![Risk.net](https://www.risk.net/sites/default/files/styles/print_logo/public/2018-09/print-logo.png?itok=1TpHrpuP)
Podcast: McClelland on why you need a good MVA model
Numerix quant presents a model aimed at showing the total cost of a trade
![Mauro podcast2 280218](/sites/default/files/styles/landscape_750_463/public/2018-02/Mauro_DSC5114.jpg.webp?h=e0990ebe&itok=YfyIroRh)
In this episode of Quantcast, our guest is Andrew McClelland, director in the quantitative research team at Numerix in New York.
He co-authored MVA, future IM for client trades and dynamic hedging, one of the two papers published in the August issue of Risk, with Serguei Issakov, senior vice-president in the quant research group at Numerix, and Alexandre Antonov, chief analyst at Danske Bank in Copenhagen.
McClelland talks to us about why it is important for a bank to have an accurate model to estimate the value of margin valuation adjustments (MVA), the cost of funding initial margin (IM). He explains that MVA “is a cost of doing business, a cost of trading, so it is natural that banks are seeking to reflect those costs in their pricing and their valuation”, similar to what happens with other XVAs, such as credit valuation adjustment and funding valuation adjustment. Ignoring it may lead to significant mispricing.
Their paper builds on research published in Risk in 2018, in which the same authors simulate and forecast the required sensitivities of future trade values using algorithmic differentiation.
Here, in response to requests from clients to have a model able to provide the total cost of a trade, including costs of hedging and funding, they extend the previous model to one that takes MVA into account both for the client side and the hedging side of the trade. “If you ignore the hedge side you are ignoring a cost,” McClelland points out.
They apply it to Bermudan swaptions, a suitable financial instrument for showing the performance of their approach.
The conversation then turns to the debate on whether funding costs should be included in the valuation of a trade. Interestingly, after years of intense exchanges of ideas between the two parties, the issue has not been settled yet. Some banks seem to take a more pragmatic approach and charge funding costs to their clients in a bid to make a profit, while others don’t charge them – and so gain a competitive advantage – if they can afford to omit them from the valuation.
Index:
00:00 Intro
01:40 Background on MVA and IM
04:33 Previous research
07:32 The proposed approach
12:34 Why a Bermudan swaption?
17:28 Computational hurdles
18:49 The risks of not computing MVA properly
20:50 The funding cost debate
27:28 Current and future research
To hear the full interview, listen in the player above, or download. Future podcasts in our Quantcast series will be uploaded to Risk.net. You can also visit the main page here to access all tracks, or go to the iTunes store or Google Podcasts to listen and subscribe.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Markets
Full amount trading picks up as dealers improve pricing
As much as 70% of volumes at some FX venues are now traded as full amounts rather than in slices
FX algo users change tack to navigate market doldrums
BestX data finds traders ditching TWAP in favour of more opportunistic execution styles
Marex plots interest rate clearing push
UK broker is live on LCH and plans to be a “day one” clearing member on FMX
Dealers bruised by surprise renminbi vol surge
Rush to re-hedge USD/CNH exotics left banks in grip of painful short gamma squeeze
HSBC loses FX forwards market share with EU funds
Counterparty Radar: UK bank reported 6% drop in notional volumes with Ucits funds in H2 last year
After the selloff, competing theories on dealer gamma
Tier1 Alpha sees $74 billion short gamma catalyst; SG says rapid return to positive territory had calming effect
Bitcoin ETFs drive demand for borrowing in crypto markets
Mismatch between cash and crypto settlement cycles creates pre-funding challenge
New fee plans for FXGO rile dealers
Bloomberg plans to charge spot FX market-makers from next year