标题: Panicked by derivatives?! [打印本页] 作者: evolsteevol 时间: 2013-5-7 10:35 标题: Panicked by derivatives?!
Hi Guys,
Just wondering if anyone else is feeling completely daunted by the derivatives topics and the amount of formulas that we must remember? How much time have you spent on this topic? Am worried it will take me too long and eat into time I need to spend on other topics…作者: onelife1 时间: 2013-5-7 10:39
and to those who have done derivatives… how much is similar with level 1. the topics look the same but content looks different?
what is the difficulty of derivative with the rest of topics in l2作者: spartanag07 时间: 2013-5-7 10:43
To the OP: Given you passed lvl 1 derivatives, and adjusting for errata, derivatives isn’t too long. Its complex regard to valuation, but referring to Schweser after you’ve gone thru CFAI should lock in everything.
Pierrewoodman: Not to be a dick, but out of your 148 posts, half of your posts deal with either prejudicial comments towards Indians or comparisons between topics and level 1/2. Considering everyone has a different educational/work background, difficulty in a topic is all relative. Are you not going to crack open the book if I told you derivatives is a cakewalk?作者: DoubleDip 时间: 2013-5-7 10:46
im going thru the curriculum serially.. havent reached dv作者: chetan86 时间: 2013-5-7 10:50
thx daily grind for recommending both CFAI and Schweser.. still feel daunted though, so guess its the case of powering on…作者: IAmNeil 时间: 2013-5-7 10:54
Derivatives’ valuation is based purely on logic. If you understand the material you do not have to remember much! I found that one of the most straight-forward sections. (much unlike FRA and Eco). For example, in the forwards/ futures section the treatment for benefits, storage costs, coupons, dividends etc is the same!
I would suggest a slow reading over the material until you are sure that you understand everything clearly, combined with EOC. Be sure that you try to replicate all formulas and not just recall them from memory. Then you won’t have a problem!! (plus schweser’s done indeed a good job on the subject.)
Best of luck!作者: iteracom 时间: 2013-5-7 10:58
Only did futures and forwards at this point, and indeed, like Charis said, they are very similar and above that, very logical in terms of valuation as well.
If you don’t understand by reading (I tend to lose attention when seeing a lot of formulas), try watching a video. I use Elan and they take a step-by-step approach, going very slowly in the beginning. Once I got the hang of it, I didn’t even need to finish the video as it’s quite straightforward once you see it.作者: canadiananalyst 时间: 2013-5-7 11:01
Fi readi9ng 44 is so much like derivatives作者: adehbone 时间: 2013-5-7 11:09
I was finding derivatives really difficult until I cracked open the Schweser notes, and now it seems much more straightforward than I originally thought. Did anyone else find the CFAI book on derivatives to be a bit confusing? I’m considering reading only Schweser + blue box question + EOC questions for this section and skipping the CFAI explanations. Thoughts?
Is anyone using only the Schweser text?作者: Bad5shah 时间: 2013-5-7 11:24
no big deal once you crammer the formulas..作者: Darien 时间: 2013-5-7 11:28
Once you get a basic understanding of the underlying principles for pricing and valuing derivatives, most of the formulae are pretty straightforward, and you’ll find that it isn’t as daunting as you thought it was.
Pricing a forward, future, or swap is simply a matter of applying arbitrage. For forwards and futures, it’s cash-and-carry; for swaps it’s PV(leg 1) = PV(leg 2). For swaps, if you treat the two legs as two bonds that are traded, its easy because you know how to find the PV (i.e., price) of a bond.
Option pricing is just a matter of applying an appropriate model (such as BSM), and you don’t have to do that on the exam. Whew!
Valuing a forward, future, or swap is simply a matter of calculating the PV of each component and adding them up (using + for long and - for short). For forwards and futures, it’s (St - PV(F)) for the long position, and (PV(F) - St) for the short position (with one exception). For swaps it’s PV(received) - PV(paid). (The exception for forwards and futures is for currency, where it appears that you’re discounting today’s spot rate. That formula is never explained; I can run through it if you like so you can understand what’s going on.)
Valuing an option is no different than pricing an option (so you don’t even see “valuing an option” in the curriculum); you don’t have to do that on the exam. Whew!
Apart from that, you have to remember the Greeks for bonds, and they’re all pretty simple. (Remembering rho isn’t intuitive, but you can get it easily from the put-call parity equation.)
Seriously: Level II derivatives isn’t much harder than Level I derivatives and fixed income combined (with a smidge of econ: interest rate parity); you just have to think about the relationships. I teach this all the time, and always have candidates say, after class, “That’s a lot easier than I thought it was.” You can say the same thing.作者: prashantsahni 时间: 2013-5-7 11:31
Sorry Magician, you got me confused, do you mean we wont have to calculate call/put prices either with discrete or continuous models? what is required to know for the option chapter of the curriculum? I think Options chapter is too long in the curriculum but not to much to grasp.
Thx! good luck!作者: evolsteevol 时间: 2013-5-7 11:39
Thx a lot! :-)作者: ashycal 时间: 2013-5-7 11:50
Aether wrote:
S2000magician wrote:My mistake: you may have to calculate an option price from a 1-period or 2-period binomial model, but not from BSM. I was thinking only about BSM.
Sorry.
Are the CFAI rainmakers going to grace us with some assertive generosity, come exam day?
Surely you jest.
Aether wrote:
S2000magician wrote:My mistake: you may have to calculate an option price from a 1-period or 2-period binomial model, but not from BSM. I was thinking only about BSM.
Sorry.
How did you reach that conclusion?
LOS 50b: Calculate and interpret prices of interest rate options and options on assets using one- and two-period binomial models.
CFA Institute says that you need to know how to calculate the price of options using binomial trees.
LOS 50c: Explain and evaluate the assumptions underlying the Black-Scholes-Merton model.
LOS 50d: Explain how an option price, as represented by the Black-Scholes-Merton model, is affected by a change in value of each of the inputs.
CFA Institute does not say that you need to know how to calculate the price of options using BSM.作者: bolligerallstar 时间: 2013-5-7 11:54
S2000magician wrote:
Aether wrote:
S2000magician wrote:My mistake: you may have to calculate an option price from a 1-period or 2-period binomial model, but not from BSM. I was thinking only about BSM.
Sorry.
[snip]
Are the CFAI rainmakers going to grace us with some assertive generosity, come exam day?
Surely you jest.
Aether wrote:
S2000magician wrote:My mistake: you may have to calculate an option price from a 1-period or 2-period binomial model, but not from BSM. I was thinking only about BSM.
Sorry.
How did you reach that conclusion?
LOS 50b: Calculate and interpret prices of interest rate options and options on assets using one- and two-period binomial models.
CFA Institute says that you need to know how to calculate the price of options using binomial trees.
LOS 50c: Explain and evaluate the assumptions underlying the Black-Scholes-Merton model.
LOS 50d: Explain how an option price, as represented by the Black-Scholes-Merton model, is affected by a change in value of each of the inputs.
CFA Institute does not say that you need to know how to calculate the price of options using BSM.
I’d love if you can also paste the LOSs for readings 19-21. See how many “calculates” you find .
.