Double Backsolve Remains Unsupported

E. Sundheim, Ben Towne, Jeffrey G. Faust
{"title":"Double Backsolve Remains Unsupported","authors":"E. Sundheim, Ben Towne, Jeffrey G. Faust","doi":"10.5791/bvr-d-22-00003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article initially examines the mechanics of the established option pricing method (OPM) backsolve (OBS). It then quickly moves to a critical analysis of the more recently developed double backsolve (DBS) method, which certain practitioners have proposed as an alternative to OBS. We review the literature cited to support DBS and find it does not, in fact, support its use. In addition, we note some inconsistencies in the current use of DBS. We conclude that until better arguments are proffered or superior methods are developed, practitioners should continue to use OBS, and reviewers should continue to reject valuations relying on DBS.","PeriodicalId":138737,"journal":{"name":"Business Valuation Review","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Business Valuation Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5791/bvr-d-22-00003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article initially examines the mechanics of the established option pricing method (OPM) backsolve (OBS). It then quickly moves to a critical analysis of the more recently developed double backsolve (DBS) method, which certain practitioners have proposed as an alternative to OBS. We review the literature cited to support DBS and find it does not, in fact, support its use. In addition, we note some inconsistencies in the current use of DBS. We conclude that until better arguments are proffered or superior methods are developed, practitioners should continue to use OBS, and reviewers should continue to reject valuations relying on DBS.
双回解仍然不支持
本文首先考察了期权定价方法(OPM)逆解(OBS)的机制。然后,它迅速转向对最近开发的双反向求解(DBS)方法的批判性分析,某些从业者建议将其作为OBS的替代方案。我们回顾了支持DBS的文献,发现它实际上并不支持它的使用。此外,我们注意到目前DBS的使用中存在一些不一致之处。我们的结论是,在提供更好的论据或开发出更好的方法之前,从业人员应该继续使用OBS,而审稿人应该继续拒绝依赖于DBS的估值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信