Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Exams - Please Limit Discussion to Exam-Related Topics > SoA/CAS Preliminary Exams > MFE
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions


Upload your resume securely at https://www.dwsimpson.com
to be contacted when new jobs meet your skills and objectives.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-14-2007, 11:38 AM
Captain Nemo Captain Nemo is offline
Bill Cross
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,133
Default Errata for Derivatives Markets (M/FE Textbook)

I thought it might be useful to provide links to the errata, and to create a thread where any of us can post mistakes we've found in either the first or second edition that are not listed on the errata page.

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/...m/typos1e.html

This is a sort of "master link" to all editions of the book. The link in the introduction to the textbook takes you here.

I have contacted the author about something I noticed in chapter 12 that I think needs addressing and I will post again here when I receive a response.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-14-2007, 08:02 PM
Captain Nemo Captain Nemo is offline
Bill Cross
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,133
Default

Excerpted:

I noticed something on page 380 that I think is incorrect but is not listed on the errata page.

When you discuss applying the Black-Scholes formula to stocks with discrete dividends, I note that while you input the forward value into the Black-Scholes formula, you don't adjust the volatility to reflect the difference between the stock price and the forward price, as you do in section 11.5, page 365. In Example 12.3, I checked the result, and indeed agree with your result if the volatility in the example is supposed to refer to the relative volatility of the forward, but I would get a different (higher) answer if I were to assume this was the stock volatility and adjust sigma in B-S as well.

Response:

I agree with you that the discussion here (esp at the top of p. 381) should have included a discussion like that on p. 365. I've posted an erratum.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-11-2007, 03:58 PM
Captain Nemo Captain Nemo is offline
Bill Cross
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,133
Default

I e-mailed the author about these questions awhile back and haven't gotten an answer... Anyone else want to offer an opinion?

(1) Regarding equation 12.12 on page 394 - while this is true for a call option, I believe that it would be false for a put option because the sign of the volatility must be positive, correct?

(2) Regarding the application to the use of compound options to determine the value of an American call option (pp 455-456), I believe that the discussion regarding "modified volatility" applies here as well?

(3) Using compound option parity and regular put-call parity, it seems that one can derive a more intuitive expression for the value of an American call option as a European call option plus a put-on-put compound option with the same parameters as the call-on-put, correct?

(4) At the bottom of page 657, you say that the correlation between dZ and dZ' is rho*dt. Should that instead be the covariance?
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-11-2007, 08:26 PM
Abraham Weishaus Abraham Weishaus is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 7,155
Default

(1) Not sure why not -- negative omega appears both in the numerator and denominator, canceling the negative sign.

(4) Since dZ and dZ' are standard normal, their variances are 1, so it makes no difference.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-12-2007, 07:58 PM
Captain Nemo Captain Nemo is offline
Bill Cross
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,133
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
I e-mailed the author about these questions awhile back and haven't gotten an answer... Anyone else want to offer an opinion?

(1) Regarding equation 12.12 on page 394 - while this is true for a call option, I believe that it would be false for a put option because the sign of the volatility must be positive, correct?

(2) Regarding the application to the use of compound options to determine the value of an American call option (pp 455-456), I believe that the discussion regarding "modified volatility" applies here as well?

(3) Using compound option parity and regular put-call parity, it seems that one can derive a more intuitive expression for the value of an American call option as a European call option plus a put-on-put compound option with the same parameters as the call-on-put, correct?

(4) At the bottom of page 657, you say that the correlation between dZ and dZ' is rho*dt. Should that instead be the covariance?
As usual, my timing was impeccable... he responded today.

Quote:
1. You're right. I think the way to resolve this is that in the denominator, the volatility should be times the absolute value of the volatility, as in 12.9. So for a put, the risk premium is negative, and 12.12 holds with an absolute value in the denominator (which flips the sign if omega is negative).

2. Correct.

3. There are always multiple ways to express these and you're probably right that there is a more intuitive way to do so.

4. On your other message, yes rho*dt is the covariance, not the correlation.
__________________



Last edited by Captain Nemo; 02-12-2007 at 08:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-04-2009, 04:50 PM
Marid Audran's Avatar
Marid Audran Marid Audran is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Minnesota
Studying for MFE/3F
Posts: 14
Blog Entries: 17
Question Exercises 10.4, 10.6, 10.8: Conflicting information?

These exercises provide values for . Isn't the sole purpose of in this section to calculate u and d if they are not given? And doesn't the given value of conflict with the given values of u and d in these exercises?

Thanks in advance. And apologies in advance if I'm missing something, in which case I'll delete this subthread.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-13-2010, 04:43 PM
Joe F's Avatar
Joe F Joe F is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 200
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marid Audran View Post
These exercises provide values for . Isn't the sole purpose of in this section to calculate u and d if they are not given? And doesn't the given value of conflict with the given values of u and d in these exercises?

Thanks in advance. And apologies in advance if I'm missing something, in which case I'll delete this subthread.
You're right. The values for are ignored in the solutions to the questions. The textbook's errata should probably be updated to say that the references to need to be deleted from the questions. For now, you can just ignore them as extraneous.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-14-2010, 04:25 PM
Actuarialsuck Actuarialsuck is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe F View Post
You're right. The values for are ignored in the solutions to the questions. The textbook's errata should probably be updated to say that the references to need to be deleted from the questions. For now, you can just ignore them as extraneous.
Why is this errata? If you are given u and d, you should always use those. Suppose you want to use . How do you know which model you should use to define u and d? Does



or does (CRR tree)

or does (Lognormal tree or Jarrow-Rudd binomial model)?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buru Buru View Post
i'm not. i do not troll.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-14-2010, 05:20 PM
Joe F's Avatar
Joe F Joe F is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 200
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Actuarialsuck View Post
Why is this errata? If you are given u and d, you should always use those. Suppose you want to use . How do you know which model you should use to define u and d? Does



or does (CRR tree)

or does (Lognormal tree or Jarrow-Rudd binomial model)?
Yes, I agree that if you are are given u and d, then you should always just use them.

The u and d in the questions do not correspond with the standard binomial model, the CRR model, or the J-R model. The CRR model and the J-R model aren't covered until Chapter 11 anyway, so we wouldn't expect them to appear in questions at the end of Chapter 10.

For Problems 10.4, 10.6, and 10.8, the textbook uses what we could call the "arbitrary" method, meaning that someone just made up values for u and d. The arbitrary method is valid (and frequently appears on the exam!), but there isn't any used as an input to it, so including in the problems seems misleading to me.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-14-2010, 05:48 PM
Actuarialsuck Actuarialsuck is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,108
Default

I wouldn't say it's arbitrary. I listed three models, there are likely others and the author might even be able to provide support for them. I think what he's testing here is your ability to know to use u and when those are given. You call it misleading, I call it knowing what to use when
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buru Buru View Post
i'm not. i do not troll.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.45798 seconds with 9 queries