论期权定价的实用观点

IF 0.8 Q3 STATISTICS & PROBABILITY Monte Carlo Methods and Applications Pub Date : 2022-09-28 DOI:10.1515/mcma-2022-2122
N. Halidias
{"title":"论期权定价的实用观点","authors":"N. Halidias","doi":"10.1515/mcma-2022-2122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this note, we describe a new approach to the option pricing problem by introducing the notion of the safe (and acceptable) price for the writer of an option, in contrast to the fair price used in the Black–Scholes model. Our starting point is that the option pricing problem is closely related with the hedging problem by practical techniques. Recalling that the Black–Scholes model does not give us the price of the option but the initial value of a replicating portfolio, we observe easily that this has a serious disadvantage because it assumes the building of this replicating portfolio continuously in time, and this is a disadvantage of any model that assumes such a construction. Here we study the problem from the practical point of view concerning mainly the over-the-counter market. This approach is not affected by the number of the underlying assets and is particularly useful for incomplete markets. In the usual Black–Scholes or binomial approach or some other approaches, one assumes that one can invest or borrow at the same risk-free rate r > 0 r>0 , which is not true in general. Even if this is the case, one can immediately observe that this risk-free rate is not a universal constant but is different among different people or institutions. So the fair price of an option is not so much fair! Moreover, the two sides are not, in general, equivalent against the risk; therefore, the notion of a fair price has no meaning at all. We also define a variant of the usual binomial model, by estimating safe upward and downward rates u , d u,d , trying to give a cheaper safe or acceptable price for the option.","PeriodicalId":46576,"journal":{"name":"Monte Carlo Methods and Applications","volume":"28 1","pages":"307 - 318"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the practical point of view of option pricing\",\"authors\":\"N. Halidias\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/mcma-2022-2122\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In this note, we describe a new approach to the option pricing problem by introducing the notion of the safe (and acceptable) price for the writer of an option, in contrast to the fair price used in the Black–Scholes model. Our starting point is that the option pricing problem is closely related with the hedging problem by practical techniques. Recalling that the Black–Scholes model does not give us the price of the option but the initial value of a replicating portfolio, we observe easily that this has a serious disadvantage because it assumes the building of this replicating portfolio continuously in time, and this is a disadvantage of any model that assumes such a construction. Here we study the problem from the practical point of view concerning mainly the over-the-counter market. This approach is not affected by the number of the underlying assets and is particularly useful for incomplete markets. In the usual Black–Scholes or binomial approach or some other approaches, one assumes that one can invest or borrow at the same risk-free rate r > 0 r>0 , which is not true in general. Even if this is the case, one can immediately observe that this risk-free rate is not a universal constant but is different among different people or institutions. So the fair price of an option is not so much fair! Moreover, the two sides are not, in general, equivalent against the risk; therefore, the notion of a fair price has no meaning at all. We also define a variant of the usual binomial model, by estimating safe upward and downward rates u , d u,d , trying to give a cheaper safe or acceptable price for the option.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46576,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Monte Carlo Methods and Applications\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"307 - 318\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Monte Carlo Methods and Applications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/mcma-2022-2122\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"STATISTICS & PROBABILITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monte Carlo Methods and Applications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mcma-2022-2122","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"STATISTICS & PROBABILITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在这篇文章中,我们描述了一种解决期权定价问题的新方法,通过引入期权出售者的安全(和可接受)价格的概念,与Black-Scholes模型中使用的公平价格形成对比。我们的出发点是,期权定价问题与套期保值问题在实际技术上是密切相关的。回顾Black-Scholes模型并没有给出期权的价格,而是给出了一个可复制投资组合的初始值,我们很容易发现,这个模型有一个严重的缺点,因为它假设这个可复制投资组合在时间上是连续建立的,这是任何假设这种结构的模型的缺点。这里我们主要从实际的角度研究场外交易市场的问题。这种方法不受标的资产数量的影响,对不完全市场特别有用。在通常的布莱克-斯科尔斯方法或二项方法或其他方法中,人们假设人们可以以相同的无风险利率进行投资或借贷,这通常是不正确的。即使是这样,人们也可以立即观察到,这个无风险利率不是一个普遍常数,而是在不同的人或机构之间有所不同。所以期权的公平价格并不是那么公平!此外,一般来说,双方在风险方面并不相等;因此,公平价格的概念根本没有意义。我们还定义了通常的二项模型的一种变体,通过估计安全的上升和下降率u,d, u,d,试图给出一个更便宜的安全或可接受的期权价格。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
On the practical point of view of option pricing
Abstract In this note, we describe a new approach to the option pricing problem by introducing the notion of the safe (and acceptable) price for the writer of an option, in contrast to the fair price used in the Black–Scholes model. Our starting point is that the option pricing problem is closely related with the hedging problem by practical techniques. Recalling that the Black–Scholes model does not give us the price of the option but the initial value of a replicating portfolio, we observe easily that this has a serious disadvantage because it assumes the building of this replicating portfolio continuously in time, and this is a disadvantage of any model that assumes such a construction. Here we study the problem from the practical point of view concerning mainly the over-the-counter market. This approach is not affected by the number of the underlying assets and is particularly useful for incomplete markets. In the usual Black–Scholes or binomial approach or some other approaches, one assumes that one can invest or borrow at the same risk-free rate r > 0 r>0 , which is not true in general. Even if this is the case, one can immediately observe that this risk-free rate is not a universal constant but is different among different people or institutions. So the fair price of an option is not so much fair! Moreover, the two sides are not, in general, equivalent against the risk; therefore, the notion of a fair price has no meaning at all. We also define a variant of the usual binomial model, by estimating safe upward and downward rates u , d u,d , trying to give a cheaper safe or acceptable price for the option.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Monte Carlo Methods and Applications
Monte Carlo Methods and Applications STATISTICS & PROBABILITY-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
22.20%
发文量
31
期刊最新文献
Asymmetric kernel method in the study of strong stability of the PH/M/1 queuing system Random walk on spheres method for solving anisotropic transient diffusion problems and flux calculations Strong approximation of a two-factor stochastic volatility model under local Lipschitz condition On the estimation of periodic signals in the diffusion process using a high-frequency scheme Stochastic simulation of electron transport in a strong electrical field in low-dimensional heterostructures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1