1 presentation of proceedings paper application of the option market paradigm to the solution of...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Presentation of Presentation of ProceedingsProceedings PaperPaper
Application of the Option Market Paradigm
to the Solution of Insurance Problems
Author’s Response to Stephen Mildenhall Discussion
Michael G. Wacek
CAS Annual MeetingNovember 14, 2005
2
Mildenhall CriticismsMildenhall Criticisms
Accepted paper’s main point that resemblance between call option / XL insurance concepts can lead to useful insights
Paper overstated similarity between options and insurance
In particular, paper’s assertion that “pricing math is basically the same” is “inappropriate”
Argues that insurance risks are diversified, financial risks are hedged, implying different paradigms
3
Wacek Mea CulpaWacek Mea Culpa
Mildenhall was polite
Paper overreached in claim that my formula (1.3) is a general formula for European call pricing that encompasses the Black-Scholes formula (1.1)
Author’s response shows how overarching framework is same, even if resulting formulas are different
4
Comparison of Formulas (1.1) and (1.3) Comparison of Formulas (1.1) and (1.3)
Ct (S) = P0 ∙ N(d1) – Se-rt ∙ N(d2) (1.1)
Ct (S) = e-rt (x-S) ∙ f (x) dx (1.3)
(1.3) reduces to (1.1) only if underlying asset price distribution at expiry is lognormal and the expected return equals the risk free rate r
N(z) is c.d.f. of standard normal; see response for d1 and d2
5
Parameters for Numerical Illustration Parameters for Numerical Illustration of Formulasof Formulas
Current stock price = $100
Option strike (exercise) price = $100
Time to option expiry = 20 days (20/365 years)
Stock expected return = 13% (annual, continuous)
Risk free return = 5% (annual, continuous)
Standard deviation of stock return (volatility) = 25% (annual)
6
Numerical Illustration of Formulas Numerical Illustration of Formulas (1.1) and (1.3)(1.1) and (1.3)
Formula (1.1) [Black Scholes]: $2.47
Formula (1.3): $2.71
Obviously, $2.47≠ $2.71
Paper’s claim that (1.3) encompasses (1.1) was not “inappropriate” – it was wrong
7
Formula (1.3)Formula (1.3)
Formula for p.v. pure premium of aggregate excess cover
Since Black-Scholes conditions are not present, for insurance applications it is correct to use (1.3) rather than (1.1)
8
Pricing ParadoxPricing Paradox
If liability arises from call option on stock, use formula (1.1)
If same liability arises from aggregate excess insurance, use formula (1.3)
Why does same liability have different pricing depending on context?
9
Pricing Paradox AnswersPricing Paradox Answers
Can be framed in terms of martingale measures and incomplete markets theory
Author takes more tangible approach of asset – liability matching
• Within that framework the price for the transfer of a liability is function of both the liability and its optimal matching assets
10
Analysis of Option LiabilityAnalysis of Option Liability
Assume stock price at option expiry is lognormal random variable x
Expected value of option at expiry:
E(callt) = (x-S)f(x)dx
= E(x) ∙ N(d1(μ)) – S ∙ N(d2
(μ))
= P0e μ t ∙ N(d1(μ)) – S ∙ N(d2
(μ))
N(z) is c.d.f of standard normal; see response for d1
(μ) and d2(μ)
11
PP00e e μμtt ∙ N(d ∙ N(d11((μμ)))) – S ∙ N(d– S ∙ N(d22
((μμ))))
First term is expected market value of the assets to be sold by option grantor to option holder at expiry
Second term is expected value of the sale proceeds from transaction
12
Example – Expected Option Payoff Example – Expected Option Payoff LiabilityLiability
Same parameters as earlier example
20-day option
Po = S = $100, μ = 13%, r = 5%, σ = 25%
Expected payoff = Expected market value – Expected proceeds = $56.40 - $53.68 = $2.72
Variance = 14.45
Standard Deviation = $3.80
13
Pricing of This LiabilityPricing of This Liability
Premium that market can be expected to ask for assuming liability depends on optimal strategy available for investment of premium to fund the liability
Assume investors / traders will find and execute optimal strategy to force asking price in market to be no greater than the level indicated by that strategy (“No arbitrage”)
Market premium = minimum expected value cost of acquiring assets to fund expected value of liability at expiry and a risk charge related to undiversifiable variability of net result
If variance can be forced to zero, risk charge is zero (B-S scenario)
14
Pricing This Liability in Pricing This Liability in Different Available Asset ScenariosDifferent Available Asset Scenarios
Case A – Underlying asset is tradable
Case B – Underlying asset is not tradable
Case C – Underlying asset is not tradable, but a tradable proxy exists
15
Case A – Underlying Asset Tradable Case A – Underlying Asset Tradable
Traditional actuarial approach is to invest matching assets in Treasuries
Easy to improve on that if liability arises from an option on a traded stock
16
Case A – Simple HedgeCase A – Simple Hedge
At inception, buy N(d1(μ)) shares at cost of P0 ∙ N(d1
(μ))
At expiry those shares expected to be worth P0 e μt ∙ N(d1(μ))
= expected liability
Expected proceeds at expiry = S ∙ N(d2(μ))
Borrow against those proceeds at inception: Se- rt. N(d2(μ))
Funding gap for purchase is P0 ∙ N(d1(μ)) - Se-rt ∙ N(d2
(μ)) , which is amount required from option buyer (ignoring risk charge)
17
Case A – Simple Hedge with NumbersCase A – Simple Hedge with Numbers
Buy 0.56 shares (per option) for $56.00
Borrow $53.54
Charge option premium = $56.00 - $53.54 = $2.46
Much lower than $2.71 from traditional actuarial formula (1.3)
Moreover, this asset strategy has less risk (standard deviation) than a Treasuries strategy: $1.75 vs. $3.80
This simple hedge superior to Treasuries, but B-S found an even better one
18
Case A – Black-Scholes HedgeCase A – Black-Scholes Hedge
Suppose stock trades in accordance with B-S assumptions:
• Price follows geometric Brownian motion through time
• Shares continuously tradable at zero transaction costs
• Other
Black and Scholes showed optimal investment strategy is one of dynamic asset-liability matching conducted in continuous time
19
Case A – Black-Scholes HedgeCase A – Black-Scholes Hedge
At inception, by n0 shares at cost of P0 ∙ n0, financed by a loan of L0 and call premium proceeds of P0 ∙ n0 - L0
An instant later, adjust number of shares to n1, (to reflect any stock price change and infinitesimal passage of time) and amount of loan to L1
If n0 and L0 have been chosen correctly and time interval is short enough, the actual gain/loss in net position (value of net stock position less value of option) is essentially zero. (Mean and variance also essentially zero)
Repeat this procedure continuously until option expires
Black and Scholes proved n0 = N(d1) and L0 = Se-rt ∙ N(d2)
20
Case A – Black-Scholes Hedge Case A – Black-Scholes Hedge (continued)(continued)
Thus, call0 = P0 ∙ N(d1) – Se-rt ∙ N(d2)(1.1)
d1 = [ln(P0/S) + (r + 0.5σ2)t] / σ√t and d2 = d1 - σ√t
Since (1.1) does not depend on μ, the option seller employing this strategy not only faces no process risk but also no μ -related parameter risk
21
Case A – Black-Scholes Hedge with Case A – Black-Scholes Hedge with NumbersNumbers
Buy 0.5303 shares for $53.03
Borrow $50.56
Charge option premium = $53.03 - $50.56 = $2.47
Compares to $2.71 and $2.46 from “actuarial” and “simple hedge” approaches
This asset strategy has no risk, so no risk charge needed
22
Case A - CommentsCase A - Comments
Without hedging, option seller faces expected present value liability cost of $2.71
Market will force price of liability to $2.47
Option seller must hedge to sell option for $2.47 without facing an expected p.v. loss of $2.71 - $2.47 = $0.24
23
Case A – More CommentsCase A – More Comments
In practice, stocks are not continuously tradable at zero transaction costs
The less liquid the stock and the greater the trading costs the less accurate (1.1) will be in predicting the market asking price of the call option (due to residual risk and/or expenses not considered in the formula)
• See Esipov & Guo (2000 Michelbacher Prizewinner)
24
Case B – Underlying Asset Not TradableCase B – Underlying Asset Not Tradable
Company to go public in 20 days
Assume no “when issued” or forward market for stock prior to IPO
Stock valued at $100 today
Other parameter estimates as in Case A
How to price this option?
25
Case B – How to Price Option?Case B – How to Price Option? Key question is how to invest the call premium to fund
expected payoff of $2.72
Cannot invest in underlying stock
Good strategy would seem to be to invest in Treasuries (implying formula (1.3))
Premium = $2.71 + risk charge (standard deviation = $3.80)
μ and σ parameter risk in addition
Analogous to insurance aggregate excess scenario
Not necessarily the optimal strategy
26
Case C – Tradable Proxy Asset ExistsCase C – Tradable Proxy Asset Exists
Suppose there is a similar, already public competitor to our soon-to-be-public company
Assume same return and volatility characteristics
Assume the stock price movements are believed to be correlated with
Possible to construct a partial hedge that results in a lower cost to fund the option liability than the Treasuries strategy
27
Case C – Hedge Illustration for StockCase C – Hedge Illustration for Stock
Pursue same strategy as if hedging with actual underlying stock
• Buy 0.5303 shares for $53.03
• Borrow $50.56
• Charge option premium = $53.03 - $50.56 = $2.47 + risk charge λ
• Standard deviation = $3.67 vs. $3.80 for Treasuries strategy
• Lower pure premium ($2.47 vs. $2.71) and lower standard deviation make this a superior strategy to investing in Treasuries
28
Case C – Hedge Illustration for Case C – Hedge Illustration for InsuranceInsurance
Suppose underlying insurance claims are 60% correlated with the consumer price index (CPI-U)
Insurer can reduce standard deviation of net result by investing in index-linked Treasury notes (TIPS) rather than conventional Treasuries
Monte Carlo analysis indicates $3.29 vs. $3.80
P.v. pure premium = $2.71 both strategies (conventional Treasuries and TIPS)
29
Case C - InsuranceCase C - Insurance
Food for Thought
Could an insurer reduce both its risk and its required pure premium by identifying and investing in higher return securities that are partially correlated with its liabilities?
30
Analysis of PricingAnalysis of Pricing
In all the cases A, B and C, the expected value of the option payoff (or aggregate excess liability) obligation at expiry is the same: $2.72
Only difference are type and tradability of assets available for investment
It is the characteristics of the asset side of the asset-liability equation that determine the optimal asking price for transfer of the liability!
31
Analysis of Pricing (continued)Analysis of Pricing (continued)
Pricing is a function of both the liability and the nature of the assets needed to fund it
In insurance applications, where there are usually no suitable assets other than Treasuries available, the liability alone appear to drive the price
However, that appears to be a special case
Actuaries should be alert to the possibility that some insurance situations might lend themselves to asset-liability matching that reduces the p.v. pure premium, risk, or both
32
Optimal Pricing Requires Risk Optimal Pricing Requires Risk ManagementManagement
If the optimal asset strategy drives the pricing of the liability, it is critical that the seller actually invests according to that strategy
If option seller believes μ = 13%, and sells call option for B-S price of $2.47, it would be a mistake to invest proceeds in Treasuries
Expected result = $2.47 ert -$2.72 = -$0.24
Standard deviation = $3.80 (vs. zero under optimal asset strategy)
Lesson: B-S assumes optimal strategy; option seller not automatically protected
33
Summary of Author’s ResponseSummary of Author’s Response
Author acknowledges that original claim of generality for (1.3) is wrong
However, response does show that insurance and option pricing are governed by the same overarching pricing paradigm implied by optimal asset-liability matching
34
Final Point on the Perils of PricingFinal Point on the Perils of Pricing
The dynamic asset-liability matching regimen underlying Black-Sholes formula imposes a different burden on the seller of the option than the more passive asset-liability matching seen in Case B and in insurance applications
• In liquid markets, it is a mistake to sell the option for the Black-Scholes price without engaging in the optimal asset strategy
• In illiquid markets, it is a mistake to sell the option for the Black-Scholes price because the optimal asset strategy does not yield that price (must use formula (1.3) instead)