Learning minimum variance discrete hedging directly from the market
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Option hedging is a critical risk management problem in finance. In the Black–Scholes model, it has been recognized that computing a hedging position from the sensitivity of the calibrated model option value function is inadequate in minimizing variance of the option hedge risk, as it fails to capture the model parameter dependence on the underlying price (see e.g. Coleman et al., J. Risk, 2001, 5(6), 63–89; Hull and White, J. Bank. Finance, 2017, 82, 180–190). In this paper, we demonstrate that this issue can exist generally when determining hedging position from the sensitivity of the option function, either calibrated from a parametric model from current option prices or estimated nonparametricaly from historical option prices. Consequently, the sensitivity of the estimated model option function typically does not minimize variance of the hedge risk, even instantaneously. We propose a data-driven approach to directly learn a hedging function from the market data by minimizing variance of the local hedge risk. Using the S&P 500 index daily option data for more than a decade ending in August 2015, we show that the proposed method outperforms the parametric minimum variance hedging method proposed in Hull and White [J. Bank. Finance, 2017, 82, 180–190], as well as minimum variance hedging corrective techniques based on stochastic volatility or local volatility models. Furthermore, we show that the proposed approach achieves significant gain over the implied BS delta hedging for weekly and monthly hedging.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".