, specifically, Strategy 1 does not. Exhibit 3 indicates that the expectation is for the AUD to depreciate to BRL/AUD 2.0355 and for the CHF to appreciate to BRL/CHF 2.5642. Strategy 1, the short seagull on the AUD, only provides downside protection to BRL/AUD 2.1006 (when the short put kicks in and neutralizes the hedge), not BRL/AUD 2.0355. Under Strategy 2, the expectation is for an appreciation to BRL/CHF 2.5642; here the option premium is pocketed and because the option is written with a strike of BRL/CHF 2.5669, it will expire worthless if the rate never gets to BRL/CHF 2.5669

A is incorrect. It is true that both strategies help reduce hedging costs through premiums collected on short call and put.

B is incorrect. It is true that both strategies help reduce hedging costs through premiums collected on short call and put, but they both do not accommodate the market view on the currencies.

Strategy 1: For AUD exposure, the appropriate strategy is to be long put options at a strike price of 2.1046, short put options with a strike price 2.1006,

不能表达市场观点是因为同时做long put + short put 吗?如果只是单做long put at strike at 2.1046,应该是表达了市场观点的吧。

1 个答案

pzqa31 · 2023年08月15日

嗨,从没放弃的小努力你好:


首先,利用市场观点就是说,在市场按照预期发展的时候,整个策略是否会获利。

策略1,预期AUD贬值,当前是2.1046,此策略,不用等到AUD进一步贬值,由于short了一个ITM put,导致现在就需要付给对手方一笔钱。所以此策略根本无法获利。(没有利用市场观点)。策略2,预期CHF升值,我们应该采取一个CHF升值可以给我们带来好处的策略,所以就long call,同时short option来降低成本。但是策略2不大没有long call,反而long put,白白花了期权费。所以策略2也没有利用市场观点。(可以看到两个策略都没利用市场观点,与C选项的说法一致,所以C对

----------------------------------------------
加油吧,让我们一起遇见更好的自己!

  • 1

    回答
  • 0

    关注
  • 487

    浏览
相关问题