Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userA pricing measure to explain the risk premium in power markets
109
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Salvador Ortiz-Latorre
Publication date
2013
fields
Financial
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
In electricity markets, it is sensible to use a two-factor model with mean reversion for spot prices. One of the factors is an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (OU) process driven by a Brownian motion and accounts for the small variations. The other factor is an OU process driven by a pure jump Levy process and models the characteristic spikes observed in such markets. When it comes to pricing, a popular choice of pricing measure is given by the Esscher transform that preserves the probabilistic structure of the driving Levy processes, while changing the levels of mean reversion. Using this choice one can generate stochastic risk premiums (in geometric spot models) but with (deterministically) changing sign. In this paper we introduce a pricing change of measure, which is an extension of the Esscher transform. With this new change of measure we also can slow down the speed of mean reversion and generate stochastic risk premiums with stochastic non constant sign, even in arithmetic spot models. In particular, we can generate risk profiles with positive values in the short end of the forward curve and negative values in the long end. Finally, our pricing measure allows us to have a stationary spot dynamics while still having randomly fluctuating forward prices for contracts far from maturity.
rate research
Read More
In this paper we consider the pricing of variable annuities (VAs) with guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefits. We consider two pricing approaches, the classical risk-neutral approach and the benchmark approach, and we examine the associated static and optimal behaviors of both the investor and insurer. The first model considered is the so-called minimal market model, where pricing is achieved using the benchmark approach. The benchmark approach was introduced by Platen in 2001 and has received wide acceptance in the finance community. Under this approach, valuing an asset involves determining the minimum-valued replicating portfolio, with reference to the growth optimal portfolio under the real-world probability measure, and it both subsumes classical risk-neutral pricing as a particular case and extends it to situations where risk-neutral pricing is impossible. The second model is the Black-Scholes model for the equity index, where the pricing of contracts is performed within the risk-neutral framework. Crucially, we demonstrate that when the insurer prices and reserves using the Black-Scholes model, while the insured employs a dynamic withdrawal strategy based on the minimal market model, the insurer may be underestimating the value and associated reserves of the contract.
This paper considers exponential utility indifference pricing for a multidimensional non-traded assets model subject to inter-temporal default risk, and provides a semigroup approximation for the utility indifference price. The key tool is the splitting method, whose convergence is proved based on the Barles-Souganidis monotone scheme, and the convergence rate is derived based on Krylovs shaking the coefficients technique. We apply our methodology to study the counterparty risk of derivatives in incomplete markets.
The goal of this paper is to investigate the method outlined by one of us (PR) in Cherubini et al. (2009) to compute option prices. We name it the SINC approach. While the COS method by Fang and Osterlee (2009) leverages the Fourier-cosine expansion of truncated densities, the SINC approach builds on the Shannon Sampling Theorem revisited for functions with bounded support. We provide several results which were missing in the early derivation: i) a rigorous proof of the convergence of the SINC formula to the correct option price when the support grows and the number of Fourier frequencies increases; ii) ready to implement formulas for put, Cash-or-Nothing, and Asset-or-Nothing options; iii) a systematic comparison with the COS formula for several log-price models; iv) a numerical challenge against alternative Fast Fourier specifications, such as Carr and Madan (1999) and Lewis (2000); v) an extensive pricing exercise under the rough Heston model of Jaisson and Rosenbaum (2015); vi) formulas to evaluate numerically the moments of a truncated density. The advantages of the SINC approach are numerous. When compared to benchmark methodologies, SINC provides the most accurate and fast pricing computation. The method naturally lends itself to price all options in a smile concurrently by means of Fast Fourier techniques, boosting fast calibration. Pricing requires to resort only to odd moments in the Fourier space. A previous version of this manuscript circulated with the title `Rough Heston: The SINC way.
For a commodity spot price dynamics given by an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process with Barndorff-Nielsen and Shephard stochastic volatility, we price forwards using a class of pricing measures that simultaneously allow for change of level and speed in the mean reversion of both the price and the volatility. The risk premium is derived in the case of arithmetic and geometric spot price processes, and it is demonstrated that we can provide flexible shapes that is typically observed in energy markets. In particular, our pricing measure preserves the affine model structure and decomposes into a price and volatility risk premium, and in the geometric spot price model we need to resort to a detailed analysis of a system of Riccati equations, for which we show existence and uniqueness of solution and asymptotic properties that explains the possible risk premium profiles. Among the typical shapes, the risk premium allows for a stochastic change of sign, and can attain positive values in the short end of the forward market and negative in the long end.
We consider thin incomplete financial markets, where traders with heterogeneous preferences and risk exposures have motive to behave strategically regarding the demand schedules they submit, thereby impacting prices and allocations. We argue that traders relatively more exposed to market risk tend to submit more elastic demand functions. Noncompetitive equilibrium prices and allocations result as an outcome of a game among traders. General sufficient conditions for existence and uniqueness of such equilibrium are provided, with an extensive analysis of two-trader transactions. Even though strategic behaviour causes inefficient social allocations, traders with sufficiently high risk tolerance and/or large initial exposure to market risk obtain more utility gain in the noncompetitive equilibrium, when compared to the competitive one.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
