Refine
Year of publication
- 2004 (57) (remove)
Document Type
- Working Paper (34)
- Report (8)
- Article (5)
- diplomthesis (3)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
- Review (2)
- Diploma Thesis (1)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
- Part of Periodical (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (57)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (57)
Keywords
- Deutschland (10)
- Schätzung (7)
- Bank (3)
- Corporate Governance (3)
- Evaluation (3)
- Matching (3)
- Theorie (3)
- Arbeitsbeschaffungsmaßnahme (2)
- Arbeitsbeschaffungsmaßnahmen (2)
- Börsenkurs (2)
Institute
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (57) (remove)
This paper evaluates the effects of Public Sponsored Training in East Germany in the context of reiterated treatments. Selection bias based on observed characteristics is corrected for by applying kernel matching based on the propensity score. We control for further selection and the presence of Ashenfelter's Dip before the program with conditional difference-in-differences estimators. Training as a first treatment shows insignificant effects on the transition rates. The effect of program sequences and the incremental effect of a second program on the reemployment probability are insignificant. However, the incremental effect on the probability to remain employed is slightly positive. JEL - Klassifikation: H43 , C23 , J6 , J64 , C14
This paper deals with the superhedging of derivatives and with the corresponding price bounds. A static superhedge results in trivial and fully nonparametric price bounds, which can be tightened if there exists a cheaper superhedge in the class of dynamic trading strategies. We focus on European path-independent claims and show under which conditions such an improvement is possible. For a stochastic volatility model with unbounded volatility, we show that a static superhedge is always optimal, and that, additionally, there may be infinitely many dynamic superhedges with the same initial capital. The trivial price bounds are thus the tightest ones. In a model with stochastic jumps or non-negative stochastic interest rates either a static or a dynamic superhedge is optimal. Finally, in a model with unbounded short rates, only a static superhedge is possible.
Tractable hedging - an implementation of robust hedging strategies : [This Version: March 30, 2004]
(2004)
This paper provides a theoretical and numerical analysis of robust hedging strategies in diffusion–type models including stochastic volatility models. A robust hedging strategy avoids any losses as long as the realised volatility stays within a given interval. We focus on the effects of restricting the set of admissible strategies to tractable strategies which are defined as the sum over Gaussian strategies. Although a trivial Gaussian hedge is either not robust or prohibitively expensive, this is not the case for the cheapest tractable robust hedge which consists of two Gaussian hedges for one long and one short position in convex claims which have to be chosen optimally.
This paper provides an in-depth analysis of the properties of popular tests for the existence and the sign of the market price of volatility risk. These tests are frequently based on the fact that for some option pricing models under continuous hedging the sign of the market price of volatility risk coincides with the sign of the mean hedging error. Empirically, however, these tests suffer from both discretization error and model mis-specification. We show that these two problems may cause the test to be either no longer able to detect additional priced risk factors or to be unable to identify the sign of their market prices of risk correctly. Our analysis is performed for the model of Black and Scholes (1973) (BS) and the stochastic volatility (SV) model of Heston (1993). In the model of BS, the expected hedging error for a discrete hedge is positive, leading to the wrong conclusion that the stock is not the only priced risk factor. In the model of Heston, the expected hedging error for a hedge in discrete time is positive when the true market price of volatility risk is zero, leading to the wrong conclusion that the market price of volatility risk is positive. If we further introduce model mis-specification by using the BS delta in a Heston world we find that the mean hedging error also depends on the slope of the implied volatility curve and on the equity risk premium. Under parameter scenarios which are similar to those reported in many empirical studies the test statistics tend to be biased upwards. The test often does not detect negative volatility risk premia, or it signals a positive risk premium when it is truly zero. The properties of this test furthermore strongly depend on the location of current volatility relative to its long-term mean, and on the degree of moneyness of the option. As a consequence tests reported in the literature may suffer from the problem that in a time-series framework the researcher cannot draw the hedging errors from the same distribution repeatedly. This implies that there is no guarantee that the empirically computed t-statistic has the assumed distribution. JEL: G12, G13 Keywords: Stochastic Volatility, Volatility Risk Premium, Discretization Error, Model Error
Tests for the existence and the sign of the volatility risk premium are often based on expected option hedging errors. When the hedge is performed under the ideal conditions of continuous trading and correct model specification, the sign of the premium is the same as the sign of the mean hedging error for a large class of stochastic volatility option pricing models. We show, however, that the problems of discrete trading and model mis-specification, which are necessarily present in any empirical study, may cause the standard test to yield unreliable results.
When options are traded, one can use their prices and price changes to draw inference about the set of risk factors and their risk premia. We analyze tests for the existence and the sign of the market prices of jump risk that are based on option hedging errors. We derive a closed-form solution for the option hedging error and its expectation in a stochastic jump model under continuous trading and correct model specification. Jump risk is structurally different from, e.g., stochastic volatility: there is one market price of risk for each jump size (and not just \emph{the} market price of jump risk). Thus, the expected hedging error cannot identify the exact structure of the compensation for jump risk. Furthermore, we derive closed form solutions for the expected option hedging error under discrete trading and model mis-specification. Compared to the ideal case, the sign of the expected hedging error can change, so that empirical tests based on simplifying assumptions about trading frequency and the model may lead to incorrect conclusions.
In dieser Studie werden die Wirkungen von Arbeitsbeschaffungsmaßnahmen (ABM) in Deutschland auf die individuellen Eingliederungswahrscheinlichkeiten der Teilnehmer in reguläre Beschäftigung evaluiert. Für die Untersuchung wird ein umfangreicher und informativer Datensatz aus den Datenquellen der Bundesagentur für Arbeit (BA) verwendet, der es ermöglicht, die Wirkungen der Programme differenziert nach individuellen Unterschieden der Teilnehmer und mit Berücksichtigung der heterogenen Arbeitsmarktstruktur zu untersuchen. Der Datensatz enthält Informationen zu allen Teilnehmern in ABM, die ihre Maßnahmen im Februar 2000 begonnen haben, und zu einer Kontrollgruppe von Nichtteilnehmern, die im Januar 2000 arbeitslos waren und im Februar 2000 nicht in die Programme eingetreten sind. Mit Hilfe der Informationen der Beschäftigtenstatistik ist es hierbei erstmals möglich, den Abgang in reguläre Beschäftigung auf Grundlage administrativer Daten zu untersuchen. Der vorliegende Verbleibszeitraum reicht bis Dezember 2002. Unter Verwendung von Matching-Methoden auf dem Ansatz potenzieller Ergebnisse werden die Effekte von ABM mit regionaler Unterscheidung und für besondere Problem- und Zielgruppen des Arbeitsmarktes geschätzt. Die Ergebnisse zeigen zwar deutliche Unterschiede in den Effekten für Subgruppen, insgesamt weisen die empirischen Befunde jedoch darauf hin, dass das Ziel der Eingliederung in reguläre ungeförderte Beschäftigung durch ABM weitgehend nicht realisiert werden konnte. JEL: C40 , C13 , J64 , H43 , J68
In dieser Studie werden die Wirkungen von Arbeitsbeschaffungsmaßnahmen (ABM) in Deutschland auf die individuellen Eingliederungswahrscheinlichkeiten der Teilnehmer in reguläre Beschäftigung evaluiert. Für die Untersuchung wird ein umfangreicher und informativer Datensatz aus den Datenquellen der Bundesagentur für Arbeit (BA) verwendet, der es ermöglicht, die Wirkungen der Programme differenziert nach individuellen Unterschieden der Teilnehmer und mit Berücksichtigung der heterogenen Arbeitsmarktstruktur zu untersuchen. Der Datensatz enthält Informationen zu allen Teilnehmern in ABM, die ihre Maßnahmen im Februar 2000 begonnen haben, und zu einer Kontrollgruppe von Nichtteilnehmern, die im Januar 2000 arbeitslos waren und im Februar 2000 nicht in die Programme eingetreten sind. Mit Hilfe der Informationen der Beschäftigtenstatistik ist es hierbei erstmals möglich, den Abgang in reguläre Beschäftigung auf Grundlage administrativer Daten zu untersuchen. Der vorliegende Verbleibszeitraum reicht bis Dezember 2002. Unter Verwendung von Matching-Methoden auf dem Ansatz potenzieller Ergebnisse werden die Effekte von ABM mit regionaler Unterscheidung und für besondere Problem- und Zielgruppen des Arbeitsmarktes geschätzt. Die Ergebnisse zeigen zwar deutliche Unterschiede in den Effekten für Subgruppen, insgesamt weisen die empirischen Befunde jedoch darauf hin, dass das Ziel der Eingliederung in reguläre ungeförderte Beschäftigung durch ABM weitgehend nicht realisiert werden konnte. JEL: C40 , C13 , J64 , H43 , J68
Hackethal and Schmidt (2003) criticize a large body of literature on the financing of corporate sectors in different countries that questions some of the distinctions conventionally drawn between financial systems. Their criticism is directed against the use of net flows of finance and they propose alternative measures based on gross flows which they claim re-establish conventional distinctions. This paper argues that their criticism is invalid and that their alternative measures are misleading. There are real issues raised by the use of aggregate data but they are not the ones discussed in Hackethal and Schmidt’s paper. JEL Classification: G30