2
$\begingroup$

I am self-studying models for financial economics and encountered the following problem:

enter image description here

I don't see how the author can conclude that $\gamma = -0.62$. Let's rearrange the second to last equation: $$\gamma - r = -4(0.19 - r)$$ as

$$r = \frac{\gamma + 0.76}{5}.$$

If $\gamma = 0.62$, then $r = 0.276.$

If $\gamma = -0.62$, then $r = 0.028$, as the author states.

So I don't see how the author can conclude $\gamma = -0.62$ when letting $\gamma = 0.62$ does not contradict that $r \geq 0$.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ $ 4*0.19 = 0.76 \neq 0.71$, and what is $\gamma$ ? $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 16, 2016 at 9:36
  • $\begingroup$ You're correct. I edited the original post to reflect that. However, it still allows for $\gamma$ to be positive or negative. $\gamma$ is the instantaneous rate of return on the put option. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 16, 2016 at 14:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It is very odd. I would have thought the condition should have been $r<\alpha$ i.e. $r<0.19$ not $r\ge 0$. In words: "the expected excess return on the stock is positive". $\endgroup$
    – nbbo2
    Commented Nov 16, 2016 at 14:32
  • $\begingroup$ Can you provide the source of this problem? $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 25, 2016 at 10:55
  • $\begingroup$ Sure, it's from "Financial Economics" by Abraham Weishaus (It's a study manual for the actuarial exam "Models for Financial Economics") $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 25, 2016 at 16:16

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.