Search results

@David Harper CFA FRM On second thoughts- have a follow up question ... So When ( Div + Yield ) > ( Rf + U ) = > F(0,T) < E(St) => Normal Backwardation Also, When ( Div + Yield ) > ( Rf + U ) , the Short should Deliver as Late-As-Possible So, isn't The Choice-of-Delivery is tied to...

@David Harper CFA FRM Thanks so much again for patiently laying out the above ...Completely agree with all of the Bullet Points you laid out...The above helped clear our out some of the fuzziness I had on the above and the differences/nuances in each of the above scenarios.

Hi, A Futures Contract is said to be Trading Rich when : the Actual Price E(St) > the Model Predicted Price = F0=S0* EXP[ ( Rf + Storage Costs ) - ( Div + Yield ) ] T--> Normal Contango A Short Futures Contract would Deliver as Late as possible when (Div + Yield ) > ( Rf + Storage Costs) and...

@David Harper CFA FRM thanks so much for your invaluable insights and guidance...yes...was asking to save time ...but i had worked through in detail the FRA methodology as well...both for IRS and also for CURRENCY SWAPS for knowledge's sake...( hope that makes u feel a little better...? ...;)...

Thanks @Nicole Seaman and @David Harper CFA FRM - Yes I completely agree and understand ....it's indeed hard to identify as GARP can swap in Low- Testability Topics or re-orient to pivot to Hull's latest...it is truly hard to predict... Having said that though, I am trying to narrow my focus...

In reference to R19.P1.T3.HULL_CH7_TOPICS: SWAP_VALUATION :- @David Harper CFA FRM Hi- In the 2016 videos, Hull-Ch7, it's mentioned that Highly Testable Topic is "IRA SWAPS"-" BOND-METHOD " Valuation. In the 2017 Hull Ch7 Video however, did not see a mention on the High/Low Testability Topics...

@David Harper CFA FRM Thank you so much for the taking the time to explain the statement above :) I see the point I was missing- Much gratitude for pointing me to that :-)

In Reference to R19.P1.T3.HULL_Ch3_FIN_PRODS_Topic: Rolling_the_Hedge_Forward :- Hi- I was revisiting this Topic and had some questions- For Rolling the Hedge Forward should the scenario be " When the Expiration Date occurs Prior to the Delivery date instead of the "Delivery date of the...

@David Harper CFA FRM Got It ! Thanks so much for the clarification..You just cleared my Brain Fog on this one ! :-) Infinite Gratitude to you once again ! :-)

In reference to R7.P1.T1.Elton_Topic: Impact_on_CAPM_Price_Affector :- Should it say --> Price Affector will hold Less-of the " Risky-Assets"...? instead of Less of "RiskLess"- Assets..? Trying to make sure am not understanding it wrong...:confused::confused:

@David Harper CFA FRM Thanks so much for sharing this insight... :-) I guess I misunderstood the relation : c(uo) + c(ui) = c thinking that this was the payoff...but now i see that the equality applies to the Current Pricing of the options ...

@David Harper CFA FRM Hi - I was revisiting this topic..and wanted to see how that payoff of { c(uo) + c(ui) } equals that of a regular call option c.....it isn't exactly the same is it..? it's truncated...? I've been trying to search for the payoff diagram ... I've been trying to search all...

@QuantMan2318 Thanks so much for elaborately laying out each possible scenario in this proof..also a big thank you for taking the time to confirm not considering the scenario of 'K' not getting invested...the rest works out perfectly ! Again thanks for the detailed scenarios..very grateful to...

@QuantMan2318 Thanks so much for your response.... :-) Am still Fuzzy on the LHS.... my apologies... :-( :-( So in Case A, say the St< K and so the Call does not get exercised neither it lapses. So we have :- C(t) + K*exp(-rf*t) - K >=0 -->[ C(t) -K { 1- exp(-rf*t) } ] . Now, exp(-rf*t)...

@David Harper CFA FRM ...I have a follow up question on the Put_Call_Quasi_Parity...( cha hing ..lol.. )(S - K) <= (C - P ) <= ( S - Ke^ -rt) If K is NOT invested at Rf and it’s value reduces by Rf , so that we have: PF -I' worth Max(St,K) -K[ 1- EXP(- rT) ] which would always be LESS THAN...

@David Harper CFA FRM I just wanted to double check/confirm the direction of the inequality for the " Put-Call Quasi-Parity" for American Options....( btw... I just used your newly coined term...hope you get royalties in your bitcoin account ...lol...) The direction of the inequality below...

@QuantMan2318 Thank u so much....salute to the great ones like u and the one and only @David Harper CFA FRM ....RESPECT :-)

@David Harper CFA FRM That sure sounds like good idea to me ..lol... :-)

@David Harper CFA FRM Thank you so much -as always for coming to the rescue :-)

In reference to R19.P1.T3.FIN_PRODS_HULL_Ch10_American_Options_Pull-Call-Parity-Relationship :- (S - K) <= (C - P ) <= ( S - Ke^ -rt) => Put-Call-Parity Relation for American Options Can someone please help me how we get to the above for American Options... :-(