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

John Hull and Alan White sparked a heated debate when their article in Risk’s 25th anniversary issue argued funding costs should not be reflected in derivatives prices. Here, they respond to their critics


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 or view our subscription options here:

You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact to find out more.

Sorry, our subscription options are not loading right now

Please try again later. Get in touch with our customer services team if this issue persists.

New to View our subscription options


Want to know what’s included in our free membership? Click here

This address will be used to create your account

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