From expression (5) we conclude that the risk-neutral dynamics of stocks in the one-factor Lévy model is given by. The first three moments of Sj(T) can be expressed by the characteristic function φAj.

## Approximate Basket Option Pricing

Note that nowhere in this section have we used the assumption that the basket weights are strictly positive. Therefore, the three-moment matching approach proposed in this section can also be used for pricing, e.g.

The FFT Method and Basket Option Pricing

## 4 Examples and Numerical Illustrations

### Variance Gamma

The approximation of the basket option priceC[K,T] using the moment matching approach outlined in Sect.3 is denoted by CMM[K,T]. For far-out-of-the-money call options, the approach is not always able to closely approximate the real basket option price.

### Pricing Basket Options

Note that here and in the rest of the paper, we always use the three-moment matching approximation for pricing basket options. We also find that using normally distributed log returns underestimates the prices of basket options.

## 5 Implied Lévy Correlation

### Variance Gamma

Given the volatility parameters for the gamma variance case and the normal case listed in Table 8 , the implied correlation defined by Eq. Figure 5 shows that both the implied Black and Scholes and the implied Lévy correlation depend on the moneyness of π.

### Double Exponential

By using the double exponential distribution instead of the more general gamma variance distribution, some flexibility is lost in the modeling of cutoff values. However, the double exponential distribution is still a much better distribution for modeling stock returns than the normal distribution.

## 6 Conclusion

We determine the implied marginal volatility parameter for each stock in a one-factor Variance Gamma model and a double-exponential framework. Based on this information, we can determine the prices CV G[K,T] and CDE[K,T] for a basket option in a Variance-Gamma and a Double Exponential model respectively.

Guillaume, F., Jacobs, P., Schoutens, W.: Pricing and hedging of CDO squared tranches using a single-factor Lévy model. Moosbrucker, T.: Prices of CDOs with Correlated Variance-Gamma Distributions, Technical Report, Center for Financial Research, Univ.

Pricing Shared-Loss Hedge Fund Fee Structures

## 1 Introduction

However, this effect is reduced if a significant portion of the manager's own money is invested in the fund. Analytical solutions to the portfolio selection problem are presented, and the outcome (cumulative prospect theory) for both investor and manager is examined. While for some parameter values the first-loss structure improves the utility of both the investor and the hedge fund manager, they find that for typical values the manager is better off while the investor is worse off.

## 2 Hedge Fund Fees

Generalizing the present framework to models that account for the non-normality of hedge fund returns, for example using generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH) models, could be the subject of future research.

3 The First-Loss Model

## 4 An Option Pricing Framework

Payoff to the Investor

Payoff to the Manager

### Valuation: Pricing Fees as Derivatives

Moreover, since option trades constitute a zero-sum game (the positions of the manager and the investor are opposite each other), the sum of the investor's profit and the manager's profit is equal to XT.

## 5 Consequences of the Derivative Pricing Framework 5.1 Graphical Analysis

### Payoff Functions of the Investor and the Manager

In Fig.4 we normalize the volatility on the horizontal axis by the manager's deposit defined as a percentage of the initial investment X0. For a given level of deposit, the higher the volatility of the underlying investment, the greater the probability that the loss suffered by the manager exceeds the deposit. This is clearly illustrated in Fig.4 where volatility and deposit are combined into a single scale variable, that is, volatility/deposit, where the deposit is expressed as a percentage of the initial investment X0.

### Sensitivity Analysis

*Volatility ( σ )**Manager Deposit (c)**Maturity Date (T)*

We see that the position is initially an increasing function of the volatility, due to the increasing value of the investor's put option as a function of σ. As might be expected, the value of the investor's position is an increasing function of the manager's deposit. The main challenge in this new paradigm is to evaluate the value of the guarantee offered by the hedge fund manager relative to the fee paid by the investor.

To put these theoretical findings into practice in the industry's pricing mechanism, it is therefore an essential task to establish feasible and reasonable measures for the negative basis. Since the above references show that the required discount factors for the pricing algorithms may need to be adjusted by means of the negative basis, one is faced with the task of measuring this negative basis correctly. A hidden yield approach that assumes that the risk-free discount curve is a reference yield curve shifted by the (initially unknown) negative basis.

## 2 Why Does Negative Basis Exist?

This risk is especially important when the negative underlying position is leveraged (which was often the case during the financial crisis). A portion of the negative basis could be viewed as a risk premium for taking on this market risk. This means that they treat the negative basis as an adequate compensation for assuming the aforementioned risks.

## 3 General Notations

Basis "arbitrageurs" are investors who try to gain negative basis by investing in basis packages. 4 Interestingly, a mismatch between bond and CDS recoveries is often favorable for the negative basis investor, as CDS recoveries tend to be lower than bond recoveries, see, e.g., [14]. Thus, it may make sense for a negative basis investor to choose to cash out the CDS and sell its bonds in the market, speculating on a favorable recovery mismatch.

## 4 Traditional Measurements 4.1 The Z-Spread Methodology

### The Par-Equivalent CDS Methodology

The (zero upfront) current CDS spreads(T) for a CDS contract, whose maturity matches the maturity of the bond, are defined as. A second (zero upfront) current CDS spread˜s(T) for a CDS contract, whose maturity matches the maturity of the bond, is defined as. The main idea of (PE) is to question the standard probabilities derived from the given CDS rates and adjust them to match the bond price.

## 5 An Innovative Methodology

This allows for the intuitive interpretation of the negative basis as a spread earned on top of a reference discount rate after eliminating default risk. 10By “earn”r(.)+NB(HY) we mean that the internal rate of return of the position is the reference grader(.)plus a spreadNB(HY). This mathematical statement intuitively means that the considered portfolio of bond and CDS earns the rater(.)+NB(HY)to min{τ(m),T}in a risk-free manner, regardless of the actual timing of the default.

## Appendix: The algorithm in Definition 3 is well-defined

For a more compact notation, the left side of the last equation is denoted by LHS(x,y1(x)), and the right side by RHS(x,y1(x)). 13 Similar to the beginning of the induction, we denote by Ey[f(τ)] the expectation over f(τ), when the default time has a partially constant intensity with a level on the piece (Tk−1,Tk). c) We denote by Qx the probability measure in dependence of default intensities λx(.), we have. Bai, J., Collin-Dufresne, P.: Determinants of CDS-Bond Basis during the 2007-2009 Financial Crises.

## The Impact of a New CoCo Issuance on the Price Performance of Outstanding

Investors will then move out of the old bonds and ask for allocation in the new issue. The first method compares the return of the outstanding CoCo bonds following an announcement of a new issue with some overall CoCo indices. Here we basically compare the performance of the outstanding CoCos to the general market performance.

## 2 The Equity Derivatives Model

The final part of this section reports and discusses the results of the equity derivative model. Our objective is to compare the actual market performance of the outstanding CoCo bonds with the theoretical model performance. If the new CoCo does not affect the outstanding CoCo, the implied barrier for the outstanding CoCo should remain constant.

## 3 Measuring the Price Performance of the Outstanding CoCos

### New Issuances

Since CoCos of one financial institution with the same contractual trigger should trigger at the same time, their implied trigger levels should theoretically be the same as well. Any changes in the actual performance of the market compared to the performance of the theoretical model will be described by the effect of the announcement of a new CoCo issue. Since their impact cannot be separated from each other, these new CoCos are assumed to have one general impact on all open CoCos of the same issuing company.

### CoCo Index Comparison

*Method**Results*

In Table 2, the difference in cumulative returns over the observation period, which means the period between announcement and issue, is shown. These average differences in cumulative returns are shown for one day to five days after the announcement of the new CoCo and also over the full period as given in Table 2. 2 Average difference in cumulative returns between the outstanding CoCos and the Credit Suisse and Merrill Lynch CoCo index.

### Model-Based Performance

*Method**Results*

As such, we can see in the levels of the implied barrier if there is an impact due to the announced new CoCo. As an example, we show the implied barriers of the two outstanding CoCos of ACAFP from the previous section in Fig.3a. Any change in the market compared to this reference is then due to the impact of the announcement of a new CoCo issue.

## 4 Impact After Issue Date

An overall view of cheapness is derived by averaging the differences in theoretical and market CoCo prices for each outstanding CoCo over the new CoCo observation period. We calculated the average of the differences of all CoCos on the day up to five days after publication and also on the date of the new CoCo release (Table 3). Therefore, also from this approach, we conclude that there is, on average, a negative impact of approximately 42 basis points on outstanding CoCos when a new CoCo issue is announced.

## 5 Conclusion

De Spiegeleer, J., Schoutens, W., Van Hulle, C.: The Handbook of Hybrid Securities: Convertible Bonds, CoCo Bonds and Bail-in. Corcuera, J.M., De Spiegeleer, J., Ferreiro-Castilla, A., Kyprianou, A.E., Madan, D.B., Schoutens, W.: Pryse of contingent cabriolet under smile conform-modelle. De Spiegeleer, J., Forys, M., Marquet, I., Schoutens, W.: The Impact of Skew on the Prysing of CoCo Bonds.

## Spread Options

In this work, we use a federal time model of cointegrated commodity prices developed by the authors in Farkas et al. In our model, commodity prices are non-stationary and multiple cointegration relationships are allowed between them, covering long-run equilibrium relationships. There is an extensive literature on modeling the price of a single good as a non-stationary process (see Back and Prokopczuk [1] for a comprehensive recent review).

## 2 Outline of the Model

In the top panel of Figure 1, we assume that there is a cointegration relation and the first row of the matrix Θ is . For example, the residual of the cointegration relation from the previous example, Y1(t)+Y2(t)−Y3(t), is no longer stationary. Therefore, both factors cover the short-term and long-term futures price structure.

## 3 Spread Option Prices

To better understand this fact, Figure 5 shows the distribution of the spread at maturity in the two cases. Top left panel correlation between the futures log returns of the two commodities in the basket. Upper right panel relative standard deviations of the scatter distribution (the values are normalized by division by the standard deviation in case k2=k3=0). Bottom panel the distribution for the two extreme cases in the analysis.

## 4 Concluding Remarks

Paschke, R., Prokopczuk, M.: Valuation of commodity derivatives with autoregressive and moving average components in price dynamics.

The Dynamic Correlation Model

One reason for this may be that deterministically correlated Brownian motions (BMs) of the price process and the variance process are used, since the correlation mainly affects the slope of the implied volatility smile. If the correlation is modeled as a time-dependent dynamic function, better skewness or smiles in the implied volatility surface will be provided by judiciously choosing additional parameters. The key to modeling correlation as a time-dependent function is to be able to ensure that the -1 and 1 bounds of the correlation function are not attractive and unattainable at any time.

## 2 The Dynamic Correlation Function

However, the problem is whether one can obtain the expectation of the process of returning the transformed meaning from such functions to a closed-form expression. Furthermore, our experiments show that the trend of the tanh function is more suitable for modeling correlations, see [13]. Considering Fig.1a where the initial value of the correlation function is 0, we see that ρ¯t is increasing to a value around μ = 0.5 and decreases to a value around μ = -0.5 and becomes larger, when μ =0.5 and -0.5, respectively.

## 3 Dynamically Correlated BMs and Their Construction

If one incorporates the dynamic correlation function (8) into a financial model, the parameters ρ¯0, κ, μ and σ can be estimated by fitting the model to market data. Furthermore, the covariance matrix and the average correlation matrix of Wt =(Wt1,Wt2) can be determined, given by. Zn,t)and the matrix of dynamic correlationsRt=(ρti,j)1

## 4 Dynamic Correlation in the Heston Model

### Incorporating Dynamic Correlations

It is worth mentioning that the market price of volatility risk also depends on the dynamic correlation, which can be written as λ(S, ν,˜ ρ¯t,t). This means that the price of correlation risk embedded in the price of volatility risk has been considered.

### Calibration of the Heston Model Under Dynamic Correlation

Compared to the MN model, the implied volatilities for our model are almost the same. 5 Comparison of implied volatilities for all models with market volatilities of Nikk300 call options on July 16, 2012, where the spot price is 150.9. We conclude that the Heston model extended to include our time-dependent correlations can provide better volatility smiles compared to the pure Heston model.