Risk Management of Nonstandard Basket Options with Different Underlying Assets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Basket options are among the most popular products of the new generation of exotic options. They are particularly attractive because they can efficiently and simultaneously hedge a wide variety of intrinsically different financial risks and are flexible enough to cover all the risks faced by firms. Oddly, the existing literature on basket options considers only standard baskets where all underlying assets are of the same type and hedge the same kind of risk. Moreover, the empirical implementation of basket‐option models remains in its early stages, particularly when the baskets contain different underlying assets. This study focuses on various steps for developing sound risk management of basket options. We first propose a theoretical model of a nonstandard basket option on commodity price with stochastic convenience yield, exchange rate, and domestic and foreign zero‐coupon bonds in a stochastic interest rate setting. We compare the hedging performance of the extended basket option containing different underlying assets with that of a portfolio of individual options. The results show that the basket strategy is more efficient. We apply the maximum likelihood method to estimate the parameters of the basket model and the correlations between variables. Monte Carlo simulations are conducted to examine the performance of the maximum likelihood estimator in finite samples of simulated data. A real‐data study for a nonfinancial firm is presented to illustrate ways practitioners could use the extended basket option. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 33:299‐326, 2013
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".