标的禁止卖空期权定价公式的实证研究

Mesias Alfeus, Xin‐Jiang He, Song‐Ping Zhu
{"title":"标的禁止卖空期权定价公式的实证研究","authors":"Mesias Alfeus, Xin‐Jiang He, Song‐Ping Zhu","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3478355","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Short sell bans are often imposed during a financial crisis as a desperate measure to stabilize financial markets. Yet, the impact of short sell bans on option pricing and hedging is not well quantitatively studied until very recently when Guo and Zhu (2017) and He and Zhu (2018) formulated a new pricing framework with the underlying being either completely or partially banned from short selling. However, no empirical results were provided to substantiate the usefulness of the formulae, as well as to deepen our understanding on the effects of short sell bans. This paper provides a comprehensive empirical study on the effects of short sell bans to the standard option pricing theory by carrying out both cross-sectional and options time series model calibration of the model devised by He and Zhu (2018). Overall, our empirical results indicate that the alternative option pricing formula considering short sell restrictions has the ability to capture highly-quoted implied volatility, with an evident improvement of 39% out-of-sample performance compared to the benchmark Black-Scholes model during the period of short sell ban.","PeriodicalId":10698,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Law: Law & Finance eJournal","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Empirical Study of the Option Pricing Formula with the Underlying Banned from Short Sell\",\"authors\":\"Mesias Alfeus, Xin‐Jiang He, Song‐Ping Zhu\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3478355\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Short sell bans are often imposed during a financial crisis as a desperate measure to stabilize financial markets. Yet, the impact of short sell bans on option pricing and hedging is not well quantitatively studied until very recently when Guo and Zhu (2017) and He and Zhu (2018) formulated a new pricing framework with the underlying being either completely or partially banned from short selling. However, no empirical results were provided to substantiate the usefulness of the formulae, as well as to deepen our understanding on the effects of short sell bans. This paper provides a comprehensive empirical study on the effects of short sell bans to the standard option pricing theory by carrying out both cross-sectional and options time series model calibration of the model devised by He and Zhu (2018). Overall, our empirical results indicate that the alternative option pricing formula considering short sell restrictions has the ability to capture highly-quoted implied volatility, with an evident improvement of 39% out-of-sample performance compared to the benchmark Black-Scholes model during the period of short sell ban.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Corporate Law: Law & Finance eJournal\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Corporate Law: Law & Finance eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3478355\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Law: Law & Finance eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3478355","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

卖空禁令通常是在金融危机期间实施的,作为稳定金融市场的孤注一掷的措施。然而,卖空禁令对期权定价和套期保值的影响并没有得到很好的定量研究,直到最近,Guo和Zhu(2017)以及He和Zhu(2018)制定了一个新的定价框架,标的完全或部分被禁止卖空。然而,没有提供实证结果来证实公式的有用性,以及加深我们对卖空禁令影响的理解。本文通过对He和Zhu(2018)设计的模型进行横断面和期权时间序列模型校准,对卖空禁令对标准期权定价理论的影响进行了全面的实证研究。总体而言,我们的实证结果表明,考虑卖空限制的替代期权定价公式具有捕获高报价隐含波动率的能力,与基准Black-Scholes模型相比,在卖空禁令期间,其样本外性能明显提高39%。
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
An Empirical Study of the Option Pricing Formula with the Underlying Banned from Short Sell
Short sell bans are often imposed during a financial crisis as a desperate measure to stabilize financial markets. Yet, the impact of short sell bans on option pricing and hedging is not well quantitatively studied until very recently when Guo and Zhu (2017) and He and Zhu (2018) formulated a new pricing framework with the underlying being either completely or partially banned from short selling. However, no empirical results were provided to substantiate the usefulness of the formulae, as well as to deepen our understanding on the effects of short sell bans. This paper provides a comprehensive empirical study on the effects of short sell bans to the standard option pricing theory by carrying out both cross-sectional and options time series model calibration of the model devised by He and Zhu (2018). Overall, our empirical results indicate that the alternative option pricing formula considering short sell restrictions has the ability to capture highly-quoted implied volatility, with an evident improvement of 39% out-of-sample performance compared to the benchmark Black-Scholes model during the period of short sell ban.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Real Consequences of Macroprudential FX Regulations Will the EU Taxonomy Regulation Foster a Sustainable Corporate Governance? Hedge Fund Management and Pricing Structure around the World Open Access, Interoperability, and the DTCC's Unexpected Path to Monopoly Indirect Investor Protection: The Investment Ecosystem and Its Legal Underpinnings
×
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