Options pricing factors

Recapitulating, we have derived theoretically a unified setup for the computation of bond option prices in a generalized multi-factor framework. In general, the option price can be computed by the use of exponential affine solutions of the transforms t z)i for z C applying a FRFT and S,(n), for n G N performing an lEE. 

In this section, we start from a simple multi-factor HJM term structure model and derive the drift term of the forward rate dynamics required to obtain an arbitrage-free model framework (see HJM [35]). Furthermore, we derive the equivalence between the HJM-firamework and a corresponding extended short rate model. Then, by applying our option pricing technique (see chapter (2)) we are able derive the well known closed-form solution for the price of an option on a discount bond (e.g. caplet or floorlet). 

In addition to speculating on bond prices themselves, bond options also allow professional investors to speculate on anticipated changes in volatility. Volatility in this context is not necessarily the actual fluctuations in bond prices, but the fluctuations that option traders anticipate will happen in the future, and which are constantly being factored into bond option prices. 

Althongh the sample option price is easy to read and interpret in respect of this screen, there is a mass of academic and practitioner research literatnre that provides a platform from which bond option prices in general can be calcnlated with integrity. The literature on modelling interest rate derivatives in this arena is freqnently divided into one-, two-factor, or mnltifactor, models. 

When calcnlating option prices in a one-factor model, a frequently made assnmption is that the process is driven by the short rate often with a mean reversion featnre linked to the short rate. There are several popnlar models which fall into this category, for example, the Vasicek model, and the Cox, Ingersoll, and Ross model both of which will be discussed in more detail later. Calculating option prices in a two-factor model involves both the short- and long-term rates linked by a mean reversion process. 

Rabinovitch advocated the idea that the bond follows a log-normal process (similar to equity prices). Chen pointed out that this assumption is grossly misleading since the bond price is a contingent claim on the same interest rate. As a result the bond option pricing model cannot be a two-factor model as proposed by Rabinovitch rather it collapses to a one-factor model, in which case the formulae are the same with those proved respectively by Chaplin and by Jamshidian. 

Possibly the two most important of these factors are the current price of the underlying and the option s strike price. As noted above, the relationship between these two determines the option s intrinsic value. The value of a call option thus rises and falls with the price of the underlying. And given several calls on the same asset, the higher the strike, the lower the option price. All this is reversed for a put option. 

In pricing an option that expires in the future, however, the relevant factor is not historical but future volatility, which, by definition, cannot be measured directly. Market makers get around this problem by reversing the process that derives option prices from volatility and other parameters. Given an option price, they calculate the implied volatility. The implied volatilities of options that are either deeply in or deeply out of the money tend to be high. 

Options price sensitivity is different from that of other financial market instruments. An option contract s value can be affected by changes in any one or any combination of the five factors considered in option pricing models (of course, strike prices are constant in plain vanilla contracts). In contrast, swaps values are sensitive to one variable only—the swap rate—and bond futures prices are functions of just the current spot price of the cheapest-to-deliver bond and the current money market repo rate. Even more important, unlike for the other instruments, the relationship between an option s value and a change in a key variable is not linear. 

Alternatively, for scheme members whose APR home sales exceed their average assessed home capital employed (excluding any capital imputation from the transfer price) by a factor of 3.5 or more, a target rate of profit will be set by dividing the ROC target rate by a factor of 3.5. The assessment of the returns of scheme members who elect for the ROS option will take account of the MOT on transfer price profit. 

Although the HRP/TMB system is usually a good, reliable, and sensitive combination, HRP has a number of alternative substrates, which can be used such as o-phenylene diamine. There are also number of options for the enzyme used other than HRP, such as alkaline phosphatase, which can be used in combination with the substrate p-nitrophenyl phosphate. It is important to note that if alkaline phosphatase is used, the wash buffer must not contain phosphate. Usually in this case a Tris-buffered rather than phosphate-buffered wash buffer is used. The choice of enzyme-substrate system depends on a number of factors, including price, sensitivity and whether a spectrophotometer filter is available for the substrate specific wavelength to be measured. 

Operating Factors. The MBI units range from 20,000.00 to about 35,000.00 depending on manufacturer and options. Kapton belts are about the only replacement part used on a regular basis. In the case of DLI, the price range is from 2,000.00 for a micro-LC unit to about 8,000.00 for a variable split probe with special cryo-trap. Replacement orifices cost about 45.00 each. In the case of TSP, the price range if from 24,000.00 to 35,000.00 depending on how sophisticated a unit is required. Replacement parts on an annual basis cost less than 300.00. 

---