Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Implied risk aversion: an alternative rating system for retail structured products

  • Published:
Review of Derivatives Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article proposes implied risk aversion as a rating methodology for retail structured products. Implied risk aversion is based on optimal expected utility risk measures as introduced by Geissel et al. (Stat Risk Model 35(1–2):73–87, 2017) and, in contrast to standard V@R-based ratings, takes into account both the upside potential and the downside risks of such products. In addition, implied risk aversion is easily interpreted in terms of an individual investor’s risk aversion: a product is attractive for an investor if his individual relative risk aversion is smaller than the product’s implied risk aversion. We illustrate our approach in a case study with more than 15,000 short-term warrants on DAX that highlights some differences between our rating system and the traditional V@R-based approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For instance, the ratings of Deutscher Derivate Verband (DDV), which is the leading provider of rating information in the German RSP market, are based on V@R.

  2. If r is the risk-free interest rate and the time period is T, we have \(\beta =\frac{1}{1+rT}\).

  3. If u is a utility function, we define \(u(0)\,{:}{=}\,\lim _{x\downarrow 0}u(x)\in [-\infty ,\infty )\), \(u(\infty )\,{:}{=}\,\lim _{x\uparrow 0}u(x)\in (-\infty ,\infty ]\). Moreover, we denote the inverse of u by \(u^{-1}:[u(0),u(\infty ))\rightarrow [0,\infty )\). \(u^{-1}\) is well-defined and continuous, and \(u^{-1}(u(x))=x\) for all \(x\in [0,\infty )\). Finally, we set \(u^{-1}({\mathbb {E}}[u(Y)])\,{:}{=}\,-\infty \) if \(P(Y<0)>0\).

  4. OEU remains well-defined in the limiting case \(\alpha =\beta \), but can imply unbounded leveraging (\(\eta =\infty \)). We refer to (Geissel et al. 2017, Remark 2.3, Proposition 2.12, Proposition 2.16) for an in-depth analysis of this boundary case.

  5. As usual, we set \(u(x)=\ln (x)\) for \(\gamma =1\), so

    $$\begin{aligned} \rho ^u(X,1) = -\max _{\eta >-X_{\min }}\left\{ -\beta \eta +\alpha \exp \left( {\mathbb {E}}\left[ \ln (X+\eta )\right] \right) \right\} ,\quad X\in {\mathcal {X}}. \end{aligned}$$

  6. We present results for alternative specifications of \(\alpha \) in Sect. 5.1 as well.

  7. This and all upcoming estimations are based on daily price histories.

  8. For ARMA-GARCH, Hansen’s skewed-tdistribution (with skew parameter 7.02721/10.51961 and tail parameter − 0.09461/− 0.11547) performed best based on an evaluation of AIC, BIC, log-likelihood and QQ-plots.

  9. This implies in particular that, in DDV’s approach, risk factors other than the underlying’s market risk are not relevant.

  10. For numerical stability, \(\gamma _0\)-values below 0.0001 are set to zero.

  11. Here, volatility is fixed at the implied volatility of XM2HAG.

References

  • Acerbi, C., & Tasche, D. (2002). On the coherence of expected shortfall. Journal of Banking and Finance, 26, 1487–1503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armbruster, B., & Delage, E. (2015). Decision making under uncertainty when preference information is incomplete. Management Science, 61(1), 111–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Artzner, P., Delbaen, F., Eber, J.-M., & Heath, D. (1997). Thinking coherently. Risk Magazine, 10(11), 68–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Artzner, P., Delbaen, F., Eber, J.-M., & Heath, D. (1999). Coherent measures of risk. Mathematical Finance, 9(3), 203–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baeumer, B., & Meerschaert, M. M. (2010). Tempered stable Lévy motion and transit super-diffusion. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 233(10), 2438–2448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barndorff-Nielsen, O. E., & Levendorskii, S. (2001). Feller processes of normal inverse Gaussian type. Quantitative Finance, 1, 318–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barndorff-Nielsen, O. E., & Shephard, N. (2001). Normal modified stable processes. Technical report, University of Oxford.

  • Barsky, R. B., Kimball, M. S., Juster, F. T., & Shapiro, M. D. (1997). Preference parameters and behavioral heterogeneity: An experimental approach in the health and retirement survey. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 537–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baule, R., & Blonski, P. (2015). The demand for warrants and issuer pricing strategies. Journal of Futures Markets, 35, 1195–1219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binswanger, H. P. (1981). Attitudes toward risk: Theoretical implications of an experiment in rural India. The Economic Journal, 91, 867–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, F., & Scholes, M. (1973). The pricing of options and corporate liabilities. The Journal of Political Economy, 87, 637–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollerslev, T. (1986). Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics, 31, 307–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Box, G. E. P., Jenkins, G. M., & Reinsel, G. C. (1994). Time series analysis: Forecasting and control. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breuer, W., & Perst, A. (2007). Retail banking and behavioral financial engineering: The case of structured products. Journal of Banking and Finance, 31(3), 827–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao, J., & Rieger, M. O. (2013). Risk classes for structured products: Mathematical aspects and their implications on behavioral investors. Annals of Finance, 9(2), 167–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, P., Geman, H., Madan, D. R., & Yor, M. (2002). The fine structure of asset returns: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business, 75, 305–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Celerier, C., & Vallee, B. (2014). The motives for financial complexity: An empirical investigation, HEC Paris Research Paper No. FIN-2013-1013. Retrieved May 22, 2015 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2289890.

  • Chen, A. H., & Kensinger, J. W. (1990). An analysis of market-index certificates of deposit. Journal of Financial Services Research, 4, 93–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, K. C., & Sears, R. S. (1990). Pricing the SPIN. Financial Management, 19, 36–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherny, A., & Madan, D. (2008). New measures for performance evaluation. The Review of Financial Studies, 22(7), 2571–2606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiappori, P.-A., & Paiella, M. (2011). Relative risk aversion is constant: Evidence from panel data. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9(6), 1021–1052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cont, R. (2001). Empirical properties of asset returns: Stylized facts and statistical issues. Quantitative Finance, 1, 223–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delbaen, F. (2000). Coherent risk measures. Cattedra Galileiana. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore, Classe di Scienze.

  • Delbaen, F. (2002). Coherent risk measures on general probability spaces. In Advances in finance and stochastics (Vol. 6, pp. 429–447). Springer.

  • Detlefsen, K., & Scandolo, G. (2005). Conditional and dynamic convex risk measures. Finance and Stochastics, 9(4), 539–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutscher Derivate Verband. (2015). Welche Risikopräferenz haben Sie beim Kauf eines Zertifikats?. http://www.derivateverband.de/MediaLibrary/Document/PM/15%2003%2010%20PM%20DDV-Trend%20des%20Monats%20M%C3%A4rz%202015.pdf.

  • Döhrer, B., Johanning, L., Steiner, N., & Völkle, A. (2012) . Risikoberechnungs- und Klassifizierungsmethoden nach KIID und EDG. Retrieved May 22, 2015 from http://www.derivateverband.de.

  • Döhrer, B., Johanning, L., Steiner, N., & Völkle, A. (2013) . Issuer margins for structured products in Germany. http://www.derivateverband.de.

  • Engle, R. F. (1982). Autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity with estimates of the variance of United Kingdom inflation. Econometrica, 50, 987–1007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entrop, O., Schober, A., & Wilkens, M. (2013). The pricing policy of banks for exchange-traded leverage certificates: Interday and intraday effects. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1757710 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1757710.

  • European Union. (2009). DIRECTIVE 2009/65/EC. Retrieved May 22, 2015 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32009L0065.

  • European Union. (2013). Regulation (EU) No 575/2013. Retrieved May 22, 2015 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32013R0575.

  • Fink, H., & Mittnik, S. (2016). Quanto pricing models beyond Black-Scholes: Calibration and performance. Working paper, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich.

  • Föllmer, H., & Schied, A. (2002). Convex measures of risk and trading constraints. Finance and Stochastics, 6, 429–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Föllmer, H., & Schied, A. (2011). Stochastic finance (3rd ed.). Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Friend, I., & Blume, M. E. (1975). The demand for risky assets. The American Economic Review, 65, 900–922.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritelli, M., & Rosazza Gianin, E. (2002). Putting order in risk measures. Journal of Banking and Finance, 26, 1473–1486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geissel, S., Sass, J., & Seifried, F. (2017). Optimal expected utility risk measures. Statistics & Risk Modeling, 35(1–2), 73–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, B. E. (1994). Autoregressive conditional density estimation. International Economic Review, 35, 705–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, D. (2000). Back to the future. Plenary lecture at the First World Congress of the Bachelier Society.

  • Heath, D., & Ku, H. (2004). Pareto equilibria with coherent measures of risk. Mathematical Finance, 14(2), 163–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, B. J., & Pearson, N. D. (2011). The dark side of financial innovation: A case study of the pricing of a retail financial product. Journal of Financial Economics, 100, 227–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hens, T., & Rieger, M. O. (2014). Can utility optimization explain the demand for structured investment products? Quantitative Finance, 14(4), 673–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janecek, K. (2004). What is a realistic aversion to risk for real-world individual investors? Retrieved May 22, 2015 from http://www.sba21.com/personal/RiskAversion.pdf.

  • Kawai, R., & Masuda, H. (2012). Infinite variation tempered stable Ornstein–Uhlenbeck processes with discrete observations. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation, 41(1), 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. S., Giacometti, R., Rachev, S. T., Fabozzi, F. J., & Mignacca, D. (2012). Measuring financial risk and portfolio optimization with a non-Gaussian multivariate model. Annals of Operations Research, 201(1), 325–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. S., & Volkmann, D. (2013). NTS copula and finance. Applied Mathematics Letters, 26, 676–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimball, M. S., Sahm, C. R., & Shapiro, M. D. (2008). Imputing risk tolerance from survey responses. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103(483), 1028–1038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. C. (1973). Rational theory of option pricing. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 4, 141–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, D. J., & Meyer, J. (2005). Relative risk aversion: What do we know? The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 31(3), 243–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paravisini, D., Rappoport, V., & Ravina, E. (2010). Risk aversion and wealth: Evidence from person-to-person lending portfolios. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Rachev, S. T. (2003). Handbook of heavy tailed distributions in finance. Amsterdam, Boston: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockafellar, R. T., & Uryasev, S. (2000). Optimization of conditional value-at-risk. Journal of Risk, 2, 21–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockafellar, R. T., & Uryasev, S. (2002). Conditional value-at-risk for general loss distributions. Journal of Banking and Finance, 26, 1443–1471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosetto, S., & van Bommel, J. (2009). Endless leverage certificates. Journal of Banking and Finance, 33(8), 1543–1553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz, P., & Weber, M. (2012). Buying and selling behaviour of individual investors in option-like securities. Die Betriebswirtschaft, 72, 409–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroff, S., Meyer, S., & Burghof, H.-P. (2015). Retail investor information demand—speculating and investing in structured products. The European Journal of Finance. https://doi.org/10.1080/1351847X.2015.1020392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard, K. (2009). MFE toolbox. Retrieved May 22, 2015 from https://www.kevinsheppard.com/images/9/95/MFE_Toolbox_Documentation.pdf.

  • Stoimenov, P. A., & Wilkens, S. (2005). Are structured products ’fairly’ priced? An analysis of the German market for equity-linked instruments. Journal of Banking and Finance, 29, 2971–2993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szpiro, G. G. (1986). Measuring risk aversion: An alternative approach. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 68, 156–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ter Horst, J., & Veld, C. (2008). An empirical analysis of the pricing of bank issued options versus options exchange options. European Financial Management Association, 14(2), 288–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and economic behavior (2nd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallmeier, M. (2011). Beyond payoff diagrams: How to present risk and return characteristics of structured products. Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, 25(3), 313–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittle, P. (1951). Hypothesis testing in time series analysis. Uppsala: Almquist and Wicksell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkens, S., Erner, C., & Röder, K. (2003). The pricing of structured products in Germany. Journal of Derivatives, 11, 55–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkens, S., & Stoimenov, A. (2007). The pricing of leverage products: An empirical investigation of the German market for long and short stock index certificates. Journal of Banking and Finance, 31, 735–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

All authors are grateful for the comments and suggestions of three anonymous referees.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and Mathematics, Munich University of Applied Sciences, Lothstrasse 64, 80335, Munich, Germany

    H. Fink

  2. HSBC Germany, Königsallee 21-23, 40212, Düsseldorf, Germany

    S. Geissel

  3. Department of Mathematics, University of Kaiserslautern, Erwin-Schrödinger-Straße, 67663, Kaiserslautern, Germany

    J. Sass

  4. Department IV - Mathematics, University of Trier, Universitätsring 19, 54296, Trier, Germany

    F. T. Seifried

Authors
  1. H. Fink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Geissel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Sass
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. F. T. Seifried
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. Fink.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fink, H., Geissel, S., Sass, J. et al. Implied risk aversion: an alternative rating system for retail structured products. Rev Deriv Res 22, 357–387 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11147-018-9151-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11147-018-9151-0

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation