Global Economic Intersection
Advertisement
  • Home
  • Economics
  • Finance
  • Politics
  • Investments
    • Invest in Amazon $250
  • Cryptocurrency
    • Best Bitcoin Accounts
    • Bitcoin Robot
      • Quantum AI
      • Bitcoin Era
      • Bitcoin Aussie System
      • Bitcoin Profit
      • Bitcoin Code
      • eKrona Cryptocurrency
      • Bitcoin Up
      • Bitcoin Prime
      • Yuan Pay Group
      • Immediate Profit
      • BitQH
      • Bitcoin Loophole
      • Crypto Boom
      • Bitcoin Treasure
      • Bitcoin Lucro
      • Bitcoin System
      • Oil Profit
      • The News Spy
      • Bitcoin Buyer
      • Bitcoin Inform
      • Immediate Edge
      • Bitcoin Evolution
      • Cryptohopper
      • Ethereum Trader
      • BitQL
      • Quantum Code
      • Bitcoin Revolution
      • British Trade Platform
      • British Bitcoin Profit
    • Bitcoin Reddit
    • Celebrities
      • Dr. Chris Brown Bitcoin
      • Teeka Tiwari Bitcoin
      • Russell Brand Bitcoin
      • Holly Willoughby Bitcoin
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Economics
  • Finance
  • Politics
  • Investments
    • Invest in Amazon $250
  • Cryptocurrency
    • Best Bitcoin Accounts
    • Bitcoin Robot
      • Quantum AI
      • Bitcoin Era
      • Bitcoin Aussie System
      • Bitcoin Profit
      • Bitcoin Code
      • eKrona Cryptocurrency
      • Bitcoin Up
      • Bitcoin Prime
      • Yuan Pay Group
      • Immediate Profit
      • BitQH
      • Bitcoin Loophole
      • Crypto Boom
      • Bitcoin Treasure
      • Bitcoin Lucro
      • Bitcoin System
      • Oil Profit
      • The News Spy
      • Bitcoin Buyer
      • Bitcoin Inform
      • Immediate Edge
      • Bitcoin Evolution
      • Cryptohopper
      • Ethereum Trader
      • BitQL
      • Quantum Code
      • Bitcoin Revolution
      • British Trade Platform
      • British Bitcoin Profit
    • Bitcoin Reddit
    • Celebrities
      • Dr. Chris Brown Bitcoin
      • Teeka Tiwari Bitcoin
      • Russell Brand Bitcoin
      • Holly Willoughby Bitcoin
No Result
View All Result
Global Economic Intersection
No Result
View All Result

No Good Deals – No Bad Models

admin by admin
May 5, 2014
in Uncategorized
0
0
SHARES
5
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

by Nina Boyarchenko – Liberty Street Economics, Federal Reserve Bank of New York

The recent financial crisis has highlighted the significance of unhedgable, illiquid positions in complex securities for individual financial institutions and for the global financial system as a whole. Indeed, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision notes that

One of the key lessons of the crisis has been the need to strengthen the risk coverage of the capital framework. Failure to capture major on- and off-balance sheet risks, as well as derivative related exposures, was a key destabilizing factor during the crisis.

While concepts like marking-to-market and risk weighting of individual positions are incorporated in all three pillars of the Basel III capital regulation, the academic literature has lagged in providing a robust, model-free way of implementing these in practice. In a recent New York Fed staff report, my coauthors and I propose a methodology to compute lower and upper bounds on prices of complex, potentially nontraded securities that’s robust to possible misspecifications of cash flows to these securities. I review the main advantages of this approach in this post.

Good-Deal Bounds

Valuation of uncertain payoffs is the fundamental question of financial economics. If an illiquid asset’s payoffs were perfectly replicable by payoffs of a portfolio of liquid securities (whose prices can be observed directly), then the price of that asset could be computed as the price of the replicating portfolio. This is a direct consequence of the law of one price and the absence of arbitrage: A cash flow should be priced the same regardless of whether an investor receives it by investing in a single security or in a portfolio of securities. But when the uncertain payoffs of the asset in question cannot be perfectly replicated, the law of one price has very weak implications for the price of the asset. While absence of arbitrage arguments can be used to provide an upper bound (ask price) and a lower bound (bid price) on the price of the security, these bounds tend to be very wide for most securities of interest. This is the case with most derivatives – after all, if a derivative’s payoff were perfectly replicable with other liquid assets, there would be no reason for the derivative to exist – as well as for real assets, such as loans, held by financial institutions. In this case, additional restrictions are needed to narrow the distance between the bid and the ask price on the security.

Cochrane and Saa-Requejo (2000) introduce an economic consideration into the pricing of illiquid securities by restricting the maximum Sharpe ratio achievable by trading in a portfolio of both the liquid basis assets and the illiquid focus asset. The Sharpe ratio is the ratio between the expected return to a position and the standard deviation of the return, and is commonly used as a measure of how well the position compensates the investor for risk taken. Cochrane and Saa-Requejo (2000) argue that, just as arbitrage opportunities are ruled out for providing investors with a positive return for zero risk (effectively giving an infinite Sharpe ratio), high Sharpe ratios should also be ruled out for providing investors with unreasonably high returns for low levels of risk. If a strategy with a high Sharpe ratio were to exist, investors would want to follow the strategy in their trading, reducing the expected return and, thus, the Sharpe ratio of the strategy. The upper (ask price) and lower (bid price) valuations of illiquid securities should satisfy the same principles and thus be restricted from delivering “good deals” that violate the Sharpe ratio bound.

In our staff report, we introduce a second economic consideration into the pricing of complex securities – that investors’ decisions are robust to possible misspecification of the uncertainty structure of the focus asset’s payoffs. We assume that, while investors may have an estimate of the probability distribution from which asset payoffs are drawn, they recognize that their estimates may not reflect the true distribution. We assume that investors are averse to model uncertainty, and thus require that investors’ decisions be made using the worst-case distribution among the set of distributions that they consider. To find the worst-case distribution, the investor evaluates her utility under each distribution in the set of alternatives, and picks the distribution that delivers the lowest expected utility. As an investor’s degree of aversion to model uncertainty increases, the set of models considered by the investor increases as well. The exhibit below plots an investors’ utility as a function of the return relative to initial wealth, for three different levels of this aversion to model uncertainty. Since the investor picks the worst-case distribution, she places a higher probability weight on losses to her portfolio. As the investor’s degree of aversion to model uncertainty increases, so does the probability weight assigned to losses.

Chart1_Investors-Utility

Since the uncertainty-averse investor assigns higher probabilities to losses on the illiquid asset, the good-deal bounds are wider in the presence of model uncertainty than in its absence. Intuitively, if we interpret the lower bound on the price as the bid submitted by a buyer, an uncertainty-averse investor fears that the security is less valuable than predicted, and submits a lower bid. Similarly, the upper bound can be interpreted as the ask price of a seller, who fears that the security is more valuable than predicted. We show, moreover, that increased model uncertainty leads to fundamentally different bounds than an increase in the maximum Sharpe ratio. While the maximum Sharpe ratio restriction corresponds to a bound on the volatility of returns, aversion to model uncertainty introduces a consideration for negative skewness into the computation of lower and upper bounds on asset valuations. The resulting valuations are thus more conservative than the traditional good-deal bounds.

Model Uncertainty in the S&P 500

A key ingredient in computing the upper and lower bounds in the presence of model uncertainty is the degree of aversion to model uncertainty. In the staff report, we describe a procedure for estimating the degree of aversion to model uncertainty based on achieving a desired confidence level in the Sharpe ratio on the basis assets. Specifically, we randomly resample observed returns on the basis assets and compute the realized Sharpe ratio in each sample. We use the worst 80th percentile outcome as our Sharpe ratio bound under the worst-case measure, and solve for the degree of aversion to model uncertainty that corresponds to that Sharpe ratio bound. This makes the degree of aversion to model uncertainty market- and period-specific, which allows the degree of aversion to model uncertainty to respond to adverse market movements.

As an example of this estimation approach, we compute a real-time estimate of the degree of aversion to model uncertainty for an investor using the S&P 500 index and a risk-free bond as basis assets. The estimation is done using rolling, 600-trading-day observation windows. We then compare the evolution of the degree of aversion to model uncertainty with the evolution of the absolute value of the realized Sharpe ratio for the same observation period. The chart below shows that, for the S&P 500, the implied degree of aversion to model uncertainty is negatively related to the absolute value of the realized Sharpe ratio: Increases in the degree of aversion to model uncertainty coincide with decreases in the Sharpe ratio. Thus, an investor using the S&P 500 index and a risk-free bond as basis assets would become more averse to model uncertainty as the returns to holding the S&P 500 index become smaller, and would increase the bid-ask spread on any derivative whose risk of payoffs is correlated with the S&P 500.

Chart2_Relationship

Implications for Bank Regulation

The aftermath of the global financial crisis has intensified political and regulatory scrutiny of the hedging and risk management of over-the-counter derivatives, with special emphasis placed on mark-to-market (or mark-to-model) valuations. We propose the use of good-deal bounds computed in the presence of model uncertainty as fair reservation prices for complex, illiquid securities. Explicitly incorporating model uncertainty into fair reservation values recognizes the difficulty of assigning probabilities to infrequent large adverse moves. The use of Sharpe ratios as a valuation criterion simplifies the comparison of valuations across institutions: Since the basis assets are traded, their prices are observable and differences in valuations must thus arise from differences in either the maximum admissible Sharpe ratios or in aversion to model uncertainty. Mark-to-market valuations of complex securities could thus be standardized across institutions by requiring that a standard set of basis assets is used in conjunction with a common maximum Sharpe ratio bound and a common confidence level for the Sharpe ratio on the basis assets. As the realized Sharpe ratio on the basis securities evolves over time, this would introduce time variation in the implied degree of aversion to model uncertainty and thus to mark-to-market valuations.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve System. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the author.

Source: http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2014/05/no-good-dealsno-bad-models.html#.U2d0UvldVio


About the Author

Boyarchenko_ninaNina Boyarchenko is an economist in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group.

Previous Post

What We Read Today 05 May 2014

Next Post

Blogger Sentiment Is Bearish Entering May 2014

Related Posts

Bitcoin Flirts With $24K, How High Will It Go?
Economics

Bitcoin Flirts With $24K, How High Will It Go?

by John Wanguba
February 3, 2023
Venezuela's PDVSA Toughens Oil Prepayment Terms
Business

Venezuela’s PDVSA Toughens Oil Prepayment Terms

by John Wanguba
February 2, 2023
German Economy Unexpectedly Contracts In Q4, Renewing Recession Fears
Economics

German Economy Unexpectedly Contracts In Q4, Renewing Recession Fears

by John Wanguba
February 2, 2023
Judge Dismisses Proposed Class-Action Suit Claiming Coinbase Securities Sales
Business

Judge Dismisses Proposed Class-Action Suit Claiming Coinbase Securities Sales

by John Wanguba
February 2, 2023
Aesop Targeted In $2bn Bidding War Between French Groups
Business

Aesop Targeted In $2bn Bidding War Between French Groups

by John Wanguba
February 1, 2023
Next Post

Blogger Sentiment Is Bearish Entering May 2014

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Browse by Category

  • Business
  • Econ Intersect News
  • Economics
  • Finance
  • Politics
  • Uncategorized

Browse by Tags

adoption altcoins banking banks Binance Bitcoin Bitcoin adoption Bitcoin market Bitcoin mining blockchain BTC business China crypto crypto adoption cryptocurrency crypto exchange crypto market crypto regulation decentralized finance DeFi Elon Musk ETH Ethereum Europe finance FTX inflation investment market analysis markets Metaverse mining NFT nonfungible tokens oil market price analysis recession regulation Russia technology Tesla the UK the US Twitter

Archives

  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • August 2010
  • August 2009

Categories

  • Business
  • Econ Intersect News
  • Economics
  • Finance
  • Politics
  • Uncategorized
Global Economic Intersection

After nearly 11 years of 24/7/365 operation, Global Economic Intersection co-founders Steven Hansen and John Lounsbury are retiring. The new owner, a global media company in London, is in the process of completing the set-up of Global Economic Intersection files in their system and publishing platform. The official website ownership transfer took place on 24 August.

Categories

  • Business
  • Econ Intersect News
  • Economics
  • Finance
  • Politics
  • Uncategorized

Recent Posts

  • Bitcoin Flirts With $24K, How High Will It Go?
  • Venezuela’s PDVSA Toughens Oil Prepayment Terms
  • German Economy Unexpectedly Contracts In Q4, Renewing Recession Fears

© Copyright 2021 EconIntersect - Economic news, analysis and opinion.

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Contact Us
  • Bitcoin Robot
    • Bitcoin Profit
    • Bitcoin Code
    • Quantum AI
    • eKrona Cryptocurrency
    • Bitcoin Up
    • Bitcoin Prime
    • Yuan Pay Group
    • Immediate Profit
    • BitIQ
    • Bitcoin Loophole
    • Crypto Boom
    • Bitcoin Era
    • Bitcoin Treasure
    • Bitcoin Lucro
    • Bitcoin System
    • Oil Profit
    • The News Spy
    • British Bitcoin Profit
    • Bitcoin Trader
  • Bitcoin Reddit

© Copyright 2021 EconIntersect - Economic news, analysis and opinion.

en English
ar Arabicbg Bulgarianda Danishnl Dutchen Englishfi Finnishfr Frenchde Germanel Greekit Italianja Japaneselv Latvianno Norwegianpl Polishpt Portuguesero Romanianes Spanishsv Swedish