How Early Termination Creates Volatility Exposure in Share Plans
Summary
The response distinguishes two interpretations of a share purchase plan in which the bank can terminate during the purchase period. If the customer’s price is the average only through the termination date, the answer argues that termination does not create optionality: extending the period simply changes the averaging window. If the price is based on the full period regardless of termination, the bank can compare outcomes from transferring different portions of its hedged purchases and choose the most profitable scenario, while avoiding a loss by not exercising the termination right.
That choice creates a nonlinear payoff and exposure to volatility, since larger price swings can increase the bank’s opportunity to benefit. A fixed dollar budget limits that opportunity: rising prices may exhaust the customer’s funds sooner and reduce how many shares can be transferred. The explanation depends on the payout interpretation and simplified assumptions about hedging and allocation; the document gives no valuation formula or numerical evidence.
Key ideas
- Whether early termination creates optionality depends on how the purchase price is averaged.
- A full-period average can leave the bank with a choice over how many hedged shares to pass to the customer.
- The bank’s ability to select a favorable outcome creates a nonlinear payoff with volatility exposure.
- A fixed dollar budget may reduce the bank’s opportunity as higher prices exhaust the customer’s funds sooner.
Tags
Full text
# Equity Derivatives Question # Equity Derivatives Question I'm preparing to take a test on equity derivatives and have met with some difficulty, so I need some help on the following question: > Please analyze the following share purchase plan. Assume client is committed to purchasing a fixed number of shares? Original payout : client receives the average of daily close prices over 10 periods a. Clearly there’s no optionality here Bank changes the payout such that bank has the right to choose to terminate the payout at any time from period 5 to period 10 a. Please explain why the following payout (2) has volatility exposure b. Bonus: if the client has a fixed dollar amount to spend, how does this affect the optionality? Client still receives the arithmetic average of daily prices until trade termination. If they don’t have enough cash they just get fewer shares than original target ## Answer by ZRH (score 1, accepted) https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/44408 ad i) - of course you are right. ad ii) If there is optionality or not, depends on how you read this: A) If the bank is entitled to terminate, and e.g. does so after 5 days, and the price at which the shares are purchased, is the average of those 5 days, then there is NO optionality, as the bank would be indifferent to go for another 6th day, and then charge the average over the last 6 days. B) If the price which is charged is the average over all ten days, regardless of termination or not, then there is clearly optionality. The bank would keep hedging for the full period of ten days, and buy shares pro-rata (say lots) each day. Then it would in hindsight evaluate all possible scenarios: Pass all 10 lots to customer (i.e. do not terminate); pass 9 lots to customer, keep one; pass 8 lots to customer, keep 2; down to pass 5 lots, keep 5. Out of these scenarios they would evaluate the one that generates the highest profit, where of course the "worst" outcome is not to terminate, in which case there is no cost to the bank. So there is a nonlinear payoff, i.e. either a profit or no loss, thus the bank holds optionality, and should indemnify the customer for granting this optionality. The higher the volatility, the more profit the bank can potentially reap, so there is vega. Bonus: The fixed USD amount clause reduces optionality in the deal. Should prices go up, the deal will potentially terminate earlier, as the customer would be out of USD sooner in such scenario. This means the potential of the bank to benefit from price scenarios in their favour is reduced.
Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)
This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.