The FVA debate continues: Hull and White respond to their critics

The FVA debate continues


When we wrote our article arguing that, contrary to industry practice, derivatives prices should not include a so-called funding valuation adjustment (FVA) to reflect the cost to dealers of funding their hedging portfolios, the interest it would generate never occurred to us (Risk25 July 2012, pages 83–85, Risk September 2012, pages 18–22, and pages 23–24). Much to our surprise, we have been inundated with responses from practitioners all over the world, on both sides of the argument. It seems

Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.

To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact [email protected] or view our subscription options here:

You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact [email protected] to find out more.

To continue reading...

You need to sign in to use this feature. If you don’t have a account, please register for a trial.

Sign in
You are currently on corporate access.

To use this feature you will need an individual account. If you have one already please sign in.

Sign in.

Alternatively you can request an individual account here: