The global financial crisis of 2007-2008 caused market practitioners to reassess the way in which financial derivative contracts had been priced during the preceding thirty years. The purpose of this paper is to examine the evolving practice of pricing and hedging commodity derivative contracts according to the terms of the Credit Support Annex (CSA). Using a series of case studies, we price crude oil swaps and Asian options in the pre-crisis, peak-crisis, post-crisis and recent market environments under two different frameworks: LIBOR discounting and CSA discounting (also referred to in a less general form as "OIS discounting", which incorporates nearly risk-free interest rates). We also compute the widely used first-order and second-order Greek sensitivities. In each market environment, we shift the forward prices and implied volatilities crude oil and re-compute the trades' valuation and Greek sensitivities at each incremental increase or decrease in price or implied volatility. Under each discounting framework, we quantify the change in trade valuation and Greek sensitivities that results from switching from LIBOR discounting to CSA discounting. The impact on the valuation and Greek sensitivities of a swap and an Asian option as the result of adopting CSA discounting can be significant under certain market conditions. There is likely to be larger impact on directional portfolios containing transactions that hedge either consumption or production (e.g. end users). Ceteris paribus, the impact on portfolio valuation and risk is likely to be limited for market participants (e.g. banks) with hedged portfolios that contain a large number of offsetting positions. Even though we focus our analysis on crude oil derivative contracts, the results easily extend to other asset classes such as natural gas, refined products, agriculture, metals, etc.
Banks are subject to higher capital charges for transactions that are uncollateralized and typically incorporate the cost of counterparty credit risk into the prices of derivative contracts quoted to commercial end-users. Many banks have adopted a framework under which they incorporate the cost of funding and liquidity into the risk-neutral price of uncollateralized derivative contracts. The Law of One Price no longer holds, as the inclusion of credit risk and funding results in different banks quoting inconsistent prices for the same transaction. The purpose of this paper is to outline and quantify the effects of counterparty credit risk, one's own credit risk and funding costs on the pricing of uncollateralized financial derivative contracts. We examine Credit Valuation Adjustment (CVA), Debit Valuation Adjustment (DVA) and Funding Valuation Adjustment (FVA).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.