77
Department of Business Studies Author: M.Sc. in Finance Camilla Rosenkilde Master thesis Academic advisor: Jochen Dorn Capital Protected Funds An Analysis & Valuation with Stochastic Volatility Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus University August 2010

THESIS

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: THESIS

Department of Business Studies Author:

M.Sc. in Finance Camilla Rosenkilde

Master thesis

Academic advisor:

Jochen Dorn

Capital Protected Funds

An Analysis & Valuation with Stochastic Volatility

Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus University

August 2010

Page 2: THESIS

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Problem statement 1

1.2 Methodology 2

1.3 Delimitations 3

2 CAPITAL PROTECTED FUNDS 4

2.1 Fund terminology 4

2.1.1 Investing in a capital protected fund 6

2.1.2 Fund regulation 6

2.2 Capital guaranteed or capital protected? 7

2.3 Structuring of the protected securities 8

3 THE OPTION-BASED STRUCTURE 8

3.1 Implementation of the option-based strategy 8

3.1.1 Option component 9

3.1.2 Bond component 10

3.1.3 Participation rate 10

3.2 Issuing process 11

4 CONSTANT PROPORTION PORTFOLIO INSURANCE 12

4.1 Implementation of the CPPI structure 13

4.1.1 The CPPI strategy 13

4.1.2 Gap risk 15

4.1.3 Rebalancing algorithm 15

4.2 Issuing process 16

5 OPTION PRICING THEORY 17

5.1 An arbitrage free and complete market 18

5.2 The Black-Scholes partial differential equation 19

5.3 Risk-neutral valuation 21

Page 3: THESIS

6 STOCHASTIC VOLATILITY 22

6.1 Empirical findings 22

6.1.1 The volatility smile 24

6.2 Introducing stochastic volatility 25

6.3 The Heston model 25

6.3.1 The Heston PDE and risk neutral processes 26

6.3.3 Heston‟s closed-form solution 28

6.3.4 Dividends 29

7 MONTE CARLO SIMULATION 29

7.1 Simulation procedure 29

7.2 Efficiency of Monte Carlo simulation: Variance reduction 31

7.2.1 Antithetic variable technique 31

7.3 Generating random numbers 32

7.4 Discretization of the model 32

7.4.1 The Euler scheme 33

8 VALUATION OF THE OPTION-BASED STRUCTURE 34

8.1 The chosen product: Scottish Widows Capital Protected Fund 12 34

8.1.1 Payoff structure 36

8.2 Estimating model parameters 37

8.2.1 Continuous interest rates 37

8.2.2 Dividends 38

8.2.3 Calibrating the volatility estimates 39

8.2.3.1 Calibration scheme 40

8.2.3.2 Calibration results 41

8.3 Assumptions 42

8.4 Results 42

8.4.1 Share price of the fund 45

8.5 Sensitivity analysis 46

8.5.1 Risk-free and discount rate 47

8.5.2 Dividend yield 48

8.5.3 Heston parameters 49

Page 4: THESIS

9 VALUATION OF THE CPPI STRUCTURE 51

9.1 Implementing the CPPI strategy 51

9.1.1 Pricing gap risk 52

9.1.2 Assumptions 52

9.2 Rebalancing algorithm 53

9.3 Simulation of the standard CPPI strategy 53

9.3.1 Simulation results 54

9.3.2 Changing the multiplier and rebalancing frequency 55

9.4 Extensions to the traditional CPPI structure 56

9.4.1 Exposure constraints 57

9.4.2 Profit lock-in 59

9.5 Results and comparison of the strategies 61

9.6 Sensitivity analysis 61

10 THE OPTION-BASED STRATEGY VS CPPI 63

10.1 Comparison of results 63

10.1.1 Capital protection 64

10.1.2 Return 64

10.1.3 Risk 65

11 CONCLUSION 66

REFERENCES 68

LIST OF FIGURES 71

CD CONTENTS 72

APPENDICES 73

Page 5: THESIS

1

1 INTRODUCTION

The recent financial crisis has scared off investors from complex, structured products

incorporating exotic features and unknown exposure to counterparty risk. Instead, the

wish for transparency and regulation has driven the increasing popularity of capital

protected funds. Buying shares in a capital protected fund gives the investor access to

diversification through actively or passively managed portfolios on asset classes such as

real estate, commodities and credit while index trackers in particular have proved

popular. At the same time these funds typically promise 100% capital protection,

meaning that the investor is entitled to receive back the full initial investment if the fund

underperforms. In the light of the last couple of years’ financial turmoil this feature could

seem attractive to a risk-averse investor who, on the other hand, does not want to miss

out on potential gains over an investment at the risk-free rate.

Through time product developers have mainly created the capital protection on structured

products, such as capital protected funds, through the purchase of a zero-coupon bond,

while a call option on the underlying asset provided the upside potential. As interest rates

are currently historically low, the small portion of money left for buying options has

caused the option-based strategy no longer to appear as attractive as before. The Constant

Proportion Portfolio Insurance (CPPI) strategy provides an alternative to the option-

based strategy, and is particularly applicable for creating protection on underlying assets

such as funds. The two strategies differ in how the capital protection is obtained, thus, the

implications of applying each of the strategies also differ.

All of these circumstances make it interesting to examine the two strategies in further

detail, determining how capital protected funds are created and how the shares of each

fund should be priced under the two strategies.

1.1 Problem statement

The purpose of the thesis is to describe how capital protected funds are created using the

two methods: the option-based strategy and the CPPI. More specifically, the creation of

the capital protection will be of main focus. The two most prominent methods for

designing the protection are described and the implications of applying them will be

analyzed. In order to illustrate how the methods work in practice a product using each of

the strategies to create the capital protection is chosen for further analysis and valuation

using the appropriate theory to do so. Furthermore, stochastic volatility is introduced in

Page 6: THESIS

2

order to reflect the shortcomings of the Black-Scholes model in capturing some of the

market nature. Hence, the analysis and valuation of the products will be based on the

Heston model.

This leads to the following phrasing in the overall problem statement

How is a typical capital protected fund created and valuated with application of

stochastic volatility?

In order to answer this, the following research questions have been defined.

Which parties are involved in the issuing process of a typical capital protected fund?

How is the embedded protection created?

What are the characteristics of the two methods for constructing the protection: The

option-based strategy and Constant Proportion Portfolio Insurance (CPPI)?

How is the fair share price of a typical capital protected fund based on the option-

based strategy with application of stochastic volatility determined?

How is the fair share price of a typical capital protected fund based on the CPPI

strategy with application of stochastic volatility determined?

1.2 Methodology

Given the above statement of research questions the methodology of the thesis can be

accounted for. There are two sides to answering the problem statement. The first part of

the thesis captures the describing and analyzing aspect, which is identifiable in the five

first chapters of the thesis. Chapter 2 introduces the concept of funds and capital

protected funds, and describes the investment process. Chapter 3 and 4 present the

option-based strategy and CPPI, respectively, and account for the characteristics defining

the two methods. In chapter 5, 6 and 7 the theoretical framework for valuing the fund

shares is examined. Chapter 5 describes option pricing theory in a general way and the

approaches to the valuation, namely the PDE approach and risk-neutral valuation

approach, are described. In chapter 6 stochastic volatility is introduced, the Heston model

is described and the implications of modeling stochastic volatility are discussed. Chapter

7 presents Monte Carlo simulation as the method chosen for the numerical evaluation of

the pricing problem. The second overall aspect of the thesis is the evaluating and

independent part, where the theory and methods introduced in the first part of the thesis

are applied in practice and the results of the application are discussed. In chapter 8 the

estimation of model parameters is performed. All of the historical data used are obtained

Page 7: THESIS

3

from Datastream, the world‟s largest financial database. By using this data provider, the

data is expected to be reliable and accurate. Furthermore, the Heston input parameters are

estimated by calibrating the model to market data. The model implementation is

conducted in VBA, and Excel has been used for representing the data and results. In

chapter 8 and 9 an option-based and CPPI–based product are valuated. The two chapters

also illustrate how the protection in a typical capital protected fund is constructed using

each of the methods and in the CPPI case it is also shown how the structure can be

tailored to adjust the performance of the strategy. Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis for

both of the two products is performed. Based on the above results as well as the earlier

described general characteristics of the two strategies a comparison of the two strategies

is finally made after which the final conclusion can be given.

1.3 Delimitations

With the problem statement in mind this thesis is not intended to provide a

comprehensive analysis of all the specific types of capital protected funds. The creativity

which financial engineers apply in structuring new products makes this an immense task.

Therefore the thesis only deals with the principles behind the most common structures

and strategies. Sometimes variations will be mentioned, but the consequences of them

will not be further analyzed. Moreover, the description of the creation of the protection,

risks and the costs connected with the structures is not detailed, but provides the reader

with knowledge about the main features. Also, the hedging procedure, which the product

developer must carry out to minimize the potential losses on the products, is relevant but

will not be accounted for.

It is assumed that the reader is familiar with standard stochastic calculus and option

theory as well as the Black-Scholes model and framework. The reader is also assumed to

possess basic knowledge about VBA programming. Thus, the coding of the programs

needed for calibration and implementation of the models is not discussed.

Other numerical methods than Monte Carlo simulation do exist, but they will not be

considered or described. Due to the computer intensive simulation of the Heston model,

the array-restrictions of VBA proved to be critical. Consequently, only a limited number

of simulations could be attained. This affects the results negatively so that they might be

imprecise. Nevertheless, the valuations show how the capital protection is created, and

general reflections can be made.

Page 8: THESIS

4

Furthermore, no in-depth discussion about tax considerations will be carried out, even

though tax issues in practice do affect the attractiveness of the structures. A brief

description of fund regulation is given, however, not in detail and not in the light of the

recent financial crisis.

Finally, the thesis will only be analyzing closed-end funds due to a wish for simplifying

the analyses, and a hypothetical product will be used for illustrating and pricing the CPPI

strategy as no current products were found suitable for analysis. The chapter on valuation

of the CPPI structure includes the valuation of the option on gap risk but in this

connection the antithetic variate method for reducing the variance of the price estimate

will not be applied.

2 CAPITAL PROTECTED FUNDS

The following chapter introduces the terminology that surrounds capital protected funds.

The different types of funds that capital protection might be applied to are defined and an

overview of the investment process is given. Additionally, the regulation and the

difference between capital protected and capital guaranteed funds are outlined.

The concept of capital protected funds is also known as structured funds. A structured

product is a combination of traditional financial instruments and derivatives and it is

engineered to widen the range of investment opportunities for institutional and retail

investors (Das 2001, p.3). In other words, the structured product is a package solution

that allows the investor to invest in a variety of assets, even ones that are not typically

available to the ordinary investor. The products are designed so that they are easily

tailored to investor demand and risk preferences and they can offer risk/return profiles

that are not available to the investor through conventional investment in financial

instruments.

2.1 Fund terminology

The generic term for collective investment schemes is pooled funds or investment funds.

They can be found worldwide, but with varying structures and names. In the US the

funds can be categorized as mutual funds, closed-end funds or unit investment trusts. In

the EU the category Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities

(UCITS) is the common term and in the UK investment trusts, unit trusts, open-ended

investment companies and common investment funds among others define the range of

collective investment schemes (Ray 2006, p.17).

Page 9: THESIS

5

A mutual fund is a form of collective investment, which allows investors to pool their

individual investments and thereby participate in a larger and more diversified portfolio

of investments than would otherwise be accessible (Ray 2006, p.18). In addition, the

participants in a mutual fund enjoy the advantage of specialized professional

management and, in some cases, reduced administration. Depending on the tax

legislation the investors might also obtain some taxation benefits from investing in a

fund. In many cases, the mutual fund is offered by banks, life companies, asset managers

and specialist investment houses. These institutions often use mutual funds as an efficient

way of managing their clients‟ assets.

Individual mutual funds can be further classified according to their asset orientation, such

as stock/equity funds, bond funds, money funds, hybrid funds and so on, or by their

investment objective, such as growth funds, income funds, index or tracker funds. Hedge

funds are another variation of mutual funds, which apply a variety of strategies, including

short-selling and derivative positions across a wide range of asset classes, in order to

make profits in both rising and declining markets. Additional differentiations can be

made in fund structures. For instance, one fund could be investing exclusively in one

other (master fund or feeder fund), or in a number of other funds (fund of funds). The

fund could also have a number of sub-funds (umbrella fund). Furthermore, distinction

between funds can be made according to their legal structure. Funds may be constituted

as companies, as trusts or as partnerships or they may have a joint ownership structure

but no legal personality. The fund may also be an exchange traded fund (ETF), which

tracks an index but is bought and sold as a listed company. Lastly, the mutual fund may

be open-end, where the fund has variable capital and is allowed to issue or redeem shares

on a continuous basis, or closed-end, which is a fund with a fixed amount of capital

issuing a limited number of shares (Ray 2006, p.23).

As well as collective investments pool assets of individual investors, they also need to

divide claims to those assets among the investors. Investors buy protected securities, or

shares, in the collective investment schemes and ownership is proportional to the number

of shares purchased. The value of each share is called the net asset value (NAV). The

NAV is the current market value of a fund‟s holdings minus the fund‟s liabilities divided

by the number of shares issued and it can be determined several times a day, daily,

weekly, or even yearly using the following relationship

(2.1)

Page 10: THESIS

6

The NAV can also be expressed as the overall fund value, like in the above equation, but

not dividing by the number of shares issued. In the rest of the thesis liabilities are

assumed to be constant, making it possible to ignore their contribution. This simplifies

the valuation and analysis. Furthermore, the term „fund‟ will be referring to any of the

above definitions of funds, however, the most dominantly used types of funds employed

in connection with capital protection are funds tracking indices or basket of indices,

ETFs or hedge funds.

2.1.1 Investing in a capital protected fund

The protected securities, or shares, that investors must buy in order to invest in a capital

protected fund represent equity interests in fund portfolios, which could be all types of

funds described earlier in section 2.2, with guaranteed or protected return of the

principal, the investment amount, at maturity. The return is created by an investment in

risky assets and the protection is obtained through the purchase of risk-free assets.

Hence, at any given time during the investment period

Shares value = Risk-free Assets Value + Risky Assets Value (2.2)

In the event of a closed-end fund launch, that is, the offer of units or shares in a newly

established fund to investors, the investor can invest in the fund during a fixed period

(Ray 2006, p.51). In this period the marketing material and fund constructions are only

preliminary and may be subject to change after the funds to be invested are received. The

objective of the fund, the fee structure, the investment limitations, if any, and other

relevant information are included in the marketing material. At the end of that period, or

a little bit prior to end, the fund managers then assess the mass of funds invested, and

arrange the final portfolio construction and other administrative and operating

procedures. After the issuing of the fund has taken place the investors are typically

demanded to hold the shares for a predefined investment period, usually between 3-5

years. Should the investor wish to sell his shares during this period the capital protection

most commonly does not apply and the investor may not receive back the full initial

amount. Furthermore, a buyback fee is typically imposed. At the end of the investment

period, the investor is usually given the choice between reinvesting the value of the

shares or selling his shares to the product issuer to capitalize the gains, if any.

2.1.2 Fund regulation

Funds are subject to strict regulations, which partly explain the 2009-2010 investor

demand for capital protected funds (Dickinson 2010). Before the firm wishing to

Page 11: THESIS

7

establish a fund becomes approved by the regulation authorities almost all of the aspects

of their business such as financial resources, competencies and likelihood of failure are

scrutinized. Once the firm is authorized they must meet all the applicable rules and laws

and must provide financial information, maintain the required levels of financial

resources, keep records of their trading activities, and so on (Ray 2006, p.43).

Furthermore, the fund to be marketed to the public must provide a detailed description of

its objectives, policies, structure, management and other relevant operating information.

The above circumstances partly explain why the capital protected funds seem attractive

to the investor as opposed to the usual structured products, which can be opaque and

complex to evaluate. The heavy regulation gives the investor an extra level of security,

especially since counterparty risk has been a main point of focus for the last couple of

years. As a consequence, a lot of the fund prospectuses account for the counterparty risk

tied to the product.

2.2 Capital guaranteed or capital protected?

When examining marketing brochures investors might get confused with the frequent

terms used in relation to structured products. The terms capital or principal „guaranteed‟

and capital or principal „protected‟ are often used about otherwise seemingly similar

products. In reality, the products are alike in anything but in the risk of the investor not

receiving back the principal at maturity. Capital guaranteed funds are guaranteed by the

issuing financial institution, which in most cases is a bank or fund house. The risk lies in

the solvency of the issuing financial institution and the investor is guaranteed the

repayment of the full amount of money that was invested (Chen 2009). In contrast,

capital protected funds are not guaranteed, meaning that the investor might not receive

back the full principal at maturity. If the product developer creates the protection through

bonds the repayment of the invested amount is not a certainty as bond issuer could

default. Thus, this added risk is linked to the bond issuers.

Throughout the rest of this paper the terms „capital guaranteed‟ or „capital protected‟ will

refer to both types of products as the categorization does not have an influence on the

numerical results. The categorization, however, is of significant importance in the

investor‟s risk evaluation of the fund and should be taken into consideration before the

investor decides to invest in a particular fund.

Page 12: THESIS

8

2.3 Structuring of the protected securities

Two methods for creating the protection on funds, or any other asset classes, are most

often found in the literature and used in practice by large financial institutions: option-

based strategies and threshold structures, also known as CPPI. The methods differ in

terms of participation, exposure, costs, risks as well as volatility. Furthermore, the

option-based strategy is a static structure, which is not altered after the inception. On the

other hand, by applying the CPPI strategy the developer dynamically protects the capital

invested through the adjustment of the exposure to risky and risk-free assets.

The following two sections explain how the product developer of a capital protected fund

can use these two most common methods for constructing capital protection on fund

shares and how the methods work, but the results are easily extended to other asset

classes.

3 THE OPTION-BASED STRUCTURE

The option-based structure is a commonly used method for designing the principal

protection of structured products on liquid assets such as stocks, commodities and

indices. It is simple and relatively straightforward to create. However, it can be complex

to explain to the individual investor and the pricing of the structure is quite opaque due to

the costs embedded in the structure. The following analysis pinpoints the most important

characteristics of the method, and accounts for the creation of the capital protection using

this structure. Finally, an overview of the issuing process helps clarifying how the

structure is structured.

3.1 Implementation of the option-based strategy

The construction of capital protection in the option-based structure is based on two

elements: a bond with no periodic income payments – that is, a zero-coupon bond, which

is used for guaranteeing the principal amount invested in shares on the fund, and an

option, which provides the exposure towards the fund or funds (Godden 2002). At

maturity the investor receives the par amount of the share and the extra amount, if any,

based on the percentage increase of the fund value.

Page 13: THESIS

9

Figure 1: The option-based structure components

Source: Godden (2002)

Figure 1 above illustrates the components of the structure. The right side of the figure

shows how the return scenario at maturity could turn out. The left side depicts how the

price of a share in the capital protected fund can be decomposed into two categories.

Most of the invested amount is used for the purchase of the bond guaranteeing the

investment, while a smaller part is left for the option premium. As the option cost is

usually priced at 35-50% of the investment value and the zero-coupon element typically

costs between 55-70% of the total amount, depending on the maturity, the option cost is

sometimes slightly higher than the funds left after the purchase of the bond (Godden

2002). Thus, the investor sometimes receives exposure to the underlying of less than

100%. The sum of the two component prices makes up the fair price of the share.

(3.1)

However, the above amount does not include the product costs. As can be seen in Figure

1, the investor usually pays an overcharge to compensate for the product developer‟s and

issuer‟s costs connected to the issuance of the product, illustrated by

(3.2)

Consequently, the total price and fair price of a share are typically not coinciding.

3.1.1 Option component

The option is the component that generates the upside potential for gains. It is usually a

European-type call option, due to the fact that the protection provided by the bond is

valid only at maturity and it is typically written with a strike price of the current fund

NAV. More specifically, the call option gives the issuer the right to a certain appreciation

of the fund. As the option component is used for acquiring the extra return the developer

has the opportunity to choose between several types of funds investing in specific asset

classes to create exactly the exposure that the developer finds a demand for by its

customers.

Page 14: THESIS

10

Several factors affect the price of the option component, the main drivers being the

current NAV, time to maturity, the volatility of the NAV, and the risk-free interest rate.

A long investment term, a low risk-free rate or a high level of implied volatility increases

the option price, all other things held constant. As will become clear later the interest rate

level has a particularly pronounced effect on the total structure value.

The developer, who has essentially written the option on the fund NAV, has to delta

hedge the option in order to offset the potential loss experienced if the option ends up in-

the-money and the investor thus in effect exercises his right to the appreciation over the

strike. However, this topic will not be further elaborated on in the thesis.

3.1.2 Bond component

The bond component provides the protection of the principal. By purchasing a bond with

nominal value equal to the principal the developer secures the investor the payment of

the bond‟s principal. Zero-coupon bonds are predominantly used because of their lower

price compared to coupon paying bonds. The price PBond of a zero-coupon bond with t

years to maturity using the t-year zero rate r and continuous compounding is given by

(3.3)

where CF is the cash flow equal to the principal. The formula shows that the price of the

bond is determined by the time to maturity and the zero-coupon rate. The interest rate can

be observed in the market for shorter maturities and calculated from traded coupon bonds

using the bootstrap method for longer maturities. In many cases, a money market

instrument is used instead of the bond component.

3.1.3 Participation rate

The participation rate is the percentage share of the return of the fund that the investor

receives. Put differently, it is defined as a measure of how many options on the funds that

implicitly has been bought by the investor. Logically, the higher the participation rate,

the more attractive the product seems to be. With a principal and c as the option price the

participation rate R is given by

(3.4)

However, in many cases the issuer requires the payment of administration costs, issuance

costs, and so on, which will influence the participation rate as follows

(3.5)

Page 15: THESIS

11

The final participation rate can only be established on the inception date of the product,

but the introductory participation rate is usually determined prior to this date by

estimating the bond and option value.

Equation (3.4) shows the relationship between the variables and the participation rate. On

top of the variables included above the same variables that affect the option price also

affect the participation rate. Lower volatility reduces the price of the option component,

which increases the participation rate. A higher bond interest rate reduces the bond

component price, resulting in a higher participation rate. Furthermore, a longer product

life time reduces the bond price leaving more money for buying bonds, but increases the

option price.

The participation rate is often used to attract investors in the marketing of the product. A

common approach to increasing the participation rate is to construct so that it resembles

an Asian option payoff. This involves the determination of the terminal fund NAV at the

maturity of the product using the average fund value over a prespecified number of

assessment dates, which has the effect of decreasing the volatility. Hence, this lowers

option price. Other exotic options, which are usually cheaper than plain vanilla options

are also used for increasing the participation rate. A basket of funds, where the

correlation between the funds reduces the option price, is one example, but digital,

quanto and barrier options are also used by developers due to their option premium

lowering nature.

Another deciding factor of the participation rate is the bond price, which is closely linked

to the risk associated with the issued debt. The risk is quantified by the debt issuer‟s

credit rating. By choosing a bond with lower credit rating it is therefore possible to obtain

a lower bond price thereby increasing the asset allocation share towards the option and

consequently raising the participation rate. However, the tradeoff is higher credit risk

reducing the security of the investment, which has proved critical in the recent financial

crisis.

3.2 Issuing process

The structuring process of the protected security involves several different parties, which

can be seen in Figure 2. Large financial institutions can sometimes take on both the role

as developer as well as the issuer role in the process, whereas minor actors usually only

take part as issuer of the end product. A lot of the structures offered are developed by a

large financial institution, and issued by the subsidiary branches under that institution.

Page 16: THESIS

12

Figure 2: The issuing process of the option-based structure

Source: Merchant (2004) and own contribution.

The standard structure issuing process is illustrated above. The product issuer issues the

shares and receives the investment capital from the investors, who in turn receives a

number of shares according to the share price. In some cases, the fund is launched only to

serve as the entity providing the risky asset exposure in the structure, while in other cases

the capital protection is added after the launch of the fund where the issuer enters into an

agreement with the developer. The developer guarantees the repayment of the principal

and the payment of the specified participation rate of the performance of the fund at

maturity. As the bond issuer provides the protection of the principal amount by selling

the zero-coupon bond to the developer the credit rating on the issued shares is a

combination of the bond issuer and the developer‟s rating (Merchant 2004). The

developer also writes a call option on the fund. The option gives the issuer the right to

provide the investors with the appreciation of the fund above its initial NAV. At

maturity, if the NAV of the fund is greater than its initial value, the strike price, the

developer delivers the principal and the payoff of the option to the issuer. Then the

investors can sell back their shares to the issuer and capitalize any gains. Conversely, if

NAV is less than its initial value the developer delivers the principal to the issuer, who

then distributes an amount equal to the initial investment in return for the shares bought

to the investors.

4 CONSTANT PROPORTION PORTFOLIO INSURANCE

The Constant Proportion Portfolio Insurance (CPPI) strategy is a popular alternative to

the option-based structure, especially on funds or other thinly traded assets. It is a

portfolio insurance strategy originally developed in 1986 by Fischer Black and Robert

Jones. The objective of portfolio insurance is to protect the investor against negative

market moves while still retaining upside potential, however, smaller than in an

Page 17: THESIS

13

investment directly in the risky asset. This is exactly what the CPPI strategy achieves by

adjusting the proportions of risky and risk-free assets in the fund portfolio to react to

market changes.

4.1 Implementation of the CPPI structure

The CPPI strategy is basically a trading strategy designed to adjust the exposure to the

underlying risky asset, which could be almost any traded asset(s), by reducing this

exposure during market downturns and increasing it in upward market trends (Black &

Perold 1992). Hence, unlike the static option-based strategy the CPPI is a dynamic

strategy, which creates the capital protection through a rebalancing algorithm.

Furthermore, the strategy ensures that a predetermined minimum return is achieved at all

times, or more typically, at a given date in the future by always ensuring that the amount

invested in risk-free assets is sufficient to meet the specific target level in the future. In

this aspect the CPPI approximates the payoff from a call option on the underlying asset –

which is in essence the option-based structure. However, unlike the option-based strategy

the CPPI requires the portfolio manager to take a long position directly in the risky asset,

instead of through an option, and to more actively manage the structure.

4.1.1 The CPPI strategy

The below figure illustrates the composition of the CPPI. There are two main

components in the strategy which make up the total net asset value, or the NAV, of the

CPPI: a risky asset, and a secure or risk-free asset in the form of cash deposits, bonds or

money market instruments. Like in the option-based structure the risk-free asset ensures

that the strategy meets the repayment requirement at maturity and the risky asset

provides the exposure to potential gains

Figure 3: The CPPI strategy components

Source: Iversen & Bilslev-Jensen (2009).

Page 18: THESIS

14

The floor, F, is the amount currently needed to guarantee that the principal sum can be

returned at maturity and can be thought of as the present value of the principal at

maturity. If, for instance, the investor invests a total of £100 in a capital protected fund

that promises 100% protection at maturity the floor should yield £100 at maturity. The

asset that achieves this capital protection is usually a zero-coupon bond, or equivalently a

coupon-bearing bond or a basket of fixed income or money market instruments. Hence,

the floor is computed as the discounted price of this bond. Assuming continuous

compounding of interest rates the initial value of the floor, F, will be given like equation

in (3.3), the price of a zero-coupon bond. Thus, the floor is a function of interest rates

and time remaining to maturity, and it increases with the passage of time.

The investment level is the amount invested in the risky asset, which provides the upside

potential of the structure. It takes the form

(4.1)

Here, is the so-called cushion, C. The cushion is the amount needed to

prevent the NAV from falling below the floor. The multiplier m is a leverage factor that

represents how much leverage is allowed in the structure. Usually the size of the

multiplier is within the range of 2-5 and it is chosen to reflect the expected performance

of the fund as well as the risk preferences of the investor. A higher multiplier means that

more funds are invested in the risky asset, which increases the potential for gains.

However, a high multiplier also means that the portfolio will approach the floor faster,

should the NAV experience a sustainable decrease. After having determined the

investment level to be invested in the risky asset, the remaining amount is invested in the

risk-free asset, the proportion B, which is equal to the lower part of the above figure,

NAV-IL.

Figure 4: Illustration of a possible CPPI strategy scenario

Monte Carlo simulation using the Heston model. n=7,500,

T=6, m=3, r=3.036%, =1.180, θ=0.083, ρ=-0.303, σ=0.442,

v0=0.038, q=3.35%, ∆t=6/312, trading boundary=2%.

Page 19: THESIS

15

The illustration of a path of the CPPI strategy shows an example of how the strategy

could evolve through time. When the risky asset price S rises a larger proportion of funds

is allocated towards the risky asset, which is represented by the investment level IL. On

the other hand, when the market is declining as illustrated at the very end of the time

horizon more funds are moved to the risk-free asset B in order to protect the floor. The

illustration also shows the main weakness of the CPPI: it is strongly path-dependent. The

performance of the strategy is not just given by the terminal NAV but depends on how

the asset price and thus the allocation of risky and risk-free assets have developed since

inception.

4.1.2 Gap risk

The gap risk is the risk of the NAV falling below the floor. It is a critical factor as the

developer usually provides the guarantee of the repayment of the investment. Should the

CPPI structure fail to obtain the promised amount at maturity the developer must usually

pay the difference between the actual portfolio NAV and the guaranteed amount. In this

case the developer has essentially written a put option, which must be priced and hedged,

on the gap risk (Cont & Tankov 2009). The developer can build the cost of the option

into fees and premiums charged to the investor, but can also try to sell off the gap risk by

packaging up the gap risk in securities and selling it (Pain & Rand 2008).

4.1.3 Rebalancing algorithm

The CPPI strategy can be boiled down to the following trading algorithm. The procedure

itself has no immediate effect on the NAV of the portfolio but only allocates the funds to

the two components. This practice is repeated until maturity with rebalancing of the

portfolio according to a certain predefined frequency.

Step 1: The total portfolio value NAV of the CPPI is calculated using the formula

(4.4)

where S denotes the underlying asset value.

Step 2: Now G is introduced as a constant representing the principal protected amount.

This is generally the initial amount of the portfolio NAV0. The floor can then be

computed, where r is the t-year zero rate at time t. With continuous compounding is thus

equal to

(4.5)

Based on the floor, the cushion is given by

Page 20: THESIS

16

(4.6)

Step 3: After having determined the cushion, the investment level is defined by

multiplying the multiplier by the cushion.

(4.7)

This is the proportion to be invested in risky asset.

Step 4: Finally, the rest of the funds are invested in the risk-free asset

(4.8)

The risk-free component is invested in zero-coupons of the same maturity as the CPPI,

Bt, with dynamics

(4.9)

where r is the continuous bond rate.

Step 5: Defining the rebalancing dates as fixed dates the CPPI

portfolio is rebalanced at these dates. At the next rebalancing date the procedure is

performed again, starting at step 1.

The fair price of a share is made up of the two below components

(4.10)

where POption denotes the option on gap risk. Analogously to the option-based strategy the

total share price is given by

(4.11)

When it comes to measuring the performance of the CPPI strategy this is usually done by

assessing the CPPI NAV in terms of the underlying asset performance (Boulier &

Kanniganti 1995), so that

(4.12)

4.2 Issuing process

Like in the option-based structure the issuing of a capital protected fund that uses CPPI

to obtain the capital protection involves different parties. The shares are distributed to

investors according to a scheme similar to that of the option-based strategy. The

developer then invests the capital in the fund, which invests a portion of the capital in

risky assets and the other portion in risk-free assets. This allocation is determined by the

CPPI investment level formula (4.1). Thereafter, the developer manages the allocation of

Page 21: THESIS

17

assets of the fund between the risky and risk-free assets according to the trading

algorithm from section 4.1.3.1

Figure 5: The CPPI issuing process

Source: Merchant (2004).

The above illustration shows that the primary difference from the option-based structure

is that the developer does not directly obtain the capital protection by a static investment

in the bond, but from an indirect asset allocation carried out by the developer or fund

portfolio manager.

The developer guarantees to the investors the repayment of the principal at maturity, and

the payment of 100 %, or other levels of protection, of the performance of the fund.

Hence, the rating on the protected securities is determined by the developer‟s rating,

which is generally double-A or below (Merchant 2004). The developer then hedges its

risk of repayment through the application of the CPPI strategy. If the developer fails in

this task it is exposed to gap risk.

5 OPTION PRICING THEORY

This chapter will outline the fundamentals of continuous-time arbitrage theory. The

chapter thus provides the background needed for performing the valuation of the capital

protected fund shares in chapter 8 and 9. Two approaches to pricing a financial derivative

can be taken, either a PDE approach or a risk-neutral valuation approach. Both of the

approaches will be described as they will both be applied in the thesis; the PDE approach

is used for deriving the closed-form solution in the Heston model, which is used for the

calibration in section 8.2.3, and risk-neutral valuation theory is used in the Monte Carlo

simulations in chapter 8 and 9.

1To simplify the example the fund/portfolio manager and the developer are assumed to be the same. In

reality, they may be separate entities.

Page 22: THESIS

18

In the first sections the assumption of no dividends is made. This assumption will be

lifted at the end.

5.1 An arbitrage free and complete market

Before it is possible to derive any option pricing results the definition of an arbitrage free

market must be made. The arbitrage free market is by far the most important assumption

in the option pricing framework. In the following, the market is assumed to be

frictionless, short-selling is allowed, trading is continuous and transaction costs and taxes

are non-existing. Furthermore, the market is considered only to consist of two assets,

which simplifies the description. Define the asset price process S as a geometric

Brownian motion (GBM)2 given by

(5.1)

where is the mean rate of return, is the volatility of S, and Wt is a Wiener process.

The second asset is the risk-free asset with price process B and with dynamics

(5.2)

This is the numeraire, which is assumed to be strictly positive,3 and it is often defined as

a money market account.

Now the definition of an arbitrage free market can be derived. Arbitrage is defined by the

creation of wealth through risk-free profit, that is, arbitrage is making money out of

nothing without taking on risk. The price of financial instrument is fair if and only if

there exists no arbitrage opportunities, or there would be mispricing in the market.

Formally, an arbitrage opportunity is defined by a self-financing portfolio h with value

process V (Björk 2004, p.92), where a self-financing portfolio is defined as a portfolio

where the purchase of a new portfolio is financed solely by selling assets already in the

portfolio. Thus, no adding of extra funds is needed (Björk 2004, p.81) and an arbitrage

opportunity would be such that

(5.3)

The market is said to be arbitrage free if there are no arbitrage opportunities. Now all

self-financing portfolios must yield the risk-free rate since if a self-financing portfolio h

and a process k exist such that

(5.4)

2 The reader is referred to Appendix A.1 for further description of the GBM process.

3 A numeraire is the measure against which other assets are measured.

Page 23: THESIS

19

then it must be that kt = rt for all t or an arbitrage opportunity would arise. Thus, it must

hold that

(5.5)

If it would be possible to borrow money for buying the portfolio and earn riskless

profit and if riskless profit could be made by short-selling the portfolio and

investing at the risk-free rate. The important thing to notice is that the above portfolio is

riskless as its dynamics does not contain a driving Wiener process and so the important

result that a riskless portfolio must yield the risk-free interest rate is obtained.

A contingent claim Г can be replicated, or is attainable, if there exists at least one

attainable portfolio such that

(5.6)

where the trading strategy h is a replicating strategy for Г (Björk 2004, p. 111). The

market model is said to be complete if any contingent claim is attainable. Now, if this is

the case, holding the portfolio and holding the contingent claim are equivalent, thus, in

the absence of arbitrage opportunities the price process of the contingent claim

must satisfy

(5.7)

A rule of thumb is that the model is complete and arbitrage free if the number of random

sources, or Wiener processes, is equal to the number of traded assets excluding the risk-

free asset.

5.2 The Black-Scholes partial differential equation

Having determined the basic market model characteristics the objective is now to find the

price process f of a contingent claim Г with maturity T using these previously given

conditions. This could for instance be a European call option. The price process

must be such that the market consisting of St, Bt and does not

contain any arbitrage opportunities. This can be obtained by the replicating portfolio

argument, which states that the price function of the derivative can be replicated with a

self-financing trading strategy by forming a risk-less portfolio and so the price of the

strategy must be the price of the derivative. This is the essential argument used by Black

& Scholes (1973) in their derivation of the famous Black-Scholes (BS) partial differential

equation (PDE).

Page 24: THESIS

20

Define a derivative with dynamics like in (5.1), for which the price at time t is

known, and an underlying asset with dynamics like in (5.2). By Itô‟s lemma4 the change

in the variable during an infinitesimal small time interval is then some function

of St and t, time.

(5.8)

A portfolio with price process of the underlying asset and the derivative can then be

constructed by a self-financing trading strategy so that the Wiener process is eliminated

and the portfolio becomes riskless. The portfolio consists of +1 derivative f and a fraction

of - underlying assets, where the plus denotes a long position minus and the minus a

short position. It follows that the portfolio value is given by

(5.9)

The change dΠ in the value of the portfolio at any time t is given by both the option

value and the asset value changes:

(5.10)

Substituting equations (5.8) into equation (5.10) yields:

(5.11)

Now the portfolio will be riskless if the stochastic term in form of dSt is eliminated. This

is obtained by letting

(5.12)

The above is also known as a delta-hedge strategy where the portfolio is continuously

rebalanced so that it stays riskless by choosing the in (5.12). The assumptions

discussed in section 5.1 explain that the portfolio must instantaneously earn the risk-free

rate. If it earned more or less than this return arbitrageurs could make riskless profit.

Hence, it must hold that

(5.13)

where r is the risk-free interest rate. If equations (5.9), (5.11) and (5.12) are now

substituted in equation (5.13) it follows that

(5.14)

Dividing by dt and rearranging yields

4 The reader is referred to Appendix A.2 for a description of Itô‟s lemma.

Page 25: THESIS

21

(5.15)

which is the Black-Scholes PDE, which every derivative depending on St and t must be

priced according to, or arbitrage opportunities would exist (Hull 2009, p.285). The

important thing to notice is that the rate of return of the underlying asset has been

suppressed. This means that the price of a derivative does not depend on the return on the

underlying asset; only the volatility is important in the pricing of the derivative. Now

the PDE in (5.15) can be solved either directly or numerically and the arbitrage-free price

of the derivative is then given by the solution formula. However, this will not be of

relevance in this thesis.

5.3 Risk-neutral valuation

Instead of explicitly solving the PDE to obtain the arbitrage-free price of a derivative the

risk-neutral valuation approach can be taken. The rationale behind risk-neutral valuation

is that the price of a financial instrument is not affected by the expected return on the

underlying asset, which was what Black & Scholes (1973) showed in their derivation of

the PDE. This is the same as the investors in a risk-neutral world being indifferent to risk

and therefore they do not require compensation for taking on risk (Hull 2009, p.289).

Thus, the expected return on all securities, including the self-financing portfolio, is just

the risk-free interest rate and the market price of risk, which will be elaborated on later, is

equal to zero under the risk neutral measure.

Returning to the PDE in (5.15) it must hold that the solution to the PDE is the same both

in the risk-neutral world and the real world, thus, the two approaches must yield the same

price . The connection between the two is given by the Feynman-Kač theorem,5

which states that if f is the solution to a PDE of the form in (5.15) with the boundary

condition that at maturity is equal to the derivative payoff, the following risk-

neutral pricing formula holds

(5.16)

where St follows

(5.17)

and where denotes a Wiener process under the risk-neutral measure . From

inspecting the above it is clear that the risk neutral process of St is the same as the GBM

in (5.1), except that the drift term has been replaced with r. The important thing to note

5 The theorem is described in Appendix A.3.

Page 26: THESIS

22

is that under the probability measure the discounted asset price process is a

martingale, which means that the expected value of an observation in the future is just

equal to the previous observation value, conditional on all previous observations. In other

words, today‟s asset price is obtained as the expected value of the future asset price under

the -measure discounted at the risk-free rate. Otherwise, arbitrage opportunities would

exist.

The risk-neutral martingale measure is also known as the equivalent martingale

measure (EMM). The measure is equivalent to the real world probabilities ℙ in that the

probability of impossible events is equal under both measures ℙ

, and vice versa for certain events ℙ . Letting denote a

price function of an asset St and Bt be a riskless asset with dynamics as in (5.2), the

results are formally written as in (5.18), which results in the risk-neutral pricing formula

(5.18)

Thus, the price of the derivative at any time t can be found by using a risk-free bond as

numeraire, which transforms the asset prices into martingales. This is a powerful result,

which will be applied throughout chapter 8 and 9.

The only problem left is to determine the expected payoff at maturity of the derivative.

This can be done by Monte Carlo simulation, which is introduced in chapter 7, and

thereafter discounting the payoff to obtain the fair price of the derivative.

6 STOCHASTIC VOLATILITY

The BS model is known to suffer from several shortcomings, as some of the assumptions

in the framework do not correspond to certain market observations. This is shortly

demonstrated in the next sections. To reflect the real world most precisely and obtain

applicable results the model choice will therefore not be given by the BS model. Before

the numerical analysis of the two strategies can be performed the stochastic volatility

framework is presented, and the implications of it are defined.

6.1 Empirical findings

Even though the famous BS model framework is theoretically robust, the assumptions

underlying it do not fit market observations. This thesis focuses on relaxing the

Page 27: THESIS

23

assumption concerning volatility.6 The BS model assumes that volatility is constant over

the life of the derivative, thus, it assumes that the price of the derivative is unaffected by

changes in the price level of the underlying asset. However, empirical studies have

shown that log-returns that is assumed in the BS model are not normal distributed and the

studies have described the long-observed features of the implied volatility surface such as

volatility smile and skew, which indicate that implied volatility does tend to vary with

respect to strike price and time to maturity.

Figure 6: Absolute log-returns on the FTSE100

Absolute log-returns on the FTSE100 from 01-07-2005

to 01-07-2010. Source: Datastream and own contribution.

The above graph depicts how the returns on the FTSE100 index during specific periods

seem to exhibit volatility, which was especially pronounced during the height of the

recent credit crisis in 2007-2008. The concept of volatility clustering is observed due to

significant positive autocorrelation of squared returns, which Scott (1987) among others

points out. Additionally, Fouque et al. (2000) observe negative correlation between

volatility and the return on an asset, known as the leverage effect. In a BS world this

correlation would not exist even though Fischer Black already introduced it back in 1976

(Black 1976) and concluded that market participants do not exhibit a symmetric response

to news in the market. Instead, the participants cause higher volatility after bad news

rather than good news. Consequently, the leverage effect implies that returns seem to be

mean reverting. Gatheral (2006, p. 2) supports this finding stating that economical

considerations imply that future volatility will lie within a certain, limited interval.

Empirical evidence therefore suggest that volatility should be modeled using a mean

reverting process.

6 The reader is referred to Appendix A.4 for the assumptions in the BS framework.

Page 28: THESIS

24

6.1.1 The volatility smile

A standard tool for proving the inconsistency between BS and market volatility is the

volatility smile, which is obtained using the concept of implied volatility. Implied

volatility, here denoted by , is the BS volatility embedded in market prices

of options, where K denotes the strike price and T the time to maturity. It is

formally expressed as the value of volatility in the BS formula such that

(6.1)

where is the BS price. In practice the value of is obtained by applying

a numerical root-finding algorithm and keeping all other parameters constant.7 Plotting

the implied volatility as a function of strike indeed shows that volatility is not constant.

The volatility smile takes different forms depending on the asset type at hand and for

stocks the implied volatility will typically resemble a smirk (Hull 2009, p.389). As can

be seen in Figure 7a) the implied volatility of FTSE100 index call options across

maturities is not constant, but varies with strike and time to maturity.

Figure 7a) and 7b): FTSE100 call option implied volatility and volatility surface

Option prices of 19 Oct 2009. S=Spot=5281.5, r=risk-free rate=1.2% and q=dividend yield=3.35% for a

variety of strikes and maturities up to 1 year. Source: Datastream and own contribution.

Under the assumptions of the BS model, the implied volatility would be a constant

function, indicated by straight, horizontal lines in Figure 7a) above. Instead, the figure

shows that this is not the case. For many types of options the volatility smile is different

depending on the time to maturity and consequently the smile can be extended to also

incorporate this feature. This yields the above volatility surface in Figure 7b), which

shows how the implied volatility of in-the-money options varies, so that the volatility

surface is not a plane surface.

7 The bisection method for finding implied volatility has been applied. The reader is referred to Appendix

A.5 for a description of this method.

Page 29: THESIS

25

Given the above empirical evidence it seems correct to conclude that volatility should not

be modeled using constant volatility as the market does not price options according to the

BS model. Instead, alternative models that incorporate non-constant volatility could be

considered.

6.2 Introducing stochastic volatility

In order to capture the varying volatility reflected in Figure 7a) and 7b), the volatility of

the underlying asset is often modeled as following a stochastic process rather than as a

constant. In that case, the following stochastic differential equations for the asset price St

and its variance vt are assumed to be satisfied

(6.2)

(6.3)

where µ is the drift of asset returns and ,η, are volatility process parameters. By

selecting different functions for and in (6.3) different models for the volatility can be

obtained. The two Wiener processes, WS and Wv are often modeled to be correlated with

, which is the correlation between random asset price returns and

changes in vt. The relation brings yet another dimension to the pricing of an option as the

PDE for models of stochastic volatility now also includes a term for the correlation

between the volatility and the underlying asset.

Since stochastic volatility is not a traded asset an inspection of (6.2) and (6.3) makes it

clear that a model of stochastic volatility includes more stochastic sources than there are

traded assets. The market is in fact incomplete and so the BS portfolio replicating method

from chapter 5 cannot be applied directly in the deriving of a PDE that the price function

must satisfy. The incomplete market implies that the financial derivative no longer can be

perfectly hedged by taking positions in the underlying asset and a risk-free asset, and that

a unique EMM does no longer exist. However, all of the previously given results still

hold. Then the prices obtained using results derived assuming a complete market will still

be arbitrage free, but several EMMs might yield the prices.

6.3 The Heston model

A model that has become very popular and is relatively easy to executed in VBA is the

Heston (1993) model, which has been chosen for further use. What separates the Heston

model from other models of stochastic volatility is that it allows for a fast and easily

implemented closed form solution for European options. This feature is particularly

Page 30: THESIS

26

useful when it comes to calibrating the model to known option prices later in section

8.2.3.

The dynamics in the Heston model corresponds to choosing and

in equations (6.2) and (6.3)8 and these equations then become

ℙ (6.4)

ℙ (6.5)

The above asset price process is identical to the geometric Brownian motion (GBM)

underlying the BS model, except that the volatility now is allowed to be time-varying.

Additionally, the correlated Wiener processes are introduced

ℙ (6.6)

Thus, the Heston model incorporates correlation between the volatility and the

underlying asset price, which in most cases will be negative – an effect, which he calls

the leverage effect. Recalling from section 6.1 this should ensure that the model is more

in accordance with observed market dynamics when it comes to capturing the volatility

clustering described as the asset price will tend do go down when volatility goes up. The

leverage effect also causes the distribution of the asset returns to have a fat left tail. A fat

left tail means that the likelihood of obtaining negative returns increases, which seems to

explain some of the deviations from the BS framework discussed in section 6.1.

The above equation in (6.5) is also known as the Cox, Ingersoll, and Ross (1985) square

root process, where the term describes the evolution in the variance on the

underlying asset. The part ensures that the process exhibits mean reversion

towards the long-run mean of the variance at speed . That is, the higher , the faster

the process will tend towards the long-run mean, which the variance revolves around.

Thus, the Heston model also includes the earlier mentioned mean-reversion effect.

Finally, is defined as the volatility of the variance, which determines how much the

random component in the Brownian motion affects the variance .

6.3.1 The Heston PDE and risk neutral processes

The fact that the market is incomplete in a stochastic volatility model, such as the Heston

model, introduces a problem since it is not sufficient to create a riskless portfolio by

eliminating the uncertain, random term WS. Another Wiener process Wv is also present,

which makes the derivation of the PDE different from in the BS framework. The issue is

8 Note from now on the notation .

Page 31: THESIS

27

solved by introducing a second benchmark derivative depending on the same

variables as f, the price of which other contingent claims will be priced in terms of. This

makes it is possible to derive the PDE in the same manner as in the derivation of the BS

PDE. The reader is referred to Appendix A.7 for the actual derivation, which yields the

PDE

(6.7)

The boundary conditions that must be used to determine the final price of a financial

derivative is then given by the given payoff of the derivative. However, to be able to use

the results the market price of volatility risk in the PDE in (6.7) must be

defined. The economic interpretation of is that it is that is the risk premium that

measures the expected mean excess return over the risk-free rate compared to the risk

taken on. In relative terms it is also known as the Sharpe ratio in the settings of CAPM

theory. Thus, the term is also referred to as the market price of risk. Since volatility is

not a traded primary asset like S, the market premium on risk is not straightforward to

define. Fortunately, one can use the fact that the price of the financial derivative

in an incomplete market is determined by aggregate risk aversion on the

market, liquidity and other factors. Thus, the price of risk is determined by the market.

By calibrating the model to observed market prices, an assumption about the preferences

on the market is made (Björk 2004, p. 221). Letting the market price of risk

, which corresponds to choosing a specific probability measure throughout the rest of

the thesis, it is implicitly assumed that market agents are risk-neutral. This means that the

results from the calibration can be used for option pricing.

Now the following risk neutral processes of the Heston model can be defined

(6.8)

(6.9)

(6.10)

where

denotes the risk-adjusted -Wiener processes. Hence, the transformation of

the asset price GBM process is in effect carried out by substituting the risk-free rate r

with the mean rate of return in the drift in (6.4), like in the BS case. Since the market

premium on risk was assumed to be zero the variance process reduces to the

exact representation above as the difference between the objective and risk neutral

processes is indeed the market price of risk.

Page 32: THESIS

28

6.3.3 Heston’s closed-form solution

Imposing boundary conditions according to the payoff function of interest, the above

PDE can be solved to obtain a formula for the price of the given financial derivative. In

his paper Heston (1993) proceeds with deriving a semi-closed form solution to the PDE

for European call options. However, since the focus of this thesis lies on pricing the

capital protected fund shares the details in the derivation are not given here and the

reader should look to Appendix A.8 for the full derivation. Instead the main results are

summarized. The price of a European call option is given by

(6.11)

The represent the -adjusted probabilities that the option expires in-the-money

conditional on , the logarithm of the asset price process, and today

(6.12)

These probabilities are not available in a closed-form solution. Instead, Heston (1993)

derives the solution for the characteristic functions fj using the fact that they are

derivatives depending on the same state variables as Pj,

(6.13)

where is the imaginary unit, and with terminal conditions

and

Thus, in order to solve the characteristic functions and must be found.

The derivation of the solutions is considered beyond the scope of this thesis and the

reader is referred to Heston (1993) for the procedure. Therefore, the solutions are

provided here without further detail

(6.14)

(6.15)

where

and

The risk-neutral pseudo-probabilities are found by an inverse Fourier transform

(6.16)

Page 33: THESIS

29

where Re designates a real number. The two complex integrals in (6.16) must be

evaluated in order to find the option price and this can only be done by numerical

methods, which explains why the solution is only semi-closed. The solution is found by

plugging the solution of (6.16) in (6.11). The actual integration will not be described in

detail, but will instead be based on the numerical integration techniques in Rouah &

Vainberg (2007). These results are applied later in the Calibration section.

6.3.4 Dividends

Reducing the risk-neutral drift with q, where q is the continuous annual dividend yield on

the underlying asset, the dynamics of the asset price process can be modified to

incorporate continuous dividend payments. This holds for all the previous defined results

(Björk 2004, p.237). Inserting q in the asset price process in (6.8) yields the below asset

price process, which will be applied throughout the rest of the thesis, along with the

variance process in (6.9)

(6.17)

Furthermore, to incorporate continuous dividend payments in Heston‟s closed-form

solution, equation (6.11) can be adjusted to account for this by replacing the spot price S

with .

(6.18)

7 MONTE CARLO SIMULATION

Based on the previous sections, the model for pricing capital protected fund shares has

been developed, and will now be implemented. The products to be analyzed are all path-

dependent, as the final payoff depends not only on the terminal value of the underlying,

but also on the observations up until that time. Monte Carlo simulation is a simple tool

for simulating and pricing such path-dependent instruments or other instruments based

on particular complex asset price dynamics. Hence, this thesis proceeds with Monte

Carlo simulation as the chosen tool for pricing the option component in the SWCPF12

and for simulating and pricing the CPPI strategy.

7.1 Simulation procedure

Given the process dynamics of the financial derivative Monte Carlo (MC) simulation

provides a technique of obtaining numerical solutions to the pricing problem. As has

been shown earlier this is exactly what is needed for applying risk-neutral valuation to

pricing of options as it was described how the price of a derivative can be expressed as

Page 34: THESIS

30

the discounted value of its expected payoff. Hence, Monte Carlo simulation is a natural

tool for this.

Consider an option with a payoff at time T given by a function f of the underlying asset

prices. In order to price the option the dynamics of the underlying asset is modeled under

the risk-neutral measure, which ensures that discounted asset prices are martingales. The

estimator of the price of the option Y is given by

(7.1)

Recall that equation (7.1) is of the same form as the risk neutral valuation formula in

(5.16). To evaluate this expectation a number of paths of the underlying asset over the

time interval [0,T] are simulated according to its risk-neutral dynamics. At the end of

each path the discounted payoff of the option is calculated, and the average across paths

is the estimate of the option price.

(7.2)

From the Law of Large Numbers, which is described in Appendix B.1, the estimate

converges to the true price as n tends to infinity, or

with probability 1 as .

The variance of the simulation can then be used as an estimate for and is given by

(7.3)

The standard error is equal to

(7.4)

The confidence interval of the estimate gives the interval that contains the true value with

a given amount of certainty 1 – . The interval can then be calculated as given below,

where denotes the fractile of the standard normal distribution.

(7.5)

Letting =5% a 95% confidence interval is then given by

(7.6)

since 1.96 is the 97.5% fractile in the standard normal distribution. This significance

level will be applied throughout the rest of the thesis.

Page 35: THESIS

31

7.2 Efficiency of Monte Carlo simulation: Variance reduction

When evaluating the results later derived it is of interest to find out how precise the

approximation in equation (7.2) is. The error estimate of a Monte Carlo simulation was

given above in (7.4). The smaller the standard error of the estimate, the more accurate the

results and the narrower the confidence interval will be. To improve the precision of the

estimate the interval can be reduced by increasing the number of simulated paths n, or

reducing the variance. Unfortunately, in order to approximate a reasonably small

standard error a huge amount of simulations is usually necessary and this is the main

disadvantage of the MC simulation procedure, referred to as crude Monte Carlo. To

minimize the problem a number of techniques that help reduce the variance are available.

It should, however, be noted that the techniques are many and the most effective ones are

often also complex to implement. Therefore, this thesis will only consider antithetic

variance reduction, but methods such as control variates and moment matching could

also be applied.

7.2.1 Antithetic variate technique

The intuition behind the use of antithetic variate variance reduction is that the variance of

the MC estimate can be reduced by balancing the values of the paths. Hence, for every

simulated path one also calculates the price of the option using the opposite path – that is,

the path that is created using the same randomly drawn numbers, but with negative sign.

The variables form an antithetic pair in that a large value is accompanied by a small

value, which suggests that an unusually large or small output computed from the first

path will be balanced by the value computed from the antithetic path resulting in a

reduction in variance. Given the pairs of observations, where denotes the antithetic

path, the antithetic variates unbiased estimator is the average

of all 2n observations

(7.7)

In the calculation of the standard deviation of the estimator it should be noted that and

are not independent, only the pairs of observations are. Thus, the standard deviation

must be calculated using the above average of the path and its antithetic path – i.e. each

term in the sum above in (7.7) – and not the 2n payoffs that is given by calculating the

payoffs of each path separately. Now the confidence interval can be found using (7.6)

like in the crude Monte Carlo case.

Page 36: THESIS

32

7.3 Generating random numbers

One of the components of the Monte Carlo simulation is the random number generator,

which produces the stochastic component, that is, the Wiener processes in (6.8) and (6.9).

The increments over a time period of ∆ are normal distributed, so that ,

which can be represented by where . Thus, a sequence of

uniformly distributed random variables Ui and methods for transforming those variables

to the normal distribution are needed to simulate the asset paths.

The sequence of random variables U1, U2,… should have the property that

Each Ui is uniformly distributed between 0 and 1

The Ui are mutually independent.

The first property is an arbitrary normalization. Numbers in another interval are also

applicable but the normalization U(0,1) ensures that the distribution can be transformed

to many other distributions, which makes the generation of N(0,1) random numbers

straightforward. The second property is of greater importance as it implies that all pairs

of values should be uncorrelated and that the value of Ui should not be predictable from

U1,…,Ui-1. In other words, this property ensures that the numbers are random. An

effective random number generator produces values that seem to be consistent with the

two properties above (Glasserman 2004, p.39). If the numbers are not truly random, the

Monte Carlo estimate preciseness and convergence speed will be somewhat poorer.

In reality, the computerized random number generator produces pseudorandom numbers

as it only mimics randomness, and this should therefore be kept in mind when the

financial derivative price estimates are analyzed. However, no further discussion of the

different pseudo-random number generators will be carried out, and the VBA function

Rnd will be applied. To transform the random U(0,1) numbers to the N(0,1) distribution

the Marsaglia-Bray algorithm is used.9

7.4 Discretization of the model

The stochastic differential equations previously given are continuous-time and must be

discretized in order to simulate the paths of the asset and variance processes. Given an

arbitrary set of discrete time points t, which a derivative‟s life time is divided into, the

discretization generates random paths for the logarithm of the asset price, S, and the

variance v for every change in discrete time t. Both of the processes are path-dependent,

as the asset price process depends on the stochastic value of the variance process. Hence,

9 The reader is referred to Appendix B.2 for a short description of the method.

Page 37: THESIS

33

the whole path must be simulated. The risk-neutral processes given in (6.8)-(6.10) in the

Heston model must be used for the simulation in order for the risk-neutral valuation

results to hold. In their discrete form they are written as

(7.8)

(7.9)

(7.10)

By Itô‟s lemma the log process of the asset can be written in discrete form as

(7.11)

where

. As mentioned in section 7.3 and . When n

correlated samples from the normal distribution are required, the usual procedure is to

obtain the samples using Cholesky factorization. However, in this case there are only two

correlated samples, which means that the correlation structure can be obtained using a

simpler approach (Hull 2009, p.430). Two independent samples from the standard

normal distribution can be transformed into two correlated samples and , using the

below formula

(7.12)

where are independently and identically distributed standard normal variables that

each have zero correlation with .

The approximation of a continuous-time process by a discrete-time process introduces

discretization bias, which should be kept in mind when evaluating the results. The bias

makes it difficult to obtain valid confidence intervals, as well as it causes a higher

number of time steps and simulations in order to reduce the standard error to be

necessary (Broadie & Kaya 2006). Several other improvements to overcome

discretization bias have been proposed, and the reader is referred to Appendix B.3 for

further discussion.

7.4.1 The Euler scheme

The Euler scheme provides a simple approximation of the true continuous time dynamics

in (6.8)-(6.10), where the processes are approximated exactly as written in (7.8) and

(7.9). In this setting, time T is divided into m subintervals of the length

and the

approximation of the form

(7.13)

Page 38: THESIS

34

can be applied to the asset price process, where Z is a standard normal random variable

and . The variance stochastic process can be approximated in the same way,

which yields

(7.14)

Shocks to the volatility, , are correlated with the shocks to the asset price, ,

as can be seen in (7.12).

A serious shortcoming of this method is that the processes will often become negative as

a consequence of sampling the random number Z. To avoid the negative variance

practitioners usually adopt one of two approaches (Gatheral 2006, p.21): Either the

absorbing assumption, where if vt < 0 then vt = 0, or the reflecting assumption, where if

vt < 0 then vt = – vt. The absorbing assumption will be applied in the simulations.

Equipped with (7.12)-(7.14) the Monte Carlo simulation of the asset price and variance

processes can be performed.10

8 VALUATION OF THE OPTION-BASED STRUCTURE

Recently offered capital protected funds are typically tied to the indices across the world.

The issuers emphasize diversification, actively managed portfolios and capital protection

when marketing the products to the retail or individual investor. Hence, the capital

protected fund chosen for analysis in this thesis is index-linked and incorporates the

Asian tail feature, as these characteristics dominate the market. The fund has been chosen

in order to illustrate one of the methods that the developers make use of when these types

of products are created. Products with other types of exotic features, such as the often

used quanto-feature where the option is denominated in one currency but pays out in

another, or products that are based on a basket of assets will not be analyzed, even

though those characteristics are also common.

8.1 The chosen product: Scottish Widows Capital Protected Fund 12

Scottish Widows plc is a Scottish investment company, now a subsidiary of the major

UK financial institution, Lloyds Banking Group plc. After the acquisition of HBOS in

2009 Lloyds is now the largest retail bank in the UK, and holds the position as market

leader in a number of areas (Lloyds Banking Group, 2010a). Scottish Widows is the

group‟s specialist provider of life insurance, pensions and investment products,

10

In practice, it is advisable to test the model and determining the optimal number of time steps and

simulations by comparing simulation results to the analytical price of the option. Due to page limitations

this test is not performed.

Page 39: THESIS

35

distributed through Lloyds branch network. The Scottish Widows Capital Protected Fund

12 (SWCPF12) is one out of a number of funds offered by Scottish Widows, and the

fund return is based solely on the UK FTSE100 index.

Table 1: SWCPF12 product characteristics

Effective date Termination date Offer price Protection Participation Cap Payoff

19 Oct 2009 5 Oct 2015 £1/share 100% 150% 65% Asian

Source: Prospectus enclosed on CD-ROM.

As can be seen above, the investment horizon of the product is 6 years, and the product is

100% capital protected. The product consists of a zero-coupon bond, which constitutes

the capital protection, and an option, which provides the upside potential.11

However, the

product is not constructed with an option component directly written on the fund NAV,

but indirectly through an option of the FTSE100. The main risks connected to the

product are the counterparty risk associated with the single option seller, and the credit

risk of the bond component. Should the counterparties fail to meet their obligations, the

capital protection fails, and the investor might not receive back his full investment.

However, Scottish Widows seeks to reduce this risk by demanding collateral from the

counterparties.

The cash investment period is the period in which the fund is made available for

subscription and it ran from 24 July 2009 to 5 October 2009. If an investor invested in

the fund during this period, the cash would earn interest. The amount invested determines

the number of shares that the investor is entitled to. For instance, the offer price of £1 per

share results in 10,000 shares received given an investment of £10,000. Any interest

earned in the cash investment period will be added to the investment amount. At the

termination date the investor receives back the NAV of his total investment by selling the

shares to Scottish Widows.

The fees incorporated in the structure amount to a sole initial charge of 7.70% of the

investment amount. This fee is deducted from the amount used for buying shares. If the

investor buys 1 share at a price of £1, he effectively only receives a fraction of 1-0.077 =

0.923 of the share. This is an important implication when the total share price is

estimated later on. No other fees are incurred, except for a switching out fee, which will

be ignored in the analysis, assuming that the investor does not withdraw his investment

during the investment period.

11

The prospectus does not explicitly state that zero-coupon bonds are used for providing protection, but

this is assumed to be true. The prospectus and the marketing brochure can be found on the enclosed CD.

Page 40: THESIS

36

8.1.1 Payoff structure

The option component associated with the SWCPF12 can be classified as an Asian

option as the option payoff is based on the average of the underlying index at several

assessment dates. The fund invests only in the UK FTSE100 index comprised of the top

100 capitalized UK companies listed on the London Stock Exchange and is not actively

managed, but tracks the index. This allows the valuation to be carried out by assessing

the FTSE100, thereby indirectly the NAV of the fund.12

Had the SWCPF12 consisted of

an actively managed fund based on a variety of underlyings the NAV of the fund should

be modeled, which could turn out to be quite tedious. The terminal value is calculated

as the arithmetic average of the index price on every trading day. This can be represented

as

(8.1)

where Fti is the value of the index at assessment date i = 1,2,3,…,n. The assessment dates

are specified as the UK stock market trading days over the last 12 months of the

investment period. Assuming 252 trading days per year the pricing of the option

component is thus based on the FTSE100 index price on these 252 days and the formula

can thus be represented as

(8.2)

The fact that the assessment dates are placed in the end of the investment term is a so-

called Asian tail feature. Compared to a sampling period across the whole investment

period the Asian tail does not have as much influence on the option price as if the

sampling period was to begin at the inception date, but still, the tail lowers the option

price.

Given a cap δ, a floor η and a participation rate γ, the promised percentage return on the

fund at maturity (Bennett et al. 1996) can be expressed as

Payoff

(8.3)

where is the terminal average value of the FTSE100 and is the value of the

FTSE100 at the inception date, t0. In the case of the SWCPF12 the value of the floor is

0%, because of the fact that the investor is assured no loss of principal. A cap of 65% is

enforced to lower the option cost, as the cap cuts off some of the upside potential. With a

12

Recall that NAV=Assets-liabilities divided by outstanding shares. By ignoring liabilities, is becomes

possible to price a SWCPF12 unit directly through the FTSE100.

Page 41: THESIS

37

share price of £1 the analysis proceeds with a principal of £1. Consequently, the payoff is

presented as

Payoff

(8.4)

From the above formula it can be seen that the payoff is linked to return on the FTSE100,

not the actual index price. Not taking other characteristics of the payoff structure into

account the investor is promised £1.5 per 1% increase in the FTSE100 if the percentage

rise in the index is less than 65%. If the percentage rise is bigger than 65% the investor

receives 65%. Should the return on the FTSE100 turn out to be negative the option pays

off zero and the investor only receives the protected initial investment.

The above formula for the payoff on a share in the SWCPF is now determined and will

be used for determining the fair and total price of a share.

8.2 Estimating model parameters

In order to price the capital protected fund shares the model needs some input estimates.

All of these input parameters are non-observable directly in the market and the final

parameters are consequently estimated with a degree of uncertainty.

8.2.1 Continuous interest rates

The risk-free continuous interest rate is needed for determining the option component

value. As the SWCPF12 is written on the FTSE100 the straightforward choice would be

to use rates on UK government bonds as the benchmark for the true risk-free rates and

extract the risk-free rate from the UK Treasury Gilts. However, some market participants

argue that Treasury rates are too low, because they carry different tax considerations and

regulations and that LIBOR is a better proxy for the risk-free rate (Hull 2009, p. 74). The

higher LIBOR rates incorporates the fact that a financial institution most often has to be

at least AA-rated in order to borrow at LIBOR and AA-rated entities have a small risk of

bankruptcy. The spread over Treasuries thus reflects this credit risk, and consequently

LIBOR is used as a proxy for the risk-free rate in this thesis.13

LIBOR is the rate that

banks demand for borrowing funds to another bank on the interbank market, however,

there are no LIBOR rates available for a maturity of more than a year. Therefore UK

interest rate swaps are used as proxy for LIBOR for maturities of up to 6 years. LIBOR

will be used as a proxy for the risk-free rate in the drift of the asset price and for

discounting the option component. As discussed above, the proxy will be a bit higher

13

The data used for this can be found on the enclosed CD in the spreadsheet ”LIBOR and swap rates”.

Page 42: THESIS

38

than the true risk-free rate demanded by investors in the risk-neutral world. Thus, the

option component estimate might be slightly lower than its true value. Furthermore, it is

assumed that the risk-free rate is deterministic. Alternatively, stochastic interest rates

could be used for modeling the short interest rate.

The proxy for Scottish Widows‟ costs related to buying the bond component must also be

estimated. It is assumed that the bond is bought from Lloyds Banking Group. Hence,

because of Lloyd‟s AA-rating (Lloyds Banking Group, 2010b), the bond component

interest rate of the protected security can also be assumed to approximate LIBOR.

Accordingly, the assumption that the credit spread between the swap rates and Scottish

Widows borrowing rate is zero and that this spread is independent of the maturity of the

option is made.

LIBOR is calculated by the money market convention (actual/360), thus, the rate must be

transformed to bond market conventions (actual/actual) by adjusting the accrual factor

(Jensen 2005, p. 70). Linear interpolation, where one calculates the unknown rate

between two maturities by assuming that it lies on a straight line between the two closest

known rates, can then be applied in order to find the LIBOR rate from the

closest in time LIBOR rates and

. The formula for the interpolation

and transformation to bond market conventions with continuous compounding is given as

(8.5)

The above formula will be applied throughout the rest of the thesis when proxies for risk-

free and bond rates are determined.14

8.2.2 Dividends

Incorporating dividend payout in the Heston model only concerns the asset price process

and so the volatility process is left unaffected. When pricing options on underlyings that

pay dividends, the risk-neutral stochastic process of the underlying must be adjusted to

reflect the dividend payments by subtracting the dividend yield from the drift, which was

shown in (6.17). The dividend yield is assumed to be continuous and constant during the

investment period. The first assumption is reasonable as the underlying FTSE100 index

is comprised of a large number of individual stocks that can be realistically assumed to

payout dividends throughout the year, whereas the second assumption is more critical.

14

An example of the calculations is given in on the enclosed CD in the spreadsheet “LIBOR and swap

rates”.

Page 43: THESIS

39

The data is obtained from Datastream15

using the DY variable, which expresses the

anticipated annual dividend yield on the FTSE100. A historical estimate could also have

been applied, but this is not consistent with the forward-looking nature of the option.

Therefore, the expected annual dividend yield on 19 October 2009 is assumed to equal

3.35%.

8.2.3 Calibrating the volatility estimates

The Heston model needs to return the prevailing price of European options on the

FTSE100 so that the volatility structure of the model reflects market conditions. The

parameter estimates are usually obtained by minimizing the error between

model prices and market price, so that the parameters are fitted to the market volatility. If

the parameter values produce a volatility smile or surface similar to that of the market, it

can be assumed that the model will reflect the market volatility well. Furthermore, by

calibrating with market prices the obtained estimates are risk-neutral, which makes it

possible to simulate the option payoff directly using the calibrated parameters. Recall

that this was also the condition for assuming the market price of risk to equal zero as

discussed in section 6.3.1.

Several loss functions can be applied in order to minimize the squared error. Suppose

there are N market options prices and that the model prices

depend on a set of parameters . The root mean squared error loss function (Rouah &

Vainberg 2007, p. 283) is defined as

(8.6)

where are the estimation errors . The RMSE

parameters are those that minimize the RMSE loss function above, which entails that this

loss function minimizes the raw difference between market and model prices. This is

where the semi-closed form solution from section 6.3.3 is useful. Hence, the model

prices are computed using Heston‟s semi-closed solution.16

Alternatively, the %RMSE, which minimizes the relative difference between market and

model prices could be applied. However, the this method puts more weight to cheaper

options (OTM options) and less weight to in-the-money options and long-term options

due to the fact that the model and market price difference becomes amplified when the

15

The data can be found in the spreadsheet “FTSE100 dividend yield and option prices”. 16

The reader is referred to Appendix A.8 for the derivation of the solution to the PDE as well as a brief

explanation of the VBA code used for implementing it.

Page 44: THESIS

40

market price is small. Since the time horizon of interest is 6 years and the SWCPF12

option component can be said to be ITM, the RMSE is chosen. This is also the choice of

Baksi et al. (1997), and several others have made use of this technique for similar

purposes.

8.2.3.1 Calibration scheme

The minimization problem is not easy to solve as the loss function is not convex and

usually many local extrema exist. Two approaches to address the problem can be taken:

using local algorithms or stochastic algorithms. Stochastic algorithms do not depend on

the initial guess of parameters, but in general these algorithms are computationally more

burdensome than local optimizers (Mikhailov & Nögel 2003). Hence, the local optimizer

approach is chosen. More specifically, the Nelder-Mead algorithm, which searches for

the minimum value of two or more variables, is applied. The algorithm is fast and easy to

implement and is standard in many mathematical packages such as Matlab.

Consequently, the technicalities behind the algorithm will not be discussed in further

detail in this thesis and the VBA code thus follows Rouah & Vainberg (2007).

Remembering from section 6.3 on risk-neutral valuation, the market price of risk has

effectively been eliminated, which leaves five parameters to be estimated. Consequently,

the following must hold

ℙ (8.7)

The initial guesses are restricted to constraints they must fulfill. Setting the constraint

provides a lower bound for the volatility process so that it never becomes

negative, also known as the Feller constraint (Cox et al. 1985). All of the parameter

values that have to be calibrated are restricted to be positive numbers, except for rho, the

correlation. Instead the correlation is constrained in the interval -1 to 1. As the Nelder-

Mead algorithm only searches for local minima the calibration the initial guesses of

parameter values are essential. Here, the same initial guesses as in Mikhailov & Nögel

(2003) are applied as initial guesses of parameter estimates.

Table 2: Initial parameter estimate guesses

v0

-0.3 2 0.1 0.2 0.1

Source: Mikhailov & Nögel (2003)

Furthermore, the market data used in the calibration has to be chosen. As the SWCPF12

uses the FTSE100 index as underlying the option prices on this index on 19 Oct 2009,

Page 45: THESIS

41

the inception date of the SWCPF12, are obtained.17

Put options are excluded from further

analysis as Bakshi et al. (1997) notice how calls and puts imply the same u-shaped

volatility patterns across strike prices for a fixed term to expiration. This relationship is

mainly due to the put-call parity, and consequently the exclusion of put options should

not affect the conclusions. The range of options is selected on the basis on their

moneyness (S/K), to include out-of-the-money, at-the-money, and in-the-money options.

Ideally, options of different maturities should be included in the calibration. However,

because of computational restrictions, it has been chosen to only calibrate options with

0.164 years to maturity as options with short time to maturity are more liquid.

8.2.3.2 Calibration results

Running the calibration using VBA yields the following results..

Table 3: Calibration results

ρ κ θ σ V0

-0.303 1.180 0.083 0.442 0.038

Source: Own contribution, cf. the spreadsheet “Calibration”.

The risk-neutral parameters are now directly given by the above results in Table 3, as all

the parameter estimates are calibrated from market prices. The results become

and . The spot volatility of in the risk-neutral process

then varies around the long-term level of with mean reversion speed of

1.180. In figure 8a) and 8b) the volatility smile and surface of the FTSE100 using the

estimated Heston parameters are presented.

Figure 8a) and 8b): Volatility smile an volatility surface using calibrated parameters

FTSE100 call option implied volatility and volatility surface at 19 Oct 2009 with S=Spot=5281.5, r=risk-

free rate=1.2% , q=dividend yield=3.35%, =1.180, θ=0.083, ρ=-0.303, σ=0.442, v0=0.038 for a variety of

strikes and maturities indicated by individual lines. Source: Own contribution.

17

The data can be found in the spreadsheet “FTSE100 dividend yield and option prices”.

Page 46: THESIS

42

Comparing Figures 8a) and 8b) with the market implied volatilities of Figure 7a) and 7b)

it is easily seen how the whole structure has shifted and flattened out. Additionally, the

volatility surface shows that the Heston model fails to capture the implied volatility of

options with short time to maturity and ITM strikes, but fits quite well for longer

maturities. This is a general flaw of the Heston model and implies that the Heston model

should not be used for pricing options with short maturities. The loss function of 6.265

implies a mean error of £6.265 between market and model prices, which are denominated

in 1,000s. This suggests that the calibrated model parameter estimates yield prices that

are quite close to the observed market prices and that the calibration thus provides

parameter estimates that are rather good at capturing market prices.

It should be noted that the fit of the model probably would be even better if the

parameters were calibrated across time to maturity.

8.3 Assumptions

Before the actual valuation of the SWCPF12 is conducted, some assumptions are made.

During the Cash Investment Period of the SWCPF12 the cash that an investor invests

will earn interest and this interest gain will be added to the initial investment to increase

the capital protected value. However, this interest depends on when the investor invests

in the fund, and will thus be ignored in the valuation.

Time to maturity is 6 years as mentioned in the prospectus. The averaging of the

FTSE100 value takes place the last year of the option life time. Due to simplification

actual dates are ignored and the product life time is divided into 6 years of 252 trading

days with no regards to the actual number of trading days. The averaging is then based

on the number of trading days in that period.

8.4 Results

Using the risk-neutral valuation theory, where the price of an option is the expected

payoff discounted at the risk-free rate, the valuation of the option-based product can now

be performed in VBA using Monte Carlo simulation for approximating the -dynamics

of the Heston model. The SWCPF12 can, as mentioned earlier, be decomposed to a zero-

coupon bond and an option with an Asian tail and by equation (3.1) these values together

make up the fair value of the product. The offer price per share was £1 and this unit price

is used as basis for the following calculations. In order to price the option component, the

following input parameters are needed.

Page 47: THESIS

43

Table 4: Input parameters for the pricing of SWCPF12

Input parameters

Spot price (S0) 5281.5 Kappa (κ) 0.180

Risk-free rate (r) 3.036% Theta (θ) 0.083

Dividend yield (q) 3.35% Rho (ρ) -0.303

Discount rate (rd) 3.036% Volatility of Variance (σ) 0.442

Time to Maturity (T – t) 6 Current variance (v) 0.038

Participation rate (γ) 150% n simulations 16,000

Cap (δ) 65% 3.275%

Floor (η) 0% 3.473%

Source: Own contribution.

The simulations are comparable, meaning that it is ensured that the simulations paths are

comparable between the strategies by starting the same place in the list of random

numbers used for simulating the Wiener processes. In every iteration in the simulation

the risky asset price path and volatility path are simulated using the above parameters.

However, during the first 5 years of the option life no assessment takes place. Due to

computational restrictions it has not been possible to simulate the asset dynamics using

daily time steps in this interval. Consequently, monthly time steps are applied for the first

5 years, which yields 5 x12=60 time steps. This, however, increases the before-

mentioned discretizaiton bias. The last year of the product life time the VBA code

registers every trading day price of the FTSE100, and finally uses these 252 prices for

calculating the arithmetic average. Then the payoff function in equation (8.4) is applied

and the payoff is discounted back 6 years at the risk-free rate. This procedure is repeated

n times. The proxy for the risk-free rate is computed using the interpolated LIBOR rate

for the given time horizon from 19 October 2009 to 5 October 2015, which yields

(8.8)

Thus, the risk-free rate proxy is estimated as 3.036%.

To obtain a precise estimate of the option price, the number of simulations n must be

decided on. The results of running a different number of simulations and calculating the

option price estimate and the related confidence intervals using equations (7.2) and (7.6),

is presented in the below graphical illustration.

Page 48: THESIS

44

Figure 9: Crude Monte Carlo estimate of option price

The input parameters used can be found in Table 4.

Source: Own contribution.

Due to Excel/VBA-programming restrictions it has not been possible to run more than

20,000 simulations. Consequently, the option price estimate could have been improved

by increasing the number of simulations in another program than VBA. However, the

above figure illustrates well how the confidence interval shrinks with the number of

simulations. To increase computational speed and the preciseness of the option price

estimate the antithetic variance reduction method is introduced and the procedure given

in section 7.2.1 is thus applied.

Again, running various numbers of simulations yields the results shown in the below

figure.

Figure 10: Antithetic variate estimate of option price

The input parameters used can be found in Table 4.

Source: Own contribution.

The figure shows how the antithetic variable method for reducing variance of the

estimate obtains a much narrower confidence interval faster than the crude Monte Carlo

method. Already by 8,000 iterations the level seems to even out. This is also reflected in

a comparison of the standard errors of the two methods.

Page 49: THESIS

45

Figure 11: Comparison of standard errors

The input parameters used can be found in Table 4.

Source: Own contribution.

Inspection of the above illustration reveals how the standard error is reduced when the

number of simulations is increased. Running 500 simulations yields a crude Monte Carlo

standard error that is 46.19% higher than when applying antithetic variance reduction.

Increasing the number of simulations lowers the numerical difference, but the relative

difference between the two methods is rather constant. The computational speed,

however, is higher with crude Monte Carlo, but this issue is quite irrelevant due to the

computational restrictions that only allows for up to 16-20,000 simulations. At this low

number of simulations, the difference in speed is negligible. Hence, the antithetic

variable method will be applied in the conclusive simulation.

8.4.1 Share price of the fund

Running 16,000 simulations the fair option price estimate is obtained. This brings down

the standard error to 0.001 and yields a price estimate of the option component of 0.152.

Table 5: Option component price

Option component Confidence interval:

Option value 0.152 Lower bound 0.150

Standard error 0.001 Upper bound 0.154

Source: Own contribution.

The interest rate used for calculating the price of the bond component is calculated like in

(8.8). Since the time horizon is assumed the same as the option life time the rate is thus

equal to 3.036%. The bond component value is then calculated as given in (3.3):

(8.9)

At this point it is already clear that the last years‟ historically low interest rate levels do

not leave much of the amount invested for the option component. The need for lowering

Page 50: THESIS

46

the option price by exotic payoffs is thus very clear in the SWCPF12 case. The total fair

price of a share unit without deduction of fees can be calculated from (3.1):

(8.10)

Comparing the fair price of £0.986 to the offer price of £1 the estimated value is 1.5 %

below the offer price, which can be seen in Table 6. This percentage seems rather low as

emission costs, management costs and likewise must be paid from this amount. The fair

participation R which relates the percentage return according to equation (3.4) on the

share to the percentage appreciation in the FTSE100, is lower than the marketed value of

the participation percentage of 150%. The investor thus in effect receives a return of

109.87% times any gain in the value of the FTSE100, which is substantially lower than

the promised 150%.

Table 6: Scottish Widows Capital Protected Fund 12 (SWCPF) valuation results

SWCPF12 value Comparison data

Fair share price 0.986 Actual/estimated value 1.015

+ 7% fee 0.078 Participation rate, R 1.095

Total share price 0.910

Source: Own contribution.

As mentioned in section 8.1 an initial fee of 7.7% is deducted from the amount to be

invested leaving only a fraction of 0.923 of the share for a unit investment.

Consequently, the total price of a unit including fees is equal to (1 – 7.7%) x 0.986 =

£0.910. Now the share price estimate is 9.9% below the offer price. Concluding the

valuation, a share in the SWCPF12 is overcharged, although not considerably much.

However, characteristics of the structure could have been altered after the subscription

period, and the developer‟s price estimate of the option might not have been determined

on the 19 Oct 2009, which could possibly explain some of the price deviation.

8.5 Sensitivity analysis

In order to evaluate how sensitive the results with respect to the estimated input

parameters are the below sensitivity analysis has been carried out. The analysis is based

on the fair price of the share, which means that fees are not included. The changes are

measured at inception, meaning that the consequences of changes during the life time of

the product, reflected in mark-to-market values, will not be discussed. In the analyses all

of the variables, except for the variable being analyzed, are kept constant. Table 7

provides an overview of the scenarios and the changes in the variables in each scenario

that will be made.

Page 51: THESIS

47

Table 7: Sensitivity analysis parameters

Scenario -1 pp Base +1 pp

Risk-free rate 2.036% 3.036% 4.036%

Bond interest rate 2.036% 3.036% 4.036%

Dividend yield 2.350% 3.350% 4.350%

Source: Own contribution.

8.5.1 Risk-free and discount rate

The level of the proxy for the risk-free rate influences the drift of the asset price

dynamics and the discount rate used for discounting the payoff of the structure. The rate

has been estimated using LIBOR as proxy as 3.036% as of 19 October 2009. However,

some uncertainty about whether LIBOR can be used as a proxy for the true risk-free rate,

or not, exists. Therefore the risk-free rate variable is changed by +/- 1 percentage point

compared to the interest rate level 19 October 2009 in Table 8.

Table 8: Risk-free rate sensitivity analysis

Scenario -1 pp Base +1 pp

Risk-free rate Option value -5.30% 0.151 5.30%

Fair share price -0.81% 0.985 0.71%

Participation 5.63% 1.102 -4.72%

Source: Own contribution.

The results in Table 8 show how the option value and the fair unit price are affected in

the same manner by reducing or increasing the risk-free rate. The option value is reduced

when lowering the risk-free rate because the drift of the asset price dynamics is reduced,

which lowers the expected payoff and thus the option price. This effect outweighs the

lower rate for discounting back the payoff, which affects the fair unit price, albeit not by

the same strength. The risk-free rate only influences the option value, and not the bond

component – the capital protection. Hence, the unit price is not affected to the same

extent as the option value. A lower option value increases the participation, while an

increase in the option and unit price as a result of a higher risk-free rate does not reduce

the participation as much as the opposite.

The rate used for estimating the price of the capital protection – the bond component – is

the interest rate that Scottish Widows earns by investing in a zero-coupon bond or a

money market instrument. The protection has been assumed to be bought from Lloyds

Banking Group, which means that the rate is determined by Lloyds‟ credit risk, access to

markets, and likewise. The assumption that LIBOR can be used for discounting seems

reasonable, but might not in fact be true. Thus, the discount rate used for calculating the

bond component price is varied in the sensitivity analysis.

Page 52: THESIS

48

Table 9: Bond interest rate sensitivity analysis

Scenario -1 pp Base +1 pp

Bond interest rate Option value 0.00% 0.151 0.00%

Fair share price 5.18% 0.985 -4.97%

Participation -30.94% 1.102 29.15%

Source: Own contribution.

The bond interest rate is only used for estimating the bond component price, and

consequently the option component is not affected by changes in the rate. The share price

is negatively affected when increasing the discount rate, and the participation rate

positively affected by increasing the discount rate. The opposite is true when reducing

the discount rate. The analysis shows how the participation rate is much more sensitive to

the rate used for pricing the bond component than the risk-free rate used for pricing the

option component. This is explained by the fact that the bond component constitutes

almost all of the structure – 83.3% in the base case scenario – and this value of the

component thus affects the fair share price and participation rate seriously. Hence, if the

developer wishes to adjust the participation rate adjusting the bond component would

result in the biggest change. A way to reduce this bond component price could be to

purchase the bond from a counterparty with a lower credit rating, meaning that the risk

premium on the company‟s debt would be lower. However, this would also increase the

risk associated with the structure, reflected in a larger probability of protection failure.

8.5.2 Dividend yield

The forward estimate of the continuous annual dividend yield involves a rather large

degree of uncertainty, as the yield is not directly observable in the market. For instance,

the anticipated yearly dividend yield on the FTSE100 obtained from Datastream has

changed from 5.19% on 1 April 2009 to 3.35% on 19 October 2009. It is therefore of

interest how much a change in the dividend yield affects the results. Varying the

dividend yield with +/- 1 percentage point yields the results below.

Table 10: Dividend yield sensitivity analysis

Scenario -1 pp Base +1 pp

Dividend yield Option value 11.26% 0.151 -10.60%

Fair share price 1.73% 0.985 -1.73%

Participation -10.25% 1.102 12.16%

Source: Own contribution.

A higher dividend yield than originally estimated reduces the drift and this lowers the

expected payoff. Thus, the option value is negatively affected when the dividend yield is

Page 53: THESIS

49

adjusted upward and vice versa when adjusted downward. Consequently, the share price

is affected in the same way and the participation rate change is affected with opposite

sign. Like in the changing risk-free rate analysis, only the option value is affected by

adjustment of the dividend yield, but the influence is almost twice as strong. The fair

share price, however, is not seriously affected due to the option component making up a

rather small part of the whole structure. Given the product investment horizon of 6 years,

the actual dividend yield is likely to change regularly over this period. Thus, even though

the parameter has a huge influence on the option estimate a precise estimate of the

continuous dividend yield is difficult to produce.

8.5.3 Heston parameters

The risk of the Heston model parameters being imprecisely calibrated to market values,

could also affect the estimated value of the SWCPF12 through changing the option

component price. The parameters are adjusted by +/- 50% of the base case value, and

results of the sensitivity analysis are listed below.

Table 11: Heston parameter sensitivity analysis

Scenario Low Base High

Kappa (κ) Option value 0.00% 0.151 -0.66%

Fair share price -0.10% 0.985 -0.10%

Participation 0.18% 1.102 0.64%

Theta (θ) Option value -3.97% 0.151 2.74%

Fair share price -0.71% 0.985 0.41%

Participation 4.36% 1.102 -2.67%

Rho (ρ) Option value -3.31% 0.151 -3.80%

Fair share price -0.61% 0.985 -0.57%

Participation 3.72% 1.102 3.95%

Volatility of Variance (σ) Option value -1.32% 0.151 1.90%

Fair share price -0.30% 0.985 0.29%

Participation 1.54% 1.102 -1.87%

Current variance (ν) Option value 0.00% 0.151 0.00%

Fair share price 0.00% 0.985 0.00%

Participation 0.00% 1.102 0.00%

Source: Own contribution.

Changing the volatility of variance σ does not influence the results considerably. A

positive σ makes the volatility stochastic around the long-term volatility parameter, by

which σ is multiplied. Consequently, the probability of large changes in the asset price is

increased when increasing σ, leading to fatter tails and higher kurtosis in the distribution.

Page 54: THESIS

50

The higher kurtosis thus leads to a small increase in the option price. The contrary is true

when reducing σ.

Furthermore, κ, the mean-reversion speed affects the components to a very small degree.

The mean reversion speed pulls the initial variance towards the long-term mean θ and

decides the relative weight of the current volatility compared to the long-run volatility.

As the long-run variance parameter value is higher than the current variance, a higher

mean-reversion speed makes the drift of variance process become higher than initially

faster.

The parameters ρ, σ and θ affect the option value, fair share price or participation rate

within a range of 0%-4.36% with ρ, the correlation between the asset and the variance,

being one of the most influential variables of the three. When ρ < 0 a higher absolute

correlation parameter results in lower volatility when the asset price rises, and vice versa.

ρ influences the skewness of the distribution of returns – the probability density

distribution gets a fatter left tail, and a thinner right tail, that is, it becomes negatively

skewed when the negative correlation increases. Hence, more negative extreme returns

occur. Increasing and decreasing ρ both result in a reduction in the option value. When

increasing the correlation, the probability of the asset ending with a low value is

increased and this reduces the option price. On the other hand, reducing correlation

results in a shift in the probability density function so that the mean is reduced. The

results suggest that this shift outweighs the higher probability of high terminal values of

the underlying when the correlation parameter is reduced.

Along with ρ, the long-term level of the variance θ influences the option price most

strongly. θ determines the level of the volatility along with the current volatility vt. The

longer the time to maturity, the more influence θ exerts on the variance process and

because of the relatively long time to maturity of the SWCPF of 6 years this parameter is

the most influential one, affecting the option price in the same way as σ. Consequently,

the current variance v has no effect on the option price.

Concluding the sensitivity analysis, the results show how the components are relatively

mildly affected by the Heston parameter estimate changes compared to varying interest

rates and the dividend yield. The Asian feature of the option component reduces the

impact of volatility on the option value, which might dampen the effects of the change in

parameter values.

Page 55: THESIS

51

9 VALUATION OF THE CPPI STRUCTURE

To illustrate how the CPPI is used for creating capital protected funds the next sections

implement the strategy and explain how a hypothetical CPPI product works and can be

valuated. The performance of the CPPI depends largely on the three variables: the

rebalancing frequency, the floor and the multiplier. Consequently, the following

valuation scenarios will show how the alteration of each of the three variables one at a

time affects the expected return on a fund share and the risk of the CPPI structure.

9.1 Implementing the CPPI strategy

The path-dependence and any adjustments of the standard structure of the CPPI strategy

makes the pricing of CPPI products complex, thus, no closed-form solutions are

available. Therefore the structures are usually priced using Monte Carlo simulations,

which will also be applied in this thesis.

Gap risk is especially pronounced when the risky asset in the CPPI structure is fund(s),

which in many cases have trading restrictions tied to them and rebalancing of the

structure is not even close to be continuous. The consequence is that the impact of sharp

market moves is raised, resulting in higher gap risk compared to more liquid assets. An

approach to incorporate this extra risk in the model is to introduce extra random jumps

and jump models are usually preferable when modeling the CPPI structure. However,

due to space restrictions, this type of models is not considered in this thesis. Instead, the

dynamics of the underlying risky asset is in the following assumed to follow the earlier

described Heston model. Allowing the volatility to be stochastic is expected to enhance

the usefulness of the simulation results, compared to constant volatility models, because

of the correlation between asset prices and volatility, which amplifies the volatility in

market downturns.

A critical input to the CPPI strategy is the number of rebalancing dates. In the 6 year

period the standard CPPI product is assumed to be rebalanced once a week, yielding

6x52=312 rebalancing dates, assuming 52 weeks per year. This seems a reasonable

assumption as the portfolio manager obviously will want to keep trading costs relatively

small, but at the same time not take on too much gap risk, which arises from large price

movements in between rebalancing. Furthermore, a trading restriction to lower trading

costs and time spent monitoring the market is imposed and this means that rebalancing

will only take place if the risky asset value has changed with more than 2% since last

rebalancing date. This trading boundary affects the risk of the structure, while not

Page 56: THESIS

52

inducing much influence on the NAV. Gap risk is reduced substantially with a lower

trading boundary and vice versa when upward adjusting it. This is because of the smaller

probability of large movements in between rebalancing.

The purpose of the next section is to simulate different CPPI structures and price them to

illustrate how the method is implemented in practice.

9.1.1 Pricing gap risk

From the developer‟s point of view, the quantifying of gap risk is essential, and in this

particular case of the hypothetical CPPI product an estimate of the price of the put option

written on the gap risk will be priced using the same techniques as in the valuation of a

SWCPF12 share. The option price is thus assumed to be priced as a cost or fee in the

total structure like in (4.11). The payoff of the put option is given as

(9.1)

That is, the payoff is the difference between the initial protected investment and the

terminal NAV if the end NAV turns out to be lower than the principal G, which is

essentially the definition of gap risk. The option price estimate is then obtained by

discounting the payoff at the risk-free rate, recalling the risk-neutral valuation procedure

described in section 5.1

9.1.2 Assumptions

The hypothetical standard CPPI product used for further analysis will have maturity 6

years, beginning at 19 October 2009 like the SWCPF 12. This means that the previously

estimated SWCPF12 Heston parameters based on the FTSE100 index will be in

accordance with the used time horizon here. Hence, all of the below results are simulated

using these parameters.

The portfolio value will only be simulated at rebalancing dates, making the simulation

less time-consuming. Additionally, no borrowing constraints are assumed, and the

strategy therefore takes full advantage of market rises. In practice, borrowing constraints

are often applied because of margin limits and collateral (Pain & Rand 2008).

The NAV of the fund is simulated over a time period of 6 years with a starting value at

inception of £100, hence, it is assumed that a share in the fund costs £100. This is in

accordance with most market products. With 100% capital protection this is also the

amount protected. Furthermore, LIBOR is again used as proxy for the risk-free and bond

interest rates. Assuming constant interest rates, the risk-free rate calculated in the earlier

Page 57: THESIS

53

section is applicable in this chapter too. This means that the interest rate for a period of 6

years from the inception date is given as 3.036%.

It should be noted that the following simulations are designed to show the average cost to

returns before fees. Thus, no management fees, administration fees, or other sorts of fees

that are popular to impose on the investor when buying into a capital protected fund, are

considered. Furthermore, the trading costs associated with the strategy are left out of the

analysis. Obviously, these trading costs in the form of bid-ask spreads or brokerage fees

could seriously alter the results of the simulations. However, fee structure and trading

costs are different from fund to fund, and depends on rebalancing frequency,

administration costs, and so on. Thus, for simplicity‟s sake, fees and trading costs are not

considered.

9.2 Rebalancing algorithm

To implement the CPPI strategy the rebalancing algorithm from section 4.1.3 is applied

and coded in VBA. Using the same model as in the option-based analysis part of the

thesis the risk-neutral dynamics of the Heston model given by (7.13)-(7.15) are used for

simulating the structure.

With 100% capital protection, and an initial investment of £100, G=100, the floor at

inception is equal to

(9.2)

This amount increases to £100 at maturity. The cushion

multiplied by the multiplier 3 can then be used for calculating the investment level

. This leaves to be invested

in the risk-free asset, which is a proportion of 49.96% of the investment as opposed to the

17.7% of funds allocated to the option component in the option-based strategy. Some

CPPI products impose the investment level weight to equal 100% at inception but to keep

things simple this will not be considered here.

In the following sections all strategies are simulated using 7,500 simulations due to

computational restrictions. The simulations are ensured to be comparable like in the

option-based valuation.

9.3 Simulation of the standard CPPI strategy

Imposing no exposure constraints two simulated paths of the standard CPPI strategy with

a multiplier of 3 are illustrated below. It should be noted that all of the figures in the

sections to come show paths that are simulated using the risk-neutral Heston parameters,

Page 58: THESIS

54

and must not be regarded as “real world” paths. The graphical illustrations only serve as

examples helping the reader to visualize the strategies.

Figure 12a) and 12b): Two simulated paths of the standard CPPI strategy

n=7,500, T=6, m=3, r=3.036%, =1.180, θ=0.083, ρ=-0.303, σ=0.442, v0=0.038, q=3.35%, ∆t=6/312,

trading boundary=2%. Source: Own contribution.

Figure 12a) shows how the CPPI works when the risky asset price drops under the floor.

The floor ensures that the investor receives the principal of £100 at maturity even though

the asset price is far below the floor level. At points a) the structure experiences

deleveraging as the fund price drops. At point b) the CPPI structure is now in a cash-

lock, locking in the risk-free asset proportion such that the strategy is fully invested in the

risk-free asset. As the asset value experiences a rise after the knock-out the investor

completely misses out on any of these gains. Figure 12b) illustrates how the structure

captures the rise in the asset price and the investment level actually grows to exceed the

NAV as it becomes fully invested in the risky asset due to its positive drift. Assuming no

borrowing restrictions, i.e. that it is possible to borrow at the risk-free rate, the risk-free

asset proportion can become negative and NAV can exceed the risky asset value, which

is not depicted in the figure. The illustration also displays how the CPPI is particularly

well-suited if markets exhibit an upward trend.

9.3.1 Simulation results

Running 7,500 simulations of the CPPI strategy and applying equation (4.10)-(4.12)

yields the following results.

Table 12: Standard CPPI valuation results

Fair share price 91.976 Expected return 10.35%

Put option value 0.95 Standard deviation 89.58

Total share price 92.930 Gap risk 0.26%

Participation rate 112.88%

Cash-lock 44.07%

n=7,500, T=6, m=3, r=3.036%, =1.180, θ=0.083, ρ=-0.303, σ=0.442, v0=0.038, q=3.35%, ∆t=6/312,

trading boundary=2%. Source: Own contribution.

a)

a)

b)

Page 59: THESIS

55

The fair price of a share in the fund is estimated as £91.976. Including the option on gap

risk, the total price of a share would amount to £92.93. The expected return of 10.35%

and a participation rate of 112.88%, which measures the CPPI strategy‟s performance

over an investment directly in the risky asset, present a rather good result. However,

these results do not include any other fees, the introduction of which would yield a

poorer result to an investor. Gap risk incurs if the NAV drops by more than

, and it can be seen that the strategy is exposed to gap risk in 0.26% of the

simulations, which is due to the weekly rebalancing and trading boundaries. Likewise,

the cash-lock situations are rather pronounced as they occur in 44.07% of the

simulations. Based on these results, the application of a standard CPPI strategy to a

capital protected fund reveals a quite positive result.

9.3.2 Changing the multiplier and rebalancing frequency

The multiplier can be thought of as the leverage of the structure. With a multiplier of 1

the structure is essentially like a buy-hold strategy, where the initial proportions are not

altered during the investment term.

Table 13: Alternative multiplier results

m=4 m=5 m=6

Fair share price 91.967 94.852 100.014

Put option value 2.46 6.98 31.39

Total share price 94.431 101.837 131.400

Participation 112.86% 116.41% 122.74%

Expected return 10.34% 13.80% 20.00%

CPPI standard deviation 298.20 664.52 2134.26

Gap risk 0.60% 1.02% 1.50%

Cash-lock 60.43% 68.36% 70.21%

n=7,500, T=6, r=3.036%, =1.180, θ=0.083, ρ=-0.303, σ=0.442, v0=0.038,

q=3.35%, ∆t=6/312, trading boundary=2%. Source: Own contribution.

Raising the multiplier to more than 1 increases the return of the CPPI since a larger

proportion is allocated towards the risky asset increasing the possibility of gains. On the

other hand, the risk of the structure also becomes enlarged, and this results in a bigger

risk of the strategy breaking the floor or ending up in cash-lock. The consequences of

applying different higher multipliers are shown in Table 13. When the multiplier is

increased to m=6 the expected return and participation rate increases by almost 10

percentage points compared to the results using a multiplier of 3. However, this comes at

the price of higher risk, which can be seen from the exploding standard deviation,

increased gap risk of 1.50% and the percentage of 70.21% of cash-lock situations.

Page 60: THESIS

56

Furthermore, the total price of a share is a staggering 131.40, reflecting the high gap risk

through the put option price. It is obvious how the developer of a CPPI-based capital

guaranteed fund must carefully decide on the multiplier before the issuing of a product.

Another important factor that the performance of the CPPI strategy depends on is the

rebalancing frequency. The decision on this is a trade-off between trading costs and risk,

which is illustrated below. 252 trading days a year, along with 52 weeks a year and 12

months a year are assumed.

Table 14: Alternative rebalancing frequency results

Monthly Weekly Daily

Fair share price 91.994 91.976 93.164

Put option value 5.84 0.95 0.12

Total share price 97.835 92.930 93.283

Participation 111.70% 112.88% 114.53%

Expected return 10.37% 10.35% 11.78%

CPPI standard deviation 86.20 89.58 84.75

Gap risk 1.62% 0.26% 0.02%

Cash-lock 30.67% 44.07% 41.91%

Average rebalancing times 24 74 149

n=7,500 , T=6, m=3, r=3.036%, =1.180, θ=0.083, ρ=-0.303, σ=0.442, v0=0.038,

q=3.35%, trading boundary=2%. Source: Own contribution.

As can be seen above the optimal choice would be daily rebalancing if gap risk to be

avoided is of higher priority. The monthly rebalancing scheme results in fewer cash-lock

situations than in the other rebalancing schemes, which is probably due to assets not

being moved to the risk-free investment very often given the few rebalancing dates, but

the number of gap risk situations has risen drastically and the expected return does not

seem to outweigh the higher risk. The daily scheme yields a little bit higher expected

return than the other along with a very small degree of gap risk, which normally would

suggest that this would be a good choice of frequency. However, this must be compared

to the average rebalancing times of 149, which suggests that daily rebalancing would be

trading cost intensive if these costs were included in the simulations.

9.4 Extensions to the traditional CPPI structure

Over time, several extensions to the basic CPPI structuring of a capital guaranteed fund

have evolved in order to enhance the performance of the structure and to adjust it to meet

investor preferences. In the following an overview of these extensions is given below, as

well as illustrations of how the features are incorporated and how they affect the average

NAV and risk of the structure.

Page 61: THESIS

57

9.4.1 Exposure constraints

The standard CPPI strategy takes full advantage of any rise in the risky asset value, as

there is no constraint on maximum exposure. In practice, however, unbounded

investment in the risky asset may be undesirable given limitations in margins and

collateral. By imposing the constraint

(9.3)

and letting the exposure equal 100% the strategy‟s investment level IL is restricted. This

also reduces the risk associated with the strategy, since the structure is not hit as hard if

the asset prices dives after the structure has been fully invested in the asset. Thus, the

exposure constraint lowers the upside potential. The constraint can be written as a

minimum function, recalling that m denotes the multiplier

(9.4)

Another alternative to the standard CPPI is imposing a minimum exposure constraint.

Should the underlying asset price fall, the allocation to the risky asset could fall to zero,

resulting in the unwanted situations of cash-lock. To avoid this a minimum level of

investment in the risky asset can be imposed, such as

(9.5)

The above restriction will reduce the number of cash-lock situations since part of the

principal protection is removed in this strategy by not letting the strategy become fully

invested in the risk-free asset. The strategy will therefore be able to regain a larger

exposure towards the risky asset after a decrease in the asset price. In this particular case,

the investment level is not bounded on the upside potential. This could be imposed,

though. Now the above can be written using a maximum function

(9.6)

To illustrate both the minimum and maximum constraint, the two above features are

imposed on each rebalancing date. Figures 13a) and 13b) show a path of the CPPI

strategy, imposing maximum constraint of 100% of NAV and minimum constraint10%

of NAV, respectively, on the investment level.

Page 62: THESIS

58

Figure 13a) and 13b): Examples of a maximum and minimum exposure constraint path

n=7,500, T=6, m=3, r=3.036%, =1.180, θ=0.083, ρ=-0.303, σ=0.442, v0=0.038, q=3.35%, ∆t=6/312,

trading boundary=2%. 100% maximum exposure constraint, and 10% minimum exposure constraint.

Source: Own contribution.

In Figure 13a) it can be seen how the investment level IL never exceeds the risky asset

value due to the constraint on the investment level as opposed to the standard CPPI

structure in Figure 12b). Figure 13b) shows how the strategy does not end up in cash-

lock even though the risky asset value is far below the floor. At the end, the strategy

participates, albeit not much, in the rise of the asset value.

Imposing a minimum constraint of 10% of NAV and a maximum constraint of 100% of

NAV on the investment level yields the following results.

Table 15: Maximum and minimum exposure constraint valuation results

Maximum constraint:

100% of NAV

Minimum constraint:

10% of NAV

Fair share price 92.664 90.745

Put option value 0.692 2.652

Total share price 93.356 93.397

Participation 113.72% 111.36%

Expected return 11.18% 8.88%

CPPI standard deviation 31.40 89.63

Gap risk 0.25% 0.73%

Cash-lock 43.25% 0.00%

n=7,500, T=6, m=3, r=3.036%, =1.180, θ=0.083, ρ=-0.303, σ=0.442, v0=0.038,

q=3.35%, ∆t=6/312, trading boundary=2%. Source: Own contribution.

Compared to the standard CPPI strategy the expected return is almost the same in both of

the constraint strategies, however, a little bit lower when imposing the minimum

exposure constraint. When the maximum constraint is imposed the number of cash-lock

situations decreases a little bit compared to the standard CPPI strategy. Hence, the

objective of the strategy is fulfilled. The minimum constraint results in an increase in the

number of gap risk situations, but now the cash-lock situations have completely been

Page 63: THESIS

59

eliminated, which may outweigh that the expected return in this strategy is smaller than

in the standard CPPI.

9.4.2 Profit lock-in

If the price of the risky asset exhibits an upward trend the investment level will rise

above the NAV and the strategy becomes fully invested in the risky asset, resembling an

ordinary long position in the asset. However, this also entails that the floor becomes

insignificant in relation to the NAV, which means that if the asset price sudden falls, the

structure will experience a faster deleveraging (Boulier & Kanniganti 1995). The profit

lock-in feature, also known as the “ratchet effect”, ensures that a fraction of the

performance is periodically locked-in and captures the performance of the risky asset

(Paulot & Lacroze 2009). When implementing the feature the floor is still set to grow at

the rate specified in the earlier section, securing the capital at maturity. Separating this

strategy from the basic CPPI strategy is that G, the principal protected amount, is no

longer a constant, but a piecewise constant. That is, the floor is variable and will be

raised if the NAV or cushion exceeds some specified trigger also raising the capital

protected amount. Thus, the floor is raised if the asset price increases but left intact

otherwise, which means that the strategy secures profit in favorable times and carries

them through if the market declines.

The profit lock-in strategy is implemented by imposing a trigger function at some

rebalancing dates – usually annually. Typically the trigger function is based on the NAV

or cushion, which must be higher than the previous rebalancing date‟s value, or some

other value, reflecting a positive drift on the risky asset and thus the need for locking in

the profit. If this is the case, the floor is adjusted upwards by increasing G. The profit

lock-in feature, however, can limit the participation in the risky asset so that some of the

potential profit is lost. If the risky asset shows strong positive movement in the beginning

of the period the floor is raised. Thus, the exposure that would have otherwise been

beneficial to the investor is traded in for a larger proportion of investment in the lower

yielding risk-free asset. This is also illustrated below in Figure 14b).

Using the same parameters as in the above simulations and imposing a profit lock-in rate

at 75% of NAV with annual rebalancing results in a simulation path of the profit lock-in

strategy as shown below. If the NAV at the rebalancing date is higher than the NAV was

a year ago, the principal protected amount G is raised by 75% of the difference between

the NAV values, thus, the floor is raised. Figure 14a) illustrates how a decrease in the

Page 64: THESIS

60

asset price early in the period prevents the structure from participating in the soaring

asset price later in the period.

Figure 14a) and 14b): Two simulated paths of the profit lock-in strategy

n=7,500, T=6, m=3, r=3.036%, =1.180, θ=0.083, ρ=-0.303, σ=0.442, v0=0.038, q=3.35%, ∆t=6/312,

trading boundary=2%. 75% of the NAV is locked-in annually if current NAV > NAV previous year.

Source: Own contribution.

In figure 14b) it can be seen how the feature works well in locking in the profit at the

annual verification dates, if the NAV exhibits a positive drift right from the beginning. It

is obvious how the investor benefits from the raising of the floor when the asset price

dives late in the period.

The Monte Carlo simulation results show how the profit lock-in has a positive effect on

the ending NAV value of the strategy.

Table 16: CPPI profit lock-in valuation results

Fair share price 100.857 Expected return 21.01%

Put option price 6.29 Standard deviation 264,36

Total share price 107.147 Gap risk 0.27%

Participation rate 123.77% Cash-lock 48.17%

Average final guarantee, G 119.30

n=7,500, T=6, m=3, r=3.036%, =1.180, θ=0.083, ρ=-0.303, σ=0.442, v0=0.038,

q=3.35%, ∆t=6/312, trading boundary=2%. 75% of the NAV is locked-in annually if current

NAV > NAV previous year.

The expected return is now almost doubled compared to the expected return on the

standard CPPI strategy. This suggests that the downside of the feature, namely that it can

limit the participation in the risky asset, is more than outweighed by the lock-in of profits

in positive market trends in the given investment scenario. Furthermore, the protected

amount is no longer equal to the invested amount but has increased by 19.3%. The

number of cash-lock situations has increased as expected, but the gap risk is not really

much higher. The participation rate has also improved quite a bit, which might justify the

Page 65: THESIS

61

higher total share price. These results suggest that the profit lock-in strategy could be a

good alternative to the standard CPPI structure.

9.5 Results and comparison of the strategies

The previous sections have shown how the CPPI strategy can be adjusted while still

retaining capital protection. However, the different strategies have certain consequences

in relation to the risk of the structures, which must be taken into account when

constructing the product.

Table 17: Comparison of results for standard CPPI, minimum and maximum constraint and profit

lock-in strategies

Strategy Total share price Expected return Gap risk Cash-lock Participation

Standard CPPI 92.93 10.35% 0.26% 44.07% 112.88%

Minimum constraint 93.397 8.88% 0.73% 0.00% 111.36%

Maximum constraint 93.356 11.18% 0.25% 43.25% 113.72%

Profit lock-in 107.148 21.01% 0.27% 48.17% 123.77%

n=7,500, T=6, m=3, r=3.036%, =1.180, θ=0.083, ρ=-0.303, σ=0.442, v0=0.038, q=3.35%, ∆t=6/312,

trading boundary=2%. Source: Own contribution.

The results clearly demonstrate how the strategies have different consequences for the

average NAV and risk of the CPPI structure. The developer runs a substantial gap risk by

forcing the structure to uphold a minimum exposure towards the risky asset.

Furthermore, the lower expected return and participation rate do not suggest that this is

an attractive feature to impose on the CPPI in the settings of this thesis. Imposing a

maximum exposure constraint increases the expected return and participation rate a bit

compared to the standard CPPI structure, while also lowering the risk of cash-lock

situations. This can be explained by the fact that the structure does not allow the

investment level to exceed NAV and so the risk of becoming completely deleveraged is

reduced. Finally, the profit lock-in strategy yields the highest expected return and

participation rate, but also comes with the highest cash-lock risk. Raising the floor

annually to lock in previously earned profit seems to work well, however, these results

may change if more frequent adjustment of the floor is imposed, which might result in

higher trading costs and a higher number of cash-lock situations.

9.6 Sensitivity analysis

To be able to compare the CPPI strategy results with the options-based strategy results a

sensitivity analysis based on varying the same input parameters as the SWCPF12, while

keeping all other variables constant, is carried out below. However, the varying of the

Page 66: THESIS

62

Heston volatility parameters is not performed, and only the standard CPPI strategy is

included in the analysis.

Table 18: CPPI strategy sensitivity analysis

Scenario - percentage change -1 pp Base +1 pp

Risk-free rate Total share price 4,21% 92,93 -3,71%

Expected return -18,36% 10,35% 22,22%

Gap risk 0,00% 0,26% -3,85%

Cash-lock 5,67% 44,07% -5,42%

Participation 4,35% 112,88% -3,86%

Bond interest rate Total share price -2,13% 92,93 1,27%

Expected return -20,39% 10,35% 11,98%

Gap risk 0,00% 0,26% 0,00%

Cash-lock 5,26% 44,07% -1,70%

Participation -1,92% 112,88% 1,12%

Dividend yield Total share price 1,03% 92,93 -1,86%

Expected return 22,22% 10,35% -18,36%

Gap risk -3,85% 0,26% 0,00%

Cash-lock -5,42% 44,07% 5,67%

Participation -3,86% 112,88% 4,35%

n=7,500, T=6, m=3, =1.180, θ=0.083, ρ=-0.303, σ=0.442, v0=0.038, ∆t=6/312.

Source: Own contribution.

Table 18 shows the results from changing the above variables in the standard strategy

with weekly rebalancing, 7,500 simulations and a multiplier of 3. Lowering the risk-free

rate at which the NAV is discounted produces a higher total price both from the

discounting of the NAV itself, which outweighs the reduction in the asset price process

drift, and the discounting of the put option on gap risk. At the same time the number of

cash-lock situations increases, which could be due to a lower drift of the asset price

process. The lower drift also lowers the expected return substantially. The consequences

of upward adjusting the risk-free rate are explained by the opposite reasoning. Changing

the bond interest rate, or the rate at which the floor is determined, by -1 percentage point

leads to a high decrease in the expected return, and thus a decrease in the unit price. A

lower interest rate leads to a higher bond floor needed to obtain the protected amount, G,

which could explain the increased number of cash-lock situations and thus the lower

NAV. Interestingly, the number of gap risk situations do not change when adjusting the

bond interest rate. Varying the dividend affects the drift on the asset price process,

leading to a lower expected return and unit price when the dividend yield is upwards

adjusted, and vice versa when downward adjusted. The same reasoning as in the risk-free

rate case explaining the cash-lock situations can be used.

Page 67: THESIS

63

10 THE OPTION-BASED STRATEGY VS CPPI

Though the two methods for constructing the protection of the principal obtain the same

objective, the methods differ in certain aspects. Using the previous results and

descriptions, some of the most important differences are listed below. Since the two

products used for illustration in this thesis are not directly comparable due to the different

leverages and features of the structures, only general reflections are made. However,

these reflections will partly be based on what the analysis of the products has revealed.

10.1 Comparison of results

One of the things that separate the option-based and CPPI strategies is the level of

flexibility tied to the structures. The CPPI is rather flexible in that the investment level is

increased with upward trending markets, and vice versa. The option-based strategy, on

the other hand, is static throughout the life of the product. Therefore, the option-based

approach should perform better when realized volatility is high as the investor has locked

in the implied volatility estimates incorporated in the option price. The CPPI is also

flexible with regards to possible underlying assets and the strategy can provide access to

markets that are otherwise not easily attainable with the option-based approach, as most

options are tied to indices or individual stocks. Writing an option on an illiquid fund

might not be optimal with the option-based strategy as a market for this option is usually

non-existing, should the need for unwinding the fund occur. In general, upward trending

assets with low volatility such as funds of funds, diversified debt portfolios, multi-asset

portfolios, and so on, are among the optimal choices as underlyings for a CPPI strategy.

On the other hand, the CPPI is strongly path dependent. A loss in the beginning of the

investment period means that the strategy moves most of the funds into risk-free assets,

which prevents the investor from participation in gains later on in the period. Another

consequence of the path-dependency is that a great part of the costs of the structure – the

trading costs – are only known retrospectively. Conversely, the option-based strategy

with an Asian option feature is also path-dependent, but the probability of the option

ending up in the money after a plunge in the price of the underlying is considerably

higher than in the CPPI case.

Finally, the CPPI structure is less sensitive to interest rates because they usually have

lower bond exposure than option-based structure, which becomes evident in the

sensitivity analysis, where varying the bond interest rate in the option-based strategy

changes the participation rate dramatically at up to 30% as opposed to a minor change 4-

Page 68: THESIS

64

5% in the CPPI strategy. Additionally, the low interest rates in the current economy

causes the bond protection in the option-based strategy to be expensive and this leaves

little room for designing the return component of the strategy, which became clear in the

valuation of the SWCPF12. With this in mind, the CPPI might be the better alternative in

the current market conditions.

The below table provides an overview of the most prominent differences between the

two structures.

Table 19: The option-based strategy vs. CPPI

Feature Option-based CPPI

Principal protection Through bonds Through rebalancing algorithm

Administration costs Low Medium-high, due to constant

supervision and frequent rebalancing

Risk of failure Low, depends on bond issuer Low-high, depends on multiplier and

trading restrictions

Suitable underlying assets Liquid assets, such as indices and

stocks

Upward trending assets with rather low

volatility

Path-dependency Depends on the option type Highly

Exposure Static Dynamic

Transparency Poor, due to complex options and

cost structure

Good, simple to explain and NAV can

usually be observed

Source: Own contribution.

10.1.1 Capital protection

In the option-based strategy the capital protection is created by the developer and the

direct purchase of bond. Conversely, applying the CPPI strategy means that the fund

manager, or developer, invests in risk-free assets continuously and so the protection is

more static. Unlike the option-based strategy the CPPI creates the capital protection by

dynamically changing the allocation between the two asset types depending on their

performance. The protection is thus obtained by ensuring that the NAV of the strategy

stays above the floor. By introducing the profit lock-in feature in the CPPI strategy the

capital protection becomes variable, as opposed to in the option-based strategy, where it

stays constant throughout the investment period. This feature could be used for attracting

investors also reinforced by the quite impressive performance reflected in the expected

return and the participation rate.

10.1.2 Return

One of the advantages of the option-based strategy is that the return to the investors at

maturity does not depend on the delta hedging employed by the developer to protect its

risk connected to the option. On the other hand, this is clearly a risk when the CPPI

strategy is employed, as the returns on the strategy are strongly dependent on the

Page 69: THESIS

65

frequency and trading restrictions connected to the rebalancing of the portfolio, and the

investor is thus more directly exposed to the hedging process. However, the dynamic

allocation of the CPPI can result in a proportion of more than 100 % to the risky asset in

a positive market environment, assuming no borrowing restrictions, which could

potentially increase gains.

The participation rate is the only parameter that allows for a direct comparison between

the two strategies. The option-based strategy yields a participation rate of 109.5%,

whereas the standard CPPI obtain a rate of 112.88%. Looking separately at the

participation rate as a performance measure the CPPI turns out to be best in the

comparison.

10.1.3 Risk

The risks of the structures also differ depending on the type of risk. The exposure to

volatility is clearly different between the two structures. In the option-based strategy the

direct exposure to volatility is taken on by the developer through the call option written,

whereas the exposure to volatility in the CPPI strategy is shared by the investor and

developer. The main risk connected with the option-based structure is the credit risk tied

to the zero-coupon bond, or the capital protection component. This risk is usually

transferred to the investor. Conversely, the risk in the CPPI structure is not as directly

tied to the bond issuer and the main issues stems from the gap risk, which is taken on by

the developer and thus not affects the investor. The cash-lock situations means that the

upside potential is lost and so the investor only receives his initial investment back.

Though this is an unwanted situation, it hardly defines as risk in the conventional

definition where the investor forfeits the guaranteed investment amount.

Page 70: THESIS

66

11 CONCLUSION

The objective of this thesis was to analyze how capital protected funds are created and

valuated by the use of the option-based strategy and the CPPI. To create the appropriate

foundation for answering the problem statement the first part of the thesis dealt with the

description of capital protected funds as well as the option pricing theory needed to

answer the numerical aspects of the problem statement. Then, in the final part of the

thesis, the valuation was carried out in practice to illustrate how a typical capital

protected fund using the option-based and CPPI strategy are valuated.

A typical capital protected fund is a mutual fund, ETF or likewise, structured by a

developer – usually a large financing institution – who enters into an agreement of the

repayment of the principal and the appreciation in the underlying asset, or fund, to the

issuer. The issuer usually markets the fund and administrates the investor relations. In

order to invest in the capital protected fund, the investors buy shares in the fund

according to the amount invested and the share price. The method that the developer uses

for hedging its repayment risk is where the option-based strategy and CPPI comes into

the picture.

The option-based strategy is a static structure composed of a zero-coupon bond, which

provides the capital protection, and a call option on the fund, which delivers the exposure

to the fund. On the other hand, the CPPI is a dynamic rebalancing portfolio strategy in

which a floor is constructed and the trading strategy, where the NAV is ensured to stay

above the floor, provides the capital protection and the exposure to the fund.

The valuation of the SWCPF12 with application of stochastic volatility using Monte

Carlo simulation determined how the bond and option component are priced individually

and how these values together make up the fair price of the shares of the fund.

Furthermore, the sensitivity analysis made it clear that the structure is heavily dependent

on the cost of the bond component. The valuation of the standard hypothetical CPPI

product illustrated that the fair share price of a CPPI product is estimated by simulating

the path-dependent NAV of the fund and discounting the terminal NAV at the risk-free

rate. Additionally, the pricing of a put option on the gap risk, defined as the risk that the

NAV ends up lower than the required level needed for repayment of the principal, is

needed as this gap risk is usually taken on by the developer and is therefore typically

priced in the final share price of the fund. Thus, the discounted terminal NAV and the put

option price together make up the fair share price of a CPPI-structured fund.

Furthermore, modifications of the structure to illustrate the characteristics of these

Page 71: THESIS

67

methods for enhancing the standard strategy can be made and a sensitivity analysis

showed how the CPPI structure responds to changes in the input variables.

Finally, the comparison of the two strategies clarified the features in which they differ or

are alike. The CPPI strategy performs better for upward trending underlying assets with

rather low volatility, which makes it more suitable as capital protection method for

capital protected funds. However, the path-dependency of the structure poses a potential

threat to the performance of the strategy. Thus, various features can be imposed in order

to enhance the strategy. The option-based strategy on the other hand might be attractive

when the underlying assets of the fund are liquid, so that options exist and are traded in

liquid markets, or if interest rate levels are higher than in the current market environment.

In that case, the participation rate is increased from the larger amount left for buying

options because of the lower bond price implied by higher interest rates.

After all, the developer‟s choice of method depends, among other, on the perceived risk-

aversion and demands of investors. If customers want an actively managed strategy that

can respond to market changes quickly the CPPI is superior. If on the other hand, the

“buy high – sell low” and path-dependent characteristics of the CPPI seem unattractive to

customers the option-based strategy might be the chosen method. Moreover, the time

devoted to spend on monitoring the fund and hedging the repayment of the protected

amount is also a factor in the choice.

In conclusion, the thesis presents a tangible analysis and valuation of capital protected

funds, but also the framework for analyzing and pricing other capital protected products.

It provides the reader with a deeper understanding of the characteristics of the two

strategies and the factors that must be considered when capital protected funds are

created and priced. Future research might include analysis of other exotic features of

capital protected funds, including jumps or stochastic interest rates in the modeling of

asset prices as well as the hedging of gap risk in relation to the CPPI strategy.

Page 72: THESIS

68

REFERENCES

Books

Björk, T 2004, Arbitrage Theory in Continuous Time, 2nd

Edition, Oxford University

Press, Oxford.

Das, S 2001, Structured Products & Hybrid Securities, Wiley, Singapore.

Foque, JP, Papanicolau, G & Sircar KR 2000, Derivatives in financial markets with

stochastic volatility, Cambridge University Press,

Gatheral, J 2006, The Volatility Surface, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey.

Glasserman, P 2004, Monte Carlo Methods in Financial Engineering, Springer, New

York.

Hull, J 2009, Options, Futures and Other Derivatives, Pearson Prentice Hall, New

Jersey.

Jensen, BA 2005, Rentesregning, 4. udgave, Jurits- og Økonomforbundets forlag,

Copenhagen.

Neftci, S 2000, An Introduction to the Mathematics of Financial Derivatives, Academic,

San Diego.

Ray, R 2006, An Introduction to Fund Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.,

Chichester.

Rouah, FD & Vainberg, G 2007, Option Pricing Models and Volatility Using Excel-VBA,

John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.

Articles/papers

Andersen, L 2007, „Efficient Simulation of the Heston Stochastic Volatility Model‟,

SSRN paper, ID: 946405.

Bakshi, G, Cao, C & Chen, Z 1997, „Empirical Performance of Alternative Option

Pricing Models‟, Journal of Finance, vol. 52, no.5, pp. 2003-2049

Bennet, JA, Chen, AH & McGuinness, P 1996, „An Analysis of Capital Guaranteed

Funds‟, International Review of Economics and Finance, 5(3), pp. 259-268.

Black, F 1976, „Studies in Stock Price Volatility Changes‟, Proceedings of the 1976

Business Meeting of the Business and Economics Statistics Section, American Statistical

Association, pp. 177-181.

Black, F & Perold, A 1992, ‟Theory of Constant Proportion Portfolio Insurance‟, Journal

of Economic Dynamics and Control, vol. 16, pp. 403-426.

Page 73: THESIS

69

Black, F & Scholes, M 1973, „The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities‟, Journal

of Political Economy, 81 (May/June), pp. 637-659.

Boulier, J-F & Kanniganti, A 1995, „Expected Performance and Risks of Various

Portfolio Insurance Strategies‟, 5th AFIR International Colloquium, pp. 1093-1124

Broadie, M & Kaya, Ö 2006, „Exact Simulation of Stoachstic Volatility and Other Affine

Jump Diffusion Processes‟, Operations Research, Mar/Apr; 54; 2, pp. 217 – 231.

Chen, G 2009, „Capital protected? Confusing term out‟, AsiaOneBusiness, 11 September,

viewed 8 March 2010.

http://www.asiaone.com/Business/News/My%2BMoney/Story/A1Story20090909-

166674.html

Cont, R & Tankov, P 2009, „CPPI Pricing With Jumps‟, Mathematical Finance, vol. 19.,

no.3., July.

Cox, J, Ingersoll JE & Ross, SA 1985, A Theory of the Term Structure of Interest Rates,

Econometrica, vol. 53, pp. 385-408.

Dickinson, C 2010, „Funds find favour‟, Structured Products, 28 May.

Duffie, D & Glynn, P 1995, „Efficient Monte Carlo Simulations of Security Prices‟,

Annals of Applied Probability, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 897-905.

Gatheral, J & Lynch, M 2002, Lecture 1: Stochastic Volatility and Local Volatility, Case

Studies in Financial Modelling Notes, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences.

Godden, J 2002, „Structuring alternative investments‟, IBC Guaranteed & Structured

Alternative Investments Conference, International Money Management, November, pp.

42-43.

Heston, SL 1993, „A closed-form solution for options with stochastic volatility with

applications to bond and currency options‟, Review of Financial Studies, vol. 6, no. 2, pp.

327-344.

Iversen, B & Bilslev-Jensen, M 2009, ‟Structured Product vs. CPPI‟, Master Thesis,

Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen.

Marsaglia, G & Bray, TA 1964, „A convenient method for generating normal variables‟,

SIAM Review, 6, pp. 260-264.

Merchant, S 2004, „Investor Perspective on Hedge-Fund-Linked Principal-Protected

Securities‟, The Journal of Alternative Investments, summer, pp. 32-43.

Mikhailov, S & Nögel, U 2003, „Heston‟s Stochastic Volatility Model: Implementation,

Calibration and Some Extentions‟, Wilmott Magazine, July, pp. 74-79.

Pain, D & Rand, J 2008, „Recent developments in portfolio insurance‟, Bank of England

Quarterly Bulletin, First Quarter 2008, 48, 1, pp. 37-46.

Page 74: THESIS

70

Paulot, L & Lacroze, X 2009, „One-Dimensional Pricing of CPPI‟, Available at SSRN:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1406600

Scott, L 1987, „Option Pricing when the Variance Changes Randomly – Theory,

Estimation, and an Application‟, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis,

vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 419-438.

Webpages

Lloyds Banking Group, About us, viewed 1 July 2010a.

http://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/about_us.asp

Lloyds Banking Group, Credit Ratings, viewed 1 July 2010b.

http://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/investors/credit_ratings.asp

Prospectuses

Scottish Widows Capital Protected Fund 12. Enclosed on CD.

Page 75: THESIS

71

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The option-based structure components 9

Figure 2: The issuing process of the option-based structure 12

Figure 3: The CPPI strategy components 13

Figure 4: Illustration of a possible CPPI strategy scenario 14

Figure 5: The CPPI issuing process 17

Figure 6: Absolute log-returns on the FTSE100 23

Figure 7a) and 7b): FTSE100 call option implied volatility and volatility surface 24

Figure 8a) and 8b): Volatility smile an volatility surface using calibrated parameters 41

Figure 9: Crude Monte Carlo estimate of option price 44

Figure 10: Antithetic variate estimate of option price 44

Figure 11: Comparison of standard errors 45

Figure 12a) and 12b): Two simulated paths of the standard CPPI strategy. 54

Figure 13a) and 13b): Examples of a maximum and minimum exposure constraint path 58

Figure 14a) and 14b): Two simulated paths of the profit lock-in strategy 60

Page 76: THESIS

72

CD CONTENTS

The enclosed CD contains all of the data and calculations used for producing the results

presented in the thesis.

Source data

FTSE100 dividend yield and option prices.xlsx

FTSE100 logreturn.xlsx

LIBOR and swap rates.xlsx

Scottish Widows Capital Protected Fund 12 prospectus.pdf

Scottish Widows Capital Protected Fund 12 brochure.pdf

Calibration

FTSE100 implied volatility.xlsm

Calibration.xlsm

Simulation

CPPI.xlsm

CPPI- alternative strategies.xlsm

SWCPF12.xlsm

By pressing Shift+F9 in the spreadsheets, the functions in the current sheet are

recalculated.

Page 77: THESIS

73

APPENDICES