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

Circlrmo · 2024年11月28日

不明白这题,可以解释吗

NO.PZ2024050101000097

问题如下:

Sam prices a put option on an asset with the Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing model and calculates a model premium of $25. This $25 also coincidentally equals the present-valued expected exposure faced by Sam with respect to the short option position. Sam estimates the probability of counterparty default by the option writer to be 10% with loss given default of 40%, such that the expected loss = $25 EE (writer) × 10% PD × 40% LGD = $1. He concludes that the CVA-adjusted (net of counterparty risk) option price is $24. His colleague Jane observes that this calculation assumes no wrong-way risk. But there is a high, positive correlation between underlying asset price and the credit quality of the option writer counterparty: both the counterparty and underlying share a sector that reacts to the same common factors such that adverse economic regimes depress sector asset prices while lowering sector credit quality (and increasing credit spreads). Is Jane correct that the CVA-adjusted option value deserves further adjustment?

选项:

A.

As the correlation is positive, this is instead right-way risk; but the true CVA-adjusted value remains $24 as there is no adjustment for right-way risk

B.

As the correlation is positive, this is instead right-way risk; therefore, the true CVA-adjusted value will be higher than $24

C.

Jane is correct that this is wrong-way risk; therefore, true CVA-adjusted value will be lower than $24

D.

Jane is correct that this is wrong-way risk but expected loss is not impacted by correlation, so Sam correctly has the CVA-adjusted value at $24

解释:

We refer to wrong-way risk as the adverse (negative) correlation between the exposure to the counterparty and its credit quality. Alternatively, it can be stated as the positive correlation between exposure and credit spread.

不明白为什么选C,可以解释吗?

0 个答案
  • 0

    回答
  • 0

    关注
  • 2

    浏览
相关问题

NO.PZ2024050101000097 问题如下 Sprices a put option on asset with the Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing mol ancalculates a mol premium of $25. This $25 also coincintally equals the present-valueexpecteexposure faceSwith respeto the short option position. Sestimates the probability of counterparty fault the option writer to 10% with loss given fault of 40%, suththe expecteloss = $25 EE (writer) × 10% P× 40% LG= $1. He conclus ththe CVA-auste(net of counterparty risk) option priis $24. His colleague Jane observes ththis calculation assumes no wrong-wrisk. But there is a high, positive correlation between unrlying asset prianthe cret quality of the option writer counterparty: both the counterparty anunrlying share a sector threacts to the same common factors suthaerse economic regimes press sector asset prices while lowering sector cret quality (anincreasing cret sprea). Is Jane correththe CVA-austeoption value serves further austment? A.the correlation is positive, this is insteright-wrisk; but the true CVA-austevalue remains $24 there is no austment for right-wrisk B.the correlation is positive, this is insteright-wrisk; therefore, the true CVA-austevalue will higher th$24 C.Jane is correththis is wrong-wrisk; therefore, true CVA-austevalue will lower th$24 Jane is correththis is wrong-wrisk but expecteloss is not impactecorrelation, so Scorrectly hthe CVA-austevalue $24 英文解析We refer to wrong-wrisk the aerse (negative) correlation between the exposure to the counterparty anits cret quality. Alternatively, it cstatethe positive correlation between exposure ancret sprea中文解析我们将错向风险定义为对交易对手的风险敞口与其信用质量之间的负相关关系。或者,也可以表述为风险敞口与信用利差之间的正相关关系。题干描述的是错向风险,因此排除A和B。信用估值调整(CVA)=模型溢价-预期损失,预期损失增加,CVA会降低,C正确。 的事 expecteloss is not impactecorrelation, expecteloss 的公式是 PEALG这跟correlation没有关系呀,根据这个公式,在哪里呢?如果要根据correlation调整风险的话 ,这个不是在stress testing counterparty exposures那里才计算吗?这个不是CVA呀,请老师一下谢谢

2025-07-05 20:35 1 · 回答