Yes you are right - in which case it would be:
mu∫norm(x)dx + sigma∫x*norm(x)dx
= mu*cum.norm(x) + sigma*[x*cum.norm(x) + norm(x)*(x^2)/2].......(3)
Have to look up integration by parts.....Thanks!
Hi @QuantMan2318,
Totally agree with the above derivation. Just one more thought:
From your equation:
mu∫norm(x)dx + sigma∫x*norm(x)dx
= mu*cum.norm(x) + sigma*norm(x) as a result of integration by parts.............(1)
mu∫norm(x)dx + sigma∫x*norm(x)dx
= mu*cum.norm(x) +...
Hi @Stuti,
Please refer to the following thread: P2.T6.411. Expected (EE) and potential future exposure (PFE). Please refer to David's answer to 411.3.
I did go through the formula in Gregory's appendix. It does makes a lot of intuitive sense to me. However, the derivation in the last step...
Hi @seidu - could you please send me the 2016 GARP FRM Part I and II Practice Exams, if you get them...my email is [email protected]. Thanks in advance - Jayanthi
Hi David - totally agree with you - the CF and P/L syntax are confusing. Also, the second scenario does not make any sense!
Thanks for the clarification:)
Hi @indra,
I think Scenario 1 is correct:
Gain from call option exercise:
By exercising the call option now, AH gets to assume a long position in two underlying copper futures contract at strike price of $3.30/lb. This means that he gets to buy the underlying copper at only $3.30/lb on...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.