{"title":"对冲动态基金保护:静态与动态比较","authors":"Bipasha Ray, L. Ramprasath","doi":"10.1177/22779752231170921","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The static nature of the downside protection offered by a standard Put option can motivate investors to use exotic option contracts like dynamic fund protection (DFP), which protects the underlying asset value throughout its life. DFP has a path-dependent payoff structure with its terminal payoff depending on the terminal asset price, the strike price and the minimum price level attained by the asset over the contract tenor. This makes DFP a contract strikingly similar to a Lookback Call option. In this article, we try to borrow the respective strengths from a dynamic and a static hedging strategy, formulate a semi-static hedging procedure for DFP and compare the hedging effectiveness of this procedure with a standard delta hedging strategy. Given the payoff resemblance between a DFP and a Lookback Call, we also seek to verify Tompkins (2002, Journal of Risk Finance, 3(4), 6–34) conclusion, which objectively shows that a dynamic procedure performs better in hedging a Lookback Call option both with and without transaction cost. Using simulated underlying price paths, we perform the delta hedging on DFP based on the closed-form pricing formula given by Gerber and Pafumi (2000, North American Actuarial Journal, 4(2), 28–37) and compare the hedge performance results with its static hedge counterpart.","PeriodicalId":190206,"journal":{"name":"IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hedging Dynamic Fund Protection: A Static Versus Dynamic Comparison\",\"authors\":\"Bipasha Ray, L. Ramprasath\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/22779752231170921\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The static nature of the downside protection offered by a standard Put option can motivate investors to use exotic option contracts like dynamic fund protection (DFP), which protects the underlying asset value throughout its life. DFP has a path-dependent payoff structure with its terminal payoff depending on the terminal asset price, the strike price and the minimum price level attained by the asset over the contract tenor. This makes DFP a contract strikingly similar to a Lookback Call option. In this article, we try to borrow the respective strengths from a dynamic and a static hedging strategy, formulate a semi-static hedging procedure for DFP and compare the hedging effectiveness of this procedure with a standard delta hedging strategy. Given the payoff resemblance between a DFP and a Lookback Call, we also seek to verify Tompkins (2002, Journal of Risk Finance, 3(4), 6–34) conclusion, which objectively shows that a dynamic procedure performs better in hedging a Lookback Call option both with and without transaction cost. Using simulated underlying price paths, we perform the delta hedging on DFP based on the closed-form pricing formula given by Gerber and Pafumi (2000, North American Actuarial Journal, 4(2), 28–37) and compare the hedge performance results with its static hedge counterpart.\",\"PeriodicalId\":190206,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/22779752231170921\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/22779752231170921","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
标准看跌期权提供的下行保护的静态特性可以激励投资者使用动态基金保护(DFP)等特殊期权合约,该合约在整个生命周期内保护标的资产价值。DFP具有路径依赖的支付结构,其终端支付取决于终端资产价格、执行价格和资产在合同期限内达到的最低价格水平。这使得DFP成为一个与回看看涨期权惊人相似的合约。在本文中,我们试图借用动态和静态套期保值策略各自的优势,制定了DFP的半静态套期保值程序,并将该程序的套期保值效果与标准delta套期保值策略进行了比较。鉴于DFP和回看期权之间的收益相似性,我们也试图验证汤普金斯(2002,Journal of Risk Finance, 3(4), 6-34)的结论,该结论客观地表明动态过程在有交易成本和没有交易成本的情况下都能更好地对冲回看期权。利用模拟的基础价格路径,我们基于Gerber和paafumi (2000, North American Actuarial Journal, 4(2), 28-37)给出的封闭式定价公式对DFP进行delta对冲,并将对冲绩效结果与静态对冲结果进行比较。
Hedging Dynamic Fund Protection: A Static Versus Dynamic Comparison
The static nature of the downside protection offered by a standard Put option can motivate investors to use exotic option contracts like dynamic fund protection (DFP), which protects the underlying asset value throughout its life. DFP has a path-dependent payoff structure with its terminal payoff depending on the terminal asset price, the strike price and the minimum price level attained by the asset over the contract tenor. This makes DFP a contract strikingly similar to a Lookback Call option. In this article, we try to borrow the respective strengths from a dynamic and a static hedging strategy, formulate a semi-static hedging procedure for DFP and compare the hedging effectiveness of this procedure with a standard delta hedging strategy. Given the payoff resemblance between a DFP and a Lookback Call, we also seek to verify Tompkins (2002, Journal of Risk Finance, 3(4), 6–34) conclusion, which objectively shows that a dynamic procedure performs better in hedging a Lookback Call option both with and without transaction cost. Using simulated underlying price paths, we perform the delta hedging on DFP based on the closed-form pricing formula given by Gerber and Pafumi (2000, North American Actuarial Journal, 4(2), 28–37) and compare the hedge performance results with its static hedge counterpart.