• We are pleased to announce that the winner of our Feedback Prize Draw for the Winter 2024-25 session and winning £150 of gift vouchers is Zhao Liang Tay. Congratulations to Zhao Liang. If you fancy winning £150 worth of gift vouchers (from a major UK store) for the Summer 2025 exam sitting for just a few minutes of your time throughout the session, please see our website at https://www.acted.co.uk/further-info.html?pat=feedback#feedback-prize for more information on how you can make sure your name is included in the draw at the end of the session.
  • Please be advised that the SP1, SP5 and SP7 X1 deadline is the 14th July and not the 17th June as first stated. Please accept out apologies for any confusion caused.

April 2001 - Ques 6 - Pricing Kernels

M

MindFull

Ton up Member
Hi All,

From the Core Reading, I thought that the formula for the state price deflator consisted of both q from the risk neutral measure and p from the real world measure. For the April 2001 #6 question, they have q as 0.4 and p as 0.6, which would be under the real world measure. Why wasn't q derived from the risk neutral measure?

Thanks.
 
Any help here? Please.

JamaicanJem said:
Hi All,

From the Core Reading, I thought that the formula for the state price deflator consisted of both q from the risk neutral measure and p from the real world measure. For the April 2001 #6 question, they have q as 0.4 and p as 0.6, which would be under the real world measure. Why wasn't q derived from the risk neutral measure?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's very useful looking at this question, as Subject 109 dealt with pricing kernels differently from the way Subject CT8 deals with state-price deflators (SPDs). However, it might be useful to practise our SPD calcs.

In CT8, you're right, we would first work out the RN probs:

q = (1-0.9)/(1.15-0.9)=0.4; 1-q = 0.6

Then the SPDs are given by:

A(up) = exp(-r) x q/p = 0.94 x 0.4/0.6 = 0.6267
A(down) = exp(-r) x (1-q)/(1-p) = 0.94 x 0.6/0.4 = 1.41

These are the same as K(good) and K(bad) given in the Examiners' Report, so we can see they're the same as our SPDs.

The formula given for the pricing kernel is just an alternative way of deriving SPDs without needing to go via the RN probs, but it isn't covered in CT8, so I wouldn't worry about it.
 
Thanks Mike :)


Mike Lewry said:
I don't think it's very useful looking at this question, as Subject 109 dealt with pricing kernels differently from the way Subject CT8 deals with state-price deflators (SPDs). However, it might be useful to practise our SPD calcs.

In CT8, you're right, we would first work out the RN probs:

q = (1-0.9)/(1.15-0.9)=0.4; 1-q = 0.6

Then the SPDs are given by:

A(up) = exp(-r) x q/p = 0.94 x 0.4/0.6 = 0.6267
A(down) = exp(-r) x (1-q)/(1-p) = 0.94 x 0.6/0.4 = 1.41

These are the same as K(good) and K(bad) given in the Examiners' Report, so we can see they're the same as our SPDs.

The formula given for the pricing kernel is just an alternative way of deriving SPDs without needing to go via the RN probs, but it isn't covered in CT8, so I wouldn't worry about it.
Click to expand...
 
Oh... Uh I have one more question. Shouldn't the value of u = 1.15/0.94, and d = 0.9/0.94?

Thanks again.


Mike Lewry said:
I don't think it's very useful looking at this question, as Subject 109 dealt with pricing kernels differently from the way Subject CT8 deals with state-price deflators (SPDs). However, it might be useful to practise our SPD calcs.

In CT8, you're right, we would first work out the RN probs:

q = (1-0.9)/(1.15-0.9)=0.4; 1-q = 0.6

Then the SPDs are given by:

A(up) = exp(-r) x q/p = 0.94 x 0.4/0.6 = 0.6267
A(down) = exp(-r) x (1-q)/(1-p) = 0.94 x 0.6/0.4 = 1.41

These are the same as K(good) and K(bad) given in the Examiners' Report, so we can see they're the same as our SPDs.

The formula given for the pricing kernel is just an alternative way of deriving SPDs without needing to go via the RN probs, but it isn't covered in CT8, so I wouldn't worry about it.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, u and d are as you say. If you put these into the equation for q you will get the same as me. Each of your 4 bits in the q equation will be the same as mine, but divided by 0.94, so the 0.94's in the numerator and denominator will cancel out.

So you can either get q using returns (As you want to do) or values (as I've done) - the two approaches are equivalent.
 
Mike, in your calculation you use the risk free rate as 0, since q = e^r - d/.... but for the SPD you have e^-r = 0.94.

Also Mike for the initial question I had used the fact that the risk free rate r should be equal to the return on a zero coupon bond. i.e r = (1/0.94 - 1) = 6.3829...%

This gave me q = (e^0.0638...- 0.90)/(1.15 - 0.90) = 0.4078251783

And by following the algebra I ended up with V(0) = 0.07652143505

Help
 
Edwin said:
Mike, in your calculation you use the risk free rate as 0, since q = e^r - d/.... but for the SPD you have e^-r = 0.94.
Click to expand...
No. I'm using q = (e^r - d) / (u-d) with the proper risk-free rate.

Multiplying top and bottom by S(0) gives:

q = [S(0)e^r - S(0)d] / [S(0)u - S(0)d]

S(0)=0.94
Cash grows from 0.94 to 1.00, so S(0)e^r = 1.00
S(0)d = 0.90 and S(0)u = 1.15 as stated in the question.

Also Mike for the initial question I had used the fact that the risk free rate r should be equal to the return on a zero coupon bond. i.e r = (1/0.94 - 1) = 6.3829...%

This gave me q = (e^0.0638...- 0.90)/(1.15 - 0.90) = 0.4078251783

And by following the algebra I ended up with V(0) = 0.07652143505

Help
Click to expand...
The RFR you're calculating is an annual effecvtive rate, but you're using it as though it were a force of interest.

Also, your q formula is missing a 0.94 before the exponential. You need this because the 1.15 and 0.90 aren't up and down factors, they are up and down share values, given the share price starts at 0.94

Either set r=ln(1.00/0.94)=6.1875%, or plug your value into:

q = [0.94(1+i) - 0.90] / [1.15 - 0.90]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top