MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067961894 · doi:10.1142/s0219024906003846

OPTION PRICING FOR GARCH MODELS WITH MARKOV SWITCHING

2006· article· en· W2067961894 on OpenAlexaff
Robert J. Elliott, Tak Kuen Siu, Leunglung Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarkov chainMarkov processValuation (finance)Valuation of optionsMarkov propertyMartingale pricingMarkov renewal processAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityMarkov modelMartingale (probability theory)MathematicsEconometricsMathematical optimizationComputer scienceApplied mathematicsMathematical economicsEconomicsFinanceLocal martingaleStatisticsVolatility (finance)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we develop a method for pricing derivatives under a Markov switching version of the Heston-Nandi GARCH (1, 1) model by using a well known tool from actuarial science, namely the Esscher transform. We suppose that the dynamics of the GARCH process switch over time according to one of the regimes described by the states of an observable Markov chain process. By augmenting the conditional Esscher transform with the observable Markov switching process, a Markov switching conditional Esscher transform (MSCET) is developed to identify a martingale measure for option valuation in the incomplete market described by our model. We provide an alternative approach for the derivation of an analytical option valuation formula under the Markov switching Heston-Nandi GARCH (1, 1) model. The use of the MSCET can be justified by considering a utility maximization problem with respect to a power utility function associated with the Markov switching risk-averse parameters.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Theoretical and Applied FinanceSame topicStochastic processes and financial applicationsFrench-language works237,207