Risk Neutrality Stays

John C Hull and Alan D White

Contents

Introduction

Preface to Chapter 1

1.

Being Two-Faced over Counterparty Credit Risk

2.

Risky Funding: A Unified Framework for Counterparty and Liquidity Charges

3.

DVA for Assets

4.

Pricing CDSs’ Capital Relief

5.

The FVA Debate

6.

The FVA Debate: Reloaded

7.

Regulatory Costs Break Risk Neutrality

8.

Risk Neutrality Stays

9.

Regulatory Costs Remain

10.

Funding beyond Discounting: Collateral Agreements and Derivatives Pricing

11.

Cooking with Collateral

12.

Options for Collateral Options

13.

Partial Differential Equation Representations of Derivatives with Bilateral Counterparty Risk and Funding Costs

14.

In the Balance

15.

Funding Strategies, Funding Costs

16.

The Funding Invariance Principle

17.

Regulatory-Optimal Funding

18.

Close-Out Convention Tensions

19.

Funding, Collateral and Hedging: Arbitrage-Free Pricing with Credit, Collateral and Funding Costs

20.

Bilateral Counterparty Risk with Application to Credit Default Swaps

21.

KVA: Capital Valuation Adjustment by Replication

22.

From FVA to KVA: Including Cost of Capital in Derivatives Pricing

23.

Warehousing Credit Risk: Pricing, Capital and Tax

24.

MVA by Replication and Regression

25.

Smoking Adjoints: Fast Evaluation of Monte Carlo Greeks

26.

Adjoint Greeks Made Easy

27.

Bounding Wrong-Way Risk in Measuring Counterparty Risk

28.

Wrong-Way Risk the Right Way: Accounting for Joint Defaults in CVA

29.

Backward Induction for Future Values

30.

A Non-Linear PDE for XVA by Forward Monte Carlo

31.

Efficient XVA Management: Pricing, Hedging and Allocation

32.

Accounting for KVA under IFRS 13

33.

FVA Accounting, Risk Management and Collateral Trading

34.

Derivatives Funding, Netting and Accounting

35.

Managing XVA in the Ring-Fenced Bank

36.

XVA: A Banking Supervisory Perspective

37.

An Annotated Bibliography of XVA

The article written by Chris Kenyon and Andrew Green in the August 27, 2014, issue of Risk magazine, “Regulatory Costs Break Risk Neutrality”,11Kenyon and Green (2014); see Chapter 7 in this volume. is a refreshingly clearly written article, and we agree with much of it. There is certainly not a single risk-neutral measure for all market participants, and never has been. Pre-crisis, commercial and investment banks were regulated differently from each other. The attractiveness of a derivatives transaction to a market participant has always depended on how the participant is regulated, as well as other derivatives in its portfolio, liquidity considerations, and so on. If all market participants used the same risk-neutral measure, they would agree on the values for all derivatives and there would be no trading.

In our writings on funding valuation adjustments (FVAs) and related topics, we tried to emphasise the distinction between private values and fair-market values. Our arguments were concerned not with how much a dealer should charge for a product, but with how it should account for it. Similarly, although a single risk-neutral measure does not apply to the private values of all

Sorry, our subscription options are not loading right now

Please try again later. Get in touch with our customer services team if this issue persists.

New to Risk.net? View our subscription options

You need to sign in to use this feature. If you don’t have a Risk.net account, please register for a trial.

Sign in
You are currently on corporate access.

To use this feature you will need an individual account. If you have one already please sign in.

Sign in.

Alternatively you can request an individual account here