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

John Hull, Alan White
05 Oct 2012

Tweet
Facebook
LinkedIn
Save this article
Send to
Print this page

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 info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe

You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.

You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.

You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/

If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net

You may share this content using our article tools. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/

If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net

You already have an account with us*. Sign in below to continue.