U.S. patent application number 13/135456 was filed with the patent office on 2012-01-26 for digital options having demand-based, adjustable returns, and trading exchange therefor.
Invention is credited to Jeffrey Lange.
Application Number | 20120022995 13/135456 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 25490513 |
Filed Date | 2012-01-26 |
United States Patent
Application |
20120022995 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Lange; Jeffrey |
January 26, 2012 |
Digital options having demand-based, adjustable returns, and
trading exchange therefor
Abstract
Methods and systems for conducting demand-based trading are
described. In one embodiment, states are established, each state
corresponding to at least one possible outcome of an event of
economic significance. An investment amount may be determined as a
function of a selected outcome, a desired payout, and a total
amount invested in the states. In another embodiment, an investment
amount may be determined as a function of parameters of a financial
product. In another embodiment, a payout may be determined as a
function of an investment amount, a selected outcome, a total
amount invested in the states, and an identification of a state
corresponding to an observed outcome of the event.
Inventors: |
Lange; Jeffrey; (New York,
NY) |
Family ID: |
25490513 |
Appl. No.: |
13/135456 |
Filed: |
July 5, 2011 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
09950498 |
Sep 10, 2001 |
7996296 |
|
|
13135456 |
|
|
|
|
09809025 |
Mar 16, 2001 |
7225153 |
|
|
09950498 |
|
|
|
|
09744816 |
Apr 3, 2001 |
7389262 |
|
|
PCT/US00/19447 |
Jul 18, 2000 |
|
|
|
09809025 |
|
|
|
|
09448822 |
Nov 24, 1999 |
6321212 |
|
|
09744816 |
|
|
|
|
60144890 |
Jul 21, 1999 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
705/37 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G06Q 40/08 20130101;
G07F 17/3288 20130101; G06Q 40/00 20130101; G06Q 50/34 20130101;
G06Q 40/02 20130101; G07F 7/10 20130101; G06Q 40/04 20130101; G06Q
30/08 20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
705/37 |
International
Class: |
G06Q 40/00 20060101
G06Q040/00 |
Claims
1-245. (canceled)
246. A method of an investment management machine for assisting in
conducting demand-based trading, comprising: receiving, by the
investment management machine and via a computer network, an
indication of at least one parameter of a financial product; and
determining and outputting, by a processor of the investment
management machine, and substantially in real time, a selected
outcome, a desired payout, and an investment amount of each
contingent claim in a set of at least one contingent claim as a
function of the at least one parameter of the financial product;
wherein the investment amount is pledged to be paid, such pledge
occurring prior to any of the selected outcomes of the contingent
claim, and the desired payouts are payable conditional upon a prior
occurrence of the respective selected outcome.
247. A method of an investment management machine for assisting in
investing, comprising: obtaining, by an investment management
machine, user-input representing a selected outcome and a desired
payout, the selected outcome corresponding to at least one of a
plurality of states, each state corresponding to at least one
possible outcome of an event of economic significance; and
determining and outputting, by a processor of the investment
management machine, an investment amount as a function of the
selected outcome, the desired payout and a total amount invested in
the plurality of states, and outputting the investment amount;
wherein the investment amount is pledged to be paid, such pledge
occurring prior to the event of economic significance, and the
desired payout is payable conditional upon and after occurrence of
the selected outcome.
248. A method of an investment management machine for assisting in
conducting demand-based trading, comprising: dividing a range of
possible outcomes of an event of economic significance into a
plurality of states, each state representing a respective subset of
the range of possible outcomes, wherein a respective subset of at
least one of the states includes more that one possible outcome;
storing, by a processor of the investment management machine and in
a storage device of the investment management machine, the
plurality of states; receiving, by the investment management
machine and via a computer network, a plurality of investment
orders, each of at least a subset of the plurality of investment
orders indicating a respective desired payout and a respective
selected subset of the range of possible outcomes, corresponding to
at least one respective one of the plurality of states, in which to
invest, wherein the indicated respective selected subsets of the
range of possible outcomes differ between at least some of the
plurality of investment orders; for at least one of the orders,
determining, by the processor and substantially in real time, an
investment amount for the order as a function of (a) the selected
subset of the range of possible outcomes and the desired payout
indicated by the respective order and (b) a total amount invested
in the plurality of states; and outputting the investment amount;
wherein the investment amount is pledged to be paid, such pledge
occurring prior to the event of economic significance, and, for
each of the at least a subset of the plurality of investment
orders, the respective desired payout is payable conditional upon a
prior occurrence of the respective selected subset of the range of
possible outcomes.
249. A method of an investment management machine for assisting in
conducting demand-based trading, comprising: receiving, by the
investment management machine and via a computer network, an
indication of at least one parameter of a financial product;
determining, by a processor of the investment management machine,
for one of a plurality of investors, and substantially in real
time, a selected outcome, a desired payout, and an investment
amount of each contingent claim in a set of at least one contingent
claim as a function of the at least one parameter of the financial
product; and outputting the selected outcomes, the desired payouts,
and the investment amounts; wherein the investment amounts are
pledged to be paid, such pledges occurring prior to the outcome of
the contingent claim, and, for each of the at least one contingent
claim, the respective desired payout is payable conditional upon
and after occurrence of the respective selected outcome.
Description
RELATED APPLICATIONS
[0001] This application is a divisional application of U.S. patent
application Ser. No. 09/950,498, filed Sep. 10, 2001, which is a
continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No.
09/809,025, filed Mar. 16, 2001, which issued as U.S. Pat. No.
7,225,153; which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent
application Ser. No. 09/744,816, which was attributed a filing date
of Apr. 3, 2001 and which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,389,262; which
was the United States national stage application under 35 U.S.C.
.sctn.371 of Patent Cooperation Treaty application serial number
PCT/US00/19447, filed Jul. 18, 2000; which is a
continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No.
09/448,822, filed Nov. 24, 1999, which issued as U.S. Pat. No.
6,321,212; which claims the benefit, under 35 U.S.C. .sctn.119(e),
of U.S. provisional patent application Ser. No. 60/144,890, filed
Jul. 21, 1999. Each of the applications referred to in this
paragraph is incorporated by reference in its entirety into this
application.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
[0002] This document contains material that is subject to copyright
protection. The applicant has no objection to the facsimile
reproduction of this patent document, as it appears in the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) patent file or records or in any
publication by the PTO or counterpart foreign or international
instrumentalities. The applicant otherwise reserves all copyright
rights whatsoever.
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
[0003] This invention relates to systems and methods for
demand-based trading. More specifically, this invention relates to
methods and systems for trading financial products, including
digital options, having demand-based adjustable returns, and
systems and methods for determining those returns.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0004] With the rapid increase in usage and popularity of the
public Internet, the growth of electronic Internet-based trading of
securities has been dramatic. In the first part of 1999, online
trading via the Internet was estimated to make up approximately 15%
of all stock trades. This volume has been growing at an annual rate
of approximately 50%. High growth rates are projected to continue
for the next few years, as increasing volumes of Internet users use
online trading accounts.
[0005] Online trading firms such as E-Trade Group, Charles Schwab,
and Ameritrade have all experienced significant growth in revenues
due to increases in online trading activity. These companies
currently offer Internet-based stock trading services, which
provide greater convenience and lower commission rates for many
retail investors, compared to traditional securities brokerage
services. Many expect online trading to expand to financial
products other than equities, such as bonds, foreign exchange, and
financial instrument derivatives.
[0006] Financial products such as stocks, bonds, foreign exchange
contracts, exchange traded futures and options, as well as
contractual assets or liabilities such as reinsurance contracts or
interest-rate swaps, all involve some measure of risk. The risks
inherent in such products are a function of many factors, including
the uncertainty of events, such as the Federal Reserve's
determination to increase the discount rate, a sudden increase in
commodity prices, the change in value of an underlying index such
as the Dow Jones Industrial Average, or an overall increase in
investor risk aversion. In order to better analyze the nature of
such risks, financial economists often treat the real-world
financial products as if they were combinations of simpler,
hypothetical financial products. These hypothetical financial
products typically are designed to pay one unit of currency, say
one dollar, to the trader or investor if a particular outcome among
a set of possible outcomes occurs. Possible outcomes may be said to
fall within "states," which are typically constructed from a
distribution of possible outcomes (e.g., the magnitude of the
change in the Federal Reserve discount rate) owing to some
real-world event (e.g., a decision of the Federal Reserve regarding
the discount rate). In such hypothetical financial products, a set
of states is typically chosen so that the states are mutually
exclusive and the set collectively covers or exhausts all possible
outcomes for the event. This arrangement entails that, by design,
exactly one state always occurs based on the event outcome.
[0007] These hypothetical financial products (also known as
Arrow-Debreu securities, state securities, or pure securities) are
designed to isolate and break-down complex risks into distinct
sources, namely, the risk that a distinct state will occur. Such
hypothetical financial products are useful since the returns from
more complicated securities, including real-world financial
products, can be modeled as a linear combination of the returns of
the hypothetical financial products. See, e.g., R. Merton,
Continuous-Time Finance (1990), pp. 441 ff. Thus, such hypothetical
financial products are frequently used today to provide the
fundamental building blocks for analyzing more complex financial
products.
[0008] In recent years, the growth in derivatives trading has also
been enormous. According to the Federal Reserve, the annualized
growth rate in foreign exchange and interest rate derivatives
turnover alone is running at about 20%. Corporations, financial
institutions, farmers, and even national governments and agencies
are all active in the derivatives markets, typically to better
manage asset and liability portfolios, hedge financial market risk,
and minimize costs of capital funding. Money managers also
frequently use derivatives to hedge and undertake economic exposure
where there are inherent risks, such as risks of fluctuation in
interest rates, foreign exchange rates, convertibility into other
securities or outstanding purchase offers for cash or exchange
offers for cash or securities.
[0009] Derivatives are traded on exchanges, such as the option and
futures contracts traded on the Chicago Board of Trade ("CBOT"), as
well as off-exchange or over-the-counter ("OTC") between two or
more derivative counterparties. On the major exchanges that operate
trading activity in derivatives, orders are typically either
transmitted electronically or via open outcry in pits to member
brokers who then execute the orders. These member brokers then
usually balance or hedge their own portfolio of derivatives to suit
their own risk and return criteria. Hedging is customarily
accomplished by trading in the derivatives' underlying securities
or contracts (e.g., a futures contract in the case of an option on
that future) or in similar derivatives (e.g., futures expiring in
different calendar months). For OTC derivatives, brokers or dealers
customarily seek to balance their active portfolios of derivatives
in accordance with the trader's risk management guidelines and
profitability criteria.
[0010] Broadly speaking then, there are two widely utilized means
by which derivatives are currently traded: (1) order-matching and
(2) principal market making. Order matching is a model followed by
exchanges such as the CBOT or the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and
some newer online exchanges. In order matching, the exchange
coordinates the activities of buyers and sellers so that "bids" to
buy (i.e., demand) can be paired off with "offers" to sell (i.e.,
supply). Orders may be matched both electronically and through the
primary market making activities of the exchange members.
Typically, the exchange itself takes no market risk and covers its
own cost of operation by selling memberships to brokers. Member
brokers may take principal positions, which are often hedged across
their portfolios.
[0011] In principal market making, a bank or brokerage firm, for
example, establishes a derivatives trading operation, capitalizes
it, and makes a market by maintaining a portfolio of derivatives
and underlying positions. The market maker usually hedges the
portfolio on a dynamic basis by continually changing the
composition of the portfolio as market conditions change. In
general, the market maker strives to cover its cost of operation by
collecting a bid-offer spread and through the scale economies
obtained by simultaneously hedging a portfolio of positions. As the
market maker takes significant market risk, its counterparties are
exposed to the risk that it may go bankrupt. Additionally, while in
theory the principal market making activity could be done over a
wide area network, in practice derivatives trading is today usually
accomplished via the telephone. Often, trades are processed
laboriously, with many manual steps required from the front office
transaction to the back office processing and clearing.
[0012] In theory--that is, ignoring very real transaction costs
(described below)--derivatives trading is, in the language of game
theory, a "zero sum" game. One counterparty's gain on a transaction
should be exactly offset by the corresponding counterparty's loss,
assuming there are no transaction costs. In fact, it is the zero
sum nature of the derivatives market which first allowed the
well-known Black-Scholes pricing model to be formulated by noting
that a derivative such as an option could be paired with an exactly
offsetting position in the underlying security so as to eliminate
market risk over short periods of time. It is this "no arbitrage"
feature that allows market participants using sophisticated
valuation models to mitigate market risk by continually adjusting
their portfolios. Stock markets, by contrast, do not have this zero
sum feature, as the total stock or value of the market fluctuates
due to factors such as interest rates and expected corporate
earnings, which are "external" to the market in the sense that they
cannot readily be hedged.
[0013] The return to a trader of a traditional derivative product
is, in most cases, largely determined by the value of the
underlying security, asset, liability or claim on which the
derivative is based. For example, the value of a call option on a
stock, which gives the holder the right to buy the stock at some
future date at a fixed strike price, varies directly with the price
of the underlying stock. In the case of non-financial derivatives
such as reinsurance contracts, the value of the reinsurance
contract is affected by the loss experience on the underlying
portfolio of insured claims. The prices of traditional derivative
products are usually determined by supply and demand for the
derivative based on the value of the underlying security (which is
itself usually determined by supply and demand, or, as in the case
of insurance, by events insured by the insurance or reinsurance
contract).
[0014] At present, market-makers can offer derivatives products to
their customers in markets where: [0015] Sufficient natural supply
and demand exist [0016] Risks are measurable and manageable [0017]
Sufficient capital has been allocated A failure to satisfy one or
more of these conditions in certain capital markets may inhibit new
product development, resulting in unsatisfied customer demand.
[0018] Currently, the costs of trading derivative securities (both
on and off the exchanges) and transferring insurance risk are
considered to be high for a number of reasons, including: [0019]
(1) Credit Risk: A counterparty to a derivatives (or insurance
contract) transaction typically assumes the risk that its
counterparty will go bankrupt during the life of the derivatives
(or insurance) contract. Margin requirements, credit monitoring,
and other contractual devices, which may be costly, are customarily
employed to manage derivatives and insurance counterparty credit
risk. [0020] (2) Regulatory Requirements: Regulatory bodies, such
as the Federal Reserve, Comptroller of the Currency, the
Commodities Futures Trading Commission, and international bodies
that promulgate regulations affecting global money center banks
(e.g., Basle Committee guidelines) generally require institutions
dealing in derivatives to meet capital requirements and maintain
risk management systems. These requirements are considered by many
to increase the cost of capital and barriers to entry for some
entrants into the derivatives trading business, and thus to
increase the cost of derivatives transactions for both dealers and
end users. In the United States, state insurance regulations also
impose requirements on the operations of insurers, especially in
the property-casualty lines where capital demands may be increased
by the requirement that insurers reserve for future losses without
regard to interest rate discount factors. [0021] (3) Liquidity:
Derivatives traders typically hedge their exposures throughout the
life of the derivatives contract. Effective hedging usually
requires that an active or liquid market exist, throughout the life
of the derivative contract, for both the underlying security and
the derivative. Frequently, especially in periods of financial
market shocks and disequilibria, liquid markets do not exist to
support a well-functioning derivatives market. [0022] (4)
Transaction Costs: Dynamic hedging of derivatives often requires
continual transactions in the market over the life of the
derivative in order to reduce, eliminate, and manage risk for a
derivative or portfolio of derivative securities. This usually
means paying bid-offers spreads for each hedging transaction, which
can add significantly to the price of the derivative security at
inception compared to its theoretical price in absence of the need
to pay for such spreads and similar transaction costs. [0023] (5)
Settlement and Clearing Costs: The costs of executing,
electronically booking, clearing, and settling derivatives
transactions can be large, sometimes requiring analytical and
database software systems and personnel knowledgeable in such
transactions. While a goal of many in the securities processing
industry is to achieve "straight-through-processing" of derivatives
transactions, many derivatives counterparties continue to manage
the processing of these transactions using a combination of
electronic and manual steps which are not particularly integrated
or automated and therefore add to costs. [0024] (6) Event Risk:
Most traders understand effective hedging of derivatives
transactions to require markets to be liquid and to exhibit
continuously fluctuating prices without sudden and dramatic "gaps."
During periods of financial crises and disequilibria, it is not
uncommon to observe dramatic repricing of underlying securities by
50% or more in a period of hours. The event risk of such crises and
disequilibria are therefore customarily factored into derivatives
prices by dealers, which increases the cost of derivatives in
excess of the theoretical prices indicated by derivatives valuation
models. These costs are usually spread across all derivatives
users. [0025] (7) Model Risk: Derivatives contracts can be quite
difficult to value, especially those involving interest rates or
features which allow a counterparty to make decisions throughout
the life of the derivative (e.g., American options allow a
counterparty to realize the value of the derivative at any time
during its life). Derivatives dealers will typically add a premium
to derivatives prices to insure against the possibility that the
valuation models may not adequately reflect market factors or other
conditions throughout the life of the contract. In addition, risk
management guidelines may require firms to maintain additional
capital supporting a derivatives dealing operation where model risk
is determined to be a significant factor. Model risk has also been
a large factor in well-known cases where complicated securities
risk management systems have provided incorrect or incomplete
information, such as the Joe Jett/Kidder Peabody losses of 1994.
[0026] (8) Asymmetric Information: Derivatives dealers and market
makers customarily seek to protect themselves from counterparties
with superior information. Bid-offer spreads for derivatives
therefore usually reflect a built-in insurance premium for the
dealer for transactions with counterparties with superior
information, which can lead to unprofitable transactions.
Traditional insurance markets also incur costs due to asymmetric
information. In property-casualty lines, the direct writer of the
insurance almost always has superior information regarding the book
of risks than does the assuming reinsurer. Much like the market
maker in capital markets, the reinsurer typically prices its
informational disadvantage into the reinsurance premiums. [0027]
(9) Incomplete Markets: Traditional capital and insurance markets
are often viewed as incomplete in the sense that the span of
contingent claims is limited, i.e., the markets may not provide
opportunities to hedge all of the risks for which hedging
opportunities are sought. As a consequence, participants typically
either bear risk inefficiently or use less than optimal means to
transfer or hedge against risk. For example, the demand by some
investors to hedge inflation risk has resulted in the issuance by
some governments of inflation-linked bonds which have coupons and
principal amounts linked to Consumer Price Index (CPI) levels. This
provides a degree of insurance against inflation risk. However,
holders of such bonds frequently make assumptions as to the future
relationship between real and nominal interest rates. An imperfect
correlation between the contingent claim (in this case,
inflation-linked bond) and the contingent event (inflation) gives
rise to what traders call "basis risk," which is risk that, in
today's markets, cannot be perfectly insured or hedged.
[0028] Currently, transaction costs are also considerable in
traditional insurance and reinsurance markets. In recent years,
considerable effort has been expended in attempting to securitize
insurance risk such as property-casualty catastrophe risk.
Traditional insurance and reinsurance markets in many respects
resemble principal market-maker securities markets and suffer from
many of the same shortcomings and incur similar costs of operation.
Typically, risk is physically transferred contractually, credit
status of counterparties is monitored, and sophisticated risk
management systems are deployed and maintained. Capitalization
levels to support insurance portfolios of risky assets and
liabilities may be dramatically out of equilibrium at any given
time due to price stickiness, informational asymmetries and costs,
and regulatory constraints. In short, the insurance and reinsurance
markets tend to operate according to the same market mechanisms
that have prevailed for decades, despite large market shocks such
as the Lloyds crisis in the late 1980's and early 1990's.
[0029] Accordingly, a driving force behind all the contributors to
the costs of derivatives and insurance contracts is the necessity
or desirability of risk management through dynamic hedging or
contingent claim replication in continuous, liquid, and
informationally fair markets. Hedging is used by derivatives
dealers to reduce their exposure to excessive market risk while
making transaction fees to cover their cost of capital and ongoing
operations; and effective hedging requires liquidity.
[0030] Recent patents have addressed the problem of financial
market liquidity in the context of an electronic order-matching
systems (e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 5,845,266). The principal techniques
disclosed to enhance liquidity are to increase participation and
traded volume in the system and to solicit trader preferences about
combinations of price and quantity for a particular trade of a
security. There are shortcomings to these techniques, however.
First, these techniques implement order-matching and limit order
book algorithms, which can be and are effectively employed in
traditional "brick and mortar" exchanges. Their electronic
implementation, however, primarily serves to save on transportation
and telecommunication charges. No fundamental change is
contemplated to market structure for which an electronic network
may be essential. Second, the disclosed techniques appear to
enhance liquidity at the expense of placing large informational
burdens on the traders (by soliciting preferences, for example,
over an entire price-quantity demand curve) and by introducing
uncertainty as to the exact price at which a trade has been
transacted or is "filled." Finally, these electronic order matching
systems contemplate a traditional counterparty pairing, which means
physical securities are frequently transferred, cleared, and
settled after the counterparties are identified and matched. In
other words, techniques disclosed in the context of electronic
order-matching systems are technical elaborations to the basic
problem of how to optimize the process of matching arrays of bids
and offers.
[0031] Patents relating to derivatives, such as U.S. Pat. No.
4,903,201, disclose an electronic adaptation of current open-outcry
or order matching exchanges for the trading of futures is
disclosed. Another recent patent, U.S. Pat. No. 5,806,048, relates
to the creation of open-end mutual fund derivative securities to
provide enhanced liquidity and improved availability of information
affecting pricing. This patent, however, does not contemplate an
electronic derivatives exchange which requires the traditional
hedging or replicating portfolio approach to synthesizing the
financial derivatives. Similarly, U.S. Pat. No. 5,794,207 proposes
an electronic means of matching buyers' bids and sellers' offers,
without explaining the nature of the economic price equilibria
achieved through such a market process.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0032] The present invention is directed to systems and methods of
trading, and financial products, having a goal of reducing
transaction costs for market participants who hedge against or
otherwise make investments in contingent claims relating to events
of economic significance. The claims are contingent in that their
payout or return depends on the outcome of an observable event with
more than one possible outcome. An example of such a contingent
claim is a digital option, such as a digital call option, where the
investor receives a payout if the underlying asset, stock or index
expires at or above a specified strike price and receives no payout
if the underlying asset, stock or other index expires below the
strike price. Digital options can also be referred to as, for
example, "binary options" and "all or nothing options." The
contingent claims relate to events of economic significance in that
an investor or trader in a contingent claim typically is not
economically indifferent to the outcome of the event, even if the
investor or trader has not invested in or traded a contingent claim
relating to the event.
[0033] Intended users of preferred and other embodiments of the
present invention are typically institutional investors, such as
financial institutions including banks, investment banks, primary
insurers and reinsurers, and corporate treasurers, hedge funds and
pension funds. Users can also include any individual or entity with
a need for risk allocation services. As used in this specification,
the terms "user," "trader" and "investor" are used interchangeably
to mean any institution, individual or entity that desires to trade
or invest in contingent claims or other financial products
described in this specification.
[0034] The contingent claims pertaining to an event have a trading
period or an auction period in order to finalize a return for each
defined state, each defined state corresponding to an outcome or
set of outcomes for the event, and another period for observing the
event upon which the contingent claim is based. When the contingent
claim is a digital option, the price or investment amount for each
digital option is finalized at the end of the trading period, along
with the return for each defined state. The entirety of trades or
orders placed and accepted with respect to a certain trading period
are processed in a demand-based market or auction. The organization
or institution, individual or other entity sponsoring, running,
maintaining or operating the demand-based market or auction, can be
referred to, for example, as an "exchange," "auction sponsor"
and/or "market sponsor."
[0035] In each market or auction, the returns to the contingent
claims adjust during the trading period of the market or auction
with changes in the distribution of amounts invested in each of the
states. The investment amounts for the contingent claims can either
be provided up front or determined during the trading period with
changes in the distribution of desired returns and selected
outcomes for each claim. The returns payable for each of the states
are finalized after the conclusion of each relevant trading period.
In a preferred embodiment, the total amount invested, less a
transaction fee to an exchange, or a market or auction sponsor, is
equal to the total amount of the payouts. In other words, in
theory, the returns on all of the contingent claims established
during a particular trading period and pertaining to a particular
event are essentially zero sum, as are the traditional derivatives
markets. In one embodiment, the investment amounts or prices for
each contingent claim are finalized after the conclusion of each
relevant trading period, along with the returns payable for each of
the states. Since the total amount invested, less a transaction fee
to an exchange, or a market or auction sponsor, is equal to the
total amount of payouts, an optimization solution using an
iteration algorithm described below can be used to determine the
equilibrium investment amounts or prices for each contingent claim
along with establishing the returns on all of the contingent
claims, given the desired or requested return for each claim, the
selection of outcomes for each claim and the limit (if any) on the
investment amount for each claim.
[0036] The process by which returns and investment amounts for each
contingent claim are finalized in the present invention is
demand-based, and does not in any substantial way depend on supply.
By contrast, traditional markets set prices through the interaction
of supply and demand by crossing bids to buy and offers to sell
("bid/offer"). The demand-based contingent claim mechanism of the
present invention sets returns by financing returns to successful
investments with losses from unsuccessful investments. Thus, in a
preferred embodiment, the returns to successful investments (as
well as the prices or investment amounts for investments in digital
options) are determined by the total and relative amounts of all
investments placed on each of the defined states for the specified
observable event.
[0037] As used in this specification, the term "contingent claim"
shall have the meaning customarily ascribed to it in the
securities, trading, insurance and economics communities.
"Contingent claims" thus include, for example, stocks, bonds and
other such securities, derivative securities, insurance contracts
and reinsurance agreements, and any other financial products,
instruments, contracts, assets, or liabilities whose value depends
upon or reflects economic risk due to the occurrence of future,
real-world events. These events may be financial-related events,
such as changes in interest rates, or non-financial-related events
such as changes in weather conditions, demand for electricity, and
fluctuations in real estate prices. Contingent claims also include
all economic or financial interests, whether already traded or not
yet traded, which have or reflect inherent risk or uncertainty due
to the occurrence of future real-world events. Examples of
contingent claims of economic or financial interest which are not
yet traded on traditional markets are financial products having
values that vary with the fluctuations in corporate earnings or
changes in real estate values and rentals. The term "contingent
claim" as used in this specification encompasses both hypothetical
financial products of the Arrow-Debreu variety, as well as any
risky asset, contract or product which can be expressed as a
combination or portfolio of the hypothetical financial
products.
[0038] For the purposes of this specification, an "investment" in
or "trade" or an "order" of a contingent claim is the act of
putting an amount (in the units of value defined by the contingent
claim) at risk, with a financial return depending on the outcome of
an event of economic significance underlying the group of
contingent claims pertaining to that event.
[0039] "Derivative security" (used interchangeably with
"derivative") also has a meaning customarily ascribed to it in the
securities, trading, insurance and economics communities. This
includes a security or contract whose value depends on such factors
as the value of an underlying security, index, asset or liability,
or on a feature of such an underlying security, such as interest
rates or convertibility into some other security. A derivative
security is one example of a contingent claim as defined above.
Financial futures on stock indices such as the S&P 500 or
options to buy and sell such futures contracts are highly popular
exchange-traded financial derivatives. An interest-rate swap, which
is an example of an off-exchange derivative, is an agreement
between two counterparties to exchange series of cashflows based on
underlying factors, such as the London Interbank Offered Rate
(LIBOR) quoted daily in London for a large number of foreign
currencies. Like the exchange-traded futures and options,
off-exchange agreements can fluctuate in value with the underlying
factors to which they are linked or derived. Derivatives may also
be traded on commodities, insurance events, and other events, such
as the weather.
[0040] In this specification, the function for computing and
allocating returns to contingent claims is termed the Demand
Reallocation Function (DRF). A DRF is demand-based and involves
reallocating returns to investments in each state after the outcome
of the observable event is known in order to compensate successful
investments from losses on unsuccessful investments (after any
transaction or exchange fee). Since an adjustable return based on
variations in amounts invested is a key aspect of the invention,
contingent claims implemented using a DRF will be referred to as
demand-based adjustable return (DBAR) contingent claims.
[0041] In accordance with embodiments of the present invention, an
Order Price Function (OPF) is a function for computing the
investment amounts or prices for contingent claims which are
digital options. An OPF, which includes the DRF, is also
demand-based and involves determining the prices for each digital
option at the end of the trading period, but before the outcome of
the observable event is known. The OPF determines the prices as a
function of the outcomes selected in each digital option
(corresponding to the states selected by a trader for the digital
option to be in-the-money), the requested payout for the digital
option if the option expires in-the money, and the limit placed on
the price (if any) when the order for the option is placed in the
market or auction.
[0042] "Demand-based market," "demand-based auction" may include,
for example, a market or auction which is run or executed according
to the principles set forth in the embodiments of the present
invention. "Demand-based technology" may include, for example,
technology used to run or execute orders in a demand-based market
or auction in accordance with the principles set forth in the
embodiments of the present invention. "Contingent claims" or "DBAR
contingent claims" may include, for example, contingent claims that
are processed in a demand-based market or auction. "Contingent
claims" or "DBAR contingent claims" may include, for example,
digital options or DBAR digital options, discussed in this
specification. With respect to digital options, demand-based
markets may include, for example, DBAR DOEs (DBAR Digital Option
Exchanges), or exchanges in which orders for digital options or
DBAR digital options are placed and processed. "Contingent claims"
or "DBAR contingent claims" may also include, for example,
DBAR-enabled products or DBAR-enabled financial products, discussed
in this specification.
[0043] Preferred features of a trading system for a group of DBAR
contingent claims (i.e., group of claims pertaining to the same
event) include the following: (1) an entire distribution of states
is open for investment, not just a single price as in the
traditional markets; (2) returns are adjustable and determined
mathematically based on invested amounts in each of the states
available for investment, (3) invested amounts are preferably
non-decreasing (as explained below), providing a commitment of
offered liquidity to the market over the distribution of states,
and in one embodiment of the present invention, adjustable and
determined mathematically based on requested returns per order,
selection of outcomes for the option to expire in-the-money, and
limit amounts (if any), and (4) information is available in
real-time across the distribution of states, including, in
particular, information on the amounts invested across the
distribution of all states (commonly known as a "limit order
book"). Other consequences of preferred embodiments of the present
invention include (1) elimination of order-matching or crossing of
the bid and offer sides of the market; (2) reduction of the need
for a market maker to conduct dynamic hedging and risk management;
(3) more opportunities for hedging and insuring events of economic
significance (i.e., greater market "completeness"); and (4) the
ability to offer investments in contingent claims whose profit and
loss scenarios are comparable to these for digital options or other
derivatives in traditional markets, but can be implemented using
the DBAR systems and methods of the present invention, for example
without the need for sellers of such options or derivatives as they
function in conventional markets.
[0044] Other preferred embodiments of the present invention can
accommodate realization of profits and losses by traders at
multiple points before all of the criteria for terminating a group
of contingent claims are known. This is accomplished by arranging a
plurality of trading periods, each having its own set of finalized
returns. Profit or loss can be realized or "locked-in" at the end
of each trading period, as opposed to waiting for the final outcome
of the event on which the relevant contingent claims are based.
Such lock-in can be achieved by placing hedging investments in
successive trading periods as the returns change, or adjust, from
period to period. In this way, profit and loss can be realized on
an evolving basis (limited only by the frequency and length of the
periods), enabling traders to achieve the same or perhaps higher
frequency of trading and hedging than available in traditional
markets.
[0045] If desired, an issuer such as a corporation, investment
bank, underwriter or other financial intermediary can create a
security having returns that are driven in a comparable manner to
the DBAR contingent claims of the present invention. For example, a
corporation may issue a bond with returns that are linked to
insurance risk. The issuer can solicit trading and calculate the
returns based on the amounts invested in contingent claims
corresponding to each level or state of insurance risks.
[0046] In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, changes
in the return for investments in one state will affect the return
on investments in another state in the same distribution of states
for a group of contingent claims. Thus, traders' returns will
depend not only on the actual outcome of a real-world, observable
event but also on trading choices from among the distribution of
states made by other traders. This aspect of DBAR markets, in which
returns for one state are affected by changes in investments in
another state in the same distribution, allows for the elimination
of order-crossing and dynamic market maker hedging. Price-discovery
in preferred embodiments of the present invention can be supported
by a one-way market (i.e., demand, not supply) for DBAR contingent
claims. By structuring derivatives and insurance trading according
to DBAR principles, the high costs of traditional order matching
and principal market making market structures can be reduced
substantially. Additionally, a market implemented by systems and
methods of the present invention is especially amenable to
electronic operation over a wide network, such as the Internet.
[0047] In its preferred embodiments, the present invention
mitigates derivatives transaction costs found in traditional
markets due to dynamic hedging and order matching. A preferred
embodiment of the present invention provides a system for trading
contingent claims structured under DBAR principles, in which
amounts invested in on each state in a group of DBAR contingent
claims are reallocated from unsuccessful investments, under defined
rules, to successful investments after the deduction of exchange
transaction fees. In particular, the operator of such a system or
exchange provides the physical plant and electronic infrastructure
for trading to be conducted, collects and aggregates investments
(or in one embodiment, first collects and aggregates investment
information to determine investment amounts per trade or order and
then collects and aggregates the investment amounts), calculates
the returns that result from such investments, and then allocates
to the successful investments returns that are financed by the
unsuccessful investments, after deducting a transaction fee for the
operation of the system.
[0048] In preferred embodiments, where the successful investments
are financed with the losses from unsuccessful investments, returns
on all trades are correlated and traders make investments against
each other as well as assuming the risk of chance outcomes. All
traders for a group of DBAR contingent claims depending on a given
event become counterparties to each other, leading to a
mutualization of financial interests. Furthermore, in preferred
embodiments of the present invention, projected returns prevailing
at the time an investment is made may not be the same as the final
payouts or returns after the outcome of the relevant event is
known.
[0049] Traditional derivatives markets by contrast, operate largely
under a house "banking" system. In this system, the market-maker,
which typically has the function of matching buyers and sellers,
customarily quotes a price at which an investor may buy or sell. If
a given investor buys or sells at the price, the investor's
ultimate return is based upon this price, i.e., the price at which
the investor later sells or buys the original position, along with
the original price at which the position was traded, will determine
the investor's return. As the market-maker may not be able
perfectly to offset buy and sell orders at all times or may desire
to maintain a degree of risk in the expectation of returns, it will
frequently be subject to varying degrees of market risk (as well as
credit risk, in some cases). In a traditional derivatives market,
market-makers which match buy and sell orders typically rely upon
actuarial advantage, bid-offer spreads, a large capital base, and
"coppering" or hedging (risk management) to minimize the chance of
bankruptcy due to such market risk exposures.
[0050] Each trader in a house banking system typically has only a
single counterparty--the market-maker, exchange, or trading
counterparty (in the case, for example, of over-the-counter
derivatives). By contrast, because a market in DBAR contingent
claims may operate according to principles whereby unsuccessful
investments finance the returns on successful investments, the
exchange itself is exposed to reduced risk of loss and therefore
has reduced need to transact in the market to hedge itself. In
preferred embodiments of DBAR contingent claims of the present
invention, dynamic hedging or bid-offer crossing by the exchange is
generally not required, and the probability of the exchange or
market-maker going bankrupt may be reduced essentially to zero.
Such a system distributes the risk of bankruptcy away from the
exchange or market-maker and among all the traders in the system.
The system as a whole provides a great degree of self-hedging and
substantial reduction of the risk of market failure for reasons
related to market risk. A DBAR contingent claim exchange or market
or auction may also be "self-clearing" and require little clearing
infrastructure (such as clearing agents, custodians, nostro/vostro
bank accounts, and transfer and register agents). A derivatives
trading system or exchange or market or auction structured
according to DBAR contingent claim principles therefore offers many
advantages over current derivatives markets governed by house
banking principles.
[0051] The present invention also differs from electronic or
parimutuel betting systems disclosed in the prior art (e.g., U.S.
Pat. Nos. 5,873,782 and 5,749,785). In betting systems or games of
chance, in the absence of a wager the bettor is economically
indifferent to the outcome (assuming the bettor does not own the
casino or the racetrack or breed the racing horses, for example).
The difference between games of chance and events of economic
significance is well known and understood in financial markets.
[0052] In summary, the present invention provides systems and
methods for conducting demand-based trading. A preferred embodiment
of a method of the present invention for conducting demand-based
trading includes the steps of (a) establishing a plurality of
defined states and plurality of predetermined termination criteria,
wherein each of the defined states corresponds to at least one
possible outcome of an event of economic significance; (b)
accepting investments of value units by a plurality of traders in
the defined states; and (c) allocating a payout to each investment.
The allocating step is responsive to the total number of value
units invested in the defined states, the relative number of value
units invested in each of the defined states, and the
identification of the defined state that occurred upon fulfillment
of all of the termination criteria.
[0053] An additional preferred embodiment of a method for
conducting demand-based trading also includes establishing,
accepting, and allocating steps. The establishing step in this
embodiment includes establishing a plurality of defined states and
a plurality of predetermined termination criteria. Each of the
defined states corresponds to a possible state of a selected
financial product when each of the termination criteria is
fulfilled. The accepting step includes accepting investments of
value units by multiple traders in the defined states. The
allocating step includes allocating a payout to each investment.
This allocating step is responsive to the total number of value
units invested in the defined states, the relative number of value
units invested in each of the defined states, and the
identification of the defined state that occurred upon fulfillment
of all of the termination criteria.
[0054] In preferred embodiments of a method for conducting
demand-based trading of the present invention, the payout to each
investment in each of the defined states that did not occur upon
fulfillment of all of the termination criteria is zero, and the sum
of the payouts to all of the investments is not greater than the
value of the total number of the value units invested in the
defined states. In a further preferred embodiment, the sum of the
values of the payouts to all of the investments is equal to the
value of all of the value units invested in defined states, less a
fee.
[0055] In preferred embodiments of a method for conducting
demand-based trading, at least one investment of value units
designates a set of defined states and a desired
return-on-investment from the designated set of defined states. In
these preferred embodiments, the allocating step is further
responsive to the desired return-on-investment from the designated
set of defined states.
[0056] In another preferred embodiment of a method for conducting
demand-based trading, the method further includes the step of
calculating Capital-At-Risk for at least one investment of value
units by at least one trader. In alternative further preferred
embodiments, the step of calculating Capital-At-Risk includes the
use of the Capital-At-Risk Value-At-Risk method, the
Capital-At-Risk Monte Carlo Simulation method, or the
Capital-At-Risk Historical Simulation method.
[0057] In preferred embodiments of a method for conducting
demand-based trading, the method further includes the step of
calculating Credit-Capital-At-Risk for at least one investment of
value units by at least one trader. In alternative further
preferred embodiments, the step of calculating
Credit-Capital-At-Risk includes the use of the
Credit-Capital-At-Risk Value-At-Risk method, the
Credit-Capital-At-Risk Monte Carlo Simulation method, or the
Credit-Capital-At-Risk Historical Simulation method.
[0058] In preferred embodiments of a method for conducting
demand-based trading of the present invention, at least one
investment of value units is a multi-state investment that
designates a set of defined states. In a further preferred
embodiment, at least one multi-state investment designates a set of
desired returns that is responsive to the designated set of defined
states, and the allocating step is further responsive to the set of
desired returns. In a further preferred embodiment, each desired
return of the set of desired returns is responsive to a subset of
the designated set of defined states. In an alternative preferred
embodiment, the set of desired returns approximately corresponds to
expected returns from a set of defined states of a prespecified
investment vehicle such as, for example, a particular call
option.
[0059] In preferred embodiments of a method for conducting
demand-based trading of the present invention, the allocating step
includes the steps of (a) calculating the required number of value
units of the multi-state investment that designates a set of
desired returns, and (b) distributing the value units of the
multi-state investment that designates a set of desired returns to
the plurality of defined states. In a further preferred embodiment,
the allocating step includes the step of solving a set of
simultaneous equations that relate traded amounts to unit payouts
and payout distributions; and the calculating step and the
distributing step are responsive to the solving step.
[0060] In preferred embodiment's of a method for conducting
demand-based trading of the present invention, the solving step
includes the step of fixed point iteration. In further preferred
embodiments, the step of fixed point iteration includes the steps
of (a) selecting an equation of the set of simultaneous equations
described above, the equation having an independent variable and at
least one dependent variable; (b) assigning arbitrary values to
each of the dependent variables in the selected equation; (c)
calculating the value of the independent variable in the selected
equation responsive to the currently assigned values of each the
dependent variables; (d) assigning the calculated value of the
independent variable to the independent variable; (e) designating
an equation of the set of simultaneous equations as the selected
equation; and (f) sequentially performing the calculating the value
step, the assigning the calculated value step, and the designating
an equation step until the value of each of the variables
converges.
[0061] A preferred embodiment of a method for estimating state
probabilities in a demand-based trading method of the present
invention includes the steps of: (a) performing a demand-based
trading method having a plurality of defined states and a plurality
of predetermined termination criteria, wherein an investment of
value units by each of a plurality of traders is accepted in at
least one of the defined states, and at least one of these defined
states corresponds to at least one possible outcome of an event of
economic significance; (b) monitoring the relative number of value
units invested in each of the defined states; and (c) estimating,
responsive to the monitoring step, the probability that a selected
defined state will be the defined state that occurs upon
fulfillment of all of the termination criteria.
[0062] An additional preferred embodiment of a method for
estimating state probabilities in a demand-based trading method
also includes performing, monitoring, and estimating steps. The
performing step includes performing a demand-based trading method
having a plurality of defined states and a plurality of
predetermined termination criteria, wherein an investment of value
units by each of a plurality of traders is accepted in at least one
of the defined states; and wherein each of the defined states
corresponds to a possible state of a selected financial product
when each of the termination criteria is fulfilled. The monitoring
step includes monitoring the relative number of value units
invested in each of the defined states. The estimating step
includes estimating, responsive to the monitoring step, the
probability that a selected defined state will be the defined state
that occurs upon fulfillment of all of the termination
criteria.
[0063] A preferred embodiment of a method for promoting liquidity
in a demand-based trading method of the present invention includes
the step of performing a demand-based trading method having a
plurality of defined states and a plurality of predetermined
termination criteria, wherein an investment of value units by each
of a plurality of traders is accepted in at least one of the
defined states and wherein any investment of value units cannot be
withdrawn after acceptance. Each of the defined states corresponds
to at least one possible outcome of an event of economic
significance. A further preferred embodiment of a method for
promoting liquidity in a demand-based trading method includes the
step of hedging. The hedging step includes the hedging of a
trader's previous investment of value units by making a new
investment of value units in one or more of the defined states not
invested in by the previous investment.
[0064] An additional preferred embodiment of a method for promoting
liquidity in a demand-based trading method includes the step of
performing a demand-based trading method having a plurality of
defined states and a plurality of predetermined termination
criteria, wherein an investment of value units by each of a
plurality of traders is accepted in at least one of the defined
states and wherein any investment of value units cannot be
withdrawn after acceptance, and each of the defined states
corresponds to a possible state of a selected financial product
when each of the termination criteria is fulfilled. A further
preferred embodiment of such a method for promoting liquidity in a
demand-based trading method includes the step of hedging. The
hedging step includes the hedging of a trader's previous investment
of value units by making a new investment of value units in one or
more of the defined states not invested in by the previous
investment.
[0065] A preferred embodiment of a method for conducting
quasi-continuous demand-based trading includes the steps of: (a)
establishing a plurality of defined states and a plurality of
predetermined termination criteria, wherein each of the defined
states corresponds to at least one possible outcome of an event;
(b) conducting a plurality of trading cycles, wherein each trading
cycle includes the step of accepting, during a predefined trading
period and prior to the fulfillment of all of the termination
criteria, an investment of value units by each of a plurality of
traders in at least one of the defined states; and (c) allocating a
payout to each investment. The allocating step is responsive to the
total number of the value units invested in the defined states
during each of the trading periods, the relative number of the
value units invested in each of the defined states during each of
the trading periods, and an identification of the defined state
that occurred upon fulfillment of all of the termination criteria.
In a further preferred embodiment of a method for conducting
quasi-continuous demand-based trading, the predefined trading
periods are sequential and do not overlap.
[0066] Another preferred embodiment of a method for conducting
demand-based trading includes the steps of: (a) establishing a
plurality of defined states and a plurality of predetermined
termination criteria, wherein each of the defined states
corresponds to one possible outcome of an event of economic
significance (or a financial instrument); (b) accepting, prior to
fulfillment of all of the termination criteria, an investment of
value units by each of a plurality of traders in at least one of
the plurality of defined states, with at least one investment
designating a range of possible outcomes corresponding to a set of
defined states; and (c) allocating a payout to each investment. In
such a preferred embodiment, the allocating step is responsive to
the total number of value units in the plurality of defined states,
the relative number of value units invested in each of the defined
states, and an identification of the defined state that occurred
upon the fulfillment of all of the termination criteria. Also in
such a preferred embodiment, the allocation is done so that
substantially the same payout is allocated to each state of the set
of defined states. This embodiment contemplates, among other
implementations, a market or exchange for contingent claims of the
present invention that provides--without traditional
sellers--profit and loss scenarios comparable to those expected by
traders in derivative securities known as digital options, where
payout is the same if the option expires anywhere in the money, and
where there is no payout if the option expires out of the
money.
[0067] Another preferred embodiment of the present invention
provides a method for conducting demand-based trading including:
(a) establishing a plurality of defined states and a plurality of
predetermined termination criteria, wherein each of the defined
states corresponds to one possible outcome of an event of economic
significance (or a financial instrument); (b) accepting, prior to
fulfillment of all of the termination criteria, a conditional
investment order by a trader in at least one of the plurality of
defined states; (c) computing, prior to fulfillment of all of the
termination criteria a probability corresponding to each defined
state; and (d) executing or withdrawing, prior to the fulfillment
of all of the termination criteria, the conditional investment
responsive to the computing step. In such embodiments, the
computing step is responsive to the total number of value units
invested in the plurality of defined states and the relative number
of value units invested in each of the plurality of defined states.
Such embodiments contemplate, among other implementations, a market
or exchange (again without traditional sellers) in which investors
can make and execute conditional or limit orders, where an order is
executed or withdrawn in response to a calculation of a probability
of the occurrence of one or more of the defined states. Preferred
embodiments of the system of the present invention involve the use
of electronic technologies, such as computers, computerized
databases and telecommunications systems, to implement methods for
conducting demand-based trading of the present invention.
[0068] A preferred embodiment of a system of the present invention
for conducting demand-based trading includes (a) means for
accepting, prior to the fulfillment of all predetermined
termination criteria, investments of value units by a plurality of
traders in at least one of a plurality of defined states, wherein
each of the defined states corresponds to at least one possible
outcome of an event of economic significance; and (b) means for
allocating a payout to each investment. This allocation is
responsive to the total number of value units invested in the
defined states, the relative number of value units invested in each
of the defined states, and the identification of the defined state
that occurred upon fulfillment of all of the termination
criteria.
[0069] An additional preferred embodiment of a system of the
present invention for conducting demand-based trading includes (a)
means for accepting, prior to the fulfillment of all predetermined
termination criteria, investments of value units by a plurality of
traders in at least one of a plurality of defined states, wherein
each of the defined states corresponds to a possible state of a
selected financial product when each of the termination criteria is
fulfilled; and (b) means for allocating a payout to each
investment. This allocation is responsive to the total number of
value units invested in the defined states, the relative number of
value units invested in each of the defined states, and the
identification of the defined state that occurred upon fulfillment
of all of the termination criteria.
[0070] A preferred embodiment of a demand-based trading apparatus
of the present invention includes (a) an interface processor
communicating with a plurality of traders and a market data system;
and (b) a demand-based transaction processor, communicating with
the interface processor and having a trade status database. The
demand-based transaction processor maintains, responsive to the
market data system and to a demand-based transaction with one of
the plurality of traders, the trade status database, and processes,
responsive to the trade status database, the demand-based
transaction.
[0071] In further preferred embodiments of a demand-based trading
apparatus of the present invention, maintaining the trade status
database includes (a) establishing a contingent claim having a
plurality of defined states, a plurality of predetermined
termination criteria, and at least one trading period, wherein each
of the defined states corresponds to at least one possible outcome
of an event of economic significance; (b) recording, responsive to
the demand-based transaction, an investment of value units by one
of the plurality of traders in at least one of the plurality of
defined states; (c) calculating, responsive to the total number of
the value units invested in the plurality of defined states during
each trading period and responsive to the relative number of the
value units invested in each of the plurality of defined states
during each trading period, finalized returns at the end of each
trading period; and (d) determining, responsive to an
identification of the defined state that occurred upon the
fulfillment of all of the termination criteria and to the finalized
returns, payouts to each of the plurality of traders; and
processing the demand-based transaction includes accepting, during
the trading period, the investment of value units by one of the
plurality of traders in at least one of the plurality of defined
states;
[0072] In an alternative further preferred embodiment of a
demand-based trading apparatus of the present invention,
maintaining the trade status database includes (a) establishing a
contingent claim having a plurality of defined states, a plurality
of predetermined termination criteria, and at least one trading
period, wherein each of the defined states corresponds to a
possible state of a selected financial product when each of the
termination criteria is fulfilled; (b) recording, responsive to the
demand-based transaction, an investment of value units by one of
the plurality of traders in at least one of the plurality of
defined states; (c) calculating, responsive to the total number of
the value units invested in the plurality of defined states during
each trading period and responsive to the relative number of the
value units invested in each of the plurality of defined states
during each trading period, finalized returns at the end of each
trading period; and (d) determining, responsive to an
identification of the defined state that occurred upon the
fulfillment of all of the termination criteria and to the finalized
returns, payouts to each of the plurality of traders; and
processing the demand-based transaction includes accepting, during
the trading period, the investment of value units by one of the
plurality of traders in at least one of the plurality of defined
states;
[0073] In further preferred embodiments of a demand-based trading
apparatus of the present invention, maintaining the trade status
database includes calculating return estimates; and processing the
demand-based transaction includes providing, responsive to the
demand-based transaction, the return estimates.
[0074] In further preferred embodiments of a demand-based trading
apparatus of the present invention, maintaining the trade status
database includes calculating risk estimates; and processing the
demand-based transaction includes providing, responsive to the
demand-based transaction, the risk estimates.
[0075] In further preferred embodiments of a demand-based trading
apparatus of the present invention, the demand-based transaction
includes a multi-state investment that specifies a desired payout
distribution and a set of constituent states; and maintaining the
trade status database includes allocating, responsive to the
multi-state investment, value units to the set of constituent
states to create the desired payout distribution. Such demand-based
transactions may also include multi-state investments that specify
the same payout if any of a designated set of states occurs upon
fulfillment of the termination criteria. Other demand-based
transactions executed by the demand-based trading apparatus of the
present invention include conditional investments in one or more
states, where the investment is executed or withdrawn in response
to a calculation of a probability of the occurrence of one or more
states upon the fulfillment of the termination criteria.
[0076] In an additional embodiment, systems and methods for
conducting demand-based trading includes the steps of (a)
establishing a plurality of states, each state corresponding to at
least one possible outcome of an event of economic significance;
(b) receiving an indication of a desired payout and an indication
of a selected outcome, the selected outcome corresponding to at
least one of the plurality of states; and (c) determining an
investment amount as a function of the selected outcome, the
desired payout and a total amount invested in the plurality of
states.
[0077] In another additional embodiment, systems and methods for
conducting demand-based trading includes the steps of (a)
establishing a plurality of states, each state corresponding to at
least one possible outcome of an event (whether or not such event
is an economic event); (b) receiving an indication of a desired
payout and an indication of a selected outcome, the selected
outcome corresponding to at least one of the plurality of states;
and (c) determining an investment amount as a function of the
selected outcome, the desired payout and a total amount invested in
the plurality of states.
[0078] In another additional embodiment, systems and methods for
conducting demand-based trading includes the steps of (a)
establishing a plurality of states, each state corresponding to at
least one possible outcome of an event of economic significance;
(b) receiving an indication of an investment amount and a selected
outcome, the selected outcome corresponding to at least one of the
plurality of states; and (c) determining a payout as a function of
the investment amount, the selected outcome, a total amount
invested in the plurality of states, and an identification of at
least one state corresponding to an observed outcome of the
event.
[0079] In another additional embodiment, systems and methods for
conducting demand-based trading include the steps of: (a) receiving
an indication of one or more parameters of a financial product; and
(b) determining one or more of a selected outcome, a desired
payout, an investment amount, and a limit on the investment amount
for each contingent claim in a set of one or more contingent claims
as a function of the one or more financial product parameters.
[0080] In another additional embodiment, systems and methods for
conducting demand-based trading include the steps of: (a) receiving
an indication of one or more parameters of a financial product; and
(b) determining an investment amount and a selected outcome for
each contingent claim in a set of one or more contingent claims as
a function of the one or more financial product parameters.
[0081] In another additional embodiment, a demand-enabled financial
product for trading in a demand-based auction includes a set of one
or more contingent claims, the set approximating a financial
product, each contingent claim in the set having an investment
amount and a selected outcome, each investment amount being
dependent upon one or more parameters of a financial product and a
total amount invested in the auction.
[0082] An object of the present invention is to provide systems and
methods to support and facilitate a market structure for contingent
claims related to observable events of economic significance, which
includes one or more of the following advantages, in addition to
those described above: [0083] 1. ready implementation and support
using electronic computing and networking technologies; [0084] 2.
reduction or elimination of the need to match bids to buy with
offers to sell in order to create a market for derivatives; [0085]
3. reduction or elimination of the need for a derivatives
intermediary to match bids and offers; [0086] 4. mathematical and
consistent calculation of returns based on demand for contingent
claims; [0087] 5. increased liquidity and liquidity incentives;
[0088] 6. statistical diversification of credit risk through the
mutualization of multiple derivatives counterparties; [0089] 7.
improved scalability by reducing the traditional linkage between
the method of pricing for contingent claims and the quantity of the
underlying claims available for investment; [0090] 8. increased
price transparency; [0091] 9. improved efficiency of information
aggregation mechanisms; [0092] 10. reduction of event risk, such as
the risk of discontinuous market events such as crashes; [0093] 11.
opportunities for binding offers of liquidity to the market; [0094]
12. reduced incentives for strategic behavior by traders; [0095]
13. increased market for contingent claims; [0096] 14. improved
price discovery; [0097] 15. improved self-consistency; [0098] 16.
reduced influence by market makers; [0099] 17. ability to
accommodate virtually unlimited demand; [0100] 18. ability to
isolate risk exposures; [0101] 19. increased trading precision,
transaction certainty and flexibility; [0102] 20. ability to create
valuable new markets with a sustainable competitive advantage;
[0103] 21. new source of fee revenue without putting capital at
risk; and [0104] 22. increased capital efficiency.
[0105] A further object of the present invention is to provide
systems and methods for the electronic exchange of contingent
claims related to observable events of economic significance, which
includes one or more of the following advantages: [0106] 1. reduced
transaction costs, including settlement and clearing costs,
associated with derivatives transactions and insurable claims;
[0107] 2. reduced dependence on complicated valuation models for
trading and risk management of derivatives; [0108] 3. reduced need
for an exchange or market maker to manage market risk by hedging;
[0109] 4. increased availability to traders of accurate and
up-to-date information on the trading of contingent claims,
including information regarding the aggregate amounts invested
across all states of events of economic significance, and including
over varying time periods; [0110] 5. reduced exposure of the
exchange to credit risk; [0111] 6. increased availability of
information on credit risk and market risk borne by traders of
contingent claims; [0112] 7. increased availability of information
on marginal returns from trades and investments that can be
displayed instantaneously after the returns adjust during a trading
period; [0113] 8. reduced need for a derivatives intermediary or
exchange to match bids and offers; [0114] 9. increased ability to
customize demand-based adjustable return (DBAR) payouts to permit
replication of traditional financial products and their
derivatives; [0115] 10. comparability of profit and loss scenarios
to those expected by traders for purchases and sales of digital
options and other derivatives, without conventional sellers; [0116]
11. increased data generation; and [0117] 12. reduced exposure of
the exchange to market risk.
[0118] Additional objects and advantages of the invention are set
forth in part in the description which follows, and in part are
obvious from the description, or may be learned by practice of the
invention. The objects and advantages of the invention may also be
realized and attained by means of the instrumentalities, systems,
methods and steps set forth in the appended claims.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0119] The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated in and
from a part of the specification, illustrate embodiments of the
present invention and, together with the description, serve to
explain the principles of the invention.
[0120] FIG. 1 is a schematic view of various forms of
telecommunications between DBAR trader clients and a preferred
embodiment of a DBAR contingent claims exchange implementing the
present invention.
[0121] FIG. 2 is a schematic view of a central controller of a
preferred embodiment of a DBAR contingent claims exchange network
architecture implementing the present invention.
[0122] FIG. 3 is a schematic depiction of the trading process on a
preferred embodiment of a DBAR contingent claims exchange.
[0123] FIG. 4 depicts data storage devices of a preferred
embodiment of a DBAR contingent claims exchange.
[0124] FIG. 5 is a flow diagram illustrating the processes of a
preferred embodiment of DBAR contingent claims exchange in
executing a DBAR range derivatives investment.
[0125] FIG. 6 is an illustrative HTML interface page of a preferred
embodiment of a DBAR contingent claims exchange.
[0126] FIG. 7 is a schematic view of market data flow to a
preferred embodiment of a DBAR contingent claims exchange.
[0127] FIG. 8 is an illustrative graph of the implied liquidity
effects for a group of DBAR contingent claims.
[0128] FIG. 9a is a schematic representation of a traditional
interest rate swap transaction.
[0129] FIG. 9b is a schematic of investor relationships for an
illustrative group of DBAR contingent claims.
[0130] FIG. 9c shows a tabulation of credit ratings and margin
trades for each investor in to an illustrative group of DBAR
contingent claims.
[0131] FIG. 10 is a schematic view of a feedback process for a
preferred embodiment of DBAR contingent claims exchange.
[0132] FIG. 11 depicts illustrative DBAR data structures for use in
a preferred embodiment of a Demand-Based Adjustable Return Digital
Options Exchange of the present invention.
[0133] FIG. 12 depicts a preferred embodiment of a method for
processing limit and market orders in a Demand-Based Adjustable
Return Digital Options Exchange of the present invention.
[0134] FIG. 13 depicts a preferred embodiment of a method for
calculating a multistate composite equilibrium in a Demand-Based
Adjustable Return Digital Options Exchange of the present
invention.
[0135] FIG. 14 depicts a preferred embodiment of a method for
calculating a multistate profile equilibrium in a Demand-Based
Adjustable Return Digital Options Exchange of the present
invention.
[0136] FIG. 15 depicts a preferred embodiment of a method for
converting "sale" orders to buy orders in a Demand-Based Adjustable
Return Digital Options Exchange of the present invention.
[0137] FIG. 16: depicts a preferred embodiment of a method for
adjusting implied probabilities for demand-based adjustable return
contingent claims to account for transaction or exchange fees in a
Demand-Based Adjustable Return Digital Options Exchange of the
present invention.
[0138] FIG. 17 depicts a preferred embodiment of a method for
filling and removing lots of limit orders in a Demand-Based
Adjustable Return Digital Options Exchange of the present
invention.
[0139] FIG. 18 depicts a preferred embodiment of a method of payout
distribution and fee collection in a Demand-Based Adjustable Return
Digital Options Exchange of the present invention.
[0140] FIG. 19 depicts illustrative DBAR data structures used in
another embodiment of a Demand-Based Adjustable Return Digital
Options Exchange of the present invention.
[0141] FIG. 20 depicts another embodiment of a method for
processing limit and market orders in another embodiment of a
Demand-Based Adjustable Return Digital Options Exchange of the
present invention.
[0142] FIG. 21 depicts an upward shift in the earnings expectations
curve which can be protected by trading digital options and other
contingent claims on earnings in successive quarters according to
the embodiments of the present invention.
[0143] FIG. 22 depicts a network implementation of a demand-based
market or auction according to the embodiments of the present
invention.
[0144] FIG. 23 depicts cash flows for each participant trading a
principle-protected ECI-linked FRN.
[0145] FIG. 24 depicts an example time line for a demand-based
market trading DBAR-enabled FRNs or swaps according to the
embodiments of the present invention.
[0146] FIG. 25 depicts an example of an embodiment of a
demand-based market or auction with digital options and
DBAR-enabled products.
[0147] FIG. 26 depicts an example of simple graphical
representations of digital calls, puts, spreads, and strips.
[0148] FIG. 27 depicts the results of a grouping process for a set
of illustrative and assumed digital puts and calls.
[0149] FIG. 28 shows a dependence of whether a fixed point
iteration will converge on the value of the first derivative of a
function g(x) in the neighborhood of the fixed point.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
[0150] This Detailed Description of Preferred Embodiments is
organized into eleven sections. The first section provides an
overview of systems and methods for trading or investing in groups
of DBAR contingent claims. The second section describes in detail
some of the important features of systems and methods for trading
or investing in groups of DBAR contingent claims. The third section
of this Detailed Description of Preferred Embodiments provides
detailed descriptions of two preferred embodiments of the present
invention: investments in a group of DBAR contingent claims, and
investments in a portfolio of groups of such claims. The fourth
section discusses methods for calculating risks attendant on
investments in groups and portfolios of groups of DBAR contingent
claims. The fifth section of this Detailed Description addresses
liquidity and price/quantity relationships in preferred embodiments
of systems and methods of the present invention. The sixth section
provides a detailed description of a DBAR Digital Options Exchange.
The seventh section provides a detailed description of another
embodiment of a DBAR Digital Options Exchange. The eighth section
presents a network implementation of this DBAR Digital Options
Exchange. The ninth section presents a structured instrument
implementation of a demand-based market or auction. The tenth
section presents a detailed description of the figures accompanying
this specification. The eleventh section of the Detailed
Description discusses some of the salient advantages of the methods
and systems of the present invention. The twelfth section is a
Technical Appendix providing additional information on the
multistate allocation method of the present invention. The last
section is a conclusion of the DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0151] More specifically, this Detailed Description of the
Preferred Embodiments is organized as follows:
[0152] 1 Overview: Exchanges and Markets for DBAR Contingent claims
[0153] 1.1 Exchange Design [0154] 1.2 Market Operation [0155] 1.3
Network Implementation
[0156] 2 Features of DBAR Contingent claims [0157] 2.1 DBAR
Contingent Claim Notation [0158] 2.2 Units of Investment and
Payouts [0159] 2.3 Canonical Demand Reallocation Functions [0160]
2.4 Computing Investment Amounts to Achieve Desired Payouts [0161]
2.5 A Canonical DRF Example [0162] 2.6 Interest Considerations
[0163] 2.7 Returns and Probabilities [0164] 2.8 Computations When
Invested Amounts are Large
[0165] 3 Examples of Groups of DBAR Contingent claims [0166] 3.1
DBAR Range Derivatives [0167] 3.2 DBAR Portfolios
[0168] 4 Risk Calculations in Groups of DBAR Contingent claims
[0169] 4.1 Market Risk [0170] 4.1.1 Capital-At-Risk Determinations
[0171] 4.1.2 Capital-At-Risk Determinations Using Monte Carlo
Simulation Techniques [0172] 4.1.3 Capital-At-Risk Determinations
Using Historical Simulation Techniques [0173] 4.2 Credit Risk
[0174] 4.2.1 Credit-Capital-At-Risk Determinations [0175] 4.2.2
Credit-Capital-At-Risk Determinations using Monte Carlo Simulation
Techniques [0176] 4.2.3 Credit-Capital-At-Risk Historical
Simulation Techniques
[0177] 5 Liquidity and Price/Quantity Relationships
[0178] 6 DBAR Digital Options Exchange [0179] 6.1 Representation of
Digital Options as DBAR Contingent Claims [0180] 6.2 Construction
of Digital Options Using DBAR Methods and Systems [0181] 6.3
Digital Option Spreads [0182] 6.4 Digital Option Strips [0183] 6.5
Multistate Allocation Algorithm for Replicating "Sell" Trades
[0184] 6.6 Clearing and Settlement [0185] 6.7 Contract
Initialization [0186] 6.8 Conditional Investments, or Limit Orders
[0187] 6.9 Sensitivity Analysis and Depth of Limit Order Book
[0188] 6.10 Networking of DBAR Digital Options Exchanges
[0189] 7 DBAR DOE: Another Embodiment [0190] 7.1 Special Notation
[0191] 7.2 Elements of Example DBAR DOE Embodiment [0192] 7.3
Mathematical Principles [0193] 7.4 Equilibrium Algorithm [0194] 7.5
Sell Orders [0195] 7.6 Arbitrary Payout Options [0196] 7.7 Limit
Order Book Optimization [0197] 7.8 Transaction Fees [0198] 7.9 An
Embodiment of the Algorithm to Solve the Limit Order Book
Optimization [0199] 7.10 Limit Order Book Display [0200] 7.11
Unique Price Equilibrium Proof
[0201] 8 Network Implementation
[0202] 9 Structured Instrument Trading [0203] 9.1 Overview:
Customer Oriented DBAR-enabled Products [0204] 9.2 Overview: FRNs
and swaps [0205] 9.3 Parameters: FRNs and swaps vs. digital options
[0206] 9.4 Mechanics: DBAR-enabling FRNs and swaps [0207] 9.5
Example: Mapping FRNs into Digital Option Space [0208] 9.6
Conclusion
[0209] 10 Detailed Description of the Drawings
[0210] 11 Advantages of Preferred Embodiments
[0211] 12 Technical Appendix
[0212] 13 Conclusion
[0213] In this specification, including the description of
preferred embodiments of the present invention, specific
terminology will be used for the sake of clarity. However, the
invention is not intended to be limited to the specific terms so
used, and it is to be understood that each specific term includes
all equivalents.
1. OVERVIEW
Exchanges and Markets for DBAR Contingent Claims
[0214] 1.1 Exchange Design
[0215] This section describes preferred methods for structuring
DBAR contingent claims and for designing exchanges for the trading
of such claims. The design of the exchange is important for
effective contingent claims investment in accordance with the
present invention. Preferred embodiments of such systems include
processes for establishing defined states and allocating returns,
as described below. [0216] (a) Establishing Defined States: In a
preferred embodiment, a distribution of possible outcomes for an
observable event is partitioned into defined ranges or states. In a
preferred embodiment, one state always occurs because the states
are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. Traders in such
an embodiment invest on their expectation of a return resulting
from the occurrence of a particular outcome within a selected
state. Such investments allow traders to hedge the possible
outcomes of real-world events of economic significance represented
by the states. In a preferred embodiment of a group of DBAR
contingent claims, unsuccessful trades or investments finance the
successful trades or investments. In such an embodiment the states
for a given contingent claim preferably are defined in such a way
that the states are mutually exclusive and form the basis of a
probability distribution, namely, the sum of the probabilities of
all the uncertain outcomes is unity. For example, states
corresponding to stock price closing values can be established to
support a group of DBAR contingent claims by partitioning the
distribution of possible closing values for the stock on a given
future date into ranges. The distribution of future stock prices,
discretized in this way into defined states, forms a probability
distribution in the sense that each state is mutually exclusive,
and the sum of the probabilities of the stock closing within each
defined state at the given date is unity. [0217] In a preferred
embodiment, traders can simultaneously invest in selected multiple
states within a given distribution, without immediately breaking up
their investment to fit into each defined states selected for
investment. Traders thus may place multi-state investments in order
to replicate a desired distribution of returns from a group of
contingent claims. This may be accomplished in a preferred
embodiment of a DBAR exchange through the use of suspense accounts
in which multi-state investments are tracked and reallocated
periodically as returns adjust in response to amounts invested
during a trading period. At the end of a given trading period, a
multi-state investment may be reallocated to achieve the desired
distribution of payouts based upon the final invested amounts
across the distribution of states. Thus, in such a preferred
embodiment, the invested amount allocated to each of the selected
states, and the corresponding respective returns, are finalized
only at the closing of the trading period. An example of a
multi-state investment illustrating the use of such a suspense
account is provided in Example 3.1.2, below. Other examples of
multi-state investments are provided in Section 6, below, which
describes embodiments of the present invention that implement DBAR
Digital Options Exchanges. [0218] (b) Allocating Returns: In a
preferred embodiment of a group of DBAR contingent claims according
to the present invention, returns for each state are specified. In
such an embodiment, while the amount invested for a given trade may
be fixed, the return is adjustable. Determination of the returns
for a particular state can be a simple function of the amount
invested in that state and the total amount invested for all of the
defined states for a group of contingent claims. However, alternate
preferred embodiments can also accommodate methods of return
determination that include other factors in addition to the
invested amounts. For example, in a group of DBAR contingent claims
where unsuccessful investments fund returns to successful
investments, the returns can be allocated based on the relative
amounts invested in each state and also on properties of the
outcome, such as the magnitude of the price changes in underlying
securities. An example in section 3.2 below illustrates such an
embodiment in the context of a securities portfolio. [0219] (c)
Determining Investment Amounts: In another embodiment, a group of
DBAR contingent claims can be modeled as digital options, providing
a predetermined or defined payout if they expire in-the-money, and
providing no payout if they expire out-of-the-money. In this
embodiment, the investor or trader specifies a requested payout for
a DBAR digital option, and selects the outcomes for which the
digital option will expire "in the money," and can specify a limit
on the amount they wish to invest in such a digital option. Since
the payout amount per digital option (or per an order for a digital
option) is predetermined or defined, investment amounts for each
digital option are determined at the end of the trading period
along with the allocation of payouts per digital option as a
function of the requested payouts, selected outcomes (and limits on
investment amounts, if any) for each of the digital options ordered
during the trading period, and the total amount invested in the
auction or market. This embodiment is described in Section 7 below,
along with another embodiment of demand-based markets or auctions
for digital options described in Section 6 below.
[0220] 1.2 Market Operation [0221] (a) Termination Criteria: In a
preferred embodiment of a method of the present invention, returns
to investments in the plurality of defined states are allocated
(and in another embodiment for DBAR digital options, investment
amounts are determined) after the fulfillment of one or more
predetermined termination criteria. In preferred embodiments, these
criteria include the expiration of a "trading period" and the
determination of the outcome of the relevant event after an
"observation period." In the trading period, traders invest on
their expectation of a return resulting from the occurrence of a
particular outcome within a selected defined state, such as the
state that IBM stock will close between 120 and 125 on. Jul. 6,
1999. In a preferred embodiment, the duration of the trading period
is known to all participants; returns associated with each state
vary during the trading period with changes in invested amounts;
and returns are allocated based on the total amount invested in all
states relative to the amounts invested in each of the states as at
the end of the trading period. [0222] Alternatively, the duration
of the trading period can be unknown to the participants. The
trading period can end, for example, at a randomly selected time.
Additionally, the trading period could end depending upon the
occurrence of some event associated or related to the event of
economic significance, or upon the fulfillment of some criterion.
For example, for DBAR contingent claims traded on reinsurance risk
(discussed in Section 3 below), the trading period could close
after an nth catastrophic natural event (e.g., a fourth hurricane),
or after a catastrophic event of a certain magnitude (e.g., an
earthquake of a magnitude of 5.5 or higher on the Richter scale).
The trading period could also close after a certain volume, amount,
or frequency of trading is reached in a respective auction or
market. [0223] The observation period can be provided as a time
period during which the contingent events are observed and the
relevant outcomes determined for the purpose of allocating returns.
In a preferred embodiment, no trading occurs during the observation
period. [0224] The expiration date, or "expiration," of a group of
DBAR contingent claims as used in this specification occurs when
the termination criteria are fulfilled for that group of DBAR
contingent claims. In a preferred embodiment, the expiration is the
date, on or after the occurrence of the relevant event, when the
outcome is ascertained or observed. This expiration is similar to
well-known expiration features in traditional options or futures in
which a future date, i.e., the expiration date, is specified as the
date upon which the value of the option or future will be
determined by reference to the value of the underlying financial
product on the expiration date. [0225] The duration of a contingent
claim as defined for purposes of this specification is simply the
amount of time remaining until expiration from any given reference
date. A trading start date ("TSD") and a trading end date ("TED"),
as used in the specification, refer to the beginning and end of a
time period ("trading period") during which traders can make
investments in a group of DBAR contingent claims. Thus, the time
during which a group of DBAR contingent claims is open for
investment or trading, i.e., the difference between the TSD and
TED, may be referred to as the trading period. In preferred
embodiments, there can be one or many trading periods for a given
expiration date, opening successively through time. For example,
one trading period's TED may coincide exactly with the subsequent
trading period's TSD, or in other examples, trading periods may
overlap. [0226] The relationship between the duration of a
contingent claim, the number of trading periods employed for a
given event, and the length and timing of the trading periods, can
be arranged in a variety of ways to maximize trading or achieve
other goals. In preferred embodiments at least one trading period
occurs--that is, starts and ends--prior in time to the
identification of the outcome of the relevant event. In other
words, in preferred embodiments, the trading period will most
likely temporally precede the event defining the claim. This need
not always be so, since the outcome of an event may not be known
for some time thereby enabling trading periods to end (or even
start) subsequent to the occurrence of the event, but before its
outcome is known. [0227] A nearly continuous or "quasi-continuous"
market can be made available by creating multiple trading periods
for the same event, each having its own closing returns. Traders
can make investments during successive trading periods as the
returns change. In this way, profits-and-losses can be realized at
least as frequently as in current derivatives markets. This is how
derivatives traders currently are able to hedge options, futures,
and other derivatives trades. In preferred embodiments of the
present invention, traders may be able to realize profits and at
varying frequencies, including more frequently than daily. [0228]
(b) Market Efficiency and Fairness: Market prices reflect, among
other things, the distribution of information available to segments
of the participants transacting in the market. In most markets,
some participants will be better informed than others. In
house-banking or traditional markets, market makers protect
themselves from more informed counterparties by increasing their
bid-offer spreads. [0229] In preferred embodiments of DBAR
contingent claim markets, there may be no market makers as such who
need to protect themselves. It may nevertheless be necessary to put
in place methods of operation in such markets in order to prevent
manipulation of the outcomes underlying groups of DBAR contingent
claims or the returns payable for various outcomes. One such
mechanism is to introduce an element of randomness as to the time
at which a trading period closes. Another mechanism to minimize the
likelihood and effects of market manipulation is to introduce an
element of randomness to the duration of the observation period.
For example, a DBAR contingent claim might settle against an
average of market closing prices during a time interval that is
partially randomly determined, as opposed to a market closing price
on a specific day. [0230] Additionally, in preferred embodiments
incentives can be employed in order to induce traders to invest
earlier in a trading period rather than later. For example, a DRF
may be used which allocates slightly higher returns to earlier
investments in a successful state than later investments in that
state. For DBAR digital options, an OPF may be used which
determines slightly lower (discounted) prices for earlier
investments than later investments. Earlier investments may be
valuable in preferred embodiments since they work to enhance
liquidity and promote more uniformly meaningful price information
during the trading period. [0231] (c) Credit Risk: In preferred
embodiments of a DBAR contingent claims market, the dealer or
exchange is substantially protected from primary market risk by the
fundamental principle underlying the operation of the system--that
returns to successful investments are funded by losses from
unsuccessful investments. The credit risk in such preferred
embodiments is distributed among all the market participants. If,
for example, leveraged investments are permitted within a group of
DBAR contingent claims, it may not be possible to collect the
leveraged unsuccessful investments in order to distribute these
amounts among the successful investments. [0232] In almost all such
cases there exists, for any given trader within a group of DBAR
contingent claims, a non-zero possibility of default, or credit
risk. Such credit risk is, of course, ubiquitous to all financial
transactions facilitated with credit. [0233] One way to address
this risk is to not allow leveraged investments within the group of
DBAR contingent claims, which is a preferred embodiment of the
system and methods of the present invention. In other preferred
embodiments, traders in a DBAR exchange may be allowed to use
limited leverage, subject to real-time margin monitoring, including
calculation of a trader's impact on the overall level of credit
risk in the DBAR system and the particular group of contingent
claims. These risk management calculations should be significantly
more tractable and transparent than the types of analyses credit
risk managers typically perform in conventional derivatives markets
in order to monitor counterparty credit risk. [0234] An important
feature of preferred embodiments of the present invention is the
ability to provide diversification of credit risk among all the
traders who invest in a group of DBAR contingent claims. In such
embodiments, traders make investments (in the units of value as
defined for the group) in a common distribution of states in the
expectation of receiving a return if a given state is determined to
have occurred. In preferred embodiments, all traders, through their
investments in defined states for a group of contingent claims,
place these invested amounts with a central exchange or
intermediary which, for each trading period, pays the returns to
successful investments from the losses on unsuccessful investments.
In such embodiments, a given trader has all the other traders in
the exchange as counterparties, effecting a mutualization of
counterparties and counterparty credit risk exposure. Each trader
therefore assumes credit risk to a portfolio of counterparties
rather than to a single counterparty. [0235] Preferred embodiments
of the DBAR contingent claim and exchange of the present invention
present four principal advantages in managing the credit risk
inherent in leveraged transactions. First, a preferred form of DBAR
contingent claim entails limited liability investing. Investment
liability is limited in these embodiments in the sense that the
maximum amount a trader can lose is the amount invested. In this
respect, the limited liability feature is similar to that of a long
option position in the traditional markets. By contrast, a short
option position in traditional markets represents a potentially
unlimited liability investment since the downside exposure can
readily exceed the option premium and is, in theory, unbounded.
Importantly, a group of DBAR contingent claims of the present
invention can easily replicate returns of a traditional short
option position while maintaining limited liability. The limited
liability feature of a group of DBAR contingent claims is a direct
consequence of the demand-side nature of the market. More
specifically, in preferred embodiments there are no sales or short
positions as there are in the traditional markets, even though
traders in a group of DBAR contingent claims may be able to attain
the return profiles of traditional short positions. [0236] Second,
in preferred embodiments, a trader within a group of DBAR
contingent claims should have a portfolio of counterparties as
described above. As a consequence, there should be a statistical
diversification of the credit risk such that the amount of credit
risk borne by any one trader is, on average (and in all but
exceptionally rare cases), less than if there were an exposure to a
single counterparty as is frequently the case in traditional
markets. In other words, in preferred embodiments of the system and
methods of the present invention, each trader is able to take
advantage of the diversification effect that is well known in
portfolio analysis. [0237] Third, in preferred embodiments of the
present invention, the entire distribution of margin loans, and the
aggregate amount of leverage and credit risk existing for a group
of DBAR contingent claims, can be readily calculated and displayed
to traders at any time before the fulfillment of all of the
termination criteria for the group of claims. Thus, traders
themselves may have access to important information regarding
credit risk. In traditional markets such information is not readily
available. [0238] Fourth, preferred embodiments of a DBAR
contingent claim exchange provide more information about the
distribution of possible outcomes than do traditional market
exchanges. Thus, as a byproduct of DBAR contingent claim trading
according to preferred embodiments, traders have more information
about the distribution of future possible outcomes for real-world
events, which they can use to manage risk more effectively. For
many traders, a significant part of credit risk is likely to be
caused by market risk. Thus, in preferred embodiments of the
present invention, the ability through an exchange or otherwise to
control or at least provide information about market risk should
have positive feedback effects for the management of credit
risk.
[0239] A simple example of a group of DBAR contingent claims with
the following assumptions, illustrates some of these features. The
example uses the following basic assumptions: [0240] two defined
states (with predetermined termination criteria): (i) stock price
appreciates in one month; (ii) stock price depreciates in one
month; and [0241] $100 has been invested in the appreciate state,
and $95 in the depreciate state.
[0242] If a trader then invests $1 in the appreciate state, if the
stock in fact appreciates in the month, then the trader will be
allocated a payout of $1.9406 (= 196/101)--a return of $0.9406 plus
the original $1 investment (ignoring, for the purpose of simplicity
in this illustration, a transaction fee). If, before the close of
the trading period the trader desires effectively to "sell" his
investment in the appreciate state, he has two choices. He could
sell the investment to a third party, which would necessitate
crossing of a bid and an offer in a two-way order crossing network.
Or, in a preferred embodiment of the method of the present
invention, the trader can invest in the depreciate state, in
proportion to the amount that had been invested in that state not
counting the trader's "new" investments. In this example, in order
to fully hedge his investment in the appreciate state, the trader
can invest $0.95 ( 95/100) in the depreciate state. Under either
possible outcome, therefore, the trader will receive a payout of
$1.95, i.e., if the stock appreciates the trader will receive
196.95/101=$1.95 and if the stock depreciates the trader will
receive (196.95/95.95)*0.95=$1.95.
[0243] 1.3 Network Implementation
[0244] A market or exchange for groups of DBAR contingent claims
market according to the invention is not designed to establish a
counterparty-driven or order-matched market. Buyers' bids and
sellers' offers do not need to be "crossed." As a consequence of
the absence of a need for an order crossing network, preferred
embodiments of the present invention are particularly amenable to
large-scale electronic network implementation on a wide area
network or a private network (with, e.g., dedicated circuits) or
the public Internet, for example.
[0245] Preferred embodiments of an electronic network-based
embodiment of the method of trading in accordance with the
invention include one or more of the following features. [0246] (a)
User Accounts: DBAR contingent claims investment accounts are
established using electronic methods. [0247] (b) Interest and
Margin Accounts: Trader accounts are maintained using electronic
methods to record interest paid to traders on open DBAR contingent
claim balances and to debit trader balances for margin loan
interest. Interest is typically paid on outstanding investment
balances for a group of DBAR contingent claims until the
fulfillment of the termination criteria. Interest is typically
charged on outstanding margin loans while such loans are
outstanding. For some contingent claims, trade balance interest can
be imputed into the closing returns of a trading period. [0248] (c)
Suspense Accounts: These accounts relate specifically to
investments which have been made by traders, during trading
periods, simultaneously in multiple states for the same event.
Multi-state trades are those in which amounts are invested over a
range of states so that, if any of the states occurs, a return is
allocated to the trader based on the closing return for the state
which in fact occurred. DBAR digital options of the present
invention, described in Section 6, provide other examples of
multi-state trades. [0249] A trader can, of course, simply break-up
or divide the multi-state investment into many separate,
single-state investments, although this approach might require the
trader to keep rebalancing his portfolio of single state
investments as returns adjust throughout the trading period as
amounts invested in each state change. [0250] Multi-state trades
can be used in order to replicate any arbitrary distribution of
payouts that a trader may desire. For example, a trader might want
to invest in all states in excess of a given value or price for a
security underlying a contingent claim, e.g., the occurrence that a
given stock price exceeds 100 at some future date. The trader might
also want to receive an identical payout no matter what state
occurs among those states. For a group of DBAR contingent claims
there may well be many states for outcomes in which the stock price
exceeds 100 (e.g., greater than 100 and less than or equal to 101;
greater than 101 and less than or equal to 102, etc.). In order to
replicate a multi-state investment using single state investments,
a trader would need continually to rebalance the portfolio of
single-state investments so that the amount invested in the
selected multi-states is divided among the states in proportion to
the existing amount invested in those states. Suspense accounts can
be employed so that the exchange, rather than the trader, is
responsible for rebalancing the portfolio of single-state
investments so that, at the end of the trading period, the amount
of the multi-state investment is allocated among the constituent
states in such a way so as to replicate the trader's desired
distribution of payouts. Example 3.1.2 below illustrates the use of
suspense accounts for multi-state investments. [0251] (d)
Authentication: Each trader may have an account that may be
authenticated using authenticating data. [0252] (e) Data Security:
The security of contingent claims transactions over the network may
be ensured, using for example strong forms of public and private
key encryption. [0253] (f) Real-Time Market Data Server: Real-time
market data may be provided to support frequent calculation of
returns and to ascertain the outcomes during the observation
periods. [0254] (g) Real-Time Calculation Engine Server: Frequent
calculation of market returns may increase the efficient
functioning of the market. Data on coupons, dividends, market
interest rates, spot prices, and other market data can be used to
calculate opening returns at the beginning of a trading period and
to ascertain observable events during the observation period.
Sophisticated simulation methods may be required for some groups of
DBAR contingent claims in order to estimate expected returns, at
least at the start of a trading period. [0255] (h) Real-Time Risk
Management Server: In order to compute trader margin requirements,
expected returns for each trader should be computed frequently.
Calculations of "value-at-risk" in traditional markets can involve
onerous matrix calculations and Monte Carlo simulations. Risk
calculations in preferred embodiments of the present invention are
simpler, due to the existence of information on the expected
returns for each state. Such information is typically unavailable
in traditional capital and reinsurance markets. [0256] (i) Market
Data Storage: A DBAR contingent claims exchange in accordance with
the invention may generate valuable data as a byproduct of its
operation. These data are not readily available in traditional
capital or insurance markets. In a preferred embodiment of the
present invention, investments may be solicited over ranges of
outcomes for market events, such as the event that the 30-year U.S.
Treasury bond will close on a given date with a yield between 6.10%
and 6.20%. Investment in the entire distribution of states
generates data that reflect the expectations of traders over the
entire distribution pf possible outcomes. The network
implementation disclosed in this specification may be used to
capture, store and retrieve these data. [0257] (j) Market
Evaluation Server: Preferred embodiments of the method of the
present invention include the ability to improve the market's
efficiency on an ongoing basis. This may readily be accomplished,
for example, by comparing the predicted returns on a group of DBAR
contingent claims returns with actual realized outcomes. If
investors have rational expectations, then DBAR contingent claim
returns will, on average, reflect trader expectations, and these
expectations will themselves be realized on average. In preferred
embodiments, efficiency measurements are made on defined states and
investments over the entire distribution of possible outcomes,
which can then be used for statistical time series analysis with
realized outcomes. The network implementation of the present
invention may therefore include analytic servers to perform these
analyses for the purpose of continually improving the efficiency of
the market.
2. Features of DBAR Contingent Claims
[0258] In a preferred embodiment, a group of a DBAR contingent
claims related to an observable event includes one or more of the
following features: [0259] (1) A defined set of collectively
exhaustive states representing possible real-world outcomes related
to an observable event. In preferred embodiments, the events are
events of economic significance. The possible outcomes can
typically be units of measurement associated with the event, e.g.,
an event of economic interest can be the closing index level of the
S&P 500 one month in the future, and the possible outcomes can
be entire range of index levels that are possible in one month. In
a preferred embodiment, the states are defined to correspond to one
or more of the possible outcomes over the entire range of possible
outcomes, so that defined states for an event form a countable and
discrete number of ranges of possible outcomes, and are
collectively exhaustive in the sense of spanning the entire range
of possible outcomes. For example, in a preferred embodiment,
possible outcomes for the S&P 500 can range from greater than 0
to infinity (theoretically), and a defined state could be those
index values greater than 1000 and less than or equal to 1100. In
such preferred embodiments, exactly one state occurs when the
outcome of the relevant event becomes known. [0260] (2) The ability
for traders to place trades on the designated states during one or
more trading periods for each event. In a preferred embodiment, a
DBAR contingent claim group defines the acceptable units of trade
or value for the respective claim. Such units may be dollars,
barrels of oil, number of shares of stock, or any other unit or
combination of units accepted by traders and the exchange for
value. [0261] (3) An accepted determination of the outcome of the
event for determining which state or states have occurred. In a
preferred embodiment, a group of DBAR contingent claims defines the
means by which the outcome of the relevant events is determined.
For example, the level that the S&P 500 Index actually closed
on a predetermined date would be an outcome observation which would
enable the determination of the occurrence of one of the defined
states. A closing value of 1050 on that date, for instance, would
allow the determination that the state between 1000 and 1100
occurred. [0262] (4) The specification of a DRF which takes the
traded amount for each trader for each state across the
distribution of states as that distribution exists at the end of
each trading period and calculates payouts for each investments in
each state conditioned upon the occurrence of each state. In
preferred embodiments, this is done so that the total amount of
payouts does not exceed the total amount invested by all the
traders in all the states. The DRF can be used to show payouts
should each state occur during the trading period, thereby
providing to traders information as to the collective level of
interest of all traders in each state. [0263] (5) For DBAR digital
options, the specification of an OPF which takes the requested
payout and selection of outcomes and limits on investment amounts
(if any) per digital option at the end of each trading period and
calculates the investment amounts per digital option, along with
the payouts for each digital option in each state conditioned upon
the occurrence of each state. In this other embodiment, this is
done by solving a nonlinear optimization problem which uses the DRF
along with a series of other parameters to determine an optimal
investment amount per digital option while maximizing the possible
payout per digital option. [0264] (6) Payouts to traders for
successful investments based on the total amount of the
unsuccessful investments after deduction of the transaction fee and
after fulfillment of the termination criteria. [0265] (7) For DBAR
digital options, investment amounts per digital option after
factoring in the transaction fee and after fulfillment of the
termination criteria.
[0266] The states corresponding to the range of possible event
outcomes are referred to as the "distribution" or "distribution of
states." Each DBAR contingent claim group or "contract" is
typically associated with one distribution of states. The
distribution will typically be defined for events of economic
interest for investment by traders having the expectation of a
return for a reduction of risk ("hedging"), or for an increase of
risk ("speculation"). For example, the distribution can be based
upon the values of stocks, bonds, futures, and foreign exchange
rates. It can also be based upon the values of commodity indices,
economic statistics (e.g., consumer price inflation monthly
reports), property-casualty losses, weather patterns for a certain
geographical region, and any other measurable or observable
occurrence or any other event in which traders would not be
economically indifferent even in the absence of a trade on the
outcome of the event.
[0267] 2.1 DBAR Claim Notation
[0268] The following notation is used in this specification to
facilitate further description of DBAR contingent claims: [0269] m
represents the number of traders for a given group of DBAR
contingent [0270] n represents the number of states for a given
distribution associated with a given group of DBAR contingent
claims [0271] A represents a matrix with m rows and n columns,
where the element at the i-th row and j-th column, .alpha..sub.i,j,
is the amount that trader i has invested in state j in the
expectation of a return should state j occur [0272] .PI. represents
a matrix with n rows and n columns where element .pi..sub.i,j is
the payout per unit of investment in, state i should state j occur
("unit payouts") [0273] R represents a matrix with n rows and n
columns where element r.sub.i,j is the return per unit of
investment in state i should state j occur, i.e.,
r.sub.i,j=.pi..sub.i,j-1 ("unit returns") [0274] P represents a
matrix with m rows and n columns, where the element at the i-th row
and j-th column, p.sub.i,j, is the payout to be made to trader i
should state j occur, i.e., P is equal to the matrix product
A*.PI.. [0275] P.sub.*j, represents the j-th column of P, for j=1 .
. . n, which contains the payouts to each investment should state j
occur [0276] P.sub.i,* represents the i-th row of P, for i=1 . . .
m, which contains the payouts to trader i [0277] s.sub.i where i=1
. . . n, represents a state representing a range of possible
outcomes of an observable event. [0278] T.sub.i where i=1 . . . n,
represents the total amount traded in the expectation of the
occurrence of state i [0279] T represents the total traded amount
over the entire distribution of states, i.e.,
[0279] T = i = 1 n T i ##EQU00001## [0280] f(A,X) represents the
exchange's transaction fee, which can depend on the entire
distribution of traded amounts placed across all the states as well
as other factors, X, some of which are identified below. For
reasons of brevity, for the remainder of this specification unless
otherwise stated, the transaction fee is assumed to be a fixed
percentage of the total amount traded over all the states. [0281]
c.sub.p represents the interest rate charged on margin loans.
[0282] c.sub.r represents the interest rate paid on trade balances.
[0283] t represents time from the acceptance of a trade or
investment to the fulfillment of all of the termination criteria
for the group of DBAR contingent claims, typically expressed in
years or fractions thereof. [0284] X represents other information
upon which the DRF or transaction fee can depend such as
information specific to an investment or a trader, including for
example the time or size of a trade.
[0285] In preferred embodiments, a DRF is a function that takes the
traded amounts over the distribution of states for a given group of
DBAR contingent claims, the transaction fee schedule, and,
conditional upon the occurrence of each state, computes the payouts
to each trade or investment placed over the distribution of states.
In notation, such a DRF is:
P=DRF(A,f(A,X),X|s=s.sub.i)=A*.PI.(A,f(A,X),X) (DRF)
[0286] In other words, the m traders who have placed trades across
the n states, as represented in matrix A, will receive payouts as
represented in matrix P should state i occur, also, taking into
account the transaction fee f and other factors X. The payouts
identified in matrix P can be represented as the product of (a) the
payouts per unit traded for each state should each state occur, as
identified in the matrix .PI., and (b) the matrix A which
identifies the amounts traded or invested by each trader in each
state. The following notation may be used to indicate that, in
preferred embodiments, payouts should not exceed the total amounts
invested less the transaction fee, irrespective of which state
occurs:
1.sub.m.sup.T*P.sub.*,j+f(A,X)<=1.sub.m.sup.T*A*1.sub.n for j=1
. . . n (DRF Constraint)
where the 1 represents a column vector with dimension indicated by
the subscript, the superscript T represents the standard transpose
operator and P.sub.*,j is the j-th column of the matrix P
representing the payouts to be made to each trader should state j
occur. Thus, in preferred embodiments, the unsuccessful investments
finance the successful investments. In addition, absent
credit-related risks discussed below, in such embodiments there is
no risk that payouts will exceed the total amount invested in the
distribution of states, no matter what state occurs. In short, a
preferred embodiment of a group of DBAR contingent claims of the
present invention is self-financing in the sense that for any
state, the payouts plus the transaction fee do not exceed the
inputs (i.e., the invested amounts).
[0287] The DRF may depend on factors other than the amount of the
investment and the state in which the investment was made. For
example, a payout may depend upon the magnitude of a change in the
observed outcome for an underlying event between two dates (e.g.,
the change in price of a security between two dates). As another
example, the DRF may allocate higher payouts to traders who
initiated investments earlier in the trading period than traders
who invested later in the trading period, thereby providing
incentives for liquidity earlier in the trading period.
Alternatively, the DRF may allocate higher payouts to larger
amounts invested in a given state than to smaller amounts invested
for that state, thereby providing another liquidity incentive.
[0288] In any event, there are many possible functional forms for a
DRF that could be used. To illustrate, one trivial form of a DRF is
the case in which the traded amounts, A, are not reallocated at all
upon the occurrence of any state, i.e., each trader receives his
traded amount back in the event that any state occurs, as indicated
by the following notation:
P=A if s=s.sub.i, for i=1 . . . n
This trivial DRF is not useful in allocating and exchanging risk
among hedgers.
[0289] For a meaningful risk exchange to occur, a preferred
embodiment of a DRF should effect a meaningful reallocation of
amounts invested across the distribution of states upon the
occurrence of at least one state. Groups of DBAR contingent claims
of the present invention are discussed in the context of a
canonical DRF, which is a preferred embodiment in which the amounts
invested in states which did not occur are completely reallocated
to the state which did occur (less any transaction fee). The
present invention is not limited to a canonical DRF, and many other
types of DRFs can be used and may be preferred to implement a group
of DBAR contingent claims. For example, another DRF preferred
embodiment allocates half the total amount invested to the outcome
state and rebates the remainder of the total amount invested to the
states which did not occur. In another preferred embodiment, a DRF
would allocate some percentage to an occurring state, and some
other percentage to one or more "nearby" or "adjacent" states with
the bulk of the non-occurring states receiving zero payouts.
Section 7 decribes an OPF for DBAR digital options which includes a
DRF and determines investment amounts per investment or order along
with allocating returns. Other DRFs will be apparent to those of
skill in the art from review of this specification and practice of
the present invention.
[0290] 2.2 Units of Investments and Payouts
[0291] The units of investments and payouts in systems and methods
of the present invention may be units of currency, quantities of
commodities, numbers of shares of common stock, amount of a swap
transaction or any other units representing economic value. Thus,
there is no limitation that the investments or payouts be in units
of currency or money (e.g., U.S. dollars) or that the payouts
resulting from the DRF be in the same units as the investments.
Preferably, the same unit of value is used to represent the value
of each investment, the total amount of all investments in a group
of DBAR contingent claims, and the amounts invested in each
state.
[0292] It is possible, for example, for traders to make investments
in a group of DBAR contingent claims in numbers of shares of common
stock and for the applicable DRF (or OPF) to allocate payouts to
traders in Japanese Yen or barrels of oil. Furthermore, it is
possible for traded amounts and payouts to be some combination of
units, such as, for example, a combination of commodities,
currencies, and number of shares. In preferred embodiments traders
need not physically deposit or receive delivery of the value units,
and can rely upon the DBAR contingent claim exchange to convert
between units for the purposes of facilitating efficient trading
and payout transactions. For example, a DBAR contingent claim might
be defined in such a way so that investments and payouts are to be
made in ounces of gold. A trader can still deposit currency, e.g.,
U.S. dollars, with the exchange and the exchange can be responsible
for converting the amount invested in dollars into the correct
units, e.g., gold, for the purposes of investing in a given state
or receiving a payout. In this specification, a U.S. dollar is
typically used as the unit of value for investments and payouts.
This invention is not limited to investments or payouts in that
value unit. In situations where investments and payouts are made in
different units or combinations of units, for purpose of allocating
returns to each investment the exchange preferably converts the
amount of each investment, and thus the total of the investments in
a group of DBAR contingent claims, into a single unit of value
(e.g., dollars). Example 3.1.20 below illustrates a group of DBAR
contingent claims in which investments and payouts are in units of
quantities of common stock shares.
[0293] 2.3 Canonical Demand Reallocation Function
[0294] A preferred embodiment of a DRF that can be used to
implement a group of DBAR contingent claims is termed a "canonical"
DRF. A canonical DRF is a type of DRF which has the following
property: upon the occurrence of a given state I, investors who
have invested in that state receive a payout per unit invested
equal to (a) the total amount traded for all the states less the
transaction fee, divided by (b) the total amount invested in the
occurring state. A canonical DRF may employ a transaction fee which
may be a fixed percentage of the total amount traded, T, although
other transaction fees are possible. Traders who made investments
in states which not did occur receive zero payout. Using the
notation developed above:
.pi. i , j = ( 1 - f ) * T T i ##EQU00002##
if i=j, i.e., the unit payout to an investment in state i if state
i occurs [0295] .pi..sub.i,j=0 otherwise, i.e., if i.noteq.j, so
that the payout is zero to investments in state i if state j
occurs. In a preferred embodiment of a canonical DRF, the unit
payout matrix .PI. as defined above is therefore a diagonal matrix
with entries equal to .pi..sub.i,j for i=j along the diagonal, and
zeroes for all off-diagonal entries. For example, in a preferred
embodiment for n=5 states, the unit payout matrix is:
[0295] .PI. = [ T T 1 0 0 0 0 0 T T 2 0 0 0 0 0 T T 3 0 0 0 0 0 T T
4 0 0 0 0 0 T T 5 ] * ( 1 - f ) = [ 1 T 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 T 2 0 0 0 0 0
1 T 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 T 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 T 5 ] * T * ( 1 - f )
##EQU00003##
For this embodiment of a canonical DRF, the payout matrix is the
total amount invested less the transaction fee, multiplied by a
diagonal matrix which contains the inverse of the total amount
invested in each state along the diagonal, respectively, and zeroes
elsewhere. Both T, the total amount invested by all m traders
across all n states, and T.sub.i, the total amount invested in
state I, are functions of the matrix A, which contains the amount
each trader has invested in each state:
T.sub.i=1.sub.m.sup.T*A*B.sub.n(i)
T=1.sub.m.sup.T*A*1.sub.n
where B.sub.n(i) is a column vector of dimension n which has a 1 at
the i-th row and zeroes elsewhere. Thus, with n=5 as an example,
the canonical DRF described above has a unit payout matrix which is
a function of the amounts traded across the states and the
transaction fee:
.PI. = [ 1 1 m T * A * B n ( 1 ) 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 m T * A * B n ( 2 )
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 m T * A * B n ( 3 ) 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 m T * A * B n ( 4 )
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 m T * A * B n ( 5 ) ] * 1 m T * A * 1 n * ( 1 - f )
##EQU00004##
which can be generalized for any arbitrary number of states. The
actual payout matrix, in the defined units of value for the group
of DBAR contingent claims (e.g., dollars), is the product of the
m.times.n traded amount matrix A and the n.times.n unit payout
matrix .PI., as defined above:
P=A*.PI.(A,f) (CDRF)
This provides that the payout matrix as defined above is the matrix
product of the amounts traded as contained in the matrix A and the
unit payout matrix .PI., which is itself a function of the matrix A
and the transaction fee, f. The expression is labeled CDRF for
"Canonical Demand Reallocation Function."
[0296] It should be noted that, in this preferred embodiment, any
change to the matrix A will generally have an effect on any given
trader's payout, both due to changes in the amount invested, i.e.,
a direct effect through the matrix A in the CDRF, and changes in
the unit payouts, i.e., an indirect effect since the unit payout
matrix .PI. is itself a function of the traded amount matrix A.
[0297] 2.4 Computing Investment Amounts to Achieve Desired
Payouts
[0298] In preferred embodiments of a group of DBAR contingent
claims of the present invention, some traders make investments in
states during the trading period in the expectation of a payout
upon the occurrence of a given state, as expressed in the CDRF
above. Alternatively, a trader may have a preference for a desired
payout distribution should a given state occur. DBAR digital
options, described in Section 6, are an example of an investment
with a desired payout distribution should one or more specified
states occur. Such a payout distribution could be denoted
P.sub.i,*, which is a row corresponding to trader i in payout
matrix P. Such a trader may want to know how much to invest in
contingent claims corresponding to a given state or states in order
to achieve this payout distribution. In a preferred embodiment, the
amount or amounts to be invested across the distribution of states
for the CDRF, given a payout distribution, can be obtained by
inverting the expression for the CDRF and solving for the traded
amount matrix A:
A=P*.PI.(A,f).sup.-1 (CDRF 2)
In this notation, the -1 superscript on the unit payout matrix
denotes a matrix inverse.
[0299] Expression CDRF 2 does not provide an explicit solution for
the traded amount matrix A, since the unit payout matrix .PI. is
itself a function of the traded amount matrix. CDRF 2 typically
involves the use of numerical methods to solve m simultaneous
quadratic equations. For example, consider a trader who would like
to know what amount, .alpha., should be traded for a given state i
in order to achieve a desired payout of p. Using the "forward"
expression to compute payouts from traded amounts as in CDRF above
yields the following equation:
p = ( T + .alpha. T i + .alpha. ) * .alpha. ##EQU00005##
This represents a given row and column of the matrix equation CDRF
after a has been traded for state i (assuming no transaction fee).
This expression is quadratic in the traded amount .alpha., and can
be solved for the positive quadratic root as follows:
.alpha. = ( p - T ) + ( p - T ) 2 + 4 * p * T i 2 ( CDRF 3 )
##EQU00006##
[0300] 2.5 A Canonical DRF Example
[0301] A simplified example illustrates the use of the CDRF with a
group of DBAR contingent claims defined over two states (e.g.,
states "1" and "2") in which four traders make investments. For the
example, the following assumptions are made: (1) the transaction
fee, f, is zero; (2) the investment and payout units are both
dollars; (3) trader 1 has made investments in the amount of $5 in
state 1 and $10 state 2; and (4) trader 2 has made an investment in
the amount of $7 for state 1 only. With the investment activity so
far described, the traded amount matrix A, which as 4 rows and 2
columns, and the unit payout matrix .PI. which has 2 rows and 2
columns, would be denoted as follows:
A = 5 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 ##EQU00007## .PI. = [ 1 12 0 0 1 10 ] * 22
##EQU00007.2##
[0302] The payout matrix P, which contains the payouts in dollars
for each trader should each state occur is, the product of A and
.PI.:
P = 9.167 22 12.833 0 0 0 0 0 ##EQU00008##
The first row of P corresponds to payouts to trader 1 based on his
investments and the unit payout matrix. Should state 1 occur,
trader 1 will receive a payout of $9.167 and will receive $22
should state 2 occur. Similarly, trader 2 will receive $12.833
should state 1 occur and $0 should state 2 occur (since trader 2
did not make any investment in state 2). In this illustration,
traders 3 and 4 have $0 payouts since they have made no
investments.
[0303] In accordance with the expression above labeled "DRF
Constraint," the total payouts to be made upon the occurrence of
either state is less than or equal to the total amounts invested.
In other words, the CDRF in this example is self-financing so that
total payouts plus the transaction fee (assumed to be zero in this
example) do not exceed the total amounts invested, irrespective of
which state occurs. This is indicated by the following
notation:
1.sub.m.sup.T*P.sub.*,1=22.ltoreq.1.sub.m.sup.T*A*1.sub.n=22
1.sub.m.sup.T*P.sub.*,2=22.ltoreq.1.sub.m.sup.T*A*1.sub.n=22
[0304] Continuing with this example, it is now assumed that traders
3 and 4 each would like to make investments that generate a desired
payout distribution. For example, it is assumed that trader 3 would
like to receive a payout of $2 should state 1 occur and $4 should
state 2 occur, while trader 4 would like to receive a payout of $5
should state 1 occur and $0 should state 2 occur. In the CDRF
notation:
P.sub.3,*=[2 4]
P.sub.4,*=[5 0]
[0305] In a preferred embodiment and this example, payouts are made
based upon the invested amounts A, and therefore are also based on
the unit payout matrix .PI.(A,f(A)), given the distribution of
traded amounts as they exist at the end of the trading period. For
purposes of this example, it is now further assumed (a) that at the
end of the trading period traders 1 and 2 have made investments as
indicated above, and (b) that the desired payout distributions for
traders 3 and 4 have been recorded in a suspense account which is
used to determine the allocation of multi-state investments to each
state in order to achieve the desired payout distributions for each
trader, given the investments by the other traders as they exist at
the end of the trading period. In order to determine the proper
allocation, the suspense account can be used to solve CDRF 2, for
example:
[ 5 10 7 0 .alpha. 3 , 1 .alpha. 3 , 2 .alpha. 4 , 1 .alpha. 4 , 2
] = [ p 1 , 1 p 1 , 2 p 2 , 1 p 2 , 2 2 4 5 0 ] * [ 1 ( 5 + 7 +
.alpha. 3 , 1 + .alpha. 4 , 1 ) 0 0 1 ( 10 + 0 + .alpha. 3 , 2 +
.alpha. 4 , 2 ) ] cont ' d below * ( 5 + 10 + 7 + 0 + .alpha. 3 , 1
+ .alpha. 4 , 1 + .alpha. 3 , 2 + .alpha. 4 , 2 ) ##EQU00009##
The solution of this expression will yield the amounts that traders
3 and 4 need to invest in for contingent claims corresponding to
states 1 and 2 to in order to achieve their desired payout
distributions, respectively. This solution will also finalize the
total investment amount so that traders 1 and 2 will be able to
determine their payouts should either state occur. This solution
can be achieved using a computer program that computes an
investment amount for each state for each trader in order to
generate the desired payout for that trader for that state. In a
preferred embodiment, the computer program repeats the process
iteratively until the calculated investment amounts converge, i.e.,
so that the amounts to be invested by traders 3 and 4 no longer
materially change with each successive iteration of the
computational process. This method is known in the art as fixed
point iteration and is explained in more detail in the Technical
Appendix. The following table contains a computer code listing of
two functions written in Microsoft's Visual Basic which can be used
to perform the iterative calculations to compute the final
allocations of the invested amounts in this example of a group of
DBAR contingent claims with a Canonical Demand Reallocation
Function:
TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Illustrative Visual Basic Computer Code for
Solving CDRF 2 Function allocatetrades(A_mat, P_mat) As Variant Dim
A_final Dim trades As Long Dim states As Long trades =
P_mat.Rows.Count states = P_mat.Columns.Count ReDim A_final(1 To
trades, 1 To states) ReDim statedem(1 To states) Dim i As Long Dim
totaldemand As Double Dim total desired As Double Dim iterations As
Long iterations = 10 For i = 1 To trades For j = 1 To states
statedem(j) = A_mat(i, j) + statedem(j) A_final(i, j) = A_mat(i, j)
Next j Next i For i = 1 To states totaldemand = totaldemand +
statedem(i) Next i For i = 1 To iterations For j = 1 To trades For
z = 1 To states If A_mat(j, z) = 0 Then totaldemand = totaldemand -
A_final(j, z) statedem(z) = statedem(z) - A_final(j, z) tempalloc =
A_final(j, z) A_final(j, z) = stateall(totaldemand, P_mat(j, z),
statedem(z)) totaldemand = A_final(j, z) + totaldemand statedem(z)
= A_final(j, z) + statedem(z) End If Next z Next j Next i
allocatetrades = A_final End Function Function stateall(totdemex,
despaystate, totstateex) Dim sol1 As Double sol1 = (-(totdemex -
despaystate) + ((totdemex - despaystate) {circumflex over ( )} 2 +
4 * despaystate * totstateex) {circumflex over ( )} 0.5) / 2
stateall = sol1 End Function
For this example involving two states and four traders, use of the
computer code represented in Table 1 produces an investment amount
matrix A, as follows:
A = 5 10 7 0 1.1574 1.6852 2.8935 0 ##EQU00010##
The matrix of unit payouts, .PI., can be computed from A as
described above and is equal to:
.PI. = 1.728 0 0 2.3736 ##EQU00011##
The resulting payout matrix P is the product of A and .PI. and is
equal to:
P = 8.64 23.7361 12.0961 0 2 4 5 0 ##EQU00012##
It can be noted that the sum of each column of P, above is equal to
27.7361, which is equal (in dollars) to the total amount invested
so, as desired in this example, the group of DBAR contingent claims
is self-financing. The allocation is said to be in equilibrium,
since the amounts invested by traders 1 and 2 are undisturbed, and
traders 3 and 4 receive their desired payouts, as specified above,
should each state occur.
[0306] 2.6 Interest Considerations
[0307] When investing in a group of DBAR contingent claims, traders
will typically have outstanding balances invested for periods of
time and may also have outstanding loans or margin balances from
the exchange for periods of time. Traders will typically be paid
interest on outstanding investment balances and typically will pay
interest on outstanding margin loans. In preferred embodiments, the
effect of trade balance interest and margin loan interest can be
made explicit in the payouts, although in alternate preferred
embodiments these items can be handled outside of the payout
structure, for example, by debiting and crediting user accounts.
So, if a fraction .beta. of a trade of one value unit is made with
cash and the rest on margin, the unit payout .pi..sub.i in the
event that state i occurs can be expressed as follows:
.pi. i = ( 1 - f ) * T T i + .beta. * ( c r ) * t b - ( 1 - .beta.
) * ( c p ) * t l ##EQU00013##
where the last two terms express the respective credit for trade
balances per unit invested for time t.sub.b and debit for margin
loans per unit invested for time t.sub.1.
[0308] 2.7 Returns and Probabilities
[0309] In a preferred embodiment of a group of DBAR contingent
claims with a canonical DRF, returns which represent the percentage
return per unit of investment are closely related to payouts. Such
returns are also closely related to the notion of a financial
return familiar to investors. For example, if an investor has
purchased a stock for $100 and sells it for $110, then this
investor has realized a return of 10% (and a payout of $110).
[0310] In a preferred embodiment of a group of DBAR contingent
claims with a canonical DRF, the unit return, r.sub.i, should state
i occur may be expressed as follows:
r i = ( 1 - f ) * i = 1 n T i - T i T i ##EQU00014##
if state i occurs [0311] r.sub.i=-1 otherwise, i.e., if state i
does not occur
[0312] In such an embodiment, the return per unit investment in a
state that occurs is a function of the amount invested in that
state, the amount invested in all the other states and the exchange
fee. The unit return is -100% for a state that does not occur,
i.e., the entire amount invested in the expectation of receiving a
return if a state occurs is forfeited if that state fails to occur.
A--100% return in such an event has the same return profile as, for
example, a traditional option expiring "out of the money." When a
traditional option expires out of the money, the premium decays to
zero, and the entire amount invested in the option is lost.
[0313] For purposes of this specification, a payout is defined as
one plus the return per unit invested in a given state multiplied
by the amount that has been invested in that state. The sum of all
payouts P.sub.s for a group of DBAR contingent claims corresponding
to all n possible states can be expressed as follows:
P s = ( 1 + r i ) * T i + j , j .noteq. i ( 1 + r j ) * T j 1 , j =
1 n ##EQU00015##
In a preferred embodiment employing a canonical DRF, the payout
P.sub.s may be found for the occurrence of state i by substituting
the above expressions for the unit return in any state:
p S = ( ( 1 - f ) * i = 1 n T i - T i T i + 1 ) * T i + j , j
.noteq. i ( - 1 + 1 ) * T j = ( 1 - f ) * i = 1 n T i
##EQU00016##
[0314] Accordingly, in such a preferred embodiment, for the
occurrence of any given state, no matter what state, the aggregate
payout to all of the traders as a whole is one minus the
transaction fee paid to the exchange (expressed in this preferred
embodiment as a percentage of total investment across all the
states), multiplied by the total amount invested across all the
states for the group of DBAR contingent claims. This means that in
a preferred embodiment of a group of the DBAR contingent claims,
and assuming no credit or similar risks to the exchange, (1) the
exchange has zero probability of loss in any given state; (2) for
the occurrence of any given state, the exchange receives an
exchange fee and is not exposed to any risk; (3) payouts and
returns are a function of demand flow, i.e., amounts invested; and
(4) transaction fees or exchange fees can be a simple function of
aggregate amount invested.
[0315] Other transaction fees can be implemented. For example, the
transaction fee might have a fixed component for some level of
aggregate amount invested and then have either a sliding or fixed
percentage applied to the amount of the investment in excess of
this level. Other methods for determining the transaction fee are
apparent to those of skill in the art, from this specification or
based on practice of the present invention.
[0316] In a preferred embodiment, the total distribution of amounts
invested in the various states also implies an assessment by all
traders collectively of the probabilities of occurrence of each
state. In a preferred embodiment of a group of DBAR contingent
claims with a canonical DRF, the expected return E(r.sub.i) for an
investment in a given state i (as opposed to the return actually
received once outcomes are known) may be expressed as the
probability weighted sum of the returns:
E(r.sub.i)=q.sub.i*r.sub.i+(1-q.sub.i)*-1=q.sub.i*(1+r.sub.i)-1
Where q.sub.i is the probability of the occurrence of state i
implied by the matrix A (which contains all of the invested amounts
for all states in the group of DBAR contingent claims).
Substituting the expression for r.sub.i from above yields:
E ( r i ) = q i * ( ( 1 - f ) * i T i T i ) - 1 ##EQU00017##
[0317] In an efficient market, the expected return E(r.sub.i)
across all states is equal to the transaction costs of trading,
i.e., on average, all traders collectively earn returns that do not
exceed the costs of trading. Thus, in an efficient market for a
group of DBAR contingent claims using a canonical, where E(r.sub.i)
equals the transaction fee, -f, the probability of the occurrence
of state i implied by matrix A is computed to be:
q i = T i i T i ##EQU00018##
[0318] Thus, in such a group of DBAR contingent claims, the implied
probability of a given state is the ratio of the amount invested in
that state divided by the total amount invested in all states. This
relationship allows traders in the group of DBAR contingent claims
(with a canonical DRF) readily to calculate the implied probability
which traders attach to the various states.
[0319] Information of interest to a trader typically includes the
amounts invested per state, the unit return per state, and implied
state probabilities. An advantage of the DBAR exchange of the
present invention is the relationship among these quantities. In a
preferred embodiment, if the trader knows one, the other two can be
readily determined. For example, the relationship of unit returns
to the occurrence of a state and the probability of the occurrence
of that state implied by A can be expressed as follows:
q i = ( 1 - f ) ( 1 + r i ) ##EQU00019##
[0320] The expressions derived above show that returns and implied
state probabilities may be calculated from the distribution of the
invested amounts, T.sub.i, for all states, i=1 . . . n. In the
traditional markets, the amount traded across the distribution of
states (limit order book), is not readily available. Furthermore,
in traditional markets there are no such ready mathematical
calculations that relate with any precision invested amounts or the
limit order book to returns or prices which clear the market, i.e.,
prices at which the supply equals the demand. Rather, in the
traditional markets, specialist brokers and market makers typically
have privileged access to the distribution of bids and offers, or
the limit order book, and frequently use this privileged
information in order to set market prices that balance supply and
demand at any given time in the judgment of the market maker.
[0321] 2.8 Computations When Invested Amounts Are Large
[0322] In a preferred embodiment of a group of DBAR contingent
claims using a canonical DRF, when large amounts are invested
across the distribution of states, it may be possible to perform
approximate investment allocation calculations in order to generate
desired payout distributions. The payout, p, should state i occur
for a trader who considers making an investment of size a in state
i has been shown above to be:
p = ( T + .alpha. T i + .alpha. ) * .alpha. ##EQU00020##
If .alpha. is small compared to both the total invested in state i
and the total amount invested in all the states, then adding a to
state i will not have a material effect on the ratio of the total
amount invested in all the states to the total amount invested in
state i. In these circumstances,
T + .alpha. T i + .alpha. .apprxeq. T T i ##EQU00021##
Thus, in preferred embodiments where an approximation is
acceptable, the payout to state i may be expressed as:
p .apprxeq. T T i * .alpha. ##EQU00022##
In these circumstances, the investment needed to generate the
payout p is:
.alpha. .apprxeq. T i T * p = q i * p ##EQU00023##
These expressions indicate that in preferred embodiments, the
amount to be invested to generate a desired payout is approximately
equal to the ratio of the total amount invested in state i to the
total amount invested in all states, multiplied by the desired
payout. This is equivalent to the implied probability multiplied by
the desired payout. Applying this approximation to the expression
CDRF 2, above, yields the following:
A.apprxeq.P*.PI..sup.-1=P*Q
where the matrix Q, of dimension n.times.n, is equal to the inverse
of unit payouts n, and has along the diagonals q.sub.i for i=1 . .
. n. This expression provides an approximate but more readily
calculable solution to CDRF 2 as the expression implicitly assumes
that an amount invested by a trader has approximately no effect on
the existing unit payouts or implied probabilities. This
approximate solution, which is linear and not quadratic, will
sometimes be used in the following examples where it can be assumed
that the total amounts invested are large in relation to any given
trader's particular investment.
3. Examples of Groups of DBAR Contingent Claims
[0323] 3.1 DBAR Range Derivatives
[0324] A DBAR Range Derivative (DBAR RD) is a type of group of DBAR
contingent claims implemented using a canonical DRF described above
(although a DBAR range derivative can also be implemented, for
example, for a group of DBAR contingent claims, including DBAR
digital options, based on the same ranges and economic events
established below using, e.g., a non-canonical DRF and an OPF). In
a DBAR RD, a range of possible outcomes associated with an
observable event of economic significance is partitioned into
defined states. In a preferred embodiment, the states are defined
as discrete ranges of possible outcomes so that the entire
distribution of states covers all the possible outcomes--that is,
the states are collectively exhaustive. Furthermore, in a DBAR RD,
states are preferably defined so as to be mutually exclusive as
well, meaning that the states are defined in such a way so that
exactly one state occurs. If the states are defined to be both
mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, the states form the
basis of a probability distribution defined over discrete outcome
ranges. Defining the states in this way has many advantages as
described below, including the advantage that the amount which
traders invest across the states can be readily converted into
implied probabilities representing the collective assessment of
traders as to the likelihood of the occurrence of each state.
[0325] The system and methods of the present invention may also be
applied to determine projected DBAR RD returns for various states
at the beginning of a trading period. Such a determination can be,
but need not be, made by an exchange. In preferred embodiments of a
group of DBAR contingent claims the distribution of invested
amounts at the end of a trading period determines the returns for
each state, and the amount invested in each state is a function of
trader preferences and probability assessments of each state.
Accordingly, some assumptions typically need to be made in order to
determine preliminary or projected returns for each state at the
beginning of a trading period.
[0326] An illustration is provided to explain further the operation
of DBAR RDs. In the following illustration, it is assumed that all
traders are risk neutral so that implied probabilities for a state
are equal to the actual probabilities, and so that all traders have
identical probability assessments of the possible outcomes for the
event defining the contingent claim. For convenience in this
illustration, the event forming the basis for the contingent claims
is taken to be a closing price of a security, such as a common
stock, at some future date; and the states, which represent the
possible outcomes of the level of the closing price, are defined to
be distinct, mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive of the
range of (possible) closing prices for the security. In this
illustration, the following notation is used: [0327] .tau.
represents a given time during the trading period at which traders
are making investment decisions [0328] .theta. represents the time
corresponding to the expiration of the contingent claim [0329]
V.sub..tau. represents the price of underlying security at time
.tau. [0330] V.sub..theta. represents the price of underlying
security at time .theta. [0331] Z(.tau.,.theta.) represents the
present value of one unit of value payable at time .theta.
evaluated at time [0332] D(.tau.,.theta.) represents dividends or
coupons payable between time .tau. and .theta. [0333] .sigma..sub.t
represents annualized volatility of natural logarithm returns of
the underlying security [0334] dz represents the standard normal
variate Traders make choices at a representative time, .tau.,
during a trading period which is open, so that time .tau. is
temporally subsequent to the current trading period's TSD.
[0335] In this illustration, and in preferred embodiments, the
defined states for the group of contingent claims for the final
closing price V.sub..theta. are constructed by discretizing the
full range of possible prices into possible mutually exclusive and
collectively exhaustive states. The technique is similar to forming
a histogram for discrete countable data. The endpoints of each
state can be chosen, for example, to be equally spaced, or of
varying spacing to reflect the reduced likehood of extreme outcomes
compared to outcomes near the mean or median of the distribution.
States may also be defined in other manners apparent to one of
skill in the art. The lower endpoint of a state can be included and
the upper endpoint excluded, or vice versa. In any event, in
preferred embodiments, the states are defined (as explained below)
to maximize the attractiveness of investment in the group of DBAR
contingent claims, since it is the invested amounts that ultimately
determine the returns that are associated with each defined
state.
[0336] The procedure of defining states, for example for a stock
price, can be accomplished by assuming lognormality, by using
statistical estimation techniques based on historical time series
data and cross-section market data from options prices, by using
other statistical distributions, or according to other procedures
known to one of skill in the art or learned from this specification
or through practice of the present invention. For example, it is
quite common among derivatives traders to estimate volatility
parameters for the purpose of pricing options by using the
econometric techniques such as GARCH. Using these parameters and
the known dividend or coupons over the time period from .tau. to
.theta., for example, the states for a DBAR RD can be defined.
[0337] A lognormal distribution is chosen for this illustration
since it is commonly employed by derivatives traders as a
distributional assumption for the purpose of evaluating the prices
of options and other derivative securities. Accordingly, for
purposes of this illustration it is assumed that all traders agree
that the underlying distribution of states for the security are
lognormally distributed such that:
V ~ .theta. = ( V .tau. Z ( .tau. , .theta. ) - D ( .tau. , .theta.
) Z ( .tau. , .theta. ) ) * - .sigma. 2 / 2 * ( .theta. - .tau. ) *
.sigma. * .theta. - .tau. * dz ##EQU00024##
where the "tilde" on the left-hand side of the expression indicates
that the final closing price of the value of the security at time
.theta. is yet to be known. Inversion of the expression for dz and
discretization of ranges yields the following expressions:
dz = ln ( V .theta. * .sigma. 2 2 * ( .theta. - .tau. ) ( V .tau. Z
( .tau. , .theta. ) - D ( .tau. , .theta. ) Z ( .tau. , .theta. ) )
) / ( .sigma. * .theta. - .tau. ) ##EQU00025## q i ( V i <= V
.theta. < V i + 1 ) = cdf ( dz i + 1 ) - cdf ( dz i )
##EQU00025.2## r i ( V i <= V .theta. < V i + 1 ) = ( 1 - f )
q i ( V i <= V .theta. < V i + 1 ) - 1 ##EQU00025.3##
where cdf(dz) is the cumulative standard normal function.
[0338] The assumptions and calculations reflected in the
expressions presented above can also be used to calculate
indicative returns ("opening returns"), r.sub.i at a beginning of
the trading period for a given group of DBAR contingent claims. In
a preferred embodiment, the calculated opening returns are based on
the exchange's best estimate of the probabilities for the states
defining the claim and therefore may provide good indications to
traders of likely returns once trading is underway. In another
preferred embodiment, described with respect to DBAR digital
options in Section 6 and another embodiment described in Section 7,
a very small number of value units may be used in each state to
initialize the contract or group of contingent claims. Of course,
opening returns need not be provided at all, as traded amounts
placed throughout the trading period allows the calculation of
actual expected returns at any time during the trading period.
[0339] The following examples of DBAR range derivatives and other
contingent claims serve to illustrate their operation, their
usefulness in connection with a variety of events of economic
significance involving inherent risk or uncertainty, the advantages
of exchanges for groups of DBAR contingent claims, and, more
generally, systems and methods of the present invention. Sections 6
and 7 also provide examples of DBAR contingent claims of the
present invention that provide profit and loss scenarios comparable
to those provided by digital options in conventional options
markets, and that can be based on any of the variety of events of
economic signficance described in the following examples of DBAR
RDs.
[0340] In each of the examples in this Section, a state is defined
to include a range of possible outcomes of an event of economic
significance. The event of economic significance for any DBAR
auction or market (including any market or auction for DBAR digital
options) can be, for example, an underlying economic event (e.g.,
price of stock) or a measured parameter related to the underlying
economic event (e.g., a measured volatility of the price of stock).
A curved brace "("or")" denotes strict inequality (e.g., "greater
than" or "less than," respectively) and a square brace "]" or "["
shall denote weak inequality (e.g., "less than or equal to" or
"greater than or equal to," respectively). For simplicity, and
unless otherwise stated, the following examples also assume that
the exchange transaction fee, f, is zero.
Example 3.1.1
DBAR Contingent Claim On Underlying Common Stock
[0341] Underlying Security: Microsoft Corporation Common Stock
("MSFT") [0342] Date: Aug. 18, 1999 [0343] Spot Price: 85 [0344]
Market Volatility: 50% annualized [0345] Trading Start Date: Aug.
18, 1999, Market Open [0346] Trading End Date: Aug. 18, 1999,
Market Close [0347] Expiration: Aug. 19, 1999, Market Close [0348]
Event: MSFT Closing Price at Expiration [0349] Trading Time: 1 day
[0350] Duration to TED: 1 day [0351] Dividends Payable to
Expiration: 0 [0352] Interbank short-term interest rate to
Expiration: 5.5% (Actual/360 daycount) [0353] Present Value factor
to Expiration: 0.999847 [0354] Investment and Payout Units: U.S.
Dollars ("USD")
[0355] In this Example 3.1.1, the predetermined termination
criteria are the investment in a contingent claim during the
trading period and the closing of the market for Microsoft common
stock on Aug. 19, 1999.
[0356] If all traders agree that the underlying distribution of
closing prices is lognormally distributed with volatility of 50%,
then an illustrative "snapshot" distribution of invested amounts
and returns for $100 million of aggregate investment can be readily
calculated to yield the following table.
TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 3.1.1-1 States Investment in State ('000)
Return Per Unit if State Occurs (0, 80] 1,046.58 94.55 (80, 80.5]
870.67 113.85 (80.5, 81] 1,411.35 69.85 (81, 81.5] 2,157.85 45.34
(81.5, 82] 3,115.03 31.1 (82, 82.5] 4,250.18 22.53 (82.5, 83]
5,486.44 17.23 (83, 83.5] 6,707.18 13.91 (83.5, 84] 7,772.68 11.87
(84, 84.5] 8,546.50 10.7 (84.5, 85] 8,924.71 10.2 (85, 85.5]
8,858.85 10.29 (85.5, 86] 8,366.06 10.95 (86, 86.5] 7,523.13 12.29
(86.5, 87] 6,447.26 14.51 (87, 87.5] 5,270.01 17.98 (87.5, 88]
4,112.05 23.31 (88, 88.5] 3,065.21 31.62 (88.5, 89] 2,184.5 44.78
(89, 89.5] 1,489.58 66.13 (89.5, 90] 972.56 101.82 (90, .infin.]
1,421.61 69.34
[0357] Consistent with the design of a preferred embodiment of a
group of DBAR contingent claims, the amount invested for any given
state is inversely related to the unit return for that state.
[0358] In preferred embodiments of groups of DBAR contingent
claims, traders can invest in none, one or many states. It may be
possible in preferred embodiments to allow traders efficiently to
invest in a set, subset or combination of states for the purposes
of generating desired distributions of payouts across the states.
In particular, traders may be interested in replicating payout
distributions which are common in the traditional markets, such as
payouts corresponding to a long stock position, a short futures
position, a long option straddle position, a digital put or digital
call option.
[0359] If in this Example 3.1.1 a trader desired to hedge his
exposure to extreme outcomes in MSFT stock, then the trader could
invest in states at each end of the distribution of possible
outcomes. For instance, a trader might decide to invest $100,000 in
states encompassing prices from $0 up to and including $83 (i.e.,
(0,83]) and another $100,000 in states encompassing prices greater
than $86.50 (i.e., (86.5,.infin.]). The trader may further desire
that no matter what state actually occurs within these ranges
(should the state occur in either range) upon the fulfillment of
the predetermined termination criteria, an identical payout will
result. In this Example 3.1.1, a multi-state investment is
effectively a group of single state investments over each
multi-state range, where an amount is invested in each state in the
range in proportion to the amount previously invested in that
state. If, for example, the returns provided in Table 3.1.1-1
represent finalized projected returns at the end of the trading
period, then each multi-state investment may be allocated to its
constituent states on a pro-rata or proportional basis according to
the relative amounts invested in the constituent states at the
close of trading. In this way, more of the multi-state investment
is allocated to states with larger investments and less allocated
to the states with smaller investments.
[0360] Other desired payout distributions across the states can be
generated by allocating the amount invested among the constituent
states in different ways so as achieve a trader's desired payout
distribution. A trader may select, for example, both the magnitude
of the payouts and how those payouts are to be distributed should
each state occur and let the DBAR exchange's multi-state allocation
methods determine (1) the size of the amount invested in each
particular constituent state; (2) the states in which investments
will be made, and (3) how much of the total amount to be invested
will be invested in each of the states so determined. Other
examples below demonstrate how such selections may be
implemented.
[0361] Since in preferred embodiments the final projected returns
are not known until the end of a given trading period, in such
embodiments a previous multi-state investment is reallocated to its
constituent states periodically as the amounts invested in each
state (and therefore returns) change during the trading period. At
the end of the trading period when trading ceases and projected
returns are finalized, in a preferred embodiment a final
reallocation is made of all the multi-state investments. In
preferred embodiments, a suspense account is used to record and
reallocate multi-state investments during the course of trading and
at the end of the trading period.
[0362] Referring back to the illustration assuming two multi-state
trades over the ranges (0,83] and (86.5,.infin.] for MSFT stock,
Table 3.1.1-2 shows how the multi-state investments in the amount
of $100,000 each could be allocated according to a preferred
embodiment to the individual states over each range in order to
achieve a payout for each multi-state range which is identical
regardless of which state occurs within each range. In particular,
in this illustration the multi-state investments are allocated in
proportion to the previously invested amount in each state, and the
multi-state investments marginally lower returns over (0,83] and
(86.5,.infin.], but marginally increase returns over the range (83,
86.5], as expected.
[0363] To show that the allocation in this example has achieved its
goal of delivering the desired payouts to the trader, two payouts
for the (0, 83] range are considered. The payout, if constituent
state (80.5, 81] occurs, is the amount invested in that state
($7.696) multiplied by one plus the return per unit if that state
occurs, or (1+69.61)*7.696=$543.40. A similar analysis for the
state (82.5, 83] shows that, if it occurs, the payout is equal to
(1+17.162)*29.918=$543.40. Thus, in this illustration, the trader
receives the same payout no matter which constituent state occurs
within the multi-state investment. Similar calculations can be
performed for the range [86.5,.infin.]. For example, under the same
assumptions, the payout for the constituent state [86.5,87] would
receive a payout of $399.80 if the stock price fill in that range
after the fulfillment of all of the predetermined termination
criteria. In this illustration, each constituent state over the
range [86.5, .infin.] would receive a payout of $399.80, no matter
which of those states occurs.
TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3.1.1-2 Traded Amount in State Return Per Unit
Multi-State States ('000) if State Occurs Allocation ('000) (0, 80]
1052.29 94.22 5.707 (80, 80.5] 875.42 113.46 4.748 (80.5, 81]
1,419.05 69.61 7.696 (81, 81.5] 2,169.61 45.18 11.767 (81.5, 82]
3,132.02 30.99 16.987 (82, 82.5] 4,273.35 22.45 23.177 (82.5, 83]
5,516.36 17.16 29.918 (83, 83.5] 6,707.18 13.94 (83.5, 84] 7,772.68
11.89 (84, 84.5] 8,546.50 10.72 (84.5, 85] 8,924.71 10.23 (85,
85.5] 8,858.85 10.31 (85.5, 86] 8,366.06 10.98 (86, 86.5] 7,523.13
12.32 (86.5, 87] 6,473.09 14.48 25.828 (87, 87.5] 5,291.12 17.94
21.111 (87.5, 88] 4,128.52 23.27 16.473 (88, 88.5] 3,077.49 31.56
12.279 (88.5, 89] 2,193.25 44.69 8.751 (89, 89.5] 1,495.55 66.00
5.967 (89.5, 90] 976.46 101.62 3.896 (90, .infin.] 1,427.31 69.20
5.695
[0364] Options on equities and equity indices have been one of the
more successful innovations in the capital markets. Currently,
listed options products exist for various underlying equity
securities and indices and for various individual option series.
Unfortunately, certain markets lack liquidity. Specifically,
liquidity is usually limited to only a handful of the most widely
recognized names. Most option markets are essentially dealer-based.
Even for options listed on an exchange, market-makers who stand
ready to buy or sell options across all strikes and maturities are
a necessity. Although market participants trading a particular
option share an interest in only one underlying equity, the
existence of numerous strike prices scatters liquidity coming into
the market thereby making dealer support essential. In all but the
most liquid and active exchange-traded options, chances are rare
that two option orders will meet for the same strike, at the same
price, at the same time, and for the same volume. Moreover,
market-makers in listed and over-the-counter (OTC) equities must
allocate capital and manage risk for all their positions.
Consequently, the absolute amount of capital that any one
market-maker has on hand is naturally constrained and may be
insufficient to meet the volume of institutional demand.
[0365] The utility of equity and equity-index options is further
constrained by a lack of transparency in the OTC markets.
Investment banks typically offer customized option structures to
satisfy their customers. Customers, however, are sometimes hesitant
to trade in environments where they have no means of viewing the
market and so are uncertain about getting the best prevailing
price.
[0366] Groups of DBAR contingent claims can be structured using the
system and methods of the present invention to provide market
participants with a fuller, more precise view of the price for
risks associated with a particular equity.
Example 3.1.2
Multiple Multi-State Investments
[0367] If numerous multi-state investments are made for a group of
DBAR contingent claims, then in a preferred embodiment an iterative
procedure can be employed to allocate all of the multi-state
investments to their respective constituent states. In preferred
embodiments, the goal would be to allocate each multi-state
investment in response to changes in amounts invested during the
trading period, and to make a final allocation at the end of the
trading period so that each multi-state investment generates the
payouts desired by the respective trader. In preferred embodiments,
the process of allocating multi-state investments can be iterative,
since allocations depend upon the amounts traded across the
distribution of states at any point in time. As a consequence, in
preferred embodiments, a given distribution of invested amounts
will result in a certain allocation of a multi-state investment.
When another multi-state investment is allocated, the distribution
of invested amounts across the defined states may change and
therefore necessitate the reallocation of any previously allocated
multi-state investments. In such preferred embodiments, each
multi-state allocation is re-performed so that, after a number of
iterations through all of the pending multi-state investments, both
the amounts invested and their allocations among constituent states
in the multi-state investments no longer change with each
successive iteration and a convergence is achieved. In preferred
embodiments, when convergence is achieved, further iteration and
reallocation among the multi-state investments do not change any
multi-state allocation, and the entire distribution of amounts
invested across the states remains stable and is said to be in
equilibrium. Computer code, as illustrated in Table 1 above or
related code readily apparent to one of skill in the art, can be
used to implement this iterative procedure.
[0368] A simple example demonstrates a preferred embodiment of an
iterative procedure that may be employed. For purposes of this
example, a preferred embodiment of the following assumptions are
made: (i) there are four defined states for the group of DBAR
contingent claims; (ii) prior to the allocation of any multi-state
investments, $100 has been invested in each state so that the unit
return for each of the four states is 3; (iii) each desires that
each constituent state in a multi-state investment provides the
same payout regardless of which constituent state actually occurs;
and (iv) that the following other multi-state investments have been
made:
TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 3.1.2-1 Investment Invested Number State 1
State 2 State 3 State 4 Amount, $ 1001 X X 0 0 100 1002 X 0 X X 50
1003 X X 0 0 120 1004 X X X 0 160 1005 X X X 0 180 1006 0 0 X X 210
1007 X X X 0 80 1008 X 0 X X 950 1009 X X X 0 1000 1010 X X 0 X 500
1011 X 0 0 X 250 1012 X X 0 0 100 1013 X 0 X 0 500 1014 0 X 0 X
1000 1015 0 X X 0 170 1016 0 X 0 X 120 1017 X 0 X 0 1000 1018 0 0 X
X 200 1019 X X X 0 250 1020 X X 0 X 300 1021 0 X X X 100 1022 X 0 X
X 400
where an "X" in each state represents a constituent state of the
multi-state trade. Thus, as depicted in Table 3.1.2-1, trade number
1001 in the first row is a multi-state investment of $100 to be
allocated among constituent states 1 and 2, trade number 1002 in
the second row is another multi-state investment in the amount of
$50 to be allocated among constituent states 1, 3, and 4; etc.
[0369] Applied to the illustrative multi-state investment described
above, the iterative procedure described above and embodied in the
illustrative computer code in Table 1, results in the following
allocations:
TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 3.1.2-2 Investment Number State 1($) State
2($) State 3($) State 4($) 1001 73.8396 26.1604 0 0 1002 26.66782 0
12.53362 10.79856 1003 88.60752 31.39248 0 0 1004 87.70597 31.07308
41.22096 0 1005 98.66921 34.95721 46.37358 0 1006 0 0 112.8081
97.19185 1007 43.85298 15.53654 20.61048 0 1008 506.6886 0 238.1387
205.1726 1009 548.1623 194.2067 257.631 0 1010 284.2176 100.6946 0
115.0878 1011 177.945 0 0 72.055 1012 73.8396 26.1604 0 0 1013
340.1383 0 159.8617 0 1014 0 466.6488 0 533.3512 1015 0 73.06859
96.93141 0 1016 0 55.99785 0 64.00215 1017 680.2766 0 319.7234 0
1018 0 0 107.4363 92.56367 1019 137.0406 48.55168 64.40774 0 1020
170.5306 60.41675 0 69.05268 1021 0 28.82243 38.23529 32.94229 1022
213.3426 0 100.2689 86.38848
In Table 3.1.2-2 each row shows the allocation among the
constituent states of the multi-state investment entered into the
corresponding row of Table 3.1.2-1, the first row of Table 3.1.2-2
that investment number 1001 in the amount of $100 has been
allocated $73.8396 to state 1 and the remainder to state 2.
[0370] It may be shown that the multi-state allocations identified
above result in payouts to traders which are desired by the
traders--that is, in this example the desired payouts are the same
regardless of which state occurs among the constituent states of a
given multi-state investment. Based on the total amount invested as
reflected in Table 3.1.2-2 and assuming a zero transaction fee, the
unit returns for each state are:
TABLE-US-00006 State 1 State 2 State 3 State 4 Return Per Dollar
1.2292 5.2921 3.7431 4.5052 Invested
Consideration of Investment 1022 in this example, illustrates the
uniformity of payouts for each state in which an investment is made
(i.e., states 1, 3 and 4). If state 1 occurs, the total payout to
the trader is the unit return for state 1--1.2292--multiplied by
the amount traded for state 1 in trade 1022--$213.3426--plus the
initial trade--$213.3426. This equals
1.2292*213.3426+213.3426=$475.58. If state 3 occurs, the payout is
equal to 3.7431*100.2689+100.2689=$475.58. Finally, if state 4
occurs, the payout is equal to 4.5052*86.38848+86.38848=$475.58. So
a preferred embodiment of a multi-state allocation in this example
has effected an allocation among the constituent states so that (1)
the desired payout distributions in this example are achieved,
i.e., payouts to constituent states are the same no matter which
constituent state occurs, and (2) further reallocation iterations
of multi-state investments do not change the relative amounts
invested across the distribution of states for all the multi-state
trades.
Example 3.1.3
Alternate Price Distributions
[0371] Assumptions regarding the likely distribution of traded
amounts for a group of DBAR contingent claims may be used, for
example, to compute returns for each defined state per unit of
amount invested at the beginning of a trading period ("opening
returns"). For various reasons, the amount actually invested in
each defined state may not reflect the assumptions used to
calculate the opening returns. For instance, investors may
speculate that the empirical distribution of returns over the time
horizon may differ from the no-arbitrage assumptions typically used
in option pricing. Instead of a lognormal distribution, more
investors might make investments expecting returns to be
significantly positive rather than negative (perhaps expecting
favorable news). In Example 3.1.1, for instance, if traders
invested more in states above $85 for the price of MSFT common
stock, the returns to states below $85 could therefore be
significantly higher than returns to states above $85.
[0372] In addition, it is well known to derivatives traders that
traded option prices indicate that price distributions differ
markedly from theoretical lognormality or similar theoretical
distributions. The so-called volatility skew or "smile" refers to
out-of-the-money put and call options trading at higher implied
volatilities than options closer to the money. This indicates that
traders often expect the distribution of prices to have greater
frequency or mass at the extreme observations than predicted
according to lognormal distributions. Frequently, this effect is
not symmetric so that, for example, the probability of large lower
price outcomes are higher than for extreme upward outcomes.
Consequently, in a group of DBAR contingent claims of the present
invention, investment in states in these regions may be more
prevalent and, therefore, finalized returns on outcomes in those
regions lower. For example, using the basic DBAR contingent claim
information from Example 3.1.1, the following returns may prevail
due to investor expectations of return distributions that have more
frequent occurrences than those predicted by a lognormal
distribution, and thus are skewed to the lower possible returns. In
statistical parlance, such a distribution exhibits higher kurtosis
and negative skewness in returns than the illustrative distribution
used in Example 3.1.1 and reflected in Table 3.1.1-1.
TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 3.1.3-1 DBAR Contingent Claim Returns
Illustrating Negatively Skewed and Leptokurtotic Return
Distribution Amount Invested in State States ('000) Return Per Unit
if State Occurs (0, 80] 3,150 30.746 (80, 80.5] 1,500 65.667 (80.5,
81] 1,600 61.5 (81, 81.5] 1,750 56.143 (81.5, 82] 2,100 46.619 (82,
82.5] 2,550 38.216 (82.5, 83] 3,150 30.746 (83, 83.5] 3,250 29.769
(83.5, 84] 3,050 31.787 (84, 84.5] 8,800 10.363 (84.5, 85] 14,300
5.993 (85, 85.5] 10,950 8.132 (85.5, 86] 11,300 7.85 (86, 86.5]
10,150 8.852 (86.5, 87] 11,400 7.772 (87, 87.5] 4,550 20.978 (87.5,
88] 1,350 73.074 (88, 88.5] 1,250 79.0 (88.5, 89] 1,150 85.957 (89,
89.5] 700 141.857 (89.5, 90] 650 152.846 (90, .infin.] 1,350
73.074
[0373] The type of complex distribution illustrated in Table
3.1.3-1 is prevalent in the traditional markets. Derivatives
traders, actuaries, risk managers and other traditional market
participants typically use sophisticated mathematical and
analytical tools in order to estimate the statistical nature of
future distributions of risky market outcomes. These tools often
rely on data sets (e.g., historical time series, options data) that
may be incomplete or unreliable. An advantage of the systems and
methods of the present invention is that such analyses from
historical data need not be complicated, and the full outcome
distribution for a group of DBAR contingent claims based on any
given event is readily available to all traders and other
interested parties nearly instantaneously after each
investment.
Example 3.1.4
States Defined For Return Uniformity
[0374] It is also possible in preferred embodiments of the present
invention to define states for a group of DBAR contingent claims
with irregular or unevenly distributed intervals, for example, to
make the traded amount across the states more liquid or uniform.
States can be constructed from a likely estimate of the final
distribution of invested amounts in order to make the likely
invested amounts, and hence the returns for each state, as uniform
as possible across the distribution of states. The following table
illustrates the freedom, using the event and trading period from
Example 3.1.1, to define states so as to promote equalization of
the amount likely to be invested in each state.
TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 3.1.4-1 State Definition to Make Likely Demand
Uniform Across States Invested Amount in States State ('000) Return
Per Unit if State Occurs (0, 81.403] 5,000 19 (81.403, 82.181]
5,000 19 (82.181, 82.71] 5,000 19 (82.71, 83.132] 5,000 19 (83.132,
83.497] 5,000 19 (83.497, 83.826] 5,000 19 (83.826, 84.131] 5,000
19 (84.131, 84.422] 5,000 19 (84.422, 84.705] 5,000 19 (84.705,
84.984] 5,000 19 (84.984, 85.264] 5,000 19 (85.264, 85.549] 5,000
19 (85.549, 85.845] 5,000 19 (85.845, 86.158] 5,000 19 (86.158,
86.497] 5,000 19 (86.497, 86.877] 5,000 19 (86.877, 87.321] 5,000
19 (87.321, 87.883] 5,000 19 (87.883, 88.722] 5,000 19 (88.722,
.infin.] 5,000 19
[0375] If investor expectations coincide with the often-used
assumption of the lognormal distribution, as reflected in this
example, then investment activity in the group of contingent claims
reflected in Table 3.1.4-1 will converge to investment of the same
amount in each of the 20 states identified in the table. Of course,
actual trading will likely yield final market returns which deviate
from those initially chosen for convenience using a lognormal
distribution.
Example 3.1.5
Government Bond--Uniformly Constructed States
[0376] The event, defined states, predetermined termination
criteria and other relevant data for an illustrative group of DBAR
contingent claims based on a U.S. Treasury Note are set forth
below: [0377] Underlying Security: United States Treasury Note,
5.5%, May 31, 2003 [0378] Bond Settlement Date: Jun. 25, 1999
[0379] Bond Maturity Date: May 31, 2003 [0380] Contingent Claim
Expiration: 7/2/99, Market Close, 4:00 p.m. EST [0381] Trading
Period Start Date: Jun. 25, 1999, 4:00 p.m., EST [0382] Trading
Period End Date: Jun. 28, 1999, 4:00 p.m., EST [0383] Next Trading
Period Open: Jun. 28, 1999, 4:00 p.m., EST [0384] Next Trading
Period Close Jun. 29, 1999, 4:00 p.m., EST [0385] Event: Closing
Composite Price as reported on Bloomberg at Claim Expiration [0386]
Trading Time: 1 day [0387] Duration from TED: 5 days [0388] Coupon:
5.5% [0389] Payment Frequency: Semiannual [0390] Daycount Basis
Actual/Actual [0391] Dividends Payable over Time Horizon: 2.75 per
100 on Jun. 30, 1999 [0392] Treasury note repo rate over Time
Horizon: 4.0% (Actual/360 daycount) [0393] Spot Price: 99.8125
[0394] Forward Price at Expiration: 99.7857 [0395] Price
Volatility: 4.7% [0396] Trade and Payout Units: U.S. Dollars [0397]
Total Demand in Current Trading Period: $50 million [0398]
Transaction Fee: 25 basis points (0.0025%)
TABLE-US-00009 [0398] TABLE 3.1.5-1 DBAR Contingent Claims on U.S.
Government Note States Investment in State ($) Unit Return if State
Occurs (0, 98] 139690.1635 356.04 (98, 98.25] 293571.7323 168.89
(98.25, 98.5] 733769.9011 66.97 (98.5, 98.75] 1574439.456 30.68
(98.75, 99] 2903405.925 16.18 (99, 99.1] 1627613.865 29.64 (99.1,
99.2] 1914626.631 25.05 (99.2, 99.3] 2198593.057 21.68 (99.3, 99.4]
2464704.885 19.24 (99.4, 99.5] 2697585.072 17.49 (99.5, 99.6]
2882744.385 16.30 (99.6, 99.7] 3008078.286 15.58 (99.7, 99.8]
3065194.576 15.27 (99.8, 99.9] 3050276.034 15.35 (99.9, 100]
2964602.039 15.82 (100, 100.1] 2814300.657 16.72 (100.1, 100.2]
2609637.195 18.11 (100.2, 100.3] 2363883.036 20.10 (100.3, 100.4]
2091890.519 22.84 (100.4, 100.5] 1808629.526 26.58 (100.5, 100.75]
3326547.254 13.99 (100.75, 101] 1899755.409 25.25 (101, 101.25]
941506.1374 51.97 (101.25, 101.5] 405331.6207 122.05 (101.5,
.infin.] 219622.6373 226.09
[0399] This Example 3.1.5 and Table 3.1.5-1 illustrate how readily
the methods and systems of the present invention may be adapted to
sources of risk, whether from stocks, bonds, or insurance claims.
Table 3.1.5-1 also illustrates a distribution of defined states
which is irregularly spaced--in this case finer toward the center
of the distribution and coarser at the ends--in order to increase
the amount invested in the extreme states.
Example 3.1.6
Outperformance Asset Allocation--Uniform Range
[0400] One of the advantages of the system and methods of the
present invention is the ability to construct groups of DBAR
contingent claims based on multiple events and their
inter-relationships. For example, many index fund money managers
often have a fundamental view as to whether indices of high quality
fixed income securities will outperform major equity indices. Such
opinions normally are contained within a manager's model for
allocating funds under management between the major asset classes
such as fixed income securities, equities, and cash.
[0401] This Example 3.1.6 illustrates the use of a preferred
embodiment of the systems and methods of the present invention to
hedge the real-world event that one asset class will outperform
another. The illustrative distribution of investments and
calculated opening returns for the group of contingent claims used
in this example are based on the assumption that the levels of the
relevant asset-class indices are jointly lognormally distributed
with an assumed correlation. By defining a group of DBAR contingent
claims on a joint outcome of two underlying events, traders are
able to express their views on the co-movements of the underlying
events as captured by the statistical correlation between the
events. In this example, the assumption of a joint lognormal
distribution means that the two underlying events are distributed
as follows:
V ~ .theta. 1 = ( V .tau. 1 Z 1 ( .tau. , .theta. ) - D 1 ( .tau. ,
.theta. ) Z 1 ( .tau. , .theta. ) ) * - .sigma. 1 2 / 2 * ( .theta.
- .tau. ) * .sigma. 1 * .theta. - .tau. * dz 1 ##EQU00026## V ~
.theta. 2 = ( V .tau. 2 Z 2 ( .tau. , .theta. ) - D 2 ( .tau. ,
.theta. ) Z 2 ( .tau. , .theta. ) ) * - .sigma. 2 2 / 2 * ( .theta.
- .tau. ) * .sigma. 2 * .theta. - .tau. * dz 2 ##EQU00026.2## g (
dz 1 , dz 2 ) = 1 2 * .pi. * 1 - .rho. 2 * exp ( - ( dz 1 2 + dz 2
2 - 2 * .rho. * dz 1 * dz 1 ) 2 * ( 1 - .rho. 2 ) )
##EQU00026.3##
where the subscripts and superscripts indicate each of the two
events, and g(dz.sub.1,dz.sub.2) is the bivariate normal
distribution with correlation parameter .rho., and the notation
otherwise corresponds to the notation used in the description above
of DBAR Range Derivatives.
[0402] The following information includes the indices, the trading
periods, the predetermined termination criteria, the total amount
invested and the value units used in this Example 3.1.6: [0403]
Asset Class 1: JP Morgan United States Government Bond Index
("JPMGBI") [0404] Asset Class 1 Forward Price at Observation: 250.0
[0405] Asset Class 1 Volatility: 5% [0406] Asset Class 2: S&P
500 Equity Index ("SP500") [0407] Asset Class 2 Forward Price at
Observation: 1410 [0408] Asset Class 2 Volatility: 18% [0409]
Correlation Between Asset Classes: 0.5 [0410] Contingent Claim
Expiration: Dec. 31, 1999 [0411] Trading Start Date: Jun. 30, 1999
[0412] Current Trading Period Start Date: Jul. 30, 1999 [0413]
Current Trading Period End Date: Jul. 30, 1999 [0414] Next Trading
Period Start Date: Aug. 2, 1999 [0415] Next Trading Period End
Date: Aug. 31, 1999 [0416] Current Date: Jul. 12, 1999 [0417] Last
Trading Period End Date: Dec. 30, 1999 [0418] Aggregate Investment
for Current Trading Period: $100 million [0419] Trade and Payout
Value Units: U.S. Dollars Table 3.1.6 shows the illustrative
distribution of state returns over the defined states for the joint
outcomes based on this information, with the defined states as
indicated.
TABLE-US-00010 [0419] TABLE 3.1.6-1 Unit Returns for Joint
Performance of S&P 500 and JPMGBI JPMGBI (0, (233, (237, (241,
(244, (246, (248, (250, (252, (255, (257, (259, (264, (268, State
233] 237] 241] 244] 246] 248] 250] 252] 255] 257] 259] 264] 268]
.infin.] (0, 1102] 246 240 197 413 475 591 798 1167 1788 3039 3520
2330 11764 18518 (1102, 1174] 240 167 110 197 205 230 281 373 538
841 1428 1753 7999 11764 (1174, 1252] 197 110 61 99 94 98 110 135
180 259 407 448 1753 5207 (1252, 1292] 413 197 99 145 130 128 136
157 197 269 398 407 1428 5813 (1292, 1334] 475 205 94 130 113 106
108 120 144 189 269 259 841 3184 (1334, 1377] 591 230 98 128 106 95
93 99 115 144 197 180 538 1851 SP500 (1377, 1421] 798 281 110 136
108 93 88 89 99 120 157 135 373 1167 (1421, 1467] 1167 373 135 157
120 99 89 88 93 108 136 110 281 798 (1467, 1515] 1851 538 180 197
144 115 99 93 95 106 128 98 230 591 (1515, 1564] 3184 841 259 269
189 144 120 108 106 113 130 94 205 475 (1564, 1614] 5813 1428 407
398 269 197 157 136 128 130 145 99 197 413 (1614, 1720] 5207 1753
448 407 259 180 135 110 98 94 99 61 110 197 (1720, 1834] 11764 7999
1753 1428 841 538 373 281 230 205 197 110 167 240 (1834, .infin.]
18518 11764 2330 3520 3039 1788 1167 798 591 475 413 197 240
246
[0420] In Table 3.1.6-1, each cell contains the unit returns to the
joint state reflected by the row and column entries. For example,
the unit return to investments in the state encompassing the joint
occurrence of the JPMGBI closing on expiration at 249 and the SP500
closing at 1380 is 88. Since the correlation between two indices in
this example is assumed to be 0.5, the probability both indices
will change in the same direction is greater that the probability
that both indices will change in opposite directions. In other
words, as represented in Table 3.1.6-1, unit returns to investments
in states represented in cells in the upper left and lower right of
the table--i.e., where the indices are changing in the same
direction--are lower, reflecting higher implied probabilities, than
unit returns to investments to states represented in cells in the
lower left and upper right of Table 3.1.6-1 --i.e., where the
indices are changing in opposite directions.
[0421] As in the previous examples and in preferred embodiments,
the returns illustrated in Table 3.1.6-1 could be calculated as
opening indicative returns at the start of each trading period
based on an estimate of what the closing returns for the trading
period are likely to be. These indicative or opening returns can
serve as an "anchor point" for commencement of trading in a group
of DBAR contingent claims. Of course, actual trading and trader
expectations may induce substantial departures from these
indicative values.
[0422] Demand-based markets or auctions can be structured to trade
DBAR contingent claims, including, for example, digital options,
based on multiple underlying events or variables and their
inter-relationships. Market participants often have views about the
joint outcome of two underlying events or assets. Asset allocation
managers, for example, are concerned with the relative performance
of bonds versus equities. An additional example of multivariate
underlying events follows: [0423] Joint Performance: Demand-based
markets or auctions can be structured to trade DBAR contingent
claims, including, for example, digital options, based on the joint
performance or observation of two different variables. For example,
digital options traded in a demand-based market or auction can be
based on an underlying event defined as the joint observation of
non-farm payrolls and the unemployment rate.
Example 3.1.7
Corporate Bond Credit Risk
[0424] Groups of DBAR contingent claims can also be constructed on
credit events, such as the event that one of the major credit
rating agencies (e.g., Standard and Poor's, Moodys) changes the
rating for some or all of a corporation's outstanding securities.
Indicative returns at the outset of trading for a group of DBAR
contingent claims oriented to a credit event can readily be
constructed from publicly available data from the rating agencies
themselves. For example, Table 3.1.7-1 contains indicative returns
for an assumed group of DBAR contingent claims based on the event
that a corporation's Standard and Poor's credit rating for a given
security will change over a certain period of time. In this
example, states are defined using the Standard and Poor's credit
categories, ranging from AAA to D (default). Using the methods of
the present invention, the indicative returns are calculated using
historical data on the frequency of the occurrence of these defined
states. In this example, a transaction fee of 1% is charged against
the aggregate amount invested in the group of DBAR contingent
claims, which is assumed to be $100 million.
TABLE-US-00011 TABLE 3.1.7-1 Illustrative Returns for Credit DBAR
Contingent Claims with 1% Transaction Fee Current To New Historical
Invested in State Indicative Return to Rating Rating Probability
($) State A- AAA 0.0016 160,000 617.75 A- AA+ 0.0004 40,000 2474.00
A- AA 0.0012 120,000 824.00 A- AA- 0.003099 309,900 318.46 A- A+
0.010897 1,089,700 89.85 A- A 0.087574 8,757,400 10.30 A- A-
0.772868 77,286,800 0.28 A- BBB+ 0.068979 6,897,900 13.35 A- BBB
0.03199 3,199,000 29.95 A- BBB- 0.007398 739,800 132.82 A- BB+
0.002299 229,900 429.62 A- BB 0.004999 499,900 197.04 A- BB-
0.002299 229,900 429.62 A- B+ 0.002699 269,900 365.80 A- B 0.0004
40,000 2474.00 A- B- 0.0004 40,000 2474.00 A- CCC 1E-04 10,000
9899.00 A- D 0.0008 80,000 1236.50
[0425] In Table 3.1.7-1, the historical probabilities over the
mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive states sum to unity.
As demonstrated above in this specification, in preferred
embodiments, the transaction fee affects the probability implied
for each state from the unit return for that state.
[0426] Actual trading is expected almost always to alter
illustrative indicative returns based on historical empirical data.
This Example 3.1.7 indicates how efficiently groups of DBAR
contingent claims can be constructed for all traders or firms
exposed to particular credit risk in order to hedge that risk. For
example, in this Example, if a trader has significant exposure to
the A- rated bond issue described above, the trader could want to
hedge the event corresponding to a downgrade by Standard and
Poor's. For example, this trader may be particularly concerned
about a downgrade corresponding to an issuer default or "D" rating.
The empirical probabilities suggest a payout of approximately
$1,237 for each dollar invested in that state. If this trader has
$100,000,000 of the corporate issue in his portfolio and a recovery
of ratio of 0.3 can be expected in the event of default, then, in
order to hedge $70,000,000 of default risk, the trader might invest
in the state encompassing a "D" outcome. To hedge the entire amount
of the default risk in this example, the amount of the investment
in this state should be $70,000,000/$1,237 or $56,589. This
represents approximately 5.66 basis points of the trader's position
size in this bond (i.e., $56,589/$100,000,000=0.00056)] which
probably represents a reasonable cost of credit insurance against
default. Actual investments in this group of DBAR contingent claims
could alter the return on the "D" event over time and additional
insurance might need to be purchased.
[0427] Demand-based markets or auctions can be structured to offer
a wide variety of products related to common measures of credit
quality, including Moody's and S&P ratings, bankruptcy
statistics, and recovery rates. For example, DBAR contingent claims
can be based on an underlying event defined as the credit quality
of Ford corporate debt as defined by the Standard & Poor's
rating agency.
Example 3.1.8
Economic Statistics
[0428] As financial markets have become more sophisticated,
statistical information that measures economic activity has assumed
increasing importance as a factor in the investment decisions of
market participants. Such economic activity measurements may
include, for example, the following U.S. federal government and
U.S. and foreign private agency statistics: [0429] Employment,
National Output, and Income (Non-farm Payrolls, Gross Domestic
Product, Personal Income) [0430] Orders, Production, and
Inventories (Durable Goods Orders, Industrial Production,
Manufacturing Inventories) [0431] Retail Sales, Housing Starts,
Existing Home Sales, Current Account Balance, Employment Cost
Index, Consumer Price Index, Federal Funds Target Rate [0432]
Agricultural statistics released by the U.S.D.A. (crop reports,
etc.) [0433] The National Association of Purchasing Management
(NAPM) survey of manufacturing [0434] Standard and Poor's Quarterly
Operating Earnings of the S&P 500 [0435] The semiconductor
book-to-bill ratio published by the Semiconductor Industry
Association [0436] The Halifax House Price Index used extensively
as an authoritative indicator of house price movements in the U.K.
Because the economy is the primary driver of asset performance,
every investor that takes a position in equities, foreign exchange,
or fixed income will have exposure to economic forces driving these
asset prices, either by accident or design. Accordingly, market
participants expend considerable time and resources to assemble
data, models and forecasts. In turn, corporations, governments, and
financial intermediaries depend heavily on the economic forecasts
to allocate resources and to make market projections.
[0437] To the extent that economic forecasts are inaccurate,
inefficiencies and severe misallocation of resources can result.
Unfortunately, traditional derivatives markets fail to provide
market participants with a direct mechanism to protect themselves
against the adverse consequences of falling demand or rising input
prices on a macroeconomic level. Demand-based markets or auctions
for economic products, however, provide market participants with a
market price for the risk that a particular measure of economic
activity will vary from expectations and a tool to properly hedge
the risk. The market participants can trade in a market or an
auction where the event of economic significance is an underlying
measure of economic activity (e.g., the VIX index as calculated by
the CBOE) or a measured parameter related to the underlying event
(e.g., an implied volatility or standard deviation of the VIX
index).
[0438] For example, traders often hedge inflation risk by trading
in bond futures or, where they exist, inflation-protected floating
rate bonds. A group of DBAR contingent claims can readily be
constructed to allow traders to express expectations about the
distribution of uncertain economic statistics measuring, for
example, the rate of inflation or other relevant variables. The
following information describes such a group of claims: [0439]
Economic Statistic: United States Non-Farm Payrolls [0440]
Announcement Date: May 31, 1999 [0441] Last Announcement Date: Apr.
30, 1999 [0442] Expiration: Announcement Date, May 31, 1999 [0443]
Trading Start Date: May 1, 1999 [0444] Current Trading Period Start
Date: May 10, 1999 [0445] Current Trading Period End Date: May 14,
1999 [0446] Current Date May 11, 1999 [0447] Last Announcement:
128,156 ('000) [0448] Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics [0449]
Consensus Estimate: 130,000 (+1.2%) [0450] Aggregate Amount
Invested in Current Period: $100 million [0451] Transaction Fee:
2.0% of Aggregate Traded amount
[0452] Using methods and systems of the present invention, states
can be defined and indicative returns can be constructed from, for
example, consensus estimates among economists for this index. These
estimates can be expressed in absolute values or, as illustrated,
in Table 3.1.8-1 in percentage changes from the last observation as
follows:
TABLE-US-00012 TABLE 3.1.8-1 Illustrative Returns For Non-Farm
Payrolls Release with 2% Transaction Fee % Chg. In Index Investment
in State Implied State State ('000) State Returns Probability
[-100, -5] 100 979 0.001 (-5, -3] 200 489 0.002 (-3, -1] 400 244
0.004 (-1, -.5] 500 195 0.005 (-.5, 0] 1000 97 0.01 (0, .5] 2000 48
0.02 (.5, .7] 3000 31.66667 0.03 (.7, .8] 4000 23.5 0.04 (.8, .9]
5000 18.6 0.05 (.9, 1.0] 10000 8.8 0.1 (1.0, 1.1] 14000 6 0.14
(1.1, 1.2] 22000 3.454545 0.22 (1.2, 1.25] 18000 4.444444 0.18
(1.25, 1.3] 9000 9.888889 0.09 (1.3, 1.35] 6000 15.33333 0.06
(1.35, 1.40] 3000 31.66667 0.03 (1.40, 1.45] 200 489 0.002 (1.45,
1.5] 600 162.3333 0.006 (1.5, 1.6] 400 244 0.004 (1.6, 1.7] 100 979
0.001 (1.7, 1.8] 80 1224 0.0008 (1.8, 1.9] 59 1660.017 0.00059
(1.9, 2.0] 59 1660.017 0.00059 (2.0, 2.1] 59 1660.017 0.00059 (2.1,
2.2] 59 1660.017 0.00059 (2.2, 2.4] 59 1660.017 0.00059 (2.4, 2.6]
59 1660.017 0.00059 (2.6, 3.0] 59 1660.017 0.00059 (3.0, .infin.] 7
13999 0.00007
As in examples, actual trading prior to the trading end date would
be expected to adjust returns according to the amounts invested in
each state and the total amount invested for all the states.
[0453] Demand-based markets or auctions can be structured to offer
a wide variety of products related to commonly observed indices and
statistics related to economic activity and released or published
by governments, and by domestic, foreign and international
government or private companies, institutions, agencies or other
entities. These may include a large number of statistics that
measure the performance of the economy, such as employment,
national income, inventories, consumer spending, etc., in addition
to measures of real property and other economic activity. An
additional example follows: [0454] Private Economic Indices &
Statistics: Demand-based markets or auctions can be structured to
trade DBAR contingent claims, including, for example, digital
options, based on economic statistics released or published by
private sources. For example, DBAR contingent claims can be based
on an underlying event defined as the NAPM Index published by the
National Association of Purchasing Managers. [0455] Alternative
private indices might also include measures of real property. For
example, DBAR contingent claims, including, for example, digital
options, can be based on an underlying event defined as the level
of the Halifax House Price Index at year-end, 2001. [0456] In
addition to the general advantages of the demand-based trading
system, demand-based products on economic statistics will provide
the following new opportunities for trading and risk management:
[0457] (1) Insuring against the event risk component of asset price
movements. Statistical releases can often cause extreme short-term
price movements in the fixed income and equity markets. Many market
participants have strong views on particular economic reports, and
try to capitalize on such views by taking positions in the bond or
equity markets. Demand-based markets or auctions on economic
statistics provide participants with a means of taking a direct
view on economic variables, rather than the indirect approach
employed currently. [0458] (2) Risk management for real economic
activity. State governments, municipalities, insurance companies,
and corporations may all have a strong interest in a particular
measure of real economic activity. For example, the Department of
Energy publishes the Electric Power Monthly which provides
electricity statistics at the State, Census division, and U.S.
levels for net generation, fossil fuel consumption and stocks,
quantity and quality of fossil fuels, cost of fossil fuels,
electricity retail sales, associated revenue, and average revenue.
Demand-based markets or auctions based on one or more of these
energy benchmarks can serve as invaluable risk management
mechanisms for corporations and governments seeking to manage the
increasingly uncertain outlook for electric power. [0459] (3)
Sector-specific risk management. The Health Care CPI (Consumer
Price Index) published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
tracks the CPI of medical care on a monthly basis in the CPI
Detailed Report. A demand-based market or auction on this statistic
would have broad applicability for insurance companies; drug
companies, hospitals, and many other participants in the health
care industry. Similarly, the semiconductor book-to-bill ratio
serves as a direct measure of activity in the semiconductor
equipment manufacturing industry. The ratio reports both shipments
and new bookings with a short time lag, and hence is a useful
measure of supply and demand balance in the semiconductor industry.
Not only would manufacturers and consumers of semiconductors have a
direct financial interest, but the ratio's status as a bellwether
of the general technology market would invite participation from
financial market participants as well.
Example 3.1.9
Corporate Events
[0460] Corporate actions and announcements are further examples of
events of economic significance which are usually unhedgable or
uninsurable in traditional markets but which can be effectively
structured into groups of DBAR contingent claims according to the
present invention.
[0461] In recent years, corporate earnings expectations, which are
typically announced on a quarterly basis for publicly traded
companies, have assumed increasing importance as more companies
forego dividends to reinvest in continuing operations. Without
dividends, the present value of an equity becomes entirely
dependent on revenues and earnings streams that extend well into
the future, causing the equity itself to take on the
characteristics of an option. As expectations of future cash flows
change, the impact on pricing can be dramatic, causing stock prices
in many cases to exhibit option-like behavior.
[0462] Traditionally, market participants expend considerable time
and resources to assemble data, models and forecasts. To the extent
that forecasts are inaccurate, inefficiencies and severe
misallocation of resources can result. Unfortunately, traditional
derivatives markets fail to provide market participants with a
direct mechanism to manage the unsystematic risks of equity
ownership. Demand-based markets or auctions for corporate earnings
and revenues, however, provide market participants with a concrete
price for the risk that earnings and revenues may vary from
expectations and permit them to insure or hedge or speculate on the
risk.
[0463] Many data services, such as IBES and FirstCall, currently
publish estimates by analysts and a consensus estimate in advance
of quarterly earnings announcements. Such estimates can form the
basis for indicative opening returns at the commencement of trading
in a demand-based market or auction as illustrated below. For this
example, a transaction fee of zero is assumed. [0464] Underlying
security: IBM [0465] Earnings Announcement Date: Jul. 21, 1999
[0466] Consensus Estimate: 0.879/share [0467] Expiration:
Announcement, Jul. 21, 1999 [0468] First Trading Period Start Date:
Apr. 19, 1999 [0469] First Trading Period End Date May 19, 1999
[0470] Current Trading Period Start Date: Jul. 6, 1999 [0471]
Current Trading Period End Date: Jul. 9, 1999 [0472] Next Trading
Period Start Date: Jul. 9, 1999 [0473] Next Trading Period End
Date: Jul. 16, 1999 [0474] Total Amount Invested in Current Trading
Period: $100 million
TABLE-US-00013 [0474] TABLE 3.1.9-1 Illustrative Returns For IBM
Earnings Announcement Earnings Invested in State State0 ('000 $)
Unit Returns Implied State Probability (-.infin., .5] 70 1,427.57
0.0007 (.5, .6] 360 276.78 0.0036 (.6, .65] 730 135.99 0.0073 (.65,
.7] 1450 67.97 0.0145 (.7, .74] 2180 44.87 0.0218 (.74, .78] 3630
26.55 0.0363 (.78, ..8] 4360 21.94 0.0436 (.8, .82] 5820 16.18
0.0582 (.82, .84] 7270 12.76 0.0727 (.84, .86] 8720 10.47 0.0872
(.86, .87] 10900 8.17 0.109 (.87, .88] 18170 4.50 0.1817 (.88, .89]
8720 10.47 0.0872 (.89, .9] 7270 12.76 0.0727 (.9, .91] 5090 18.65
0.0509 (.91, .92] 3630 26.55 0.0363 (.92, .93] 2910 33.36 0.0291
(.93, .95] 2180 44.87 0.0218 (.95, .97] 1450 67.97 0.0145 (.97,
.99] 1310 75.34 0.0131 (.99, 1.1] 1160 85.21 0.0116 (1.1, 1.3] 1020
97.04 0.0102 (1.3, 1.5] 730 135.99 0.0073 (1.5, 1.7] 360 276.78
0.0036 (1.7, 1.9] 220 453.55 0.0022 (1.9, 2.1] 150 665.67 0.0015
(2.1, 2.3] 70 1,427.57 0.0007 (2.3, 2.5] 40 2,499.00 0.0004 (2.5,
.infin.] 30 3,332.33 0.0003
Consistent with the consensus estimate, the state with the largest
investment encompasses the range (0.87, 0.88].
TABLE-US-00014 TABLE 3.1.9-2 Illustrative Returns for Microsoft
Earnings Announcement Strike Bid Offer Payout Volume Calls <40
0.9525 0.9575 1.0471 4,100,000 <41 0.9025 0.9075 1.1050
1,000,000 <42 0.8373 0.8423 1.1908 9,700 <43 0.7475 0.7525
1.3333 3,596,700 <44 0.622 0.627 1.6013 2,000,000 <45 0.4975
0.5025 2.0000 6,000,000 <46 0.3675 0.3725 2.7027 2,500,000
<47 0.2175 0.2225 4.5455 1,000,000 <48 0.1245 0.1295 7.8740
800,000 <49 0.086 0.091 11.2994 -- <50 0.0475 0.0525 20.000
194,700 Puts <40 0.0425 0.0475 22.2222 193,100 <41 0.0925
0.0975 10.5263 105,500 <42 0.1577 0.1627 6.2422 -- <43 0.2475
0.2525 4.0000 1,200,000 <44 0.3730 0.3780 2.6631 1,202,500
<45 0.4975 0.5025 2.0000 6,000,000 <46 0.6275 0.6325 1.5873
4,256,600 <47 0.7775 0.7825 1.2821 3,545,700 <48 0.8705
0.8755 1.1455 5,500,000 <49 0.9090 0.9140 1.0971 -- <50
0.9475 0.9525 1.0526 3,700,000
[0475] The table above provides a sample distribution of trades
that might be made for an April 23 auction period for Microsoft Q4
corporate earnings (June 2001), due to be released on Jul. 16,
2001.
[0476] For example, at 29 times trailing earnings and 28 times
consensus 2002 earnings, Microsoft is experiencing single digit
profit growth and is the object of uncertainty with respect to
sales of Microsoft Office, adoption rates of Windows 2000, and the
.Net initiative. In the sample demand-based market or auction based
on earnings expectations depicted above, a market participant can
engage, for example, in the following trading tactics and
strategies with respect to DBAR digital options. [0477] A fund
manager wishing to avoid market risk at the current time but who
still wants exposure to Microsoft can buy the 0.43 Earnings per
Share Call (consensus currently 0.44-45) with reasonable confidence
that reported earnings will be 43 cents or higher. Should Microsoft
report earnings as expected, the trader earns approximately 33% on
invested demand-based trading digital option premium (i.e.,
1/option price of 0.7525). Conversely, should Microsoft report
earnings below 43 cents, the invested premium would be lost, but
the consequences for Microsoft's stock price would likely be
dramatic. [0478] A more aggressive strategy would involve selling
or underweighting Microsoft stock, while purchasing a string of
digital options on higher than expected EPS growth. In this case,
the trader expects a multiple contraction to occur over the short
to medium term, as the valuation becomes unsustainable. Using the
market for DBAR contingent claims on earnings depicted above, a
trader with a $5 million notional exposure to Microsoft can buy a
string of digital call options, as follows:
TABLE-US-00015 [0478] Strike Premium Price Net Payout .46 $37,000
0.3725 $62,329 .47 22,000 0.2225 139,205 .48 6,350 0.1295 181,890
.49 4,425 0.0910 226,091 .50 0 0.0525 226,091
[0479] The payouts displayed immediately above are net of premium
investment. Premiums invested are based on the trader's assessment
of likely stock price (and price multiple) reaction to a possible
earnings surprise. Similar trades in digital options on earnings
would be made in successive quarters, resulting in a string of
options on higher than expected earnings growth, to protect against
an upward shift in the earnings expectation curve, as shown in FIG.
21. [0480] The total cost, for this quarter, amounts to $69,775,
just above a single quarter's interest income on the notional
$5,000,000, invested at 5%. [0481] A trader with a view on a range
of earnings expectations for the quarter can profit from a spread
strategy over the distribution. By purchasing the 0.42 call and
selling the 0.46 call, the trader can construct a digital option
spread priced at: 0.8423-0.3675=0.4748. This spread would,
consequently, pay out: 1/0.4748=2.106, for every dollar
invested.
[0482] Many trades can be constructed using demand-based trading
for DBAR contingent claims, including, for example, digital
options, based on corporate earnings. The examples shown here are
intended to be representative, not definitive. Moreover,
demand-based trading products can be based on corporate accounting
measures, including a wide variety of generally accepted accounting
information from corporate balance sheets, income statements, and
other measures of cash flow, such as earnings before interest,
taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA). The following
examples provide a further representative sampling: [0483]
Revenues: Demand-based markets or auctions for DBAR contingent
claims, including, for example, digital options can be based on a
measure or parameter related to Cisco revenues, such as the gross
revenues reported by the Cisco Corporation. The underlying event
for these claims is the quarterly or annual gross revenue figure
for Cisco as calculated and released to the public by the reporting
company. [0484] EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes,
Depreciation, Amortization): Demand-based markets or auctions for
DBAR contingent claims, including, for example, digital options can
be based on a measure or parameter related to AOL EBITDA, such as
the EBITDA figure reported by AOL that is used to provide a measure
of operating earnings. The underlying event for these claims is the
quarterly or annual EBITDA figure for AOL as calculated and
released to the public by the reporting company. In addition to the
general advantages of the demand-based trading system, products
based on corporate earnings and revenues may provide the following
new opportunities for trading and risk management: [0485] (1)
Trading the price of a stock relative to its earnings. Traders can
use a market for earnings to create a "Multiple Trade," in which a
stock would be sold (or `not owned`) and a string of DBAR
contingent claims, including, for example, digital options, based
on quarterly earnings can be used as a hedge or insurance for stock
believed to be overpriced. Market expectations for a company's
earnings may be faulty, and may threaten the stability of a stock
price, post announcement. Corporate announcements that reduce
expectation for earnings and earnings growth highlight the
consequences for high-multiple growth stocks that fail to meet
expectations. For example, an equity investment manager might
decide to underweight a high-multiple stock against a benchmark,
and replace it with a series of DBAR digital options corresponding
to a projected profile for earnings growth. The manager can compare
the cost of this strategy with the risk of owning the underlying
security, based on the company's PE ratio or some other metric
chosen by the fund manager. Conversely, an investor who expects a
multiple expansion for a given stock would purchase demand-based
trading digital put options on earnings, retaining the stock for a
multiple expansion while protecting against a shortfall in reported
earnings. [0486] (2) Insuring against an earnings shortfall, while
maintaining a stock position during a period when equity options
are deemed too expensive. While DBAR contingent claims, including,
for example, digital options, based on earnings are not designed to
hedge stock prices, they can provide a cost-effective means to
mitigate the risk of equity ownership over longer term horizons.
For example, periodically, three-month stock options that are
slightly out-of-the-money can command premiums of 10% or more. The
ability to insure against possible earnings or revenue shortfalls
one quarter or more in the future via purchases of DBAR digital
options may represent an attractive alternative to conventional
hedge strategies for equity price risks. [0487] (3) Insuring
against an earnings shortfall that may trigger credit downgrades.
Fixed income managers worried about potential exposure to credit
downgrades from reduced corporate earnings can use DBAR contingent
claims, including, for example, digital options, to protect against
earnings shortfalls that would impact EBITDA and prompt declines in
corporate bond prices. Conventional fixed income and convertible
bond managers can protect against equity exposures without a short
sale of the corresponding equity shares. [0488] (4) Obtaining
low-risk, incremental returns. Market participants can use
deep-in-the-money DBAR contingent claims, including, for example,
digital options, based on earnings as a source of low-risk,
uncorrelated returns.
Example 3.1.10
Real Assets
[0489] Another advantage of the methods and systems of the present
invention is the ability to structure liquid claims on illiquid
underlying assets such a real estate. As previously discussed,
traditional derivatives markets customarily use a liquid underlying
market in order to function properly. With a group of DBAR
contingent claims all that is usually required is a real-world,
observable event of economic significance. For example, the
creation of contingent claims tied to real assets has been
attempted at some financial institutions over the last several
years. These efforts have not been credited with an appreciable
impact, apparently because of the primary liquidity constraints
inherent in the underlying real assets.
[0490] A group of DBAR contingent claims according to the present
invention can be constructed based on an observable event related
to real estate. The relevant information for an illustrative group
of such claims is as follows: [0491] Real Asset Index: Colliers ABR
Manhattan Office Rent Rates [0492] Bloomberg Ticker: COLAMANR
[0493] Update Frequency: Monthly [0494] Source: Colliers ABR, Inc.
[0495] Announcement Date: Jul. 31, 1999 [0496] Last Announcement
Date: Jun. 30, 1999 [0497] Last Index Value: $45.39/sq. ft. [0498]
Consensus Estimate: $45.50 [0499] Expiration: Announcement Jul. 31,
1999 [0500] Current Trading Period Start: Jun. 30, 1999 [0501]
Current Trading Period End: Jul. 7, 1999 [0502] Next Trading Period
Start: Jul. 7, 1999 [0503] Next Trading Period End: Jul. 14,
1999
[0504] For reasons of brevity, defined states and opening
indicative or illustrative returns resulting from amounts invested
in the various states for this example are not shown, but can be
calculated or will emerge from actual trader investments according
to the methods of the present invention as illustrated in Examples
3.1.1-3.1.9.
[0505] Demand-based markets or auctions can be structured to offer
a wide variety of products related to real assets, such as real
estate, bandwidth, wireless spectrum capacity, or computer memory.
An additional example follows: [0506] Computer Memory: Demand-based
markets or auctions can be structured to trade DBAR contingent
claims, including, for example, digital options, based on computer
memory components. For example, DBAR contingent claims can be based
on an underlying event defined as the 64 Mb (8.times.8) PC 133 DRAM
memory chip prices and on the rolling 90-day average of Dynamic
Random Access Memory DRAM prices as reported each Friday by
ICIS-LOR, a commodity price monitoring group based in London.
Example 3.1.11
Energy Supply Chain
[0507] A group of DBAR contingent claims can also be constructed
using the methods and systems of the present invention to provide
hedging vehicles on non-tradable quantities of great economic
significance within the supply chain of a given industry. An
example of such an application is the number of oil rigs currently
deployed in domestic U.S. oil production. The rig count tends to be
a slowly adjusting quantity that is sensitive to energy prices.
Thus, appropriately structured groups of DBAR contingent claims
based on rig counts could enable suppliers, producers and drillers
to hedge exposure to sudden changes in energy prices and could
provide a valuable risk-sharing device.
[0508] For example, a group of DBAR contingent claims depending on
the rig count could be constructed according to the present
invention using the following information (e.g., data source,
termination criteria, etc). [0509] Asset Index: Baker Hughes Rig
Count U.S. Total [0510] Bloomberg Ticker: BAKETOT [0511] Frequency:
Weekly [0512] Source: Baker Hughes, Inc. [0513] Announcement Date:
Jul. 16, 1999 [0514] Last Announcement Date: Jul. 9, 1999 [0515]
Expiration Date: Jul. 16, 1999 [0516] Trading Start Date: Jul. 9,
1999 [0517] Trading End Date: Jul. 15, 1999 [0518] Last: 570 [0519]
Consensus Estimate: 580
[0520] For reasons of brevity, defined states and opening
indicative or illustrative returns resulting from amounts invested
in the various states for this example are not shown, but can be
readily calculated or will emerge from actual trader investments
according to the methods of the present invention, as illustrated
in Examples 3.1.1-3.1.9. A variety of embodiments of DBAR
contingent claims, including for example, digital options, can be
based on an underlying event defined as the Baker Hughes Rig Count
observed on a semi-annual basis. [0521] Demand-based markets or
auctions can be structured to offer a wide variety of products
related to power and emissions, including electricity prices,
loads, degree-days, water supply, and pollution credits. The
following examples provide a further representative sampling:
[0522] Electricity Prices: Demand-based markets or auctions can be
structured to trade DBAR contingent claims, including, for example,
digital options, based on the price of electricity at various
points on the electricity grid. For example, DBAR contingent claims
can be based on an underlying event defined as the weekly average
price of electricity in kilowatt-hours at the New York Independent
System Operator (NYISO). [0523] Transmission Load Demand-based
markets or auctions can be structured to trade DBAR contingent
claims, including, for example, digital options, based on the
actual load (power demand) experienced for a particular power pool,
allowing participants to trade volume, in addition to price. For
example, DBAR contingent claims can be based on an underlying event
defined as the weekly total load demand experienced by
Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland Interconnect (PJM Western Hub).
[0524] Water: Demand-based markets or auctions can be structured to
trade DBAR contingent claims, including, for example, digital
options, based on water supply. Water measures are useful to a
broad variety of constituents, including power companies,
agricultural producers, and municipalities. For example, DBAR
contingent claims can be based on an underlying event defined as
the cumulative precipitation observed at weather stations
maintained by the National Weather Service in the Northwest
catchment area, including Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
[0525] Emission Allowances Demand-based markets or auctions can be
structured to trade DBAR contingent claims, including, for example,
digital options, based on emission allowances for various
pollutants. For example, DBAR contingent claims can be based on an
underlying event defined as price of Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) sulfur dioxide allowances at the annual market or
auction administered by the Chicago Board of Trade.
Example 3.1.12
Mortgage Prepayment Risk
[0526] Real estate mortgages comprise an extremely large fixed
income asset class with hundreds of billions in market
capitalization. Market participants generally understand that these
mortgage-backed securities are subject to interest rate risk and
the risk that borrowers may exercise their options to refinance
their mortgages or otherwise "prepay" their existing mortgage
loans. The owner of a mortgage security, therefore, bears the risk
of being "called" out of its position when mortgage interest rate
levels decline.
[0527] Market participants expend considerable time and resources
assembling econometric models and synthesizing various data
populations in order to generate prepayment projections. To the
extent that economic forecasts are inaccurate, inefficiencies and
severe misallocation of resources can result. Unfortunately,
traditional derivatives markets fail to provide market participants
with a direct mechanism to protect themselves against a homeowner's
exercise of its prepayment option. Demand-based markets or auctions
for mortgage prepayment products, however, provide market
participants with a concrete price for prepayment risk.
[0528] Groups of DBAR contingent claims can be structured according
to the present invention, for example, based on the following
information: [0529] Asset Index: FNMA Conventional 30 year
One-Month Historical Aggregate Prepayments [0530] Coupon: 6.5%
[0531] Frequency: Monthly [0532] Source: Bloomberg [0533]
Announcement Date: Aug. 1, 1999 [0534] Last Announcement Date: Jul.
1, 1999 [0535] Expiration: Announcement Date, Aug. 1, 1999 [0536]
Current Trading Period Start Date: Jul. 1, 1999 [0537] Current
Trading Period End Date: Jul. 9, 1999 [0538] Last: 303 Public
Securities Association Prepayment Speed ("PSA") [0539] Consensus
Estimate: 310 PSA
[0540] For reasons of brevity, defined states and opening
indicative or illustrative returns resulting from amounts invested
in the various states for this example are not shown, but can be
readily calculated or will emerge from actual trader investments
according to the methods of the present invention, as illustrated
in Examples 3.1.1-3.1.9.
[0541] In addition to the general advantages of the demand-based
trading system, products on mortgage prepayments may provide the
following exemplary new opportunities for trading and risk
management: [0542] (1) Asset-specific applications. In the simplest
form, the owner of a prepayable mortgage-backed security carries,
by definition, a series of short option positions embedded in the
asset, whereas a DBAR contingent claim, including, for example, a
digital option, based on mortgage prepayments would constitute a
long option position. A security owner would have the opportunity
to compare the digital option's expected return with the
prospective loss of principal, correlate the offsetting options,
and invest accordingly. While this tactic would not eliminate
reinvestment risks, per se, it would generate incremental
investment returns that would reduce the security owner's embedded
liabilities with respect to short option positions. [0543] (2)
Portfolio applications. Certainly, a similar strategy could be
applied on an expanded basis to a portfolio of mortgage-backed
securities, or a portfolio of whole mortgage loans. [0544] (3)
Enhancements to specific pools. Certain pools of seasoned mortgage
loans exhibit consistent prepayment patterns, based upon
comprehensible factors--origination period, underwriting standards,
borrower circumstances, geographic phenomena, etc. Because of
homogeneous prepayment performance, mortgage market participants
can obtain greater confidence with respect to the accuracy of
predictions for prepayments in these pools, than in the case of
pools of heterogeneous, newly originated loans that lack a
prepayment history. Market conventions tend to assign lower
volatility estimates to the correlation of prepayment changes in
seasoned pools for given interest rate changes, than in the case of
newer pools. A relatively consistent prepayment pattern for
seasoned mortgage loan pools would heighten the certainty of
correctly anticipating future prepayments, which would heighten the
likelihood of consistent success in trading in DBAR contingent
claims such as, for example, digital options, based on respective
mortgage prepayments. Such digital option investments, combined
with seasoned pools, would tend to enhance annuity-like cash
profiles, and reduce investment risks. [0545] (4) Prepayment puts
plus discount MBS. Discount mortgage-backed securities tend to
enjoy two-fold benefits as interest rates decline in the form of
positive price changes and increases in prepayment speeds. Converse
penalties apply in events of increases in interest rates, where a
discount MBS suffers from adverse price change, and a decline in
prepayment income. A discount MBS owner could offset diminished
prepayment income by investing in DBAR contingent claims, such as,
for example, digital put options, or digital put option spreads on
prepayments. An analogous strategy would apply to principal-only
mortgage-backed securities. [0546] (5) Prepayment calls plus
premium MBS. An expectation of interest rate declines that
accelerate prepayment activity for premium mortgage-backed
securities would motivate a premium bond-holder to purchase DBAR
contingent claims, such as, for example, digital call options,
based on mortgage prepayments to offset losses attributable to
unwelcome paydowns. The analogue would also apply to interest-only
mortgage-backed securities. [0547] (6) Convexity additions. An
investment in a DBAR contingent claim, such as, for example, a
digital option, based on mortgage prepayments should effectively
add convexity to an interest rate sensitive investment. According
to this reasoning, dollar-weighted purchases of a demand-based
market or auction on mortgage prepayments would tend to offset the
negative convexity exhibited by mortgage-backed securities. It is
likely that expert participants in the mortgage marketplace will
analyze and test, and ultimately harvest, the fruitful
opportunities for combinations of DBAR contingent claims,
including, for example, digital options, based on mortgage
prepayments with mortgage-backed securities and derivatives.
Example 3.1.13
Insurance Industry Loss Warranty ("ILW")
[0548] The cumulative impact of catastrophic and non-catastrophic
insurance losses over the past two years has reduced the capital
available in the retrocession market (i.e. reinsurance for
reinsurance companies) and pushed up insurance and reinsurance
rates for property catastrophe coverage. Because large reinsurance
companies operate global businesses with global exposures, severe
losses from catastrophes in one country tend to drive up insurance
and reinsurance rates for unrelated perils in other countries
simply due to capital constraints.
[0549] As capital becomes scarce and insurance rates increase,
market participants usually access the capital markets by
purchasing catastrophic bonds (CAT bonds) issued by special purpose
reinsurance companies. The capital markets can absorb the risk of
loss associated with larger disasters, whereas a single insurer or
even a group of insurers cannot, because the risk is spread across
many more market participants.
[0550] Unlike traditional capital markets that generally exhibit a
natural two-way order flow, insurance markets typically exhibit
one-way demand generated by participants desiring protection from
adverse outcomes. Because demand-based trading products do not
require an underlying source of supply, such products provide an
attractive alternative for access to capital.
[0551] Groups of DBAR contingent claims can be structured using the
system and methods of the present invention to provide insurance
and reinsurance facilities for property and casualty, life, health
and other traditional lines of insurance. The following information
provides information to structure a group of DBAR contingent claims
related to large property losses from hurricane damage: [0552]
Event: PCS Eastern Excess $5 billion Index [0553] Source: Property
Claim Services (PCS) [0554] Frequency: Monthly [0555] Announcement
Date: Oct. 1, 1999 [0556] Last Announcement Date: Jul. 1, 1999
[0557] Last Index Value: No events [0558] Consensus Estimate: $1
billion (claims excess of $5 billion) [0559] Expiration:
Announcement Date, Oct. 1, 1999 [0560] Trading Period Start Date:
Jul. 1, 1999 [0561] Trading Period End Date: Sep. 30, 1999
[0562] For reasons of brevity, defined states and opening
indicative or illustrative returns resulting from amounts invested
in the various states for this example are not shown, but can be
readily calculated or will emerge from actual trader investments
according to the methods of the present invention, as illustrated
in Examples 3.1.1-3.1.9.
[0563] In preferred embodiments of groups of DBAR contingent claims
related to property-casualty catastrophe losses, the frequency of
claims and the distributions of the severity of losses are assumed
and convolutions are performed in order to post indicative returns
over the distribution of defined states. This can be done, for
example, using compound frequency-severity models, such as the
Poisson-Pareto model, familiar to those of skill in the art, which
predict, with greater probability than a normal distribution, when
losses will be extreme. As indicated previously, in preferred
embodiments market activity is expected to alter the posted
indicative returns, which serve as informative levels at the
commencement of trading.
[0564] Demand-based markets or auctions can be structured to offer
a wide variety of products related to insurance industry loss
warranties and other insurable risks, including property and
non-property catastrophe, mortality rates, mass torts, etc. An
additional example follows: [0565] Property Catastrophe:
Demand-based markets or auctions can be based on the outcome of
natural catastrophes, including earthquake, fire, atmospheric
peril, and flooding, etc. Underlying events can be based on hazard
parameters. For example, DBAR contingent claims can be based on an
underlying event defined as the cumulative losses sustained in
California as the result of earthquake damage in the year 2002, as
calculated by the Property Claims Service (PCS).
[0566] In addition to the general advantages of the demand-based
trading system, products on catastrophe risk will provide the
following new opportunities for trading and risk management: [0567]
(1) Greater transaction efficiency and precision. A demand-based
trading catastrophe risk product, such as, for example, a DBAR
digital option, allows participants to buy or sell a precise
notional quantity of desired risk, at any point along a catastrophe
risk probability curve, with a limit price for the risk. A series
of loss triggers can be created for catastrophic events that offer
greater flexibility and customization for insurance transactions,
in addition to indicative pricing for all trigger levels. Segments
of risk coverage can be traded with ease and precision.
Participants in demand-based trading catastrophe risk products gain
the ability to adjust risk protection or exposure to a desired
level. For example, a reinsurance company may wish to purchase
protection at the tail of a distribution, for unlikely but
extremely catastrophic losses, while writing insurance in other
parts of the distribution where returns may appear attractive.
[0568] (2) Credit quality. Claims-paying ability of an insurer or
reinsurer represents an important concern for many market
participants. Participants in a demand-based market or auction do
not depend on the credit quality of an individual insurance or
reinsurance company. A demand-based market or auction is by nature
self-funding, meaning that catastrophic losses in other product or
geographic areas will not impair the ability of a demand-based
trading catastrophe risk product to make capital distributions.
Example 3.1.14
Conditional Events
[0569] As discussed above, advantage of the systems and methods of
the present invention is the ability to construct groups of DBAR
contingent claims related to events of economic significance for
which there is great interest in insurance and hedging, but which
are not readily hedged or insured in traditional capital and
insurance markets. Another example of such an event is one that
occurs only when some related event has previously occurred. For
purposes of illustration, these two events may be denoted A and
B.
q A B = q ( A B ) q ( B ) ##EQU00027##
where q denotes the probability of a state, qA|B represents the
conditional probability of state A given the prior occurrence of
state and B, and q(A.andgate.B) represents the occurrence of both
states A and B.
[0570] For example, a group of DBAR contingent claims may be
constructed to combine elements of "key person" insurance and the
performance of the stock price of the company managed by the key
person. Many firms are managed by people whom capital markets
perceive as indispensable or particularly important, such as Warren
Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway. The holders of Berkshire Hathaway
stock have no ready way of insuring against the sudden change in
management of Berkshire, either due to a corporate action such as a
takeover or to the death or disability of Warren Buffett. A group
of conditional DBAR contingent claims can be constructed according
to the present invention where the defined states reflect the stock
price of Berkshire Hathaway conditional on Warren Buffet's leaving
the firm's management. Other conditional DBAR contingent claims
that could attract significant amounts for investment can be
constructed using the methods and systems of the present invention,
as apparent to one of skill in the art.
Example 3.1.15
Securitization Using a DBAR Contingent Claim Mechanism
[0571] The systems and methods of the present invention can also be
adapted by a financial intermediary or issuer for the issuance of
securities such as bonds, common or preferred stock, or other types
of financial instruments. The process of creating new opportunities
for hedging underlying events through the creation of new
securities is known as "securitization," and is also discussed in
an embodiment presented in Section 10. Well-known examples of
securitization include the mortgage and asset-backed securities
markets, in which portfolios of financial risk are aggregated and
then recombined into new sources of financial risk. The systems and
methods of the present invention can be used within the
securitization process by creating securities, or portfolios of
securities, whose risk, in whole or part, is tied to an associated
or embedded group of DBAR contingent claims. In a preferred
embodiment, a group of DBAR contingent claims is associated with a
security much like options are currently associated with bonds in
order to create callable and putable bonds in the traditional
markets.
[0572] This example illustrates how a group of DBAR contingent
claims according to the present invention can be tied to the
issuance of a security in order to share risk associated with an
identified future event among the security holders. In this
example, the security is a fixed income bond with an embedded group
of DBAR contingent claims whose value depends on the possible
values for hurricane losses over some time period for some
geographic region. [0573] Issuer: Tokyo Fire and Marine [0574]
Underwriter: Goldman Sachs [0575] DBAR Event: Total Losses on a
Saffir-Simpson Category 4 Hurricane [0576] Geographic: Property
Claims Services Eastern North America [0577] Date: Jul. 1,
1999-Nov. 1, 1999 [0578] Size of Issue: 500 million USD. [0579]
Issue Date: Jun. 1, 1999 [0580] DBAR Trading Period: Jun. 1,
1999-Jul. 1, 1999
[0581] In this example, the underwriter Goldman Sachs issues the
bond, and holders of the issued bond put bond principal at risk
over the entire distribution of amounts of Category 4 losses for
the event. Ranges of possible losses comprise the defined states
for the embedded group of DBAR contingent claims. In a preferred
embodiment, the underwriter is responsible for updating the returns
to investments in the various states, monitoring credit risk, and
clearing and settling, and validating the amount of the losses.
When the event is determined and uncertainty is resolved, Goldman
is "put" or collects the bond principal at risk from the
unsuccessful investments and allocates these amounts to the
successful investments. The mechanism in this illustration thus
includes: [0582] (1) An underwriter or intermediary which
implements the mechanism, and [0583] (2) A group of DBAR contingent
claims directly tied to a security or issue (such as the
catastrophe bond above).
[0584] For reasons of brevity, defined states and opening
indicative or illustrative returns resulting from amounts invested
in the various states for this example are not shown, but can be
readily calculated or will emerge from actual trader investments
according to the methods of the present invention, as illustrated
in Examples 3.1.1-3.1.9.
Example 3.1.16
Exotic Derivatives
[0585] The securities and derivatives communities frequently use
the term "exotic derivatives" to refer to derivatives whose values
are linked to a security, asset, financial product or source of
financial risk in a more complicated fashion than traditional
derivatives such as futures, call options, and convertible bonds.
Examples of exotic derivatives include American options, Asian
options, barrier options, Bermudan options, chooser and compound
options, binary or digital options, lookback options, automatic and
flexible caps and floors, and shout options.
[0586] Many types of exotic options are currently traded. For
example, barrier options are rights to purchase an underlying
financial product, such as a quantity of foreign currency, for a
specified rate or price, but only if, for example, the underlying
exchange rate crosses or does not cross one or more defined rates
or "barriers." For example, a dollar call/yen put on the dollar/yen
exchange rate, expiring in three months with strike price 110 and
"knock-out" barrier of 105, entitles the holder to purchase a
quantity of dollars at 110 yen per dollar, but only if the exchange
rate did not fall below 105 at any point during the three month
duration of the option. Another example of a commonly traded exotic
derivative, an Asian option, depends on the average value of the
underlying security over some time period. Thus, a class of exotic
derivatives is commonly referred to as "path-dependent"
derivatives, such as barrier and Asian options, since their values
depend not only on the value of the underlying financial product at
a given date, but on a history of the value or state of the
underlying financial product.
[0587] The properties and features of exotic derivatives are often
so complex so as to present a significant source of "model risk" or
the risk that the tools, or the assumptions upon which they are
based, will lead to significant errors in pricing and hedging.
Accordingly, derivatives traders and risk managers often employ
sophisticated analytical tools to trade, hedge, and manage the risk
of exotic derivatives.
[0588] One of the advantages of the systems and methods of the
present invention is the ability to construct groups of DBAR
contingent claims with exotic features that are more manageable and
transparent than traditional exotic derivatives. For example, a
trader might be interested in the earliest time the yen/dollar
exchange rate crosses 95 over the next three months. A traditional
barrier option, or portfolio of such exotic options, might suffice
to approximate the source of risk of interest to this trader. A
group of DBAR contingent claims, in contrast, can be constructed to
isolate this risk and present relatively transparent opportunities
for hedging. A risk to be isolated is the distribution of possible
outcomes for what barrier derivatives traders term the "first
passage time," or, in this example, the first time that the
yen/dollar exchange rate crosses 95 over the next three months.
[0589] The following illustration shows how such a group of DBAR
contingent claims can be constructed to address this risk. In this
example, it is assumed that all traders in the group of claims
agree that the underlying exchange rate is lognormally distributed.
This group of claims illustrates how traders would invest in states
and thus express opinions regarding whether and when the forward
yen/dollar exchange rate will cross a given barrier over the next 3
months: [0590] Underlying Risk: Japanese/U.S. Dollar Yen Exchange
Rate [0591] Current Date: Sep. 15, 1999 [0592] Expiration: Forward
Rate First Passage Time, as defined, between Sep. 16, 1999 to Dec.
16, 1999 [0593] Trading Start Date: Sep. 15, 1999 [0594] Trading
End Date: Sep. 16, 1999 [0595] Barrier: 95 [0596] Spot JPY/USD:
104.68 [0597] Forward JPY/USD 103.268 [0598] Assumed (Illustrative)
Market Volatility: 20% annualized [0599] Aggregate Traded Amount:
10 million USD
TABLE-US-00016 [0599] TABLE 3.1.16-1 First Passage Time for
Yen/Dollar Dec. 16, 1999 Forward Exchange Rate Return Time in Year
Fractions Invested in State ('000) Per Unit if State Occurs (0,
.005] 229.7379 42.52786 (.005, .01] 848.9024 10.77992 (.01, .015]
813.8007 11.28802 (.015, .02] 663.2165 14.07803 (.02, .025]
536.3282 17.6453 (.025 .03] 440.5172 21.70059 (.03, .035] 368.4647
26.13964 (.035, .04] 313.3813 30.91 (.04, .045] 270.4207 35.97942
(.045, .05] 236.2651 41.32534 (.05, .075] 850.2595 10.76112 (.075,
.1] 540.0654 17.51627 (.1, .125] 381.3604 25.22191 (.125, .15]
287.6032 33.77013 (.15, .175] 226.8385 43.08423 (.175, .2] 184.8238
53.10558 (.2, .225] 154.3511 63.78734 (.225, .25] 131.4217 75.09094
Did Not Hit Barrier 2522.242 2.964727
[0600] As with other examples, and in preferred embodiments, actual
trading will likely generate traded amounts and therefore returns
that depart from the assumptions used to compute the illustrative
returns for each state.
[0601] In addition to the straightforward multivariate events
outlined above, demand-based markets or auctions can be used to
create and trade digital options (as described in Sections 6 and 7)
on calculated underlying events (including the events described in
this Section 3), similar to those found in exotic derivatives. Many
exotic derivatives are based on path-dependent outcomes such as the
average of an underlying event over time, price thresholds, a
multiple of the underlying, or some sort of time constraint. An
additional example follows: [0602] Path Dependent: Demand-based
markets or auctions can be structured to trade DBAR contingent
claims, including, for example, digital options, on an underlying
event that is the subject of a calculation. For example, digital
options traded in a demand-based market or auction could be based
on an underlying event defined as the average price of yen/dollar
exchange rate for the last quarter of 2001.
Example 3.1.17
Hedging Markets for Real Goods, Commodities and Services
[0603] Investment and capital budgeting choices faced by firms
typically involve inherent economic risk (e.g., future demand for
semiconductors), large capital investments (e.g., semiconductor
fabrication capacity) and timing (e.g., a decision to invest in a
plant now, or defer for some period of time). Many economists who
study such decisions under uncertainty have recognized that such
choices involve what they term "real options."This characterization
indicates that the choice to invest now or to defer an investment
in goods or services or a plant, for example, in the face of
changing uncertainty and information, frequently entails risks
similar to those encountered by traders who have invested in
options which provide the opportunity to buy or sell an underlying
asset in the capital markets. Many economists and investors
recognize the importance of real options in capital budgeting
decisions and of setting up markets to better manage their
uncertainty and value. Natural resource and extractive industries,
such as petroleum exploration and production, as well as industries
requiring large capital investments such as technology
manufacturing, are prime examples of industries where real options
analysis is increasingly used and valued.
[0604] Groups of DBAR contingent claims according to the present
invention can be used by firms within a given industry to better
analyze capital budgeting decisions, including those involving real
options. For example, a group of DBAR contingent claims can be
established which provides hedging opportunities over the
distribution of future semiconductor prices. Such a group of claims
would allow producers of semiconductors to better hedge their
capital budgeting decisions and provide information as to the
market's expectation of future prices over the entire distribution
of possible price outcomes. This information about the market's
expectation of future prices could then also be used in the real
options context in order to better evaluate capital budgeting
decisions. Similarly, computer manufacturers could use such groups
of DBAR contingent claims to hedge against adverse semiconductor
price changes.
[0605] Information providing the basis for constructing an
illustrative group of DBAR contingent claims on semiconductor
prices is as follows: [0606] Underlying Event: Semiconductor
Monthly Sales [0607] Index: Semiconductor Industry Association
Monthly Global Sales Release [0608] Current Date: Sep. 15, 1999
[0609] Last Release Date: Sep. 2, 1999 [0610] Last Release Month:
July, 1999 [0611] Last Release Value: 11.55 Billion, USD [0612]
Next Release Date: Approx. Oct. 1, 1999 [0613] Next Release Month:
August 1999 [0614] Trading Start Date: Sep. 2, 1999 [0615] Trading
End Date: Sep. 30, 1999
[0616] For reasons of brevity, defined states and opening
indicative or illustrative returns resulting from amounts invested
in the various states for this example are not shown, but can be
readily calculated or will emerge from actual trader investments
according to the methods of the present invention, as illustrated
in previous examples.
[0617] Groups of DBAR contingent claims according to the present
invention can also be used to hedge arbitrary sources of risk due
to price discovery processes. For example, firms involved in
competitive bidding for goods or services, whether by sealed bid or
open bid markets or auctions, can hedge their investments and other
capital expended in preparing the bid by investing in states of a
group of DBAR contingent claims comprising ranges of mutually
exclusive and collectively exhaustive market or auction bids. In
this way, the group of DBAR contingent claim serves as a kind of
"meta-auction," and allows those who will be participating in the
market or auction to invest in the distribution of possible market
or auction outcomes, rather than simply waiting for the single
outcome representing the market or auction result. Market or
auction participants could thus hedge themselves against adverse
market or auction developments and outcomes, and, importantly, have
access to the entire probability distribution of bids (at least at
one point in time) before submitting a bid into the real market or
auction. Thus, a group of DBAR claims could be used to provide
market data over the entire distribution of possible bids.
Preferred embodiments of the present invention thus can help avoid
the so-called Winner's Curse phenomenon known to economists,
whereby market or auction participants fail rationally to take
account of the information on the likely bids of their market or
auction competitors.
[0618] Demand-based markets or auctions can be structured to offer
a wide variety of products related to commodities such as fuels,
chemicals, base metals, precious metals, agricultural products,
etc. The following examples provide a further representative
sampling: [0619] Fuels: Demand-based markets or auctions can be
based on measures related to various fuel sources. For example,
DBAR contingent claims, including, e.g., digital options, can be
based on an underlying event defined as the price of natural gas in
Btu's delivered to the Henry Hub, Louisiana. [0620] Chemicals:
Demand-based markets or auctions can be based on measures related
to a variety of other chemicals. For example, DBAR contingent
claims, including, e.g., digital options, can be based on an
underlying event defined as the price of polyethylene. [0621] Base
Metals: Demand-based markets or auctions can be based on measures
related to various precious metals. For example, DBAR contingent
claims, including, e.g., digital options, can be based on an
underlying event defined as the price per gross ton of #1 Heavy
Melt Scrap Iron. [0622] Precious Metals: Demand-based markets or
auctions can be based on measures related to various precious
metals. For example, DBAR contingent claims, including, e.g.,
digital options, can be based on an underlying event defined as the
price per troy ounce of Platinum delivered to an approved storage
facility. [0623] Agricultural Products: Demand-based markets or
auctions can be based on measures related to various agricultural
products. For example, DBAR contingent claims, including, e.g.,
digital options, can be based on an underlying event defined as the
price per bushel of #2 yellow corn delivered at the Chicago
Switching District.
Example 3.1.18
DBAR Hedging
[0624] Another feature of the systems and methods of the present
invention is the relative ease with which traders can hedge risky
exposures. In the following example, it is assumed that a group of
DBAR contingent claims has two states (state 1 and state 2, or
s.sub.1 or s.sub.2), and amounts T.sub.1, and T.sub.2 are invested
in state 1 and state 2, respectively. The unit payout .pi..sub.1
for state 1 is therefore T.sub.2/T.sub.1 and for state 2 it is
T.sub.1/T.sub.2. If a trader then invests amount .alpha..sub.1 in
state 1, and state 1 then occurs, the trader in this example would
receive the following payouts, P, indexed by the appropriate state
subscripts:
P 1 = .alpha. 1 * ( T 2 T 1 + .alpha. 1 + 1 ) ##EQU00028##
If state 2 occurs the trader would receive
P.sub.2=0
If, at some point during the trading period, the trader desires to
hedge his exposure, the investment in state 2 to do so is
calculated as follows:
.alpha. 2 = .alpha. 1 * T 2 T 1 . ##EQU00029##
This is found by equating the state payouts with the proposed hedge
trade, as follows:
P 1 = .alpha. 1 * ( T 2 + .alpha. 2 T 1 + .alpha. 1 + 1 ) = P 2 =
.alpha. 2 * ( T 1 + .alpha. 1 T 2 + .alpha. 2 + 1 )
##EQU00030##
[0625] Compared to the calculation required to hedge traditional
derivatives, these expressions show that, in appropriate groups of
DBAR contingent claims of the present invention, calculating and
implementing hedges can be relatively straightforward.
[0626] The hedge ratio, .alpha..sub.2, just computed for a simple
two state example can be adapted to a group of DBAR contingent
claims which is defined over more than two states. In a preferred
embodiment of a group of DBAR contingent claims, the existing
investments in states to be hedged can be distinguished from the
states on which a future hedge investment is to be made. The latter
states can be called the "complement" states, since they comprise
all the states that can occur other than those in which investment
by a trader has already been made, i.e., they are complementary to
the invested states. A multi-state hedge in a preferred embodiment
includes two steps: (1) determining the amount of the hedge
investment in the complement states, and (2) given the amount so
determined, allocating the amount among the complement states. The
amount of the hedge investment in the complement states pursuant to
the first step is calculated as:
.alpha. C = .alpha. H * T C T H ##EQU00031##
where .alpha..sub.C is amount of the hedge investment in the
complement states, .alpha..sub.H is the amount of the existing
investment in the states to be hedged, T.sub.c is the existing
amount invested in the complement states, and T.sub.H is the amount
invested the states to be hedged, exclusive of .alpha..sub.H. The
second step involves allocating the hedge investment among the
complement states, which can be done by allocating .alpha..sub.C
among the complement states in proportion to the existing amounts
already invested in each of those states.
[0627] An example of a four-state group of DBAR contingent claims
according to the present invention illustrates this two-step
hedging process. For purposes of this example, the following
assumptions are made: (i) there are four states, numbered 1 through
4, respectively; (ii) $50, $80, $70 and $40 is invested in each
state, (iii) a trader has previously placed a multi-state
investment in the amount of $10 (.alpha..sub.H as defined above)
for states 1 and 2; and (iv) the allocation of this multi-state
investment in states 1 and 2 is $3.8462 and $6.15385, respectively.
The amounts invested in each state, excluding the trader's invested
amounts, are therefore $46.1538, $73.84615, $70, and $40 for states
1 through 4, respectively. It is noted that the amount invested in
the states to be hedged, i.e., states 1 and 2, exclusive of the
multi-state investment of $10, is the quantity T.sub.H as defined
above.
[0628] The first step in a preferred embodiment of the two-step
hedging process is to compute the amount of the hedge investment to
be made in the complement states. As derived above, the amount of
the new hedge investment is equal to the amount of the existing
investment multiplied by the ratio of the amount invested in the
complement states to the amount invested in the states to be
hedged, excluding the trader's existing trades, i.e.,
$10*($70+$40)/($46.1538+$73.84615)=$9.16667. The second step in
this process is to allocate this amount between the two complement
states, i.e., states 3 and 4.
[0629] Following the procedures discussed above for allocating
multi-state investments, the complement state allocation is
accomplished by allocating the hedge investment amount--$9.16667 in
this example--in proportion to the existing amount previously
invested in the complement states, i.e., $9.16667*$70/$110=$5.83333
for state 3 and $9.16667*$40/$110=$3.3333 for state 4. Thus, in
this example, the trader now has the following amounts invested in
states 1 through 4: ($3.8462, $6.15385, $5.8333, $3.3333); the
total amount invested in each of the four states is $50, $80,
$75.83333, and $43.3333); and the returns for each of the four
states, based on the total amount invested in each of the four
states, would be, respectively, (3.98333, 2.1146, 2.2857, and
4.75). In this example, if state 1 occurs the trader will receive a
payout, including the amount invested in state 1, of
3.98333*$3.8462+$3.8462=$19.1667 which is equal to the sum
invested, so the trader is fully hedged against the occurrence of
state 1. Calculations for the other states yield the same results,
so that the trader in this example would be fully hedged
irrespective of which state occurs.
[0630] As returns can be expected to change throughout the trading
period, the trader would correspondingly need to rebalance both the
amount of his hedge investment for the complement states as well as
the multi-state allocation among the complement states. In a
preferred embodiment, a DBAR contingent claim exchange can be
responsible for reallocating multi-state trades via a suspense
account, for example, so the trader can assign the duty of
reallocating the multi-state investment to the exchange. Similarly,
the trader can also assign to an exchange the responsibility of
determining the amount of the hedge investment in the complement
states especially as returns change as a result of trading. The
calculation and allocation of this amount can be done by the
exchange in a similar fashion to the way the exchange reallocates
multi-state trades to constituent states as investment amounts
change.
Example 3.1.19
Quasi-Continuous Trading
[0631] Preferred embodiments of the systems and methods of the
present invention include a trading period during which returns
adjust among defined states for a group of DBAR contingent claims,
and a later observation period during which the outcome is
ascertained for the event on which the group of claims is based. In
preferred embodiments, returns are allocated to the occurrence of a
state based on the final distribution of amounts invested over all
the states at the end of the trading period. Thus, in each
embodiments a trader will not know his returns to a given state
with certainty until the end of a given trading period. The changes
in returns or "price discovery" which occur during the trading
period prior to "locking-in" the final returns may provide useful
information as to trader expectations regarding finalized outcomes,
even though they are only indications as to what the final returns
are going to be. Thus, in some preferred embodiments, a trader may
not be able to realize profits or losses during the trading period.
The hedging illustration of Example 3.1.18, for instance, provides
an example of risk reduction but not of locking-in or realizing
profit and loss.
[0632] In other preferred embodiments, a quasi-continuous market
for trading in a group of DBAR contingent claims may be created. In
preferred embodiments, a plurality of recurring trading periods may
provide traders with nearly continuous opportunities to realize
profit and loss. In one such embodiment, the end of one trading
period is immediately followed by the opening of a new trading
period, and the final invested amount and state returns for a prior
trading period are "locked in" as that period ends, and are
allocated accordingly when the outcome of the relevant event is
later known. As a new trading period begins on the group of DBAR
contingent claims related to the same underlying event, a new
distribution of invested amounts for states can emerge along with a
corresponding new distribution of state returns. In such
embodiments, as the successive trading periods are made to open and
close more frequently, a quasi-continuous market can be obtained,
enabling traders to hedge and realize profit and loss as frequently
as they currently do in the traditional markets.
[0633] An example illustrates how this feature of the present
invention may be implemented. The example illustrates the hedging
of a European digital call option on the yen/dollar exchange rate
(a traditional market option) over a two day period during which
the underlying exchange rate changes by one yen per dollar. In this
example, two trading periods are assumed for the group of DBAR
contingent claims
Traditional Option: European Digital Option
[0634] Payout of Option: Pays 100 million USD if exchange rate
equals or exceeds strike price at maturity or expiration Underlying
Index Yen/dollar exchange rate
Option Start: Aug. 12, 1999
Option Expiration Aug. 15, 2000
[0635] Assumed Volatility: 20% annualized
Strike Price: 120
[0636] Notional: 100 million USD
[0637] In this example, two dates are analyzed, Aug. 12, 1999 and
Aug. 13, 1999:
TABLE-US-00017 TABLE 3.1.19-1 Change in Traditional Digital Call
Option Value Over Two Days Observation Date Aug. 12, 1999 Aug. 13,
1999 Spot Settlement Date Aug. 16, 1999 Aug. 17, 1999 Spot Price
for Settlement Date 115.55 116.55 Forward Settlement Date Aug. 15,
2000 Aug. 15, 2000 Forward Price 109.217107 110.1779 Option Premium
28.333% of Notional 29.8137% of Notional
[0638] Table 3.1.19-1 shows how the digital call option struck at
120 could, as an example, change in value with an underlying change
in the yen/dollar exchange rate. The second column shows that the
option is worth 28.333% or $28.333 million on a $100 million
notional on Aug. 12, 1999 when the underlying exchange rate is
115.55. The third column shows that the value of the option, which
pays $100 million should dollar yen equal or exceed 120 at the
expiration date, increases to 29.8137% or $29.8137 million per $100
million when the underlying exchange rate has increased by 1 yen to
116.55. Thus, the traditional digital call option generates a
profit of $29.81377-$28.333=$1.48077 million.
[0639] This example shows how this profit also could be realized in
trading in a group of DBAR contingent claims with two successive
trading periods. It is also assumed for purposes of this example
that there are sufficient amounts invested, or liquidity, in both
states such that the particular trader's investment does not
materially affect the returns to each state. This is a convenient
but not necessary assumption that allows the trader to take the
returns to each state "as given" without concern as to how his
investment will affect the closing returns for a given trading
period. Using information from Table 3.1.19-1, the following
closing returns for each state can be derived:
[0640] Trading Period 1: [0641] Current trading period end date:
Aug. 12, 1999 [0642] Underlying Event: Closing level of yen/dollar
exchange rate for Aug. 15, 2000 settlement, 4 pm EDT [0643] Spot
Price for Aug. 16, 1999 Settlement: 115.55
TABLE-US-00018 [0643] State JPY/USD < 120 for JPY/USD .gtoreq.
120 Aug. 15, 2000 for Aug. 15, 2000 Closing Returns 0.39533
2.5295
[0644] For purposes of this example, it is assumed that an
illustrative trader has $28.333 million invested in the state that
the yen/dollar exchange rate equals or exceeds 120 for Aug. 15,
2000 settlement.
[0645] Trading Period 2: [0646] Current trading period end date:
Aug. 13, 1999 [0647] Underlying Event: Closing level of dollar/yen
exchange rate for Aug. 15, 2000 settlement, 4 pm EDT [0648] Spot
Price for Aug. 17, 1999 Settlement: 116.55
TABLE-US-00019 [0648] State JPY/USD < 120 JPY/USD .gtoreq. 120
for Aug. 15, 2000 for Aug. 15, 2000 Closing State Returns .424773
2.3542
[0649] For purposes of this example, it is also assumed that the
illustrative trader has a $70.18755 million hedging investment in
the state that the yen/dollar exchange rate is less than 120 for
Aug. 15, 2000 settlement. It is noted that, for the second period,
the closing returns are lower for the state that the exchange
equals or exceeds 120. This is due to the change represented in
Table 3.1.19-1 reflecting an assumed change in the underlying
market, which would make that state more likely.
[0650] The trader now has an investment in each trading period and
has locked in a profit of $1.4807 million, as shown below:
TABLE-US-00020 State JPY/USD < 120 JPY/USD .gtoreq. 120 for Aug.
15, 2000 for Aug. 15, 2000 Profit and Loss $70.18755 * .424773 -
$-70.18755 + 28.333 * (000.000) $28.333 = $1.48077 $2.5295 =
$1.48077
[0651] The illustrative trader in this example has therefore been
able to lock-in or realize the profit no matter which state finally
occurs. This profit is identical to the profit realized in the
traditional digital option, illustrating that systems and methods
of the present invention can be used to provide at least daily if
not more frequent realization of profits and losses, or that risks
can be hedged in virtually real time.
[0652] In preferred embodiments, a quasi-continuous time hedge can
be accomplished, in general, by the following hedge investment,
assuming the effect of the size of the hedge trade does not
materially effect the returns:
H = .alpha. t * 1 + r t 1 + r t + 1 c ##EQU00032## [0653] where
r.sub.t=closing returns a state in which an investment was
originally made at time t [0654] .alpha..sub.t=amount originally
invested in the state at time t [0655] r.sup.c.sub.t+1=closing
returns at time t+1 to state or states other than the state in
which the original investment was made (i.e., the so-called
complement states which are all states other than the state or
states originally traded which are to be hedged) [0656] H=the
amount of the hedge investment
[0657] If H is to be invested in more than one state, then a
multi-state allocation among the constituent states can be
performed using the methods and procedures described above. This
expression for H allows investors in DBAR contingent claims to
calculate the investment amounts for hedging transactions. In the
traditional markets, such calculations are often complex and quite
difficult.
Example 3.1.20
Value Units For Investments and Payouts
[0658] As previously discussed in this specification, the units of
investments and payouts used in embodiments of the present
invention can be any unit of economic value recognized by
investors, including, for example, currencies, commodities, number
of shares, quantities of indices, amounts of swap transactions, or
amounts of real estate. The invested amounts and payouts need not
be in the same units and can comprise a group or combination of
such units, for example 25% gold, 25% barrels of oil, and 50%
Japanese Yen. The previous examples in this specification have
generally used U.S. dollars as the value units for investments and
payouts.
[0659] This Example 3.1.20 illustrates a group of DBAR contingent
claims for a common stock in which the invested units and payouts
are defined in quantities of shares. For this example, the terms
and conditions of Example 3.1.1 are generally used for the group of
contingent claims on MSFT common stock, except for purposes of
brevity, only three states are presented in this Example 3.1.20:
(0,83], (83, 88], and (88,.infin.]. Also in this Example 3.1.20,
invested amounts are in numbers of shares for each state and the
exchange makes the conversion for the trader at the market price
prevailing at the time of the investment. In this example, payouts
are made according to a canonical DRF in which a trader receives a
quantity of shares equal to the number of shares invested in states
that did not occur, in proportion to the ratio of number of shares
the trader has invested in the state that did occur, divided by the
total number of shares invested in that state. An indicative
distribution of trader demand in units of number of shares is shown
below, assuming that the total traded amount is 100,000 shares:
TABLE-US-00021 Return Per Share if State Occurs Amount Traded in
Number Unit Returns in Number of State of Share Shares (0, 83]
17,803 4.617 (83, 88] 72,725 .37504 (88, .infin.] 9,472 9.5574
[0660] If, for instance, MSFT closes at 91 at expiration, then in
this example the third state has occurred, and a trader who had
previously invested 10 shares in that state would receive a payout
of 10*9.5574+10=105.574 shares which includes the trader's original
investment. Traders who had previously invested in the other two
states would lose all of their shares upon application of the
canonical DRF of this example.
[0661] An important feature of investing in value units other than
units of currency is that the magnitude of the observed outcome may
well be relevant, as well as the state that occurs based on that
outcome. For example, if the investments in this example were made
in dollars, the trader who has a dollar invested in state
(88,.infin.] would not care, at least in theory, whether the final
price of MSFT at the close of the observation period were 89 or
500. However, if the value units are numbers of shares of stock,
then the magnitude of the final outcome does matter, since the
trader receives as a payout a number of shares which can be
converted to more dollars at a higher outcome price of $91 per
share. For instance, for a payout of 105.574 shares, these shares
are worth 105.574*$91=$9,607.23 at the outcome price. Had the
outcome price been $125, these shares would have been worth
105.574*125=$13,196.75.
[0662] A group of DBAR contingent claims using value units of
commodity having a price can therefore possess additional features
compared to groups of DBAR contingent claims that offer fixed
payouts for a state, regardless of the magnitude of the outcome
within that state. These features may prove useful in constructing
groups of DBAR contingent claims which are able to readily provide
risk and return profiles similar to those provided by traditional
derivatives. For example, the group of DBAR contingent claims
described in this example could be of great interest to traders who
transact in traditional derivatives known as "asset-or-nothing
digital options" and "supershares options."
Example 3.1.21
Replication of An Arbitrary Payout Distribution
[0663] An advantage of the systems and methods of the present
invention is that, in preferred embodiments, traders can generate
an arbitrary distribution of payouts across the distribution of
defined states for a group of DBAR contingent claims. The ability
to generate a customized payout distribution may be important to
traders, since they may desire to replicate contingent claims
payouts that are commonly found in traditional markets, such as
those corresponding to long positions in stocks, short positions in
bonds, short options positions in foreign exchange, and long option
straddle positions, to cite just a few examples. In addition,
preferred embodiments of the present invention may enable
replicated distributions of payouts which can only be generated
with difficulty and expense in traditional markets, such as the
distribution of payouts for a long position in a stock that is
subject to being "stopped out" by having a market-maker sell the
stock when it reaches a certain price below the market price. Such
stop-loss orders are notoriously difficult to execute in
traditional markets, and traders are frequently not guaranteed that
the execution will occur exactly at the pre-specified price.
[0664] In preferred embodiments, and as discussed above, the
generation and replication of arbitrary payout distributions across
a given distribution of states for a group of DBAR contingent
claims may be achieved through the use of multi-state investments.
In such embodiments, before making an investment, traders can
specify a desired payout for each state or some of the states in a
given distribution of states. These payouts form a distribution of
desired payouts across the distribution of states for the group of
DBAR contingent claims. In preferred embodiments, the distribution
of desired payouts may be stored by an exchange, which may also
calculate, given an existing distribution of investments across the
distribution of states, (1) the total amount required to be
invested to achieve the desired payout distribution; (2) the states
into which the investment is to allocated; and (3) how much is to
be invested in each state so that the desired payout distribution
can be achieved. In preferred embodiments, this multi-state
investment is entered into a suspense account maintained by the
exchange, which reallocates the investment among the states as the
amounts invested change across the distribution of states. In
preferred embodiments, as discussed above, a final allocation is
made at the end of the trading period when returns are
finalized.
[0665] The discussion in this specification of multi-state
investments has included examples in which it has been assumed that
an illustrative trader desires a payout which is the same no matter
which state occurs among the constituent states of a multi-state
investment. To achieve this result, in preferred embodiments the
amount invested by the trader in the multi-state investment can be
allocated to the constituent state in proportion to the amounts
that have otherwise been invested in the respective constituent
states. In preferred embodiments, these investments are reallocated
using the same procedure throughout the trading period as the
relative proportion of amounts invested in the constituent states
changes.
[0666] In other preferred embodiments, a trader may make a
multi-state investment in which the multi-state allocation is not
intended to generate the same payout irrespective of which state
among the constituent state occurs. Rather, in such embodiments,
the multi-state investment may be intended to generate a payout
distribution which matches some other desired payout distribution
of the trader across the distribution of states, such as, for
example, for certain digital strips, as discussed in Section 6.
Thus, the systems and methods of the present invention do not
require amounts invested in multi-state investments to be allocated
in proportion of the amounts otherwise invested in the constituent
states of the multi-statement investment.
[0667] Notation previously developed in this specification is used
to describe a preferred embodiment of a method by which replication
of an arbitrary distribution of payouts can be achieved for a group
of DBAR contingent claims according to the present invention. The
following additional notation, is also used: [0668] A.sub.i,*
denotes the i-th row of the matrix A containing the invested
amounts by trader i for each of the n states of the group of DBAR
contingent claims In preferred embodiments, the allocation of
amounts invested in all the states which achieves the desired
payouts across the distribution of states can be calculated using,
for example, the computer code listing in Table 1 (or functional
equivalents known to one of skill in the art), or, in the case
where a trader's multi-state investment is small relative to the
total investments already made in the group of DBAR contingent
claims, the following approximation:
[0668] A.sub.i,*.sup.T=.PI..sup.-1*P.sub.i,*.sup.T
where the -1 superscript on the matrix .PI. denotes a matrix
inverse operation. Thus, in these embodiments, amounts to be
invested to produce an arbitrary distribution payouts can
approximately be found by multiplying (a) the inverse of a diagonal
matrix with the unit payouts for each state on the diagonal (where
the unit payouts are determined from the amounts invested at any
given time in the trading period) and (b) a vector containing the
trader's desired payouts. The equation above shows that the amounts
to be invested in order to produce a desired payout distribution
are a function of the desired payout distribution itself
(P.sub.i,*) and the amounts otherwise invested across the
distribution of states (which are used to form the matrix .PI.,
which contains the payouts per unit along its diagonals and zeroes
along the off-diagonals). Therefore, in preferred embodiments, the
allocation of the amounts to be invested in each state will change
if either the desired payouts change or if the amounts otherwise
invested across the distribution change. As the amounts otherwise
invested in various states can be expected to change during the
course of a trading period, in preferred embodiments a suspense
account is used to reallocate the invested amounts, A.sub.i,*, in
response to these changes, as described previously. In preferred
embodiments, at the end of the trading period a final allocation is
made using the amounts otherwise invested across the distribution
of states. The final allocation can typically be performed using
the iterative quadratic solution techniques embodied in the
computer code listing in Table 1.
[0669] Example 3.1.21 illustrates a methodology for generating an
arbitrary payout distribution, using the event, termination
criteria, the defined states, trading period and other relevant
information, as appropriate, from Example 3.1.1, and assuming that
the desired multi-state investment is small in relation to the
total amount of investments already made. In Example 3.1.1 above,
illustrative investments are shown across the distribution of
states representing possible closing prices for MSFT stock on the
expiration date of Aug. 19, 1999. In that example, the distribution
of investment is illustrated for Aug. 18, 1999, one day prior to
expiration, and the price of MSFT on this date is given as 85. For
purposes of this Example 3.1.21, it is assumed that a trader would
like to invest in a group of DBAR contingent claims according to
the present invention in a way that approximately replicates the
profits and losses that would result from owning one share of MSFT
(i.e., a relatively small amount) between the prices of 80 and 90.
In other words, it is assumed that the trader would like to
replicate a traditional long position in MSFT with the restrictions
that a sell order is to be executed when MSFT reaches 80 or 90.
Thus, for example, if MSFT closes at 87 on Aug. 19, 1999 the trader
would expect to have $2 of profit from appropriate investments in a
group of DBAR contingent claims. Using the defined states
identified in Example 3.1.1, this profit would be approximate since
the states are defined to include a range of discrete possible
closing prices.
[0670] In preferred embodiments, an investment in a state receives
the same return regardless of the actual outcome within the state.
It is therefore assumed for purposes of this Example 3.1.21 that a
trader would accept an appropriate replication of the traditional
profit and loss from a traditional position, subject to only
"discretization" error. For purposes of this Example 3.1.21, and in
preferred embodiments, it is assumed that the profit and loss
corresponding to an actual outcome within a state is determined
with reference to the price which falls exactly in between the
upper and lower bounds of the state as measured in units of
probability, i.e., the "state average." For this Example 3.1.21,
the following desired payouts can be calculated for each of the
states the amounts to be invested in each state and the resulting
investment amounts to achieve those payouts:
TABLE-US-00022 TABLE 3.1.21-1 Investment Which Generates Desired
States State Average ($) Desired Payout ($) Payout ($) (0, 80] NA
80 0.837258 (80, 80.5] 80.33673 80.33673 0.699493 (80.5, 81]
80.83349 80.83349 1.14091 (81, 81.5] 81.33029 81.33029 1.755077
(81.5, 82] 81.82712 81.82712 2.549131 (82, 82.5] 82.32401 82.32401
3.498683 (82.5, 83] 82.82094 82.82094 4.543112 (83, 83.5] 83.31792
83.31792 5.588056 (83.5, 84] 83.81496 83.81496 6.512429 (84, 84.5]
84.31204 84.31204 7.206157 (84.5, 85] 84.80918 84.80918 7.572248
(85, 85.5] 85.30638 85.30638 7.555924 (85.5, 86] 85.80363 85.80363
7.18022 (86, 86.5] 86.30094 86.30094 6.493675 (86.5, 87] 86.7983
86.7983 5.59628 (87, 87.5] 87.29572 87.29572 4.599353 (87.5, 88]
87.7932 87.7932 3.611403 (88, 88.5] 88.29074 88.29074 2.706645
(88.5, 89] 88.78834 88.78834 1.939457 (89, 89.5] 89.28599 89.28599
1.330046 (89.5, 90] 89.7837 89.7837 0.873212 (90, .infin.] NA 90
1.2795
The far right column of Table 3.1.21-1 is the result of the matrix
computation described above. The payouts used to construct the
matrix .PI. for this Example 3.1.21 are one plus the returns shown
in Example 3.1.1 for each state.
[0671] Pertinently the systems and methods of the present invention
may be used to achieve almost any arbitrary payout or return
profile, e.g., a long position, a short position, an option
"straddle", etc., while maintaining limited liability and the other
benefits of the invention described in this specification.
[0672] As discussed above, if many traders make multi-state
investments, in a preferred embodiment an iterative procedure is
used to allocate all of the multi-state investments to their
respective constituent states. Computer code, as previously
described and apparent to one of skill in the art, can be
implemented to allocate each multi-state investment among the
constituent states depending upon the distribution of amounts
otherwise invested and the trader's desired payout
distribution.
Example 3.1.22
Emerging Market Currencies
[0673] Corporate and investment portfolio managers recognize the
utility of options to hedge exposures to foreign exchange
movements. In the G7 currencies, liquid spot and forward markets
support an extremely efficient options market. In contrast, many
emerging market currencies lack the liquidity to support efficient,
liquid spot and forward markets because of their small economic
base. Without ready access to a source of tradable underlying
supply, pricing and risk control of options in emerging market
currencies are difficult or impossible.
[0674] Governmental intervention and credit constraints further
inhibit transaction flows in emerging market currencies. Certain
governments choose to restrict the convertibility of their currency
for a variety of reasons, thus reducing access to liquidity at any
price and effectively preventing option market-makers from gaining
access to a tradable underlying supply. Mismatches between sources
of local liquidity and creditworthy counterparties further restrict
access to a tradable underlying supply. Regional banks that service
local customers have access to indigenous liquidity but poor credit
ratings while multinational commercial and investment banks with
superior credit ratings have limited access to liquidity. Because
credit considerations prevent external market participants from
taking on significant exposures to local counterparties,
transaction choices are limited.
[0675] The foreign exchange market has responded to this lack of
liquidity by making use of non-deliverable forwards (NDFs) which,
by definition, do not require an exchange of underlying currency.
Although NDFs have met with some success, their utility is still
constrained by a lack of liquidity. Moreover, the limited liquidity
available to NDFs is generally insufficient to support an active
options market.
[0676] Groups of DBAR contingent claims can be structured using the
system and methods of the present invention to support an active
options market in emerging market currencies.
[0677] In addition to the general advantages of the demand-based
trading system, products on emerging market currencies will provide
the following new opportunities for trading and risk management:
[0678] (1) Credit enhancement. An investment bank can use
demand-based trading emerging market currency products to overcome
existing credit barriers. The ability of a demand-based market or
auction to process only buy orders, combined with the limited
liability of option payout profiles (vs. forward contracts), allows
banks to precisely define the limits of their counterparty credit
exposure and, hence, to trade with local market institutions,
increasing participation and liquidity.
Example 3.1.23
Central Bank Target Rates
[0679] Portfolio managers and market-makers formulate market views
based in part on their forecasts for future movements in central
bank target rates. When the Federal Reserve (Fed), European Central
Bank (ECB) or Bank of Japan (BOJ), for example, changes their
target rate or when market participants adjust their expectations
about future rate moves, global equity and fixed income financial
markets can react quickly and dramatically.
[0680] Market participants currently take views on central bank
target rates by trading 3-month interest rate futures, such as
Eurodollar futures for the Fed and Euribor futures for the ECB.
Although these markets are quite liquid, significant risks impair
trading in such contracts: futures contracts have a 3-month
maturity while central bank target rates change overnight; and
models for credit spreads and term structure are required for
futures pricing. Market participants additionally express views on
the target Fed funds rate by trading Fed funds futures, which are
based on the overnight Fed funds rate. Although less risky than
Eurodollar futures, significant risks also impair trading in Fed
funds futures: the overnight Fed funds rate can differ, sometimes
significantly, from the target Fed funds rate due to overnight
liquidity spikes and month-end effects; and, Fed funds futures
frequently cannot accommodate the full volumes that investment
managers would like to execute at a given market price.
[0681] Groups of DBAR contingent claims can be structured using the
system and methods of the present invention to develop an explicit
mechanism by which market participants can express views regarding
central bank target rates. For example, demand-based markets or
auctions can be based on central bank policy parameters such as the
Federal Reserve Target Fed Funds Rate, the Bank of Japan Official
Discount Rate, or the Bank of England Base Rate. For example, the
underlying event may be defined as the Federal Reserve Target Fed
Funds Rate as of Jun. 1, 2002. Because demand-based trading
products settle using the target rate of interest, maturity and
credit mismatches no longer pose market barriers.
[0682] In addition to the general advantages of the demand-based
trading system, products on central bank target rates may provide
the following new advantages for trading and risk management:
[0683] (1) No basis risk. Since demand-based trading products
settle using the target rate of interest, there is no maturity
mismatch and no credit mismatch. Demand-based trading products for
central bank target rates have no basis risk. [0684] (2) An exact
date match to central bank meetings. Demand-based trading products
can be structured to allow investors to take views on specific
meetings by matching the date of expiry of a contract with the date
of the central bank meeting. [0685] (3) A direct way to express
views on intra-meeting moves. Demand-based trading products allow
special tailoring so that portfolio managers can take a view on
whether or not a central bank will change its target rate
intra-meeting. [0686] (4) Managing the event risk associated with a
central bank meeting. Almost all market participants have
portfolios that are significantly affected by shifts in target
rates. Market participants can use demand-based trading options on
central bank target rates to lower their portfolio's overall
volatility. [0687] (5) Managing short-term funding costs. Banks and
large corporations often borrow short-term funds at a rate highly
correlated with central bank target rates, e.g., U.S. banks borrow
at a rate that closely follows target Fed funds. These institutions
may better manage their funding costs using demand-based trading
products on central bank rates.
Example 3.1.24
Weather
[0688] In recent years, market participants have expressed
increasing interest in a market for derivative instruments related
to weather as a means to insure against adverse weather outcomes.
Despite greater recognition of the role of weather in economic
activity, the market for weather derivatives has been relatively
slow to develop. Market-makers in traditional over-the-counter
markets often lack the means to redistribute their risk because of
limited liquidity and lack of an underlying instrument. The market
for weather derivatives is further hampered by poor price
discovery.
[0689] A group of DBAR contingent claims can be constructed using
the methods and systems of the present invention to provide market
participants with a market price for the probability that a
particular weather metric will be above or below a given level. For
example, participants in a demand-based market or auction on
cooling degree days (CDDs) or on heating degree days (HDDs) in New
York from Nov. 1, 2001 through Mar. 31, 2002 may be able to see at
a glance the market consensus price that cumulative CDDs or HDDs
will exceed certain levels. The event observation could be
specified as taking place at a preset location such as the Weather
Bureau Army Navy Observation Station #14732. Alternatively,
participants in a demand-based market or auction on wind-speed in
Chicago may be able to see at a glance the market consensus price
that cumulative wind-speeds will exceed certain levels.
Example 3.1.25
Financial Instruments
[0690] Demand-based markets or auctions can be structured to offer
a wide variety of products on commonly offered financial
instruments or structured financial products related to fixed
income securities, equities, foreign exchange, interest rates, and
indices, and any derivatives thereof. When the underlying economic
event is a change (or degree of change) in a financial instrument
or product, the possible outcomes can include changes which are
positive, negative or equal to zero when there is no change, and
amounts of each positive and negative change. The following
examples provide a further representative sampling: [0691] Equity
Prices: Demand-based markets or auctions can be structured to trade
DBAR contingent claims, including, for example, digital options,
based on prices for equity securities listed on recognized
exchanges throughout the world. For example, DBAR contingent claims
can be based on an underlying event defined as the closing price
each week of Juniper Networks. The underlying event can also be
defined using an alternative measure, such as the volume weighted
average price during any day. [0692] Fixed Income Security Prices:
Demand-based markets or auctions can be structured to trade DBAR
contingent claims, including, for example, digital options, based
on a variety of fixed income securities such as government T-bills,
T-notes, and T-bonds, commercial paper, CD's, zero coupon bonds,
corporate, and municipal bonds, and mortgage-backed securities. For
example, DBAR contingent claims can be based on an underlying event
defined as the closing price each week of Qwest Capital Funding
71/4% notes, due February of 2011. The underlying event can also be
defined using an alternative measure, such as the volume weighted
average price during any day. DBAR contingent claims on government
and municipal obligations can be traded in a similar way. [0693]
Hybrid Security Prices: Demand-based markets or auctions can be
structured to trade DBAR contingent claims, including, for example,
digital options, based on hybrid securities that contain both
fixed-income and equity features, such as convertible bond prices.
For example, DBAR contingent claims can be based on an underlying
event defined as the closing price each week of Amazon.com 43/4%
convertible bonds due February 2009. The underlying event can also
be defined using an alternative measure, such as the volume
weighted average price during any day. [0694] Interest Rates:
Demand-based markets or auctions can be structured to trade DBAR
contingent claims, including, for example, digital options, based
on interest rate measures such as LIBOR and other money market
rates, an index of AAA corporate bond yields, or any of the fixed
income securities listed above. For example, DBAR contingent claims
can be based on an underlying event defined as the fixing price
each week of 3-month LIBOR rates. Alternatively, the underlying
event could be defined as an average of an interest rate over a
fixed length of time, such as a week or month. [0695] Foreign
Exchange: Demand-based markets or auctions can be structured to
trade DBAR contingent claims, including, for example, digital
options, based on foreign exchange rates. For example, DBAR
contingent claims can be based an underlying event defined as the
exchange rate of the Korean Won on any day. [0696] Price &
Return Indices: Demand-based markets or auctions can be structured
to trade DBAR contingent claims, including, for example, digital
options, based on a broad variety of financial instrument price
indices, including those for equities (e.g., S&P 500), interest
rates, commodities, etc. For example, DBAR contingent claims can be
based on an underlying event defined as the closing price each
quarter of the S&P Technology index. The underlying event can
also be defined using an alternative measure, such as the volume
weighted average price during any day. Alternatively, other index
measurements can be used such as return instead of price. [0697]
Swaps: Demand-based markets or auctions can be structured to trade
DBAR contingent claims, including, for example, digital options,
based on interest rate swaps and other swap based transactions. In
this example, discussed further in an embodiment described in
Section 9, digital options traded in a demand-based market or
auction are based on an underlying event defined as the 10 year
swap rate at which a fixed 10 year yield is received against paying
a floating 3 month LIBOR rate. The rate may be determined using a
common fixing convention.
[0698] Other derivatives on any security or other financial product
or instrument may be used as the underlying instrument for an event
of economic significance in a demand-based market or auction. For
example, such derivatives can include futures, forwards, swaps,
floating rate notes and other structured financial products.
Alternatively, securities (as well as other financial products or
instruments) and derivatives thereof can be converted into
equivalent DBAR contingent claims (for example, as in the
embodiment discussed in Section 10) and traded as a demand-enabled
product alongside DBAR contingent claims in the same demand-based
market or auction.
[0699] 3.2 DBAR Portfolios
[0700] It may be desirable to combine a number of groups of DBAR
contingent claims based on different events into a single
portfolio. In this way, traders can invest amounts within the
distribution of defined states corresponding to a single event as
well as across the distributions of states corresponding to all the
groups of contingent claims in the portfolio. In preferred
embodiments, the payouts to the amounts invested in this fashion
can therefore be a function of a relative comparison of all the
outcome states in the respective groups of DBAR contingent claims
to each other. Such a comparison may be based upon the amount
invested in each outcome state in the distribution for each group
of contingent claims as well as other qualities, parameters or
characteristics of the outcome state (e.g., the magnitude of change
for each security underlying the respective groups of contingent
claims). In this way, more complex and varied payout and return
profiles can be achieved using the systems and methods of the
present invention. Since a preferred embodiment of a demand
reallocation function (DRF) can operate on a portfolio of DBAR
contingent claims, such a portfolio is referred to as a DBAR
Portfolio, or DBARP. A DBARP is a preferred embodiment of DBAR
contingent claims according to the present invention based on a
multi-state, multi-event DRF.
[0701] In a preferred embodiment of a DBARP involving different
events relating to different financial products, a DRF is employed
in which returns for each contingent claim in the portfolio are
determined by (i) the actual magnitude of change for each
underlying financial product and (ii) how much has been invested in
each state in the distribution. A large amount invested in a
financial product, such as a common stock, on the long side will
depress the returns to defined states on the long side of a
corresponding group of DBAR contingent claims. Given the inverse
relationship in preferred embodiments between amounts invested in
and returns from a particular state, one advantage to a DBAR
portfolio is that it is not prone to speculative bubbles. More
specifically, in preferred embodiments a massive influx of long
side trading, for example, will increase the returns to short side
states, thereby increasing returns and attracting investment in
those states.
[0702] The following notation is used to explain further preferred
embodiments of DBARP: [0703] .mu..sub.i is the actual magnitude of
change for financial product i [0704] W.sub.i is the amount of
successful investments in financial product i [0705] L.sub.i is the
amount of unsuccessful investments in financial product i [0706] f
is the system transaction fee [0707] L is the aggregate losses=
[0707] i L i ##EQU00033## [0708] .gamma..sub.i is the normalized
returns for successful trades=
[0708] .mu. i i .mu. i ##EQU00034## [0709] .pi..sup.p.sub.i is the
payout per value unit invested in financial product i for a
successful investment [0710] r.sup.p.sub.i is the return per unit
invested in financial product i for a successful investment
[0711] The payout principle of a preferred embodiment of a DBARP is
to return to a successful investment a portion of aggregate losses
scaled by the normalized return for the successful investment, and
to return nothing to unsuccessful investments. Thus, in a preferred
embodiment a large actual return on a relatively lightly traded
financial product will benefit from being allocated a high
proportion of the unsuccessful investments.
.pi. i p = .gamma. i * L W i ##EQU00035## r L p := .gamma. i * L W
i - 1 ##EQU00035.2##
[0712] As explained below, the correlations of returns across
securities is important in preferred embodiments to determine
payouts and returns in a DBARP.
[0713] An example illustrates the operation of a DBARP according to
the present invention. For purposes of this example, it is assumed
that a portfolio contains two stocks, IBM and MSFT (Microsoft) and
that the following information applies (e.g., predetermined
termination criteria):
[0714] Trading start date: Sep. 1, 1999
[0715] Expiration date: Oct. 1, 1999
[0716] Current trading period start date: Sep. 1, 1999
[0717] Current trading period end date: Sep. 5, 1999
[0718] Current date: Sep. 2, 1999
[0719] IBM start price: 129
[0720] MSFT start price: 96
[0721] Both IBM and MSFT Ex-dividends
[0722] No transaction fee
[0723] In this example, states can be defined so that traders can
invest for IBM and MSFT to either depreciate or appreciate over the
period. It is also assumed that the distribution of amounts
invested in the various states is the following at the close of
trading for the current trading period:
TABLE-US-00023 Financial Product Depreciate State Appreciate State
MSFT $100 million $120 million IBM $80 million $65 million
The amounts invested express greater probability assessments that
MSFT will likely appreciate over the period and IBM will likely
depreciate.
[0724] For purposes of this example, it is further assumed that on
the expiration date of Oct. 1, 1999, the following actual outcomes
for prices are observed:
[0725] MSFT: 106 (appreciated by 10.42%)
[0726] IBM 127 (depreciated by 1.55%)
[0727] In this example, there is $100+$65=$165 million to
distribute from the unsuccessful investments to the successful
investments, and, for the successful investments, the relative
performance of MSFT (10/42/(10.42+1.55)=0.871) is higher than for
IBM (1.55/10.42+1.55)=0.229). In a preferred embodiment, 87.1% of
the available returns is allocated to the successful MSFT traders,
with the remainder due the successful IBM traders, and with the
following returns computed for each state: [0728] MSFT: $120
million of successful investment produces a payout of 0.871*$165
million=$143.72 million for a return to the successful traders
of
[0728] 120 M + 143.72 M 120 M - 1 = 119.77 % ##EQU00036## [0729]
IBM: $80 million in successful investment produces a payout of
(1-0.871)*$165 million=$21.285 million, for a return to the
successful traders of
[0729] 80 M + 21.285 M 80 M - 1 = 26.6 % ##EQU00037##
[0730] The returns in this example and in preferred embodiments are
a function not only of the amounts invested in each group of DBAR
contingent claims, but also the relative magnitude of the changes
in prices for the underlying financial products or in the values of
the underlying events of economic performance. In this specific
example, the MSFT traders receive higher returns since MSFT
significantly outperformed IBM. In other words, the MSFT longs were
"more correct" than the IBM shorts.
[0731] The operation of a DBARP is further illustrated by assuming
instead that the prices of both MSFT and IBM changed by the same
magnitude, e.g., MSFT went up 10%, and IBM went down 10%, but
otherwise maintaining the assumptions for this example. In this
scenario, $165 million of returns would remain to distribute from
the unsuccessful investments but these are allocated equally to
MSFT and IBM successful investments, or $82.5 million to each.
Under this scenario the returns are:
[0732] MSFT:
120 M + 82.5 M 120 M - 1 = 68.75 % ##EQU00038##
[0733] IBM:
80 M + 82.5 M 80 M - 1 = 103.125 % ##EQU00039##
The IBM returns in this scenario are 1.5 times the returns to the
MFST investments, since less was invested in the IBM group of DBAR
contingent claims than in the MSFT group.
[0734] This result confirms that preferred embodiments of the
systems and methods of the present invention provide incentives for
traders to make large investments, i.e. promote liquidity, where it
is needed in order to have an aggregate amount invested sufficient
to provide a fair indication of trader expectations.
[0735] The payouts in this example depend upon both the magnitude
of change in the underlying stocks as well as the correlations
between such changes. A statistical estimate of these expected
changes and correlations can be made in order to compute expected
returns and payouts during trading and at the close of each trading
period. While making such an investment may be somewhat more
complicated that in a DBAR range derivative, as discussed above, it
is still readily apparent to one of skill in the art from this
specification or from practice of the invention.
[0736] The preceding example of a DBARP has been illustrated with
events corresponding to closing prices of underlying securities.
DBARPs of the present invention are not so limited and may be
applied to any events of economic significance, e.g., interest
rates, economic statistics, commercial real estate rentals, etc. In
addition, other types of DRFs for use with DBARPs are apparent to
one of ordinary skill in the art, based on this specification or
practice of the present invention.
4. Risk Calculations
[0737] Another advantage of the groups of DBAR contingent claims
according to the present invention is the ability to provide
transparent risk calculations to traders, market risk managers, and
other interested parties. Such risks can include market risk and
credit risk, which are discussed below.
[0738] 4.1 Market Risk
[0739] Market risk calculations are typically performed so that
traders have information regarding the probability distribution of
profits and losses applicable to their portfolio of active trades.
For all trades associated with a group of DBAR contingent claims, a
trader might want to know, for example, the dollar loss associated
with the bottom fifth percentile of profit and loss. The bottom
fifth percentile corresponds to a loss amount which the trader
knows, with a 95% statistical confidence, would not be exceeded.
For the purposes of this specification, the loss amount associated
with a given statistical confidence (e.g., 95%, 99%) for an
individual investment is denoted the capital-at-risk ("CAR"). In
preferred embodiments of the present invention, a CAR can be
computed not only for an individual investment but also for a
plurality of investments related to for the same event or for
multiple events.
[0740] In the financial industry, there are three common methods
that are currently employed to compute CAR: (1) Value-at-Risk
("VAR"); (2) Monte Carlo Simulation ("MCS"); and (3) Historical
Simulation ("HS").
[0741] 4.1.1 Capital-At-Risk Determinations Using Value-At-Risk
Techniques
[0742] VAR is a method that commonly relies upon calculations of
the standard deviations and correlations of price changes for a
group of trades. These standard deviations and correlations are
typically computed from historical data. The standard deviation
data are typically used to compute the CAR for each trade
individually.
[0743] To illustrate the use of VAR with a group of DBAR contingent
claims of the present invention, the following assumptions are
made: (i) a trader has made a traditional purchase of a stock, say
$100 of IBM; (ii) using previously computed standard deviation
data, it is determined that the annual standard deviation for IBM
is 30%; (iii) as is commonly the case, the price changes for IBM
have a normal distribution; and (iv) the percentile of loss to be
used is the bottom fifth percentile. From standard normal tables,
the bottom fifth percentile of loss corresponds to approximately
1.645 standard deviations, so the CAR in this example--that is,
loss for the IBM position that would not be exceeded with 95%
statistical confidence--is 30%*1.645*$100, or $49.35. A similar
calculation, using similar assumptions, has been made for a $200
position in GM, and the CAR computed for GM is $65.50. If, in this
example, the computed correlation, c, between the prices of IBM and
GM stock is 0.5, the CAR for the portfolio containing both the IBM
and GM positions may be expressed as:
C A R = ( 1.645 .alpha. IBM .sigma. IBM ) 2 + ( 1.645 .alpha. GM
.sigma. GM ) 2 + 2 1 .645 .alpha. IBM .sigma. IBM * 1.645 .alpha.
GM .sigma. GM = 49.35 2 + 65.50 2 + 2 * .5 * 49.35 * 65.5 = 99.79
##EQU00040## [0744] where .alpha. is the investment in dollars,
.sigma. is the standard deviation, and c is the correlation. [0745]
These computations are commonly represented in matrix form as:
[0746] C is the correlation matrix of the underlying events, [0747]
w is the vector containing the CAR for each active position in the
portfolio, and [0748] w.sup.T is the transpose of W. In preferred
embodiments, C is a y.times.y matrix, where y is the number of
active positions in the portfolio, and where the elements of C are:
[0749] c.sub.i,j=1 when i=j i.e., has 1's on the diagonal, and
otherwise [0750] c.sub.i,j=the correlation between the ith and jth
events
[0750] C A R = w T * C * w = ( 49.35 65.5 ) ( 1 .5 .5 1 ) ( 49.35
65.5 ) ##EQU00041##
[0751] In preferred embodiments, several steps implement the VAR
methodology for a group of DBAR contingent claims of the present
invention. The steps are first listed, and details of each step are
then provided. The steps are as follows:
[0752] (1) beginning with a distribution of defined states for a
group of DBAR contingent claims, computing the standard deviation
of returns in value units (e.g., dollars) for each investment in a
given state;
[0753] (2) performing a matrix calculation using the standard
deviation of returns for each state and the correlation matrix of
returns for the states within the same distribution of states, to
obtain the standard deviation of returns for all investments in a
group of DBAR contingent claims;
[0754] (3) adjusting the number resulting from the computation in
step (2) for each investment so that it corresponds to the desired
percentile of loss;
[0755] (4) arranging the numbers resulting from step (3) for each
distinct DBAR contingent claim in the portfolio into a vector, w,
having dimension equal to the number of distinct DBAR contingent
claims;
[0756] (5) creating a correlation matrix including the correlation
of each pair of the underlying events for each respective DBAR
contingent claim in the portfolio; and
[0757] (6) calculating the square root of the product of w, the
correlation matrix created in step (5), and the transpose of w.
[0758] The result is CAR using the desired percentile of loss, for
all the groups of DBAR contingent claims in the portfolio.
[0759] In preferred embodiments, the VAR methodology of steps
(1)-(6) above can be applied to an arbitrary group of DBAR
contingent claims as follows. For purposes of illustrating this
methodology, it is assumed that all investments are made in DBAR
range derivatives using a canonical DRF as previously described.
Similar analyses apply to other forms of DRFs.
[0760] In step (1), the standard deviation of returns per unit of
amount invested for each state i for each group of DBAR contingent
claim is computed as follows:
.sigma. i = T T i - 1 = ( 1 - q i ) q i = r i ##EQU00042## [0761]
where .sigma..sub.i is the standard deviation of returns per unit
of amount invested in each state I, T.sub.i is the total amount
invested in state i; T is the sum of all amounts invested across
the distribution of states; q.sub.i is the implied probability of
the occurrence of state i derived from T and T.sub.i; and r.sub.i
is the return per unit of investment in state i. In this preferred
embodiment, this standard deviation is a function of the amount
invested in each state and total amount invested across the
distributiOn of states, and is also equal to the square root of the
unit return for the state. If .alpha..sub.i is the amount invested
in state I, .alpha..sub.i*.sigma..sub.i is the standard deviation
in units of the amount invested (e.g., dollars) for each state
i.
[0762] Step (2) computes the standard deviation for all investments
in a group of DBAR contingent claims. This step (2) begins by
calculating the correlation between each pair of states for every
possible pair within the same distribution of states for a group of
DBAR contingent claims. For a canonical DRF, these correlations may
be computed as follows:
.rho. i , j = - T i * T j ( T - T i ) * ( T - T j ) = - q i * q j (
1 - q i ) * ( 1 - q j ) = - 1 r i * r j = - 1 .sigma. i * .sigma. j
##EQU00043## [0763] where .rho..sub.i,j is the correlation between
state i and state j. In preferred embodiments, the returns to each
state are negatively correlated since the occurrence of one state
(a successful investment) precludes the occurrence of other states
(unsuccessful investments). If there are only two states in the
distribution of states, then T.sub.j=T-T.sub.i and the correlation
.rho..sub.i,j is -1, i.e., an investment in state i is successful
and in state j is not, or vice versa, if i and j are the only two
states. In preferred embodiments where there are more than two
states, the correlation falls in the range between 0 and -1 (the
correlation is exactly 0 if and only if one of the states has
implied probability equal to one). In step (2) of the VAR
methodology, the correlation coefficients .rho..sub.i,j are put
into a matrix C.sub.s (the subscript s indicating correlation among
states for the same event) which contains a number of rows and
columns equal to the number of defined states for the group of DBAR
contingent claims. The correlation matrix contains 1's along the
diagonal, is symmetric, and the element at the i-th row and j-th
column of the matrix is equal to .rho..sub.i,j. From step (1)
above, a n.times.1 vector U is constructed having a dimension equal
to the number of states n, in the group of DBAR contingent claims,
with each element of U being equal to .alpha..sub.i*.sigma..sub.i.
The standard deviation, w.sub.k, of returns for all investments in
states within the distribution of states defining the kth group of
DBAR contingent claims can be calculated as follows:
[0763] w.sub.k= {square root over (U.sup.T*C.sub.s*U)}
[0764] Step (3) involves adjusting the previously computed standard
deviation, w.sub.k, for every group of DBAR contingent claims in a
portfolio by an amount corresponding to a desired or acceptable
percentile of loss. For purposes of illustration, it is assumed
that investment returns have a normal distribution function; that a
95% statistical confidence for losses is desirable; and that the
standard deviations of returns for each group of DBAR contingent
claims, w.sub.k, can be multiplied by 1.645, i.e., the number of
standard deviations in the standard normal distribution
corresponding to the bottom fifth percentile. A normal distribution
is used for illustrative purposes, and other types of distributions
(e.g., the Student T distribution) can be used to compute the
number of standard deviations corresponding to the any percentile
of interest. As discussed above, the maximum amount that can be
lost in preferred embodiments of canonical DRF implementation of a
group of DBAR contingent claims is the amount invested.
[0765] Accordingly, for this illustration the standard deviations
w.sub.k are adjusted to reflect the constraint that the most that
can be lost is the smaller of (a) the total amount invested and (b)
the percentile loss of interest associated with the CAR calculation
for the group of DBAR contingent claims, i.e.:
w k = min ( 1.645 * w k , i = 1 n .alpha. i ) ##EQU00044##
[0766] In effect, this updates the standard deviation for each
event by substituting for it a CAR value that reflects a multiple
of the standard deviation corresponding to an extreme loss
percentile (e.g., bottom fifth) or the total invested amount,
whichever is smaller.
[0767] Step (4) involves taking the adjusted w.sub.k, as developed
in step (4) for each of m groups of DBAR contingent claims, and
arranging them into an y.times.1 dimensional column vector, w, each
element of which contains w.sub.k, k=1 . . . y.
[0768] Step (5) involves the development of a symmetric correlation
matrix, C.sub.e, which has a number of rows and columns equal to
the number of groups of DBAR contingent claims, y, in which the
trader has one or more investments. Correlation matrix C.sub.e can
be estimated from historical data or may be available more
directly, such as the correlation matrix among foreign exchange
rates, interest rates, equity indices, commodities, and other
financial products available from JP Morgan's RiskMetrics database.
Other sources of the correlation information for matrix C.sub.e are
known to those of skill in the art. Along the diagonals of the
correlation matrix C.sub.e are 1's and the entry at the i-th row
and j-th column of the matrix contains the correlation between the
i-th and j-th events which define the i-th and j-th DBAR contingent
claim for all such possible pairs among the m active groups of DBAR
contingent claims in the portfolio.
[0769] In Step (6), the CAR for the entire portfolio of m groups of
DBAR contingent claims is found by performing the following matrix
computation, using each w.sub.k from step (4) arrayed into vector w
and its transpose w.sup.T:
CAR= {square root over (w.sup.T*C.sub.e*w)}
This CAR value for the portfolio of groups of DBAR contingent
claims is an amount of loss that will not be exceeded with the
associated statistical confidence used in Steps (1)-(6) above
(e.g., in this illustration, 95%).
Example 4.1.1-1
VAR-Based CAR Calculation
[0770] An example further illustrates the calculation of a
VAR-based CAR for a portfolio containing two groups of DBAR range
derivative contingent claims (i.e., y=2) with a canonical DRF on
two common stocks, IBM and GM. For this example, the following
assumptions are made: (i) for each of the two groups of DBAR
contingent claims, the relevant underlying event upon which the
states are defined is the respective closing price of each stock
one month forward; (ii) there are only three states defined for
each event: "low", "medium", and "high," corresponding to ranges of
possible closing prices on that date; (iii) the posted returns for
IBM and GM respectively for the three respective states are, in
U.S. dollars, (4, 0.6667, 4) and (2.333, 1.5, 2.333); (iv) the
exchange fee is zero; (v) for the IBM group of contingent claims,
the trader has one dollar invested in the state "low", three
dollars invested in the state "medium," and two dollars invested in
the state "high"; (vi) for the GM group of contingent claims, the
trader has a single investment in the amount of one dollar in the
state "medium"; (vii) the desired or acceptable percentile of loss
in the fifth percentile, assuming a normal distribution; and (viii)
the estimated correlation of the price changes of IBM and GM is 0.5
across the distribution of states for each stock.
[0771] Steps (1)-(6), described above, are used to implement VAR in
order to compute CAR for this example. From Step (1), the standard
deviations of state returns per unit of amount invested in each
state for the IBM and GM groups of contingent claims are,
respectively, (2, 0.8165, 2) and (1.5274, 1.225, 1.5274). In
further accordance with Step (1) above, the amount invested in each
state in the respective group of contingent claims, .alpha..sub.i;
is multiplied by the previously calculated standard deviation of
state returns per investment, .sigma..sub.i, so that the standard
deviation of returns per state in dollars for each claim equals,
for the IBM group: (2, 2.4495, 4) and, for the GM group, (0,1.225,
0).
[0772] In accordance with Step (2) above, for each of the two
groups of DBAR contingent claims in this example, a correlation
matrix between any pair of states, C.sub.s, is constructed, as
follows:
C s IBM = 1 - .6124 - .25 .6124 1 - .6124 - .25 - .6124 1
##EQU00045## C s GM = 1 - .5345 - .4286 - .5345 1 - .5345 - .4286 -
.5345 1 ##EQU00045.2##
where the left matrix is the correlation between each pair of state
returns for the IBM group of contingent claims and the right matrix
is the corresponding matrix for the GM group of contingent
claims.
[0773] Also according to step (2) above, for each of the two groups
of contingent claims, the standard deviation of returns per state
in dollars, .alpha..sub.i.sigma..sub.i, for each investment in this
example can be arranged in a vector with dimension equal to three
(i.e., the number of states):
U IBM = 2 2.4495 4 ##EQU00046## U GM = 0 1.225 0 ##EQU00046.2##
where the vector on the left contains the standard deviation in
dollars of returns per state for the IBM group of contingent
claims, and the vector on the right contains the corresponding
information for the GM group of contingent claims. Further in
accordance with Step (2) above, a matrix calculation can be
performed to compute the total standard deviation for all
investments in each of the two groups of contingent claims,
respectively:
w.sub.1= {square root over
(U.sub.iBM.sup.T*C.sub.s.sup.IBM*U.sub.iBM)}=2
w.sub.2= {square root over
(U.sub.GM.sup.T*C.sub.s.sup.GM*U.sub.GM)}=1.225
where the quantity on the left is the standard deviation for all
investments in the distribution of the IBM group of contingent
claims, and the quantity on the right is the corresponding standard
deviation for the GM group of contingent claims.
[0774] In accordance with step (3) above, w.sub.1 and w.sub.2 are
adjusted by multiplying each by 1.645 (corresponding to a CAR loss
percentile of the bottom fifth percentile assuming a normal
distribution) and then taking the lower of (a) that resulting value
and (b) the maximum amount that can be lost, i.e., the amount
invested in all states for each group of contingent claims:
w.sub.1=min(2*1.645,6)=3.29 w.sub.2=min(2*1.225,1)=1
where the left quantity is the adjusted standard deviation of
returns for all investments across the distribution of the IBM
group of contingent claims, and the right quantity is the
corresponding amount invested in the GM group of contingent claims.
These two quantities, w.sub.1 and w.sub.2, are the CAR values for
the individual groups of DBAR contingent claims respectively,
corresponding to a statistical confidence of 95%. In other words,
if the normal distribution assumptions that have been made with
respect to the state returns are valid, then a trader, for example,
could be 95% confident that losses on the IBM groups of contingent
claims would not exceed $3.29.
[0775] Proceeding now with Step (4) in the VAR process described
above, the quantities w.sub.1 and w.sub.2 are placed into a vector
which has a dimension of two, equal to the number of groups of DBAR
contingent claims in the illustrative trader's portfolio:
w = 3.29 1 ##EQU00047##
[0776] According to Step (5), a correlation matrix C.sub.e with two
rows and two columns, is either estimated from historical data or
obtained from some other source (e.g., RiskMetrics), as known to
one of skill in the art. Consistent with the assumption for this
illustration that the estimated correlation between the price
changes of IBM and GM is 0.5, the correlation matrix for the
underlying events is as follows:
C e = 1 .5 .5 1 ##EQU00048##
[0777] Proceeding with Step (6), a matrix multiplication is
performed by pre- and post-multiplying C.sub.e by the transpose of
w and by w, and taking the square root of the resulting
product:
CAR= {square root over (w.sup.T*C.sub.e*w)}=3.8877
This means that for the portfolio in this example, comprising the
three investments in the IBM group of contingent claims and the
single investment in the GM group of contingent claims, the trader
can have a 95% statistical confidence he will not have losses in
excess of $3.89.
[0778] 4.1.2 Capital-At-Risk Determinations Using Monte Carlo
Simulation Techniques
[0779] Monte Carlo Simulation ("MCS") is another methodology that
is frequently used in the financial industry to compute CAR. MCS is
frequently used to simulate many representative scenarios for a
given group of financial products, compute profits and losses for
each representative scenario, and then analyze the resulting
distribution of scenario profits and losses. For example, the
bottom fifth percentile of the distribution of the scenario profits
and losses would correspond to a loss for which a trader could have
a 95% confidence that it would not be exceeded. In a preferred
embodiment, the MCS methodology can be adapted for the computation
of CAR for a portfolio of DBAR contingent claims as follows.
[0780] Step (1) of the MCS methodology involves estimating the
statistical distribution for the events underlying the DBAR
contingent claims using conventional econometric techniques, such
as GARCH. If the portfolio being analyzed has more than one group
of DBAR contingent claim, then the distribution estimated will be
what is commonly known as a multivariate statistical distribution
which describes the statistical relationship between and among the
events in the portfolio. For example, if the events are underlying
closing prices for stocks and stock price changes have a normal
distribution, then the estimated statistical distribution would be
a multivariate normal distribution containing parameters relevant
for the expected price change for each stock, its standard
deviation, and correlations between every pair of stocks in the
portfolio. Multivariate statistical distribution is typically
estimated from historical time series data on the underlying events
(e.g., history of prices for stocks) using conventional econometric
techniques.
[0781] Step (2) of the MCS methodology involves using the estimated
statistical distribution of Step (1) in order to simulate the
representative scenarios. Such simulations can be performed using
simulation methods contained in such reference works as Numerical
Recipes in C or by using simulation software such as @Risk package
available from Palisade, or using other methods known to one of
skill in the art. For each simulated scenario, the DRF of each
group of DBAR contingent claims in the portfolio determines the
payouts and profits and losses on the portfolio computed.
[0782] Using the above two stock example involving GM and IBM used
above to demonstrate VAR techniques for calculating CAR, a scenario
simulated by MCS techniques might be "High" for IBM and "Low" for
GM, in which case the trader with the above positions would have a
four dollar profit for the IBM contingent claim and a one dollar
loss for the GM contingent claim, and a total profit of three
dollars. In step (2), many such scenarios are generated so that a
resulting distribution of profit and loss is obtained. The
resulting profits and losses can be arranged into ascending order
so that, for example, percentiles corresponding to any given profit
and loss number can be computed. A bottom fifth percentile, for
example, would correspond to a loss for which the trader could be
95% confident would not be exceeded, provided that enough scenarios
have been generated to provide an adequate representative sample.
This number could be used as the CAR value computed using MCS for a
group of DBAR contingent claims. Additionally, statistics such as
average profit or loss, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis and
other similar quantities can be computed from the generated profit
and loss distribution, as known by one of skill in the art.
[0783] 4.1.3 Capital-At-Risk Determination Using Historical
Simulation Techniques
[0784] Historical Simulation ("HS") is another method used to
compute CAR values. HS is comparable to that of MCS in that it
relies upon the use of representative scenarios in order to compute
a distribution of profit and loss for a portfolio. Rather than rely
upon simulated scenarios from an estimated probability
distribution, however, HS uses historical data for the scenarios.
In a preferred embodiment, HS can be adapted to apply to a
portfolio of DBAR contingent claims as follows.
[0785] Step (1) involves obtaining, for each of the underlying
events corresponding to each group of DBAR contingent claims, a
historical time series of outcomes for the events. For example, if
the events are stock closing prices, time series of closing prices
for each stock can be obtained from a historical database such as
those available from Bloomberg, Reuters, or Datastream or other
data sources known to someone of skill in the art.
[0786] Step (2) involves using each observation in the historical
data from Step (1) to compute payouts using the DRF for each group
of DBAR contingent claims in the portfolio. From the payouts for
each group for each historical observation, a portfolio profit and
loss can be computed. This results in a distribution of profits and
losses corresponding to the historical scenarios, i.e., the profit
and loss that would have been obtained had the trader held the
portfolio throughout the period covered by the historical data
sample.
[0787] Step (3) involves arranging the values for profit and loss
from the distribution of profit and loss computed in Step (2) in
ascending order. A profit and loss can therefore be computed
corresponding to any percentile in the distribution so arranged, so
that, for example, a CAR value corresponding to a statistical
confidence of 95% can be computed by reference to the bottom fifth
percentile.
[0788] 4.2 Credit Risk
[0789] In preferred embodiments of the present invention, a trader
may make investments in a group of DBAR contingent claims using a
margin loan. In preferred embodiments of the present invention
implementing DBAR digital options, an investor may make an
investment with a profit and loss scenario comparable to a sale of
a digital put or call option and thus have some loss if the option
expires "in the money," as discussed in Section 6, below. In
preferred embodiments, credit risk may be measured by estimating
the amount of possible loss that other traders in the group of
contingent claims could suffer owing to the inability of a given
trader to repay a margin loan or otherwise cover a loss exposure.
For example, a trader may have invested $1 in a given state for a
group of DBAR contingent claims with $0.50 of margin. Assuming a
canonical DRF for this example, if the state later fails to occur,
the DRF collects $1 from the trader (ignoring interest) which would
require repayment of the margin loan. As the trader may be unable
to repay the margin loan at the required time, the traders with
successful trades may potentially not be able to receive the full
amounts owing them under the DRF, and may therefore receive payouts
lower than those indicated by the finalized returns for a given
trading period for the group of contingent claims. Alternatively,
the risk of such possible losses due to credit risk may be insured,
with the cost of such insurance either borne by the exchange or
passed on to the traders. One advantage of the system and method of
the present invention is that, in preferred embodiments, the amount
of credit risk associated with a group of contingent claims can
readily be calculated.
[0790] In preferred embodiments, the calculation of credit risk for
a portfolio of groups of DBAR contingent claims involves computing
a credit-capital-at-risk ("CCAR") figure in a manner analogous to
the computation of CAR for market risk, as described above.
[0791] The computation of CCAR involves the use of data related to
the amount of margin used by each trader for each investment in
each state for each group of contingent claims in the portfolio,
data related to the probability of each trader defaulting on the
margin loan (which can typically be obtained from data made
available by credit rating agencies, such as Standard and Poors,
and data related to the correlation of changes in credit ratings or
default probabilities for every pair of traders (which can be
obtained, for example, from JP Morgan's CreditMetrics
database).
[0792] In preferred embodiments, CCAR computations can be made with
varying levels of accuracy and reliability. For example, a
calculation of CCAR that is substantially accurate but could be
improved with more data and computational effort may nevertheless
be adequate, depending upon the group of contingent claims and the
desires of traders for credit risk related information. The VAR
methodology, for example, can be adapted to the computation of CCAR
for a group of DBAR contingent claims, although it is also possible
to use MCS and HS related techniques for such computations. The
steps that can be used in a preferred embodiment to compute CCAR
using VAR-based, MCS-based, and HS-based methods are described
below.
[0793] 4.2.1 CCAR Method for DBAR Contingent Claims Using the
VAR-based Methodology
[0794] Step (i) of the VAR-based CCAR methodology involves
obtaining, for each trader in a group of DBAR contingent claims,
the amount of margin used to make each trade or the amount of
potential loss exposure from trades with profit and loss scenarios
comparable to sales of options in conventional markets.
[0795] Step (ii) involves obtaining data related to the probability
of default for each trader who has invested in the groups of DBAR
contingent claims. Default probabilities can be obtained from
credit rating agencies, from the JP Morgan CreditMetrics database,
or from other sources as known to one of skill in the art. In
addition to default probabilities, data related to the amount
recoverable upon default can be obtained. For example, an AA-rated
trader with $1 in margin loans may be able to repay $0.80 dollars
in the event of default.
[0796] Step (iii) involves scaling the standard deviation of
returns in units of the invested amounts. This scaling step is
described in step (1) of the VAR methodology described above for
estimating market risk. The standard deviation of each return,
determined according to Step (1) of the VAR methodology previously
described, is scaled by (a) the percentage of margin [or loss
exposure] for each investment; (b) the probability of default for
the trader; and (c) the percentage not recoverable in the event of
default.
[0797] Step (iv) of this VAR-based CCAR methodology involves taking
from step (iii) the scaled values for each state for each
investment and performing the matrix calculation described in Step
(2) above for the VAR methodology for estimating market risk, as
described above. In other words, the standard deviations of returns
in units of invested amounts which have been scaled as described in
Step (iii) of this CCAR methodology are weighted according to the
correlation between each possible pair of states (matrix C.sub.s,
as described above). The resulting number is a credit-adjusted
standard deviation of returns in units of the invested amounts for
each trader for each investment on the portfolio of groups of DBAR
contingent claims. For a group of DBAR contingent claims, the
standard deviations of returns that have been scaled in this
fashion are arranged into a vector whose dimension equals the
number of traders.
[0798] Step (v) of this VAR-based CCAR methodology involves
performing a matrix computation, similar to that performed in Step
(5) of the VAR methodology for CAR described above. In this
computation, the vector of credit-scaled standard deviations of
returns from step (iv) are used to pre- and post-multiply a
correlation matrix with rows and columns equal to the number of
traders, with 1's along the diagonal, and with the entry at row i
and column j containing the statistical correlation of changes in
credit ratings described above. The square root of the resulting
matrix multiplication is an approximation of the standard deviation
of losses, due to default, for all the traders in a group of DBAR
contingent claims. This value can be scaled by a number of standard
deviations corresponding to a statistical confidence of the
credit-related loss not to be exceeded, as discussed above.
[0799] In a preferred embodiment, any given trader may be omitted
from a CCAR calculation. The result is the CCAR facing the given
trader due to the credit risk posed by other traders who have
invested in a group of DBAR contingent claims. This computation can
be made for all groups of DBAR contingent claims in which a trader
has a position, and the resulting number can be weighted by the
correlation matrix for the underlying events, C.sub.e, as described
in Step (5) for the VAR-based CAR calculation. The result
corresponds to the risk of loss posed by the possible defaults of
other traders across all the states of all the groups of DBAR
contingent claims in a trader's portfolio.
[0800] 4.2.2 CCAR Method for DBAR Contingent Claims Using the Monte
Carlo Simulation (MCS) Methodology
[0801] As described above, MCS methods are typically used to
simulate representative scenarios for a given group of financial
products, compute profits and losses for each representative
scenario, then analyze the resulting distribution of scenario
profits and losses. The scenarios are designed to be representative
in that they are supposed to be based, for instance, on statistical
distributions which have been estimated, typically using
econometric time series techniques, to have a great degree of
relevance for the future behavior of the financial products. A
preferred embodiment of MCS methods to estimate CCAR for a
portfolio of DBAR contingent claims of the present invention,
involves two steps, as described below.
[0802] Step (i) of the MCS methodology is to estimate a statistical
distribution of the events of interest. In computing CCAR for a
group of DBAR contingent claims, the events of interest may be both
the primary events underlying the groups of DBAR contingent claims,
including events that may be fitted to multivariate statistical
distributions to compute CAR as described above, as well as the
events related to the default of the other investors in the groups
of DBAR contingent claims. Thus, in a preferred embodiment, the
multivariate statistical distribution to be estimated relates to
the market events (e.g., stock price changes, changes in interest
rates) underlying the groups of DBAR contingent claims being
analyzed as well as the event that the investors in those groups of
DBAR contingent claims, grouped by credit rating or classification
will be unable to repay margin loans for losing investments.
[0803] For example, a multivariate statistical distribution to be
estimated might assume that changes in the market events and credit
ratings or classifications are jointly normally distributed.
Estimating such a distribution would thus entail estimating, for
example, the mean changes in the underlying market events (e.g.,
expected changes in interest rates until the expiration date), the
mean changes in credit ratings expected until expiration, the
standard deviation for each market event and credit rating change,
and a correlation matrix containing all of the pairwise
correlations between every pair of events, including market and
credit event pairs. Thus, a preferred embodiment of MCS methodology
as it applies to CCAR estimation for groups of DBAR contingent
claims of the present invention typically requires some estimation
as to the statistical correlation between market events (e.g., the
change in the price of a stock issue) and credit events (e.g.,
whether an investor rated A- by Standard and Poors is more likely
to default or be downgraded if the price of a stock issue goes down
rather than up).
[0804] It is sometimes difficult to estimate the statistical
correlations between market-related events such as changes in stock
prices and interest rates, on the one hand, and credit-related
events such as counterparty downgrades and defaults, on the other
hand. These difficulties can arise due to the relative infrequency
of credit downgrades and defaults. The infrequency of such
credit-related events may mean that statistical estimates used for
MCS simulation can only be supported with low statistical
confidence. In such cases, assumptions can be employed regarding
the statistical correlations between the market and credit-related
events. For example, it is not uncommon to employ sensitivity
analysis with regard to such correlations, i.e., to assume a given
correlation between market and credit-related events and then vary
the assumption over the entire range of correlations from -1 to 1
to determine the effect on the overall CCAR.
[0805] A preferred approach to estimating correlation between
events is to use a source of data with regard to credit-related
events that does not typically suffer from a lack of statistical
frequency. Two methods can be used in this preferred approach.
First, data can be obtained that provide greater statistical
confidence with regard to credit-related events. For example,
expected default frequency data can be purchased from such
companies as KMV Corporation. These data supply probabilities of
default for various parties that can be updated as frequently as
daily. Second, more frequently observed default probabilities can
be estimated from market interest rates. For example, data
providers such as Bloomberg and Reuters typically provide
information on the additional yield investors require for
investments in bonds of varying credit ratings, e.g., AAA, AA, A,
A-. Other methods are readily available to one skilled in the art
to provide estimates regarding default probabilities for various
entities. Such estimates can be made as frequently as daily so that
it is possible to have greater statistical confidence in the
parameters typically needed for MCS, such as the correlation
between changes in default probabilities and changes in stock
prices, interest rates, and exchange rates.
[0806] The estimation of such correlations is illustrated assuming
two groups of DBAR contingent claims of interest, where one group
is based upon the closing price of IBM stock in three months, and
the other group is based upon the closing yield of the 30-year U.S.
Treasury bond in three months. In this illustration, it is also
assumed that the counterparties who have made investments on margin
in each of the groups can be divided into five distinct credit
rating classes. Data on the daily changes in the price of IBM and
the bond yield may be readily obtained from such sources as Reuters
or Bloomberg. Frequently changing data on the expected default
probability of investors can be obtained, for example, from KMV
Corporation, or estimated from interest rate data as described
above. As the default probability ranges between 0 and 1, a
statistical distribution confined to this interval is chosen for
purposes of this illustration. For example, for purposes of this
illustration, it can be assumed that the expected default
probability of the investors follows a logistic distribution and
that the joint distribution of changes in IBM stock and the 30-year
bond yield follows a bivariate normal distribution. The parameters
for the logistic distribution and the bivariate normal distribution
can be estimated using econometric techniques known to one skilled
in the art.
[0807] Step (ii) of a MCS technique, as it may be applied to
estimating CCAR for groups of DBAR contingent claims, involves the
use of the multivariate statistical distributions estimated in Step
(i) above in order to simulate the representative scenarios. As
described above, such simulations can be performed using methods
and software readily available and known to those of skill in the
art. For each simulated scenario, the simulated default rate can be
multiplied by the amount of losses an investor faces based upon the
simulated market changes and the margin, if any, the investor has
used to make losing investments. The product represents an
estimated loss rate due to investor defaults. Many such scenarios
can be generated so that a resulting distribution of credit-related
expected losses can be obtained. The average value of the
distribution is the mean loss. The lowest value of the top fifth
percentile of the distribution, for example, would correspond to a
loss for which a given trader could be 95% confident would not be
exceeded, provided that enough scenarios have been generated to
provide a statistically meaningful sample. In preferred
embodiments, the selected value in the distribution, corresponding
to a desired or adequate confidence level, is used as the CCAR for
the groups of DBAR contingent claims being analyzed.
[0808] 4.2.3 CCAR Method for DBAR Contingent Claims Using the
Historical Simulation ("HS") Methodology
[0809] As described above, Historical Simulation (HS) is comparable
to MCS for estimating CCAR in that HS relies on representative
scenarios in order to compute a distribution of profit and loss for
a portfolio of groups of DBAR contingent claim investments. Rather
than relying on simulated scenarios from an estimated multivariate
statistical distribution, however, HS uses historical data for the
scenarios. In a preferred embodiment, HS methodology for
calculating CCAR for groups of DBAR contingent claims uses three
steps, described below.
[0810] Step (i) involves obtaining the same data for the
market-related events as described above in the context of CAR. In
addition, to use HS to estimate CCAR, historical time series data
are also used for credit-related events such as downgrades and
defaults. As such data are typically rare, methods described above
can be used to obtain more frequently observed data related to
credit events. For example, in a preferred embodiment,
frequently-observed data on expected default probabilities can be
obtained from KMV Corporation. Other means for obtaining such data
are known to those of skill in the art.
[0811] Step (ii) involves using each observation in the historical
data from the previous step (i) to compute payouts using the DRF
for each group of DBAR contingent claims being analyzed. The amount
of margin to be repaid for the losing trades, or the loss exposure
for investments with profit and loss scenarios comparable to
digital option "sales," can then be multiplied by the expected
default probability to use HS to estimate CCAR, so that an expected
loss number can be obtained for each investor for each group of
contingent claims. These losses can be summed across the investment
by each trader so that, for each historical observation data point,
an expected loss amount due to default can be attributed to each
trader. The loss amounts can also be summed across all the
investors so that a total expected loss amount can be obtained for
all of the investors for each historical data point.
[0812] Step (iii) involves arranging, in ascending order, the
values of loss amounts summed across the investors for each data
point from the previous step (ii). An expected loss amount due to
credit-related events can therefore be computed corresponding to
any percentile in the distribution so arranged. For example, a CCAR
value corresponding to a 95% statistical confidence level can be
computed by reference to 95.sup.th percentile of the loss
distribution.
5. Liquidity and Price/Quantity Relationships
[0813] In the trading of contingent claims, whether in traditional
markets or using groups of DBAR contingent claims of the present
invention, it is frequently useful to distinguish between the
fundamental value of the claim, on the one hand, as determined by
market expectations, information, risk aversion and financial
holdings of traders, and the deviations from such value due to
liquidity variations, on the other hand. For example, the fair
fundamental value in the traditional swap market for a five-year UK
swap (i.e., swapping fixed interest for floating rate payments
based on UK LIBOR rates) might be 6.79% with a 2 basis point
bid/offer (i.e., 6.77% receive, 6.81% pay). A large trader who
takes the market's fundamental mid-market valuation of 6.79% as
correct or fair might want to trade a swap for a large amount, such
as 750 million pounds. In light of likely liquidity available
according to current standards of the traditional market, the large
amount of the transaction could reduce the likely offered rate to
6.70%, which is a full 7 basis points lower than the average offer
(which is probably applicable to offers of no more than 100 million
pounds) and 9 basis points away from the fair mid-market value.
[0814] The difference in value between a trader's position at the
fair or mid-market value and the value at which the trade can
actually be completed, i.e. either the bid or offer, is usually
called the liquidity charge. For the illustrative five-year UK
swap, a 1 basis point liquidity charge is approximately equal to
0.04% of the amount traded, so that a liquidity charge of 9 basis
points equals approximately 2.7 million pounds. If no new
information or other fundamental shocks intrude into or "hit" the
market, this liquidity charge to the trader is almost always a
permanent transaction charge for liquidity--one that also must be
borne when the trader decides to liquidate the large position.
Additionally, there is no currently reliable way to predict, in the
traditional markets, how the relationship between price and
quantity may deviate from the posted bid and offers, which are
usually applicable only to limited or representative amounts. Price
and quantity relationships can be highly variable, therefore, due
to liquidity variations. Those relationships can also be
non-linear. For instance, it may cost more than twice as much, in
terms of a bid/offer spread, to trade a second position that is
only twice as large as a first position.
[0815] From the point of view of liquidity and transactions costs,
groups of DBAR contingent claims of the present invention offer
advantages compared to traditional markets. In preferred
embodiments, the relationship between price (or returns) and
quantity invested (i.e., demanded) is determined mathematically by
a DRF. In a preferred embodiment using a canonical DRF, the implied
probability q.sub.i for each state i increases, at a decreasing
rate, with the amount invested in that state:
q i = T i T ##EQU00049## .differential. q i .differential. T i = T
- T i T 2 ##EQU00049.2## .differential. 2 q i .differential. T i 2
= - 2 * T - T i T 3 ##EQU00049.3## .differential. q i
.differential. T j , j .noteq. i = - T i T 2 = - q i T
##EQU00049.4##
where T is the total amount invested across all the states of the
group of DBAR contingent claims and T.sub.i is the amount invested
in the state i. As a given the amount gets very large, the implied
probability of that state asymptotically approaches one. The last
expression immediately above shows that there is a transparent
relationship, available to all traders, between implied
probabilities and the amount invested in states other than a given
state i. The expression shows that this relationship is negative,
i.e., as amounts invested in other states increase, the implied
probability for the given state i decreases. Since, in preferred
embodiments of the present invention, adding investments to states
other than the given state is equivalent to selling the given state
in the market, the expression for
.differential. q i .differential. T j , j .noteq. i
##EQU00050##
above shows how, in a preferred embodiment, the implied probability
for the given state changes as a quantity for that state is up for
sale, i.e., what the market's "bid" is for the quantity up for
sale. The expression for
.differential. q i .differential. T i ##EQU00051##
above shows, in a preferred embodiment, how the probability for the
given state changes when a given quantity is demanded or desired to
be purchased, i.e., what the market's "offer" price is to
purchasers of the desired quantity.
[0816] In a preferred embodiment, for each set of quantities
invested in the defined states of a group of DBAR contingent
claims, a set of bid and offer curves is available as a function of
the amount invested.
[0817] In the groups of DBAR contingent claims of the present
invention, there are no bids or offers per se. The mathematical
relationships above are provided to illustrate how the systems and
methods of the present invention can, in the absence of actual
bid/offer relationships, provide groups of DBAR contingent claims
with some of the functionality of bid/offer relationships.
[0818] Economists usually prefer to deal with demand and
cross-demand elasticities, which are the percentage changes in
prices due to percentage changes in quantity demanded for a given
good (demand elasticity) or its substitute (cross-demand
elasticity). In preferred embodiments of the systems and methods of
the present invention, and using the notation developed above,
.DELTA. q i q i / .DELTA. T i T i = 1 - q i ##EQU00052## .DELTA. q
i q i / .DELTA. T j T j = - q j ##EQU00052.2##
[0819] The first of the expressions immediately above shows that
small percentage changes in the amount invested in state i have a
decreasing percentage effect on the implied probability for state
I, as state i becomes more likely (i.e., as q.sub.i increases to
1). The second expression immediately above shows that a percentage
change in the amount invested in a state j other than state i will
decrease the implied probability for state i in proportion to the
implied probability for the other state j.
[0820] In preferred embodiments, in order to effectively "sell" a
state, traders need to invest or "buy" complement states, i.e.,
states other than the one they wish to "sell." Thus, in a preferred
embodiment involving a group of DBAR claims with two states, a
"seller" of state 1 will "buy" state 2, and vice versa. In order to
"sell" state 1, state 2 needs to be "bought" in proportion to the
ratio of the amount invested in state 2 to the amount invested in
state 1. In a state distribution which has more than two states,
the "complement" for a given state to be "sold" are all of the
other states for the group of DBAR contingent claims. Thus,
"selling" one state involves "buying" a multi-state investment, as
described above, for the complement states.
[0821] Viewed from this perspective, an implied offer is the
resulting effect on implied probabilities from making a small
investment in a particular state. Also from this perspective, an
implied bid is the effect on implied probabilities from making a
small multi-state investment in complement states. For a given
state in a preferred embodiment of a group of DBAR contingent
claims, the effect of an invested amount on implied probabilities
can be stated as follows:
Implied " Bid " = q i - ( 1 - q i ) T * .DELTA. T i ##EQU00053##
Implied " Offer " = q i + q i * ( 1 T i - 1 T ) * .DELTA. T i
##EQU00053.2##
where .DELTA.T.sub.i (considered here to be small enough for a
first-order approximation) is the amount invested for the "bid" or
"offer." These expressions for implied "bid" and implied "offer"
can be used for approximate computations. The expressions indicate
how possible liquidity effects within a group of DBAR contingent
claims can be cast in terms familiar in traditional markets. In the
traditional markets, however, there is no ready way to compute such
quantities for any given market.
[0822] The full liquidity effect--or liquidity response
function--between two states in a group of DBAR contingent claims
can be expressed as functions of the amounts invested in a given
state, T.sub.i, and amounts invested in the complement states,
denoted T.sup.c.sub.i, as follows:
Implied " Bid " Demand Response q i B ( .DELTA. T i ) = T i T i + T
i c + .DELTA. T i * ( T i c T i - .DELTA. T i ) ##EQU00054##
Implied " Offer " Demand Response q i O ( .DELTA. T i ) = T i +
.DELTA. T i T i + T i c + .DELTA. T i ##EQU00054.2##
The implied "bid" demand response function shows the effect on the
implied state probability of an investment made to hedge an
investment of size .DELTA.T.sub.i. The size of the hedge investment
in the complement states is proportional to the ratio of
investments in the complement states to the amount of investments
in the state or states to be hedged, excluding the investment to be
hedged (i.e., the third term in the denominator). The implied
"offer" demand response function above shows the effect on the
implied state probability from an incremental investment of size
.DELTA.T.sub.i in a particular defined state.
[0823] In preferred embodiments of systems and methods of the
present invention, only the finalized returns for a given trading
period are applicable for computing payouts for a group of DBAR
contingent claims. Thus, in preferred embodiments, unless the
effect of a trade amount on returns is permanent, i.e., persists
through the end of a trading period, a group of DBAR contingent
claims imposes no permanent liquidity charge, as the traditional
markets typically do. Accordingly, in preferred embodiments,
traders can readily calculate the effect on returns from
investments in the DBAR contingent claims, and unless these
calculated effects are permanent, they will not affect closing
returns and can, therefore, be ignored in appropriate
circumstances. In other words, investing in a preferred embodiment
of a group of DBAR contingent claims does not impose a permanent
liquidity charge on traders for exiting and entering the market, as
the traditional markets typically do.
[0824] The effect of a large investment may, of course, move
intra-trading period returns in a group of DBAR contingent claims
as indicated by the previous calculations. In preferred
embodiments, these effects could well be counteracted by subsequent
investments that move the market back to fair value (in the absence
of any change in the fundamental or fair value). In traditional
markets, by contrast, there is usually a "toll booth" effect in the
sense that a toll or change is usually exacted every time a trader
enters and exits the market. This toll is larger when there is less
"traffic" or liquidity and represents a permanent loss to the
trader. By contrast, other than an exchange fee, in preferred
embodiments of groups of DBAR contingent claims, there is no such
permanent liquidity tax or toll for market entry or exit.
[0825] Liquidity effects may be permanent from investments in a
group of DBAR contingent claims if a trader is attempting to make a
relatively very large investment near the end of a trading period,
such that the market may not have sufficient time to adjust back to
fair value. Thus, in preferred embodiments, there should be an
inherent incentive not to hold back large investments until the end
of the trading period, thereby providing incentives to make large
investments earlier, which is beneficial overall to liquidity and
adjustment of returns. Nonetheless, a trader can readily calculate
the effects on returns to a investment which the trader thinks
might be permanent (e.g., at the end of the trading period), due to
the effect on the market from a large investment amount.
[0826] For example, in the two period hedging example (Example
3.1.19) above, it was assumed that the illustrated trader's
investments had no material effect on the posted returns, in other
words, that this trader was a "price taker." The formula for the
hedge trade H in the second period of that example above reflects
this assumption. The following equivalent expression for H takes
account of the possibly permanent effect that a large trade
investment might have on the closing returns (because, for example,
the investment is made very close to the end of the trading
period):
H = P t - T t + 1 + T t + 1 2 - 2 * T t + 1 * P t + P t 2 + 4 * P t
* T t + 1 c 2 ##EQU00055## where ##EQU00055.2## P t = .alpha. t * (
1 + r t ) ##EQU00055.3##
in the notation used in Example 3.1.19, above, and T.sub.t+1 is the
total amount invested in period t+1 and T.sup.c.sub.t+1 is the
amount invested in the complement state in period t+1. The
expression for H is the quadratic solution which generates a
desired payout, as described above but using the present notation.
For example, if $1 billion is the total amount, T, invested in
trading period 2, then, according to the above expressions, the
hedge trade investment assuming a permanent effect on returns is
$70.435 million compared to $70.18755 million in Example 3.1.19.
The amount of profit and loss locked-in due to the new hedge is
$1.232 million, compared to $1.48077 in Example 3.1.19. The
difference represents the liquidity effect, which even in the
example where the invested notional is 10% of the total amount
invested, is quite reasonable in a market for groups of DBAR
contingent claims. There is no ready way to estimate or calculate
such liquidity effects in traditional markets.
6. Dbar Digital Options Exchange
[0827] In a preferred embodiment, the DBAR methods and systems of
the present invention may be used to implement financial products
known as digital options and to facilitate an exchange in such
products. A digital option (sometimes also known as a binary
option) is a derivative security which pays a fixed amount should
specified conditions be met (such as the price of a stock exceeding
a given level or "strike" price) at the expiration date. If the
specified conditions are met, a digital option is often
characterized as finishing "in the money." A digital call option,
for example, would pay a fixed amount of currency, say one dollar,
should the value of the underlying security, index, or variable
upon which the option is based expire at or above the strike price
of the call option. Similarly, a digital put option would pay a
fixed amount of currency should the value of the underlying
security, index or variable be at or below the strike price of the
put option. A spread of either digital call or put options would
pay a fixed amount should the underlying value expire at or between
the strike prices. A strip of digital options would pay out fixed
ratios should the underlying expire between two sets of strike
prices. Graphically, digital calls, puts, spreads, and strips can
have simple representations as shown in FIG. 26. As depicted in
Graphs 6.0.1, 6.0.2, 6.0.3, and 6.0.4 shown in FIG. 26, the strike
prices for the respective options are marked using familiar options
notation where the subscript "c" indicates a call, the subscript
"p" indicates a put, the subscript "s" indicates "spread," and the
superscripts "l" and "u" indicate lower and upper strikes,
respectively.
[0828] A difference between digital options, which are frequently
transacted in the OTC foreign currency options markets, and
traditional options such as the equity options, which trade on the
Chicago Board Options Exchange ("CBOE"), is that digital options
have payouts which do not vary with the extent to which the
underlying asset, index, or variable ("underlying") finishes in or
out of the money. For example, a digital call option at a strike
price for the underlying stock at 50 would pay the same amount if,
at the fulfillment of all of the termination criteria, the
underlying stock price was 51, 60, 75 or any other value at or
above 50. In this sense, digital options represent the academic
foundations of options theory, since traditional equity options
could in theory be replicated from a portfolio of digital spread
options whose strike prices are set to provide vanishingly small
spreads. (In fact, a "butterfly spread" of the traditional options
yields a digital option spread as the strike prices of the
traditional options are allowed to converge.) As can be seen from
Graphs 6.0.1, 6.0.2, 6.0.3, and 6.0.4 shown in FIG. 26, digital
options can be constructed from digital option spreads.
[0829] The methods and systems of the present invention can be used
to create a derivatives market for digital options spreads. In
other words, each investment in a state of a mutually exclusive and
collectively exhaustive set of states of a group of DBAR contingent
claims can be considered to correspond to either a digital call
spread or a digital put spread. Since digital spreads can readily
and accurately be used to replicate digital options, and since
digital options are known, traded and processed in the existing
markets, DBAR methods can therefore be represented effectively as a
market for digital options--that is, a DBAR digital options
market.
[0830] 6.1 Representation of Digital Options as DBAR Contingent
Claims
[0831] One advantage of the digital options representation of DBAR
contingent claims is that the trader interface of a DBAR digital
options exchange (a "DBAR DOE") can be presented in a format
familiar to traders, even though the underlying DBAR market
structure is quite novel and different from traditional securities
and derivatives markets. For example, the main trader interface for
a DBAR digital options exchange, in a preferred embodiment, could
have the following features:
TABLE-US-00024 TABLE 6.1.1 MSFT Digital Options CALLS PUTS IND IND
IND IND IND IND STRIKE BID OFFER PAYOUT BID OFFER PAYOUT 30 0.9388
0.9407 1.0641 0.0593 0.0612 16.5999 40 0.7230 0.7244 1.3818 0.2756
0.2770 3.6190 50 0.4399 0.4408 2.2708 0.5592 0.5601 1.7869 60
0.2241 0.2245 4.4582 0.7755 0.7759 1.2892 70 0.1017 0.1019 9.8268
0.8981 0.8983 1.1133 80 0.0430 0.0431 23.2456 0.9569 0.9570
1.0450
The illustrative interface of Table 6.1.1 contains hypothetical
market information on DBAR digital options on Microsoft stock
("MSFT") for a given expiration date. For example, an investor who
desires a payout if MSFT stock closes higher than 50 at the
expiration or observation date will need to "pay the offer" of
$0.4408 per dollar of payout. Such an offer is "indicative"
(abbreviated "IND") since the underlying DBAR distribution--that
is, the implied probability that a state or set of states will
occur--may change during the trading period. In a preferred
embodiment, the bid/offer spreads presented in Table 6.1.1 are
presented in the following manner. The "offer" side in the market
reflects the implied probability that underlying value of the stock
(in this example MSFT) will finish "in the money." The "bid" side
in the market is the "price" at which a claim can be "sold"
including the transaction fee. (In this context, the term "sold"
reflects the use of the systems and methods of the present
invention to implement investment profit and loss scenarios
comparable to "sales" of digital options, discussed in detail
below.) The amount in each "offer" cell is greater than the amount
in the corresponding "bid" cell. The bid/offer quotations for these
digital option representations of DBAR contingent claims are
presented as percentages of (or implied probabilities for) a one
dollar indicative payout.
[0832] The illustrative quotations in Table 6.1.1 can be derived as
follows. First the payout for a given investment is computed
assuming a 10 basis point transaction fee. This payout is equal to
the sum of all investments less 10 basis points, divided by the sum
of the investments over the range of states corresponding to the
digital option. Taking the inverse of this quantity gives the offer
side of the market in "price" terms. Performing the same
calculation but this time adding 10 basis points to the total
investment gives the bid side of the market.
[0833] In another preferred embodiment, transaction fees are
assessed as a percentage of payouts, rather than as a function of
invested amounts. Thus, the offer (bid) side of the market for a
given digital option could be, for example, (a) the amount invested
over the range of states comprising the digital option, (b) plus
(minus) the fee (e.g., 10 basis points) multiplied by the total
invested for all of the defined states, (c) divided by the total
invested for all of the defined states. An advantage of computing
fees based upon the payout is that the bid/offer spreads as a
percentage of "price" would be different depending upon the strike
price of the underlying, with strikes that are less likely to be
"in the money" having a higher percentage fee. Other embodiments in
which the exchange or transaction fees, for example, depend on the
time of trade to provide incentives for traders to trade early or
to trade certain strikes, or otherwise reflect liquidity conditions
in the contract, are apparent to those of skill in the art.
[0834] As explained in detail below, in preferred embodiments of
the systems and methods of the present invention, traders or
investors cay buy and "sell" DBAR contingent claims that are
represented and behave like digital option puts, calls, spreads,
and strips using conditional or "limit" orders. In addition, these
digital options can be processed using existing technological
infrastructure in place at current financial institutions. For
example, Sungard, Inc., has a large subscriber base to many
off-the-shelf programs which are capable of valuing, measuring the
risk, clearing, and settling digital options. Furthermore, some of
the newer middleware protocols such as FINXML (see www.finxml.org)
apparently are able to handle digital options and others will
probably follow shortly (e.g., FPML). In addition, the transaction
costs of a digital options exchange using the methods and systems
of the present invention can be represented in a manner consistent
with the conventional markets, i.e., in terms of bid/offer
spreads.
[0835] 6.2 Construction of Digital Options Using DBAR Methods and
Systems
[0836] The methods of multistate trading of DBAR contingent claims
previously disclosed can be used to implement investment in a group
of DBAR contingent claims that behave like a digital option. In
particular, and in a preferred embodiment, this can be accomplished
by allocating an investment, using the multistate methods
previously disclosed, in such a manner that the same payout is
received from the investment should the option expire
"in-the-money", e.g., above the strike price of the underlying for
a call option and below the strike price of the underlying for a
put. In a preferred embodiment, the multistate methods used to
allocate the investment need not be made apparent to traders. In
such an embodiment, the DBAR methods and systems of the present
invention could effectively operate "behind the scenes" to improve
the quality of the market without materially changing interfaces
and trading screens commonly used by traders. This may be
illustrated by considering the DBAR construction of the MSFT
Digital Options market activity as represented to the user in Table
6.1.1. For purposes of this illustration, it is assumed that the
market "prices" or implied probabilities for the digital put and
call options as displayed in Table 6.1.1 result from $100 million
in investments. The DBAR states and allocated investments that
construct these "prices" are then:
TABLE-US-00025 TABLE 6.2.1 States State Prob State Investments (0,
30] 0.0602387 $6,023,869.94 (30, 40] 0.2160676 $21,606,756.78 (40,
50] 0.2833203 $28,332,029.61 (50, 60] 0.2160677 $21,606,766.30 (60,
70] 0.1225432 $12,254,324.67 (70, 80] 0.0587436 $5,874,363.31 (80,
.infin.] 0.0430189 $4,301,889.39
In Table 6.2.1, the notation (x, y] is used to indicate a single
state part of a set of mutually exclusive and collectively
exhaustive states which excludes x and includes y on the
interval.
[0837] (For purposes of this specification a convention is adopted
for puts, calls, and spreads which is consistent with the internal
representation of the states. For example, a put and a call both
struck at 50 cannot both be paid out if the underlying asset, index
or variable expires exactly at 50. To address this issue, the
following convention could be adopted: calls exclude the strike
price, puts include the strike price, and spreads exclude the lower
and include the upper strike price. This convention, for example,
would be consistent with internal states that are exclusive on the
lower boundary and inclusive on the upper boundary. Another
preferred convention would have calls including the strike price
and puts excluding the strike price, so that the representation of
the states would be inclusive on the lower boundary and exclusive
on the upper. In any event, related conventions exist in
traditional markets. For example, consider the situation of a
traditional foreign exchange options dealer who sells an "at the
money" digital and an "at the money" put, with strike price of 100.
Each is equally likely to expire "in the money," so for every $1.00
in payout, the dealer should collect $0.50. If the dealer has sold
a $1.00 digital call and put, and has therefore collected a total
of $1.00 in premium, then if the underlying expires exactly at 100,
a discontinuous payout of $2.00 is owed. Hence, in a preferred
embodiment of the present invention, conventions such as those
described above or similar methods may be adopted to avoid such
discontinuities.)
[0838] A digital call or put may be constructed with DBAR methods
of the present invention by using the multistate allocation
algorithms previously disclosed. In a preferred embodiment, the
construction of a digital option involves allocating the amount to
be invested across the constituent states over which the digital
option is "in-the-money" (e.g., above the strike for a call, below
the strike for a put) in a manner such that the same payout is
obtained regardless of which state occurs among the "in the money"
constituent states. This is accomplished by allocating the amount
invested in the digital option in proportion to the then-existing
investments over the range of constituent states for which the
option is "in the money." For example, for an additional $1,000,000
investment a digital call struck at 50 from the investments
illustrated in Table 6.2.1, the construction of the trade using
multistate allocation methods is:
TABLE-US-00026 TABLE 6.2.2 Internal States $1,000,000.00 (0, 30]
(30, 40] (40, 50] (50, 60] $490,646.45 (60, 70] $278,271.20 (70,
80] $133,395.04 (80, .infin.] $97,687.30
As other traders subsequently make investments, the distribution of
investments across the states comprising the digital option may
change, and may therefore require that the multistate investments
be reallocated so that, for each digital option, the payout is the
same for any of its constituent "in the money" states, regardless
of which of these constituent states occurs after the fulfillment
of all of the termination criteria, and is zero for any of the
other states. When the investments have been allocated or
reallocated so that this payout scenario occurs, the group of
investments or contract is said to be in equilibrium. A further
detailed description of the allocation methods which can be used to
achieve this equilibrium is provided in connection with the
description of FIGS. 13-14.
[0839] 6.3 Digital Option Spreads
[0840] In a preferred embodiment, a digital option spread trade may
be offered to investors which simultaneously execute a buy and a
"sell" (in the synthetic or replicated sense of the term, as
described below) of a digital call or put option. An investment in
such a spread would have the same payout should the underlying
outcome expire at any value between the lower and upper strike
prices in the spread. If the spread covers one state, then the
investment is comparable to an investment in a DBAR contingent
claim for that one state. If the spread covers more than one
constituent state, in a preferred embodiment the investment is
allocated using the multistate investment method previously
described so that, regardless of which state occurs among the
states included in the spread trade, the investor receives the same
payout.
[0841] 6.4 Digital Option Strips
[0842] Traders in the derivatives markets commonly trade related
groups of futures or options contracts in desired ratios in order
to accomplish some desired purpose. For example, it is not uncommon
for traders of LIBOR based interest rate futures on the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange ("CME") to execute simultaneously a group of
futures with different expiration dates covering a number of years.
Such a group, which is commonly termed a "strip;" is typically
traded to hedge another position which can be effectively
approximated with a strip whose constituent contracts are executed
in target relative ratios. For example, a strip of LIBOR-based
interest rate futures may be used to approximate the risk inherent
of an interest rate swap of the same maturity as the latest
contract expiration date in the strip.
[0843] In a preferred embodiment, the DBAR methods of the present
invention can be used to allow traders to construct strips of
digital options and digital option spreads whose relative payout
ratios, should each option expire in the money, are equal to the
ratios specified by the trader. For example, a trader may desire to
invest in a strip consisting of the 50, 60, 70, and 80 digital call
options on MSFT, as illustrated in Table 6.1.1. Furthermore, and
again as an illustrative example, the trader may desire that the
payout ratios, should each option expire in the money, be in the
following relative ratio: 1:2:3:4. Thus, should the underlying
price of MSFT at the expiration date (when the event outcome is
observed) be equal to 65, both the 50 and 60 strike digital options
are in the money. Since the trader desires that the 60 strike
digital call option pay out twice as much as the 50 strike digital
call option, a multistate allocation algorithm, as previously
disclosed and described in detail, can be used dynamically to
reallocate the trader's investments across the states over which
these options are in the money (50 and above, and 60 and above,
respectively) in such a way as to generate final payouts which
conform to the indicated ratio of 1:2. As previously disclosed, the
multistate allocation steps may be performed each time new
investments are added during the trading period, and a final
multistate allocation may be performed after the trading period has
expired.
[0844] 6.5 Multistate Allocation Algorithm for Replicating "Sell"
Trades
[0845] In a preferred embodiment of a digital options exchange
using DBAR methods and systems of the present invention, traders
are able to make investments in DBAR contingent claims which
correspond to purchases of digital options. Since DBAR methods are
inherently demand-based--i.e., a DBAR exchange or market functions
without traditional sellers--an advantage of the multistate
allocation methods of the present invention is the ability to
generate scenarios of profits and losses ("P&L") comparable to
the P&L scenarios obtained from selling digital options,
spreads, and strips in traditional, non-DBAR markets without
traditional sellers or order-matching.
[0846] In traditional markets, the act of selling a digital option,
spread, or strip means that the investor (in the case of a sale, a
seller) receives the cost of the option, or premium, if the option
expires worthless or out of the money. Thus, if the option expires
out of the money, the investor/seller's profit is the premium.
Should the option expire in the money, however, the investor/seller
incurs a net liability equal to the digital option payout less the
premium received. In this situation, the investor/seller's net loss
is the payout less the premium received for selling the option, or
the notional payout less the premium. Selling an option, which is
equivalent in many respects to the activity of selling insurance,
is potentially quite risky, given the large contingent liabilities
potentially involved. Nonetheless, option selling is commonplace in
conventional, non-DBAR markets.
[0847] As indicated above, an advantage of the digital options
representation of the DBAR methods of the present invention is the
presentation of an interface which displays bids and offers and
therefore, by design, allows users to make investments in sets of
DBAR contingent claims whose P&L scenarios are comparable to
those from traditional "sales" as well as purchases of digital
calls, puts, spreads, and strips. Specifically in this context,
"selling" entails the ability to achieve a profit and loss profile
which is analogous to that achieved by sellers of digital options
instruments in non-DBAR markets, i.e., achieving a profit equal to
the premium should the digital option expire out of the money, and
suffering a net loss equal to the digital option payout (or the
notional) less the premium received should the digital option
expire in the money.
[0848] In a preferred embodiment of a digital options exchange
using the DBAR contingent claims methods and systems of the present
invention, the mechanics of "selling" involves converting such
"sell" orders to complementary buy orders. Thus, a sale of the MSFT
digital put options with strike price equal to 50, would be
converted, in a preferred DBAR DOE embodiment, to a complementary
purchase of the 50 strike digital call options. A detailed
explanation of the conversion process of a "sale" to a
complementary buy order is provided in connection with the
description of FIG. 15.
[0849] The complementary conversion of DBAR DOE "sales" to buys is
facilitated by interpreting the amount to be "sold" in a manner
which is somewhat different from the amount to be bought for a DBAR
DOE buy order. In a preferred embodiment, when a trader specifies
an amount in an order to be "sold," the amount is interpreted as
the total amount of loss that the trader will suffer should the
digital option, spread, or strip sold expire in the money. As
indicated above, the total amount lost or net loss is equal to the
notional payout less the premium from the sale. For example, if the
trader "sells" $1,000,000 of the MSFT digital put struck at 50, if
the price of MSFT at expiration is 50 or below, then the trader
will lose $1,000,000. Correspondingly, in a preferred embodiment of
the present invention, the order amount specified in a DBAR DOE
"sell" order is interpreted as the net amount lost should the
option, strip, or spread sold expire in the money. In conventional
options markets, the amount would be interpreted and termed a
"notional" or "notional amount" less the premium received, since
the actual amount lost should the option expire in the money is the
payout, or notional, less the premium received. By contrast, the
amount of a buy order, in a preferred DBAR DOE embodiment, is
interpreted as the amount to be invested over the range of defined
states which will generate the payout shape or profile expected by
the trader. The amount to be invested is therefore equivalent to
the option "premium" in conventional options markets. Thus, in
preferred embodiments of the present invention, for DBAR DOE buy
orders, the order amount or premium is known and specified by the
trader, and the contingent gain or payout should the option
purchased finish in the money is not known until after all trading
has ceased, the final equilibrium contingent claim "prices" or
implied probabilities are calculated and any other termination
criteria are fulfilled. By contrast, for a "sell" order in a
preferred DBAR DOE embodiment of the present invention, the amount
specified in the order is the specified net loss (equal to the
notional less the premium) which represents the contingent loss
should the option expire in the money. Thus, in a preferred
embodiment, the amount of a buy order is interpreted as an
investment amount or premium which generates an uncertain payout
until all predetermined termination criteria have been met; and the
amount of a "sell" order is interpreted as a certain net loss
should the option expire in the money corresponding to an
investment amount or premium that remains uncertain until all
predetermined termination criteria have been met. In other words,
in a DBAR DOE preferred embodiment, buy orders are for "premium"
while "sell" orders are for net loss should the option expire in
the money.
[0850] A relatively simple example illustrates the process, in a
preferred embodiment of the present invention, of converting a
"sale" of a DBAR digital option, strip, or spread to a
complementary buy and the meaning of interpreting the amount of a
buy order and "sell" order differently. Referring the MSFT example
illustrated in Table 6.1.1 and Table 6.2.1 above, assume that a
trader has placed a market order (conditional or limit orders are
described in detail below) to "sell" the digital put with strike
price equal to 50. Ignoring transaction costs, the "price" of the
50 digital put option is equal to the sum of the implied state
probabilities spanning the states where the option is in the money
(i.e., (0,30),(30,40], and (40,50]) and is approximately 0.5596266.
When the 50 put is in the money, the 50 call is out of the money
and vice versa. Accordingly, the 50 digital call is "complementary"
to the 50 digital put. Thus, "selling" the 50 digital put for a
given amount is equivalent in a preferred embodiment to investing
that amount in the complementary call, and that amount is the net
loss that would be suffered should the 50 digital put expire in the
money (i.e., 50 and below). For example, if a trader places a
market order to "sell" 1,000,000 value units of the 50 strike
digital put, this 1,000,000 value units are interpreted as the net
loss if the digital put option expires in the money, i.e., it
corresponds to the notional payout loss plus the premium received
from the "sale."
[0851] In preferred embodiments of the present investment, the
1,000,000 value units to be "sold" are treated as invested in the
complementary 50-strike digital call, and therefore are allocated
according to the multistate allocation algorithm described in
connection with the description of FIG. 13. The 1,000,000 value
units are allocated in proportion to the value units previously
allocated to the range of states comprising the 50-strike digital
call, as indicated in Table 6.2.2 above. Should the digital put
expire in the money, the trader "selling" the digital put loses
1,000,000 value units, i.e., the trader loses the payout or
notional less the premium. Should the digital put finish out of the
money, the trader will receive a payout approximately equal to
2,242,583.42 value units (computed by taking the total amount of
value units invested, or 101,000,000, dividing by the new total
invested in each state above 50 where the digital put is out of the
money, and multiplying by the corresponding state investment). The
payout is the same regardless of which state above 50 occurs upon
fulfillment of the termination criteria, i.e., the multistate
allocation has achieved the desired payout profile for a digital
option. In this illustration, the "sell" of the put will profit by
1,242,583.42 should the option sold expire out of the money. This
profit is equivalent to the premium "sold." On the other hand, to
achieve a net loss of 1,000,000 value units from a payout of
2,242,583.42, the premium is set at 1,242,583.42 value units.
[0852] The trader who "sells" in a preferred embodiment of a DBAR
DOE specifies an amount that is the payout or notional to be sold
less the premium to be received, and not the profit or premium to
be made should the option expire out of the money. By specifying
the payout or notional "sold" less the premium, this amount can be
used directly as the amount to be invested in the complementary
option, strip, or spread. Thus, in a preferred embodiment, a DBAR
digital options exchange can replicate or synthesize the equivalent
of trades involving the sale of option payouts or notional (less
the premium received) in the traditional market.
[0853] In another preferred embodiment, an investor may be able to
specify the amount of premium to be "sold." To illustrate this
embodiment, quantity of premium to be "sold" can be assigned to the
variable x. An investment of quantity y on the states complementary
to the range of states being "sold" is related to the premium x in
the following manner:
y 1 - p - y = x ##EQU00056##
where p is the final equilibrium "price", including the "sale" x
(and the complementary investment y) of the option being "sold."
Rearranging this expression yields the amount of the complementary
buy investment y that must be made to effect the "sale" of the
premium x:
y = x * ( 1 - p ) p ##EQU00057##
From this it can be seen that, given an amount of premium x that is
desired to be "sold," the complementary investment that must be
bought on the complement states in order for the trader to receive
the premium x, should the option "sold" expire out of the money, is
a function of the price of the option being "sold." Since the price
of the option being "sold" can be expected to vary during the
trading period, in a preferred embodiment of a DBAR DOE of the
present invention, the amount y required to be invested in the
complementary state as a buy order can also be expected to vary
during the trading period.
[0854] In a preferred embodiment, traders may specify an amount of
notional less the premium to be "sold" as denoted by the variable
y. Traders may then specify a limit order "price" (see Section 6.8
below for discussion of limit orders) such that, by the previous
equation relating y to x, a trader may indirectly specify a minimum
value of x with the specified limit order "price," which may be
substituted for p in the preceding equation. In another preferred
embodiment, an order containing iteratively revised y amounts, as
"prices" change during the trading period are submitted. In another
preferred embodiment, recalculation of equilibrium "prices" with
these revised y amounts is likely to lead to a convergence of the y
amounts in equilibrium. In this embodiment an iterative procedure
may be employed to seek out the complementary buy amounts that must
be invested on the option, strip, or spread complementary to the
range of states comprising the option being "sold" in order to
replicate the desired premium that the trader desired to "sell."
This embodiment is useful since it aims to make the act of
"selling" in a DBAR DOE more similar to the traditional derivatives
markets.
[0855] It should be emphasized that the traditional markets differ
from the systems and methods of the present invention in as least
one fundamental respect. In traditional markets, the sale of an
option requires a seller who is willing to sell the option at an
agreed-upon price. An exchange of DBAR contingent claims of the
present invention, in contrast, does not require or involve such
sellers. Rather, appropriate investments may be made (or bought) in
contingent claims in appropriate states so that the payout to the
investor is the same as if the claim, in a traditional market, had
been sold. In particular, using the methods and systems of the
present invention, the amounts to be invested in various states can
be calculated so that the payout profile replicates the payout
profile of a sale of a digital option in a traditional market, but
without the need for a seller. These steps are described in detail
in connection with FIG. 15.
[0856] 6.6 Clearing and Settlement
[0857] In a preferred embodiment of a digital options exchange
using the DBAR contingent claims systems and methods of the present
invention, all types of positions may be processed as digital
options. This is because at fixing (i.e., the finalization of
contingent claim "prices" or implied probabilities at the
termination of the trading period or other fulfillment of all of
the termination criteria) the profit and loss expectations of all
positions in the DBAR exchange are, from the trader's perspective,
comparable to if not the same as the profit and loss expectations
of standard digital options commonly traded in the OTC markets,
such as the foreign exchange options market (but without the
presence of actual sellers, who are needed on traditional options
exchanges or in traditional OTC derivatives markets). The
contingent claims in a DBAR DOE of the present invention, once
finalized at the end of a trading period, may therefore be
processed as digital options or combinations of digital options.
For example, a MSFT digital option call spread with a lower strike
of 40 and upper strike of 60 could be processed as a purchase of
the lower strike digital option and a sale of the upper strike
digital option.
[0858] There are many vendors of back office software that can
readily handle the processing of digital options. For example,
Sungard, Inc., produces a variety of mature software systems for
the processing of derivatives securities, including digital
options. Furthermore, in-house derivatives systems currently in use
at major banks have basic digital options capability. Since digital
options are commonly encountered instruments, many of the
middleware initiatives currently underway e.g., FINXML, will likely
incorporate a standard protocol for handling digital options.
Therefore, an advantage of a preferred embodiment of the DBAR DOE
of the present invention is the ability to integrate with and
otherwise use existing technology for such an exchange.
[0859] 6.7 Contract Initialization
[0860] Another advantage of the systems and methods of the present
invention is that, as previously noted, digital options positions
can be represented internally as composite trades. Composite trades
are useful since they help assure that an equilibrium distribution
of investments among the states can be achieved. In preferred
embodiments, digital option and spreading activity will contribute
to an equilibrium distribution. Thus, in preferred embodiments,
indicative distributions may be used to initialize trading at the
beginning of the trading period.
[0861] In a preferred embodiment, these initial distributions may
be represented as investments in each of the defined states making
up the contract or group of DBAR contingent claims. Since these
investments need not be actual trader investments, they may be
reallocated among the defined states as actual trading occurs, so
long as the initial investments do not change the implicit
probabilities of the states resulting from actual investments. In a
preferred embodiment, the reallocation of initial investments is
performed gradually so as to maximize the stability of digital call
and put "prices" (and spreads), as viewed by investors. By the end
of the trading period, all of the initial investments may be
reallocated in proportion to the investments in each of the defined
states made by actual traders. The reallocation process may be
represented as a composite trade that has a same payout
irrespective of which of the defined states occurs. In preferred
embodiments the initial distribution can be chosen using current
market indications from the traditional markets to provide guidance
for traders, e.g., options prices from traditional option markets
can be used to calculate a traditional market consensus probability
distribution, using for example, the well-known technique of
Breeden and Litzenberger. Other reasonable initial and indicative
distributions could be used. Alternatively, in a preferred
embodiment, initialization can be performed in such a manner that
each defined state is initialized with a very small amount,
distributed equally among each of the defined states. For example,
each of the defined states could be initialized with 10.sup.-6
value units. Initialization in this manner is designed to start
each state with a quantity that is very small, distributed so as to
provide a very small amount of information regarding the implied
probability of each defined state. Other initialization methods of
the defined states are possible and could be implemented by one of
skill in the art.
[0862] 6.8 Conditional Investments, or Limit Orders
[0863] In a preferred embodiment of the system and methods of the
present invention, traders may be able to make investments which
are only binding if a certain "price" or implied probability for a
given state or digital option (or strip, spread, etc.) is achieved.
In this context, the word "price," is used for convenience and
familiarity and, in the systems and methods of the present
invention, reflects the implied probability of the occurrence of
the set of states corresponding to an option--i.e., the implied
probability that the option expires "in the money." For instance,
in the example reflected in Table 6.2.1, a trader may wish to make
an investment in the MSFT digital call options with strike price of
50, but may desire that such an investment actually be made only if
the final equilibrium "price" or implied probability is 0.42 or
less. Such a conditional investment, which is conditional upon the
final equilibrium "price" for the digital option, is sometimes
referred to (in conventional markets) as a "limit order." Limit
orders are popular in traditional markets since they provide the
means for investors to execute a trade at "their price" or better.
Of course, there is no guarantee that such a limit order--which may
be placed significantly away from the current market price--will in
fact be executed. Thus, in traditional markets, limit orders
provide the means to control the price at which a trade is
executed, without the trader having to monitor the market
continuously. In the systems and method of the present invention,
limit orders provide a way for investors to control the likelihood
that their orders will be executed at their preferred "prices" (or
better), also without having continuously to monitor the
market.
[0864] In a preferred embodiment of a DBAR DOE, traders are
permitted to buy and sell digital call and put options, digital
spreads, and digital strips with limit "prices" attached. The limit
"price" indicates that a trader desires that his trade be executed
at that indicated limit "price"--actually the implied probability
that the option will expire in the money--"or better." In the case
of a purchase of a digital option, "better" means at the indicated
limit "price" implied probability or lower (i.e., purchasing not
higher than the indicated limit "price"). In the case of a "sale"
of a DBAR digital option, "better" means at the indicated limit
"price" (implied probability) or higher (i.e., selling not lower
than the indicated limit "price").
[0865] A benefit of a preferred embodiment of a DBAR DOE of the
present invention which includes conditional investments or limit
orders is that the placing of limit orders is a well-known
mechanism in the financial markets. By allowing traders and
investors to interact with a DBAR DOE of the present invention
using limit orders, more liquidity should flow into the DBAR DOE
because of the familiarity of the mechanism, even though the
underlying architecture of the DBAR DOE is different from the
underlying architecture of other financial markets.
[0866] The present invention also includes novel methods and
systems for computing the equilibrium "prices" or implied
probabilities, in the presence of limit orders, of DBAR contingent
claims in the various states. These methods and systems can be used
to arrive at an equilibrium exclusively in the presence of limit
orders, exclusively in the presence of market orders, and in the
presence of both. In a preferred embodiment, the steps to compute a
DBAR DOE equilibrium for a group of contingent claims including at
least one limit order are summarized as follows: [0867] 6.8(1)
Convert all "sale" orders to complementary buy orders. This is
achieved by (i) identifying the states complementary to the states
being sold; (ii) using the amount "sold" as the amount to be
invested in the complementary states, and; and (iii) for limit
orders, adjusting the limit "price" to one minus the original limit
"price." [0868] 6.8(2) Group the limit orders by placing all of the
limit orders which span or comprise the same range of defined
states into the same group. Sort each group from the best (highest
"price" buy) to the worst (lowest "price" buy). All orders may be
processed as buys since any "sales" have previously been converted
to complementary buys. For example, in the context of the MSFT
Digital Options illustrated in Table 6.2.1, there would be separate
groups for the 30 digital calls, the 30 digital puts, the 40
digital calls, the 40 digital puts, etc. In addition, separate
groups are made for each spread or strip that spans or comprises a
distinct set of defined states. [0869] 6.8(3) Initialize the
contract or group of DBAR contingent claim. This may be done, in a
preferred embodiment, by allocating minimal quantities of value
units uniformly across the entire distribution of defined states so
that each defined state has a non-zero quantity of value units.
[0870] 6.8(4) For all limit orders, adjust the limit "prices" of
such orders by subtracting from each limit order the order,
transaction or exchange fees for the respective contingent claims.
[0871] 6.8(5) With all orders broken into minimal size unit lots
(e.g., one dollar or other small value unit for the group of DBAR
contingent claims), identify one order from a group that has a
limit "price" better than the current equilibrium "price" for the
option, spread, or strip specified in the order. [0872] 6.8(6) With
the identified order, find the maximum number of additional unit
lots ("lots") than can be invested such that the limit "price" is
no worse than the equilibrium "price" with the chosen maximum
number of unit lots added. The maximum number of lots can be found
by (i) using the method of binary search, as described in detail
below, (ii) trial addition of those lots to already-invested
amounts and (iii) recalculating the equilibrium iteratively. [0873]
6.8(7) Identify any orders which have limit "prices" worse than the
current calculated equilibrium "prices" for the contract or group
of DBAR contingent claims. Pick such an order with the worst limit
"price" from the group containing the order. Remove the minimum
quantity of unit lots required so that the order's limit "price" is
no longer worse than the equilibrium "price" calculated when the
unit lots are removed. The number of lots to be removed can be
found by (i) using the method of binary search, as described in
detail below, (ii) trial subtraction of those lots from already
invested amounts and (iii) recalculating the equilibrium
iteratively. [0874] 6.8(8) Repeat steps 6.8(5) to 6.8(7). Terminate
those steps when no further additions or removals are necessary.
[0875] 6.8(9) Optionally, publish the equilibrium from step 6.8(8)
both during the trading period and the final equilibrium at the end
of the trading period. The calculation during the trading period is
performed "as if" the trading period were to end at the moment the
calculation is performed. All prices resulting from the equilibrium
computation are considered mid-market prices, i.e., they do not
include the bid and offer spreads owing to transaction fees.
Published offer (bid) "prices" are set equal to the mid-market
equilibrium "prices" plus (minus) the fee.
[0876] In a preferred embodiment, the preceding steps 6.8(1) to
6.8(8) and optionally step 6.8(9) are performed each time the set
of orders during the trading or auction period changes. For
example, when a new order is submitted or an existing order is
cancelled (or otherwise modified) the set of orders changes, steps
6.8(1) to 6.8(8) (and optionally step 6.8(9)) would need to be
repeated.
[0877] The preceding steps result in an equilibrium of the DBAR
contingent claims and executable orders which satisfy typical
trader expectations for a market for digital options: [0878] (1) At
least some buy ("sell") orders with a limit "price" greater (less)
than or equal to the equilibrium "price" for the given option,
spread or strip are executed or "filled." [0879] (2) No buy
("sell") orders with limit "prices" less (greater) than the
equilibrium "price" for the given option, spread or strip are
executed. [0880] (3) The total amount of executed lots equals the
total amount invested across the distribution of defined states.
[0881] (4) The ratio of payouts should each constituent state of a
given option, spread, or strike occur is as specified by the
trader, (including equal payouts in the case of digital options),
within a tolerable degree of deviation. [0882] (5) Conversion of
filled limit orders to market orders for the respective filled
quantities and recalculating the equilibrium does not materially
change the equilibrium. [0883] (6) Adding one or more lots to any
of the filled limit orders converted to market orders in step (5)
and recalculating of the equilibrium "prices" results in "prices"
which violate the limit "price" of the order to which the lot was
added (i.e., no more lots can be "squeaked in" without forcing
market prices to go above the limit "prices" of buy orders or below
the limit "prices" of sell orders).
[0884] The following example illustrates the operation of a
preferred embodiment of a DBAR DOE of the present invention
exclusively with limit orders. It is anticipated that a DBAR DOE
will operate and process both limit and non-limit or market orders.
As apparent to a person of skill in the art, if a DBAR DOE can
operate with only limit orders, it can also operate with both limit
orders and market orders.
[0885] Like earlier examples, this example is also based on digital
options derived from the price of MSFT stock. To reduce the
complexity of the example, it is assumed, for purposes of
illustration, that there are illustrative purposes, only three
strike prices: $30, $50, and $80.
TABLE-US-00027 TABLE 6.8.1 Buy Orders Limit Limit "Price" Quantity
"Price" Quantity Limit "Price" Quantity 30 calls 50 calls 80 calls
0.82 10000 0.43 10000 0.1 10000 0.835 10000 0.47 10000 0.14 10000
0.84 10000 0.5 10000 80 puts 50 puts 30 puts 0.88 10000 0.5 10000
0.16 10000 0.9 10000 0.52 10000 0.17 10000 0.92 10000 0.54
10000
TABLE-US-00028 TABLE 6.8.2 "Sell" Orders Limit Limit "Price"
Quantity "Price" Quantity Limit "Price" Quantity 30 calls 50 calls
80 calls 0.81 5000 0.42 10000 0.11 10000 0.44 10000 0.12 10000 80
puts 50 puts 30 puts 0.9 20000 0.45 10000 0.15 5000 0.50 10000 0.16
10000
The quantities entered in the "Sell Orders" table, Table 6.8.2, are
the net loss amounts which the trader is risking should the option
"sold" expire in the money, i.e., they are equal to the notional
less the premium received from the sale, as discussed above. [0886]
(i) According to step 6.8(1) of the limit order methodology
described above, the "sale" orders are first converted to buy
orders. This involves switching the contingent claim "sold" to a
buy of the complementary contingent claim and creating a new limit
"price" for the converted order equal to one minus the limit
"price" of the sale. Converting the "sell" orders in Table 6.8.2
therefore yields the following converted buy orders:
TABLE-US-00029 [0886] TABLE 6.8.3 "Sale" Orders Converted to Buy
Orders Limit Limit "Price" Quantity "Price" Quantity Limit "Price"
Quantity 30 puts 50 puts 80 puts 0.19 5000 0.58 10000 0.89 10000
0.56 10000 0.88 10000 80 calls 50 calls 30 calls 0.1 20000 0.55
10000 0.85 5000 0.50 10000 0.84 10000
[0887] (ii) According to step 6.8(2), the orders are then placed
into groupings based upon the range of states which each underlying
digital option comprises or spans. The groupings for this
illustration therefore are: 30 calls, 50 calls, 80 calls, 30 puts,
50 puts, and 80 puts [0888] (iii) In this illustrative example, the
initial liquidity in each of the defined states is set at one value
unit. [0889] (iv) According to step 6.8(4), the orders are arranged
from worst "price" (lowest for buys) to best "price" (highest for
buys). Then, the limit "prices" are adjusted for the effect of
transaction or exchange costs. Assuming that the transaction fee
for each order is 5 basis points (0.0005 value units), then 0.0005
is subtracted from each limit order price. The aggregated groups
for this illustrative example, sorted by adjusted limit prices (but
without including the initial one-value-unit investments), are as
displayed in the following table:
TABLE-US-00030 [0889] TABLE 6.8.4 Aggregated, Sorted, Converted,
and Adjusted Limit Orders Limit Limit "Price" Quantity "Price"
Quantity Limit "Price" Quantity 30 calls 50 calls 80 calls 0.8495
5000 0.5495 10000 0.1395 10000 0.8395 20000 0.4995 20000 0.0995
30000 0.8345 10000 0.4695 10000 0.8195 10000 0.4295 10000 80 puts
50 puts 30 puts 0.9195 10000 0.5795 10000 0.1895 5000 0.8995 10000
0.5595 10000 0.1695 10000 0.8895 10000 0.5395 10000 0.1595 10000
0.8795 20000 0.5195 10000 0.4995 10000
[0890] After adding the initial liquidity of one value unit in each
state, the initial option prices are as follows:
TABLE-US-00031 [0890] TABLE 6.8.5 MSFT Digital Options Initial
Prices CALLS PUTS IND IND IND IND IND IND STRIKE MID BID OFFER MID
BID OFFER 30 0.85714 0.85664 0.85764 0.14286 0.14236 0.14336 50
0.57143 0.57093 0.57193 0.42857 0.42807 0.42907 80 0.14286 0.14236
0.14336 0.85714 0.85664 0.85764
[0891] (v) According to step 6.8(5) and based upon the description
of limit order processing in connection with FIG. 12, in this
illustrative example an order from Table 6.8.4 is identified which
has a limit "price" better or higher than the current market
"price" for a given contingent claim. For example, from Table
6.9.4, there is an order for 10000 digital puts struck at 80 with
limit "price" equal to 0.9195. The current mid-market "price" for
such puts is equal to 0.85714. [0892] (vi) According to step
6.8(6), by the methods described in connection with FIG. 17, the
maximum number of lots of the order for the 80 digital puts is
added to already-invested amounts without increasing the
recalculated mid-market "price," with the added lots, above the
limit order price of 0.9195. This process discovers that, when five
lots of the 80 digital put order for 10000 lots and limit "price"
of 0.9195 are added, the new mid-market price is equal to 0.916667.
Assuming the distribution of investments for this illustrative
example, addition of any more lots will drive the mid-market price
above the limit price. With the addition of these lots, the new
market prices are:
TABLE-US-00032 [0892] TABLE 6.8.5 MSFT Digital Options Prices after
addition of five lots of 80 puts CALLS PUTS IND IND IND IND IND IND
STRIKE MID BID OFFER MID BID OFFER 30 0.84722 0.84672 0.84772
0.15278 0.15228 0.15328 50 0.54167 0.54117 0.54217 0.45833 0.45783
0.45883 80 0.08333 0.08283 0.08383 0.91667 0.91617 0.91717
[0893] As can be seen from Table 6.8.5, the "prices" of the call
options have decreased while the "prices" of the put options have
increased as a result of filling five lots of the 80 digital put
options, as expected. [0894] (vii) According to step 6.8(7), the
next step is to determine, as described in FIG. 17, whether there
are any limit orders which have previously been filled whose limit
"prices" are now less than the current mid-market "prices," and as
such, should be subtracted. Since there are no orders than have
been filled other than the just filled 80 digital put, there is no
removal or "prune" step required at this stage in the process.
[0895] (viii) According to step 6.8(8), the next step is to
identify another order which has a limit "price" higher than the
current mid-market "prices" as a candidate for lot addition. Such a
candidate is the order for 10000 lots of the 50 digital puts with
limit price equal to 0.5795. Again the method of binary search is
used to determine the maximum number of lots that can be added from
this order to already-invested amounts without letting the
recalculated mid-market "price" exceed the order's limit price of
0.5795. Using this method, it can be determined that only one lot
can be added without forcing the new market "price" including the
additional lot above 0.5795. The new prices with this additional
lot are then:
TABLE-US-00033 [0895] TABLE 6.8.6 MSFT Digital Options "Prices"
after (i) addition of five lots of 80 puts and (ii) addition of one
lot of 50 puts CALLS PUTS IND IND IND IND IND IND STRIKE MID BID
OFFER MID BID OFFER 30 0.82420 0.82370 0.82470 0.17580 0.17530
0.17630 50 0.47259 0.47209 0.47309 0.52741 0.52691 0.52791 80
0.07692 0.07642 0.07742 0.923077 0.92258 0.92358
[0896] Continuing with step 6.8(8), the next step is to identify an
order whose limit "price" is now worse (i.e., lower than) the
mid-market "prices" from the most recent equilibrium calculation as
shown in Table 6.8.6. As can be seen from the table, the mid-market
"price" of the 80 digital put options is now 0.923077. The best
limit order (highest "priced") is the order for 10000 lots at
0.9195, of which five are currently filled. Thus, the binary search
routine determines the minimum number of lots which are to be
removed from this order so that the order's limit "price" is no
longer worse (i.e., lower than) the newly recalculated market
"price." This is the removal or prune part of the equilibrium
calculation. [0897] The "add and prune" steps are repeated
iteratively with intermediate multistate equilibrium allocations
performed. The contract is at equilibrium when no further lots may
be added for orders with limit order "prices" better than the
market or removed for limit orders with "prices" worse than the
market. At this point, the group of DBAR contingent claims
(sometimes referred to as the "contract") is in equilibrium, which
means that all of the remaining conditional investments or limit
orders--i.e., those that did not get removed--receive "prices" in
equilibrium which are equal to or better than the limit "price"
conditions specified in each order. In the present illustration,
the final equilibrium "prices" are:
TABLE-US-00034 [0897] TABLE 6.8.7 MSFT Digital Options Equilibrium
Prices CALLS PUTS IND IND IND IND IND IND STRIKE MID BID OFFER MID
BID OFFER 30 0.830503 0.830003 0.831003 0.169497 0.168997 0.169997
50 0.480504 0.480004 0.481004 0.519496 0.518996 0.519996 80
0.139493 0.138993 0.139993 0.860507 0.860007 0.861007
[0898] Thus, at these equilibrium "prices," the following table
shows which of the original orders are executed or "filled":
TABLE-US-00035 [0898] TABLE 6.8.8 Filled Buy Orders Limit "Price"
Quantity Filled Limit "Price" Quantity Filled Limit "Price"
Quantity Filled 30 calls 50 calls 80 calls 0.82 10000 0 0.43 10000
0 0.1 10000 0 0.835 10000 10000 0.47 10000 0 0.14 10000 8104 0.84
10000 10000 0.5 10000 10000 80 puts 50 puts 30 puts 0.88 10000
10000 0.5 10000 0 0.16 10000 0 0.9 10000 10000 0.52 10000 2425 0.17
10000 2148 0.92 10000 10000 0.54 10000 10000
TABLE-US-00036 TABLE 6.8.9 Filled Sell Orders Limit "Price"
Quantity Filled Limit "Price" Quantity Filled Limit "Price"
Quantity Filled 30 calls 50 calls 80 calls 0.81 5000 5000 0.42
10000 10000 0.11 10000 10000 0.44 10000 10000 0.12 10000 10000 80
puts 50 puts 30 puts 0.9 20000 0 0.45 10000 10000 0.15 5000 5000
0.50 10000 10000 0.16 10000 10000
[0899] It may be possible only partially to execute or "fill" a
trader's order at a given limit "price" or implied probability of
the relevant states. For example, in the current illustration, the
limit buy order for 50 puts at limit "price" equal to 0.52 for an
order amount of 10000 may be only filled in the amount 2424 (see
Table 6.8.8). If orders are made by more than one investor and not
all of them can be filled or executed at a given equilibrium, in
preferred embodiments it is necessary to decide how many of which
investor's orders can be filled, and how many of which investor's
orders will remain unfulfilled at that equilibrium. This may be
accomplished in several ways, including by filling orders on a
first-come-first-filled basis, or on a pro rata or other basis
known or apparent to one of skill in the art. In preferred
embodiments, investors are notified prior to the commencement of a
trading period about the basis on which orders are filled when all
investors' limit orders cannot be filled at a particular
equilibrium.
[0900] 6.9 Sensitivity Analysis and Depth of Limit Order Book
[0901] In preferred embodiments of the present invention, traders
in DBAR digital options may be provided with information regarding
the quantity of a trade that could be executed ("filled") at a
given limit "price" or implied probability for a given option,
spread or strip. For example, consider the MSFT digital call option
with strike of 50 illustrated in Table 6.1.1 above. Assume the
current "price" or implied probability of the call option is 0.4408
on the "offer" side of the market. A trader may desire, for
example, to know what quantity of value units could be transacted
and executed at any given moment for a limit "price" which is
better than the market. In a more specific example, for a purchase
of the 50 strike call option, a trader may want to know how much
would be filled at that moment were the trader to specify a limit
"price" or implied probably of, for example, 0.46. This information
is not necessarily readily apparent, since the acceptance of
conditional investments (i.e., the execution of limit orders)
changes the implied probability or "price" of each of the states in
the group. As the limit "price" is increased, the quantities
specified in a buy order are more likely to be filled, and a curve
can be drawn with the associated limit "price"/quantity pairs. The
curve represents the amount that could be filled (for example,
along the X-axis) versus the corresponding limit "price" or implied
probability of the strike of the order (for example, along the
Y-axis). Such a curve should be useful to traders, since it
provides an indication of the "depth" of the DBAR DOE for a given
contract or group of contingent claims. In other words, the curve
provides information on the "price" or implied probability, for
example, that a buyer would be required to accept in order to
execute a predetermined or specified number of value units of
investment for the digital option.
[0902] 6.10 Networking of DBAR Digital Options Exchanges
[0903] In preferred embodiments, one or more operators of two or
more different DBAR Digital Options Exchanges may synchronize the
time at which trading periods are conducted (e.g., agreeing on the
same commencement and predetermined termination criteria) and the
strike prices offered for a given underlying event to be observed
at an agreed upon time. Each operator could therefore be positioned
to offer the same trading period on the same underlying DBAR event
of economic significance or financial instrument. Such
synchronization would allow for the aggregation of liquidity of two
or more different exchanges by means of computing DBAR DOE
equilibria for the combined set of orders on the participating
exchanges. This aggregation of liquidity is designed to result in
more efficient "pricing" so that implied probabilities of the
various states reflect greater information about investor
expectations than if a single exchange were used.
7. DBAR DOE: Another Embodiment
[0904] In another embodiment of a DBAR Digital Options Exchange
("DBAR DOE"), a type of demand-based market or auction, all orders
for digital options are expressed in terms of the payout (or
"notional payout") received should any state of the set of
constituent states of a DBAR digital option occur (as opposed to,
for example, expressing buy digital option orders in terms of
premium to be invested and expressing "sell" digital option orders
in terms of notional payout, or notional payout less the premium
received). In this embodiment, the DBAR DOE can accept and process
limit orders for digital options expressed in terms of each
trader's desired payout. In this embodiment, both buy and sell
orders may be handled consistently, and the speed of calculation of
the equilibrium calculation is increased. This embodiment of the
DBAR DOE can be used with or without limit orders (also referred to
as conditional investments). Additionally this embodiment of the
DBAR DOE can be used to trade in a demand-based market or auction
based on any event, regardless of whether the event is economically
significant or not.
[0905] In this embodiment, an equilibrium algorithm (set forth in
Equations 7.3.7 and 7.4.7) may be used on orders without limits
(without limits on the price), to determine the prices and total
premium invested into a DBAR DOE market or auction based only upon
information concerning the requested payouts per order and the
defined states (or spreads) for which the desired digital option is
in-the-money (the payout profile for the order). The requested
payout per order is the executed notional payout per order, and the
trader or user pays the price determined at the end of the trading
period by the equilibrium algorithm necessary to receive the
requested payout.
[0906] In this embodiment, an optimization system (also referred to
as the Order Price Function or OPF) may also be utilized that
maximizes the payouts per order within the constraints of the limit
order. In other words, when a user or trader specifies a limit
order price, and also specifies the requested payouts per order and
the defined states (or spreads) for which the desired digital
option is in-the-money, then the optimization system or OPF
determines a price of each order that is less than or equal to each
order's limit price, while maximizing the executed notional payout
for the orders. As set forth below, in this limit order example,
the user may not receive the requested payout but will receive a
maximum executed notional payout given the limit price that the
user desires to invest for the payout.
[0907] In other words, in this embodiment, three mathematical
principles underlie demand-based markets or auctions: demand-based
pricing and self-funding conditions; how orders in digital options
are constituted in a demand-based market or auction; and, how a
demand-based auction or market may be implemented with standard
limit orders.
[0908] In this embodiment, for each demand-based market or auction,
the demand-based pricing condition applies to every pair of
fundamental contingent claims. In demand-based systems, the ratio
of prices of each pair of fundamental contingent claims is equal to
the ratio of volume filled for those claims. This is a notable
feature of DBAR contingent claims markets because the demand-based
pricing condition relates the amount of relative volumes that may
clear in equilibrium to the relative equilibrium market prices.
Thus, a demand-based market microstructure, which is the foundation
of demand-based market or auction, is unique among market
mechanisms in that the relative prices of claims are directly
related to the relative volume transacted of those claims. By
contrast, in conventional markets, which have heretofore not
adopted demand-based principles, relative contingent claim prices
typically reflect, in theory, the absence of arbitrage
opportunities between such claims, but nothing is implied or can be
inferred about the relative volumes demanded of such claims in
equilibrium.
[0909] Equation 7.4.7, as set forth below, is the equilibrium
equation for demand-based trading in accordance with one embodiment
of the present invention. It states that a demand-based trading
equilibrium can be mathematically expressed in terms of a matrix
eigensystem, in which the total premium collected in a demand-based
market or auction (T) is equal to the maximum eigenvalue of a
matrix (H) which is a function of the aggregate notional amounts
executed for each fundamental spread and the opening orders. In
addition, the eigenvector corresponding to this maximum eigenvalue,
when normalized, contains the prices of the fundamental single
strike spreads. Equation 7.4.7 shows that given aggregate notional
amounts to be executed (Y) and arbitrary amounts of opening orders
(K), that a unique demand-based trading equilibrium results. The
equilibrium is unique because a unique total premium investment, T,
is associated with a unique vector of equilibrium prices, p, by the
solution of the eigensystem of Equation 7.4.7.
[0910] Demand-based markets or auctions may be implemented with a
standard limit order book in which traders attach price conditions
for execution of buy and sell orders. As in any other market, limit
orders allow traders to control the price at which their orders are
executed, at the risk that the orders may not be executed in full
or in part. Limit orders may be an important execution control
feature in demand-based auctions or markets because final execution
is delayed until the end of the trading or auction period.
[0911] Demand-based markets or auctions may incorporate standard
limit orders and limit order book principles. In fact, the limit
order book employed in a demand-based market or auction and the
mathematical expressions used therein may be compatible with
standard limit order book mechanisms for other existing markets and
auctions. The mathematical expression of a General Limit Order Book
is an optimization problem in which the market clearing solution to
the problem maximizes the volume of executed orders subject to two
constraints for each order in the book. According to the first
constraint, should an order be executed, the order's limit price is
greater than or equal to the market price including the executed
order. According to the second constraint, the order's executed
notional amount is not to exceed the notional amount requested by
the trader to be executed.
[0912] 7.1 Special Notation
[0913] For the purposes of the discussion of the embodiment
described in the present section, the following notation is
utilized. The notation uses some symbols previously employed in
other sections of this specification. It should be understood that
the meanings of these notational symbols are valid as defined below
only in the context of the discussion in the present section
(Section 7--DBAR DOE: ANOTHER EMBODIMENT as well as the discussion
in relation to FIG. 19 and FIG. 20 in Section 9).
Known Variables
[0914] m: number of defined states or spreads, a natural number.
Index letter I, i=1, 2, . . . , m. [0915] k: m.times.1 vector where
k.sub.i is the initial invested premium for state I, i=1, 2, . . .
, m. [0916] k.sub.i is a natural number so k.sub.i>0 i=1, 2, . .
. , m [0917] e: a vector of ones of length m (m.times.1 unit
vector) [0918] n: number of orders in the market or auction, a
natural number. Index letter j, j=1, 2, . . . , n [0919] r:
n.times.1 vector where r.sub.j is equal to the requested payout for
order j, [0920] j=1, 2, . . . , n, r.sub.j is a natural number so
r.sub.j is positive for all j, j=1, 2, . . . , n [0921] w:
n.times.1 vector where w.sub.j equals the inputted limit price for
order j, j=1, 2, . . . , n [0922] Range: 0<w.sub.j.ltoreq.1 for
j=1, 2, . . . , n for digital options [0923] 0<w.sub.j for j=1,
2, . . . , n for arbitrary payout options [0924] w.sub.j.sup.a:
n.times.1 vector where w.sub.j.sup.a is the adjusted limit price
for order j after converting "sell" orders into buy orders (as
discussed below) and after adjusting the inputted limit order
w.sub.j with fee f.sub.j (assuming flat fee) for order j, j=1, 2 .
. . , n [0925] For a "sell" order j, the adjusted limit price
w.sub.j.sup.a equals (1-w.sub.j-f) [0926] For a buy order j, the
adjusted limit price w.sub.j.sup.a equals (w.sub.j-f.sub.j) [0927]
B: n.times.m matrix where B.sub.j,i is a positive number if the jth
order requests a payout for the i.sup.th state, and 0 otherwise.
For digital options, the positive number is one. [0928] Each row j
of B comprises a payout profile for order j. [0929] f.sub.j:
transaction fee for order j, scalar (in basis points) added to and
subtracted from equilibrium price to obtain offer and bid prices,
respectively, and subtracted from and added to limit prices,
w.sub.j, to obtain adjusted limit price, w.sub.j.sup.a for buy and
sell limit prices, respectively.
Unknown Variables
[0929] [0930] x: n.times.1 vector where x.sub.j is the notional
payout executed for order j in equilibrium [0931] Range:
0.ltoreq.x.sub.j .ltoreq.r.sub.j for j=1, 2, . . . , n [0932] y:
m.times.1 vector where y.sub.i is the notional payout executed per
defined state I, i=1, 2, . . . , m [0933] Definition:
y.ident.B.sup.Tx [0934] T: positive scalar, not necessarily an
integer. [0935] T is the total invested premium (in value units) in
the contract
[0935] T = i = 1 m y i p i + i = 1 m k i = j = 1 n x j .pi. j + i =
1 m k i ##EQU00058## [0936] T.sub.i: positive scalar, not
necessarily an integer [0937] T.sub.i is the total invested premium
(in value units) in state i [0938] p: m.times.1 vector where
p.sub.i is the price/probability for state I, i=1, 2, . . . , m
[0938] p i .ident. k i T - y i for i = 1 , 2 , , m ##EQU00059##
[0939] .pi..sub.j: equilibrium price for order j [0940] .pi.(x):
B*p, an n.times.1 vector containing the equilibrium prices for each
order j. [0941] g: n.times.1 vector whose j element is g.sub.j for
j=1, 2, . . . , n [0942] Definition: g.ident.B*p-w [0943] Note B*p
is the vector of market prices for order j denoted by .pi..sub.j
[0944] g is the difference between the market prices and the limit
prices
[0945] 7.2 Elements of Example DBAR DOE Embodiment
[0946] In this embodiment (Section 7), traders submit orders during
the DBAR market or auction that include the following data: (1) an
order payout size (denoted r.sub.j), (2) a limit order price
(denoted w.sub.j), and (3) the defined states for which the desired
digital option is in-the-money (denoted as the rows of the matrix
B, as described in the previous sub-section). In this embodiment,
all of the order requests are in the form of payouts to be received
should the defined states over which the respective options are
in-the-money occur. In Section 6, an embodiment was described in
which the order amounts are invested premium amounts, rather than
the aforementioned payouts.
[0947] 7.3 Mathematical Principles
[0948] In this embodiment of a DBAR DOE market or auction, traders
are able to buy and sell digital options and spreads. The
fundamental contingent claims of this market or auction are the
smallest digital option spreads, i.e., those that span a single
strike price. For example, a demand-based market or auction, such
as, for example, a DBAR auction or market, that offers digital call
and put options with strike prices of 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70
contains six fundamental states: the spread below and including 30;
the spread between 30 and 40 including 40; the spread between 40
and 50 including 50; etc. As indicated in the previous section, in
this embodiment, p.sub.i is the price of a single strike spread i
and m is the number of fundamental single state spreads or "defined
states." For these single strike spreads, the following assumptions
are made:
DBAR DOE Assumptions for this Embodiment
7.3 .1 i = 1 m p i = 1 ( 1 ) p i > 0 for i = 1 , , m ( 2 ) k i
> 0 for i = 1 , , m ( 3 ) ##EQU00060##
[0949] The first assumption, equation 7.3.1(1), is that the
fundamental spread prices sum to unity. This equation holds for
this embodiment as well as for other embodiments of the present
invention. Technically, the sum of the fundamental spread prices
should sum to the discount factor that reflects the time value of
money (i.e., the interest rate) prevailing from the time at which
investors must pay for their digital options to the time at which
investors receive a payout from an in-the-money option after the
occurrence of a defined state. For the purposes of this description
of this embodiment, the time value of money during this period will
be taken to be zero, i.e., it will be ignored so that the
fundamental spread prices sum to unity. The second assumption,
equation 7.3.1(2), is that each price must be positive. Assumption
3, equation 7.3.1(3), is that the DBAR DOE contract of the present
embodiment is initialized (see Section 6.7, above) with value units
invested in each state in the amount of k.sub.i (initial amount of
value units invested for state i).
[0950] Using the notation from Section 7.1, the Demand Reallocation
Function (DRF) of this embodiment of an OPF is a canonical DRF
(CDRF), setting the total amount of investments that are allocated
using multistate allocation techniques to the defined states equal
to the total amount of investment in the auction or market that is
available (net of any transaction fees) to allocate to the payouts
upon determining the defined state which has occurred.
Alternatively, a non-canonical DRF may be used in an OPF.
[0951] Under a CDRF, the total amount invested in each defined
state is a function of the price in that state, the total amount of
notional payout requested for that state, and the initial amount of
value units invested in the defined state, or:
T.sub.i=p.sub.i*y.sub.ik.sub.i 7.3.2
The ratio of the invested amounts in any two states is therefore
equal to:
T i T j = p i * y i + k i p j * y i + k j 7.3 .3 ##EQU00061##
As described previously, since each state price is equal to the
total investment in the state divided by the total investment over
all of the states (p.sub.i=T.sub.i/T and p.sub.j=T.sub.j/T), the
ratio of the investment amounts in each DBAR contingent claim
defined state is equal to the ratio of the prices or implied
probabilities for the states, which, using the notation of Section
7.1, yields:
T i T j = p i * y i + k i p j * y j + k j = p i p j 7.3 .4
##EQU00062##
Eliminating the denominators of the previous equation and summing
over j yields:
j = 1 m p j ( p i * y i + k i ) = j = 1 m p i * ( p j * y j + k j )
7.3 .5 ##EQU00063##
Substitution for T into the above equation yields:
( p i * y i + k i ) ( j = 1 m p j ) = p i T 7.3 .6 ##EQU00064##
By the assumption that the state prices or probabilities sum to
unity from Equation 7.3.1, this yields the following equation:
p i = k i T - y i 7.3 .7 ##EQU00065##
This equation yields the state price or probability of a defined
state in terms of: (1) the amount of value units invested in each
state to initialize the DBAR auction or market (10; (2) the total
amount of premium invested in the DBAR auction or market (T); and
(3) the total amount of payouts to be executed for all of the
traders' orders for state i (y.sub.i). Thus, in this embodiment,
Equation 7.3.7 follows from the assumptions stated above, as
indicated in the equations in 7.3.1, and the requirement the DRF
imposes that the ratio of the state prices for any two defined
states in a DBAR auction or market be equal to the ratio of the
amount of invested value units in the defined states, as indicated
in Equation 7.3.4.
[0952] 7.4 Equilibrium Algorithm
[0953] From equation 7.3.7 and the assumption that the
probabilities of the defined states sum to one (again ignoring any
interest rate considerations), the following m+1 equations may be
solved to obtain the unique set of defined state probabilities
(p's) and the total premium investment for the group of defined
states or contingent claims:
p i = k i T - y i , i = 1 , 2 , , m ( a ) 7.4 .1 i = 1 m p i = i =
1 m k i T - y i = 1 ( b ) ##EQU00066##
Equation 7.4.1 contains m+1 unknowns and m+1 equations. The
unknowns are the p.sub.i, i=1, 2, . . . , m, and T, the total
investment for all of the defined states. In accordance with the
embodiment, the method of solution of the m+1 equations is to first
solve Equation 7.4.1 (b). This equation is a polynomial in T. By
the assumption that all of the probabilities of the defined states
must be positive, as stated in Equation 7.3.1, and that the
probabilities also sum to one, as also stated in Equation 7.3.1,
the defined state probabilities are between 0 and 1 or:
0 < p i < 1 , which implies 0 < k i T - y i < 1 , for i
= 1 , 2 , m , which implies T > y i + k i , for i = 1 , 2 , m ,
which implies T > max ( y i + k i ) , for i = 1 , 2 , m 7.4 .2
##EQU00067##
So the lower bound for T is equal to:
T.sub.lower=max(y.sub.i+k.sub.i)
By Equation 7.3.2:
[0954] T = i = 1 m T i = i = 1 m k i + i = 1 m p i y i 7.4 .3
##EQU00068##
Letting y.sub.(m) be the maximum value of the y's,
T = i = 1 m k i + i = 1 m p i y i .ltoreq. i = 1 m k i + i = 1 m p
i y ( m ) = i = 1 m k i + y ( m ) i = 1 m p i = i = 1 m k i + y ( m
) 7.4 .4 ##EQU00069##
Thus, the upper bound for T is equal to:
T upper = i = 1 m k i + y ( m ) = max ( y i ) + i = 1 m k i 7.4 .5
##EQU00070##
The solution for the total investment in the defined states
therefore lies in the following interval
T lower < T .ltoreq. T upper , or max ( y i + k i ) < T
.ltoreq. max ( y i ) + i = 1 m k i 7.4 .6 ##EQU00071##
[0955] In this embodiment, T is determined uniquely from the
equilibrium execution order amounts, denoted by the vector x.
Recall that in this embodiment, y.ident.B.sup.Tx. As shown
above,
T.epsilon.(T.sub.lower,T.sub.upper]
Let the function f be
f ( T ) = i = 1 m ( k i T - y i ) - 1 = 0 = i = 1 m p i - 1
##EQU00072##
Further,
[0956] f(T.sub.lower)>0
f(T.sub.upper)<0
Now, over the range T .epsilon.(T.sub.lower, T.sub.upper], f(T) is
differentiable and strictly monotonically decreasing. Thus, there
is a unique T in the range such that
f(T)=0
Thus, T is uniquely determined by the x.sub.j's (the equilibrium
executed notional payout amounts for each order j).
[0957] The solution for Equation 7.4.1(b) can therefore be obtained
using standard root-finding techniques, such as the Newton-Raphson
technique, over the interval for T stated in Equation 7.4.6. Recall
that the function f(T) is defined as
f ( T ) = i = 1 m ( k i T - y i ) - 1 ##EQU00073##
The first derivative of this function is therefore:
f ' ( T ) = f T = - i = 1 m k i ( T - y i ) 2 ##EQU00074##
[0958] Thus for T, take for an initial guess
T.sup.0=Max(y.sub.1+k.sub.1,y.sub.2+k.sub.2, . . .
,y.sub.m+k.sub.m)
For the p+1.sup.st guess use
T p + 1 = T p - f ( T p ) f ' ( T p ) ##EQU00075##
and calculate iteratively until a desired level of convergence to
the root of f(T), is obtained.
[0959] Once the solution for Equation 7.4.1(b) is obtained, the
value of T can be substituted into each of the m equations in
7.4.1(a) to solve for the p.sub.i. When the T and the p.sub.i are
known, all prices for DBAR digital options and spreads may be
readily calculated, as indicated by the notation in 7.1.
[0960] Note that, in the alternative embodiment with no limit
orders (briefly discussed at the beginning of this section 7),
there are no constraints set by limit prices, and the above
equilibrium algorithm is easily calculated because x.sub.j, the
executed notional payout amounts for each order j, is equal to
r.sub.j (a known quantity), the requested notional payout for order
j.
[0961] Regardless of the presence of limit orders, an equivalent
set of mathematics for this embodiment of a DBAR DOE is developed
using matrix notation. The matrix equivalent of Equation 7.3.2 may
be written as follows:
H*p=T*p 7.4.7
where T and p are the total premium and state probability vector,
respectively, as described in Section 7.1. The matrix H, which has
m rows and m columns where m is the number of defined states in the
DBAR market or auction, is defined as follows:
H = [ y 1 + k 1 k 1 k 1 k 1 k 2 y 2 + k 2 k 2 k 2 k m k m k m y m +
k m ] 7.4 .8 ##EQU00076##
H is a matrix with m rows and m columns. Each diagonal entry of H
is equal to y.sub.i+k.sub.i (the sum of the notional payout
requested by all the traders for state i and the initial amount of
value units invested for state i). The other entries for each row
are equal to k.sub.i (the initial amount of value units invested
for state i). Equation 7.4.7 is an eigenvalue problem, where:
H=Y+K*V
[0962] Y=an m.times.m diagonal matrix of the aggregate notional
amounts to be executed, Y.sub.i,i=y.sub.i
[0963] K=an m.times.m diagonal matrix of the arbitrary amounts of
opening orders, K.sub.i,i=k.sub.i
[0964] V=an m.times.m matrix of ones, V.sub.i,j=1
[0965] T=max (.lamda..sub.i(H)), i.e., the maximum eigenvalue of
the matrix H; and
[0966] p=|v(H,T)|, i.e., the normalized eigenvector associated with
the eigenvalue T.
[0967] Thus, Equation 7.4.7 is, in this embodiment, a method of
mathematically describing the equilibrium of a DBAR digital options
market or auction that is unique given the aggregate notional
amounts to be executed (Y) and arbitrary amounts of opening orders
(K). The equilibrium is unique since a unique total premium
investment, T, is associated with a unique vector of equilibrium
prices, p, by the solution of the eigensystem of Equation
7.4.7.
[0968] 7.5 Sell Orders
[0969] In this embodiment, "sell" orders in a DBAR digital options
market or auction are processed as complementary buy orders with
limit prices equal to one minus the limit price of the "sell"
order. For example, for the MSFT Digital Options auction of Section
6, a sell order for the 50 calls with a limit price of 0.44 would
be processed as a complementary buy order for the 50 puts (which
are complementary to the 50 calls in the sense that the defined
states which are spanned by the 50 puts are those which are not
spanned by the 50 calls) with limit price equal to 0.56 (i.e.,
1-0.44). In this manner, buy and sell orders, in this embodiment of
this Section 7, may both be entered in terms of notional payouts.
Selling a DBAR digital call, put or spread for a given limit price
of an order j (w.sub.j) is equivalent to buying the complementary
digital call, put, or spread at the complementary limit price of
order j (1-w.sub.j).
[0970] 7.6 Arbitrary Payout Options
[0971] In this embodiment, a trader may desire an option that has a
payout should the option expire in the money that varies depending
upon which defined in-the-money state occurs. For example, a trader
may desire twice the payout if the state [40,50) occurs than if the
state [30,40) occurs. Similarly, a trader may desire that an option
have a payout that is linearly increasing over the defined range of
in-the-money states ("strips" as defined in Section 6 above) in
order to approximate the types of options available in non-DBAR,
traditional markets. Options with arbitrary payout profiles can
readily be accommodated with the DBAR methods of the present
invention. In particular, the B matrix, as described in Section 7.2
above, can readily represent such options in this embodiment. For
example, consider a DBAR contract with 5 defined states. If a
trader desires an option that has the payout profile (0,0,1,2,3),
i.e., an option that is in-the-money only if the last 3 states
occur, and for which the fourth state has a payout twice the third,
and the fifth state a payout three times the third, then the row of
the B matrix corresponding to this order is equal to (0,0,1,2,3).
By contrast, a digital option for which the same three states are
in-the-money would have a corresponding entry in the B matrix of
(0,0,1,1,1). Additionally, for digital options all prices, both
equilibrium market prices and limit prices, are bound between 0 and
1. This is because all options are equally weighted linear
combinations of the defined state probabilities. If, however,
options with arbitrary payout distributions are processed, then the
linear combinations (as based upon the rows of the B matrix) will
not be weighted equally and prices need not be bounded between 0
and 1. For ease of exposition, the bulk of the disclosure in this
Section 7 has assumed that digital options (i.e., equally weighted
payouts) are the only options under consideration.
[0972] 7.7 Limit Order Book Optimization
[0973] In this embodiment of a DBAR digital options exchange or
market or auction as described in this Section 7, traders may enter
orders for digital calls, puts, and spreads by placing conditional
investment or limit orders. As indicated previously in Section 6.8,
a limit order is an order to buy or sell a digital call, put or
spread that contains a price (the "limit price") worse than which
the trader desires not to have his order executed. For example, for
a buy order of a digital call, put, or spread, a limit order will
contain a limit price which indicates that execution should occur
only if the final equilibrium price of the digital call, put or
spread is at or below the limit price for the order. Likewise, a
limit sell order for a digital option will contain a limit price
which indicates that the order is to be executed if the final
equilibrium price is at or higher than the limit sell price. All
orders are processed as buy orders and are subject to execution
whenever the order's limit price is greater than or equal to the
then prevailing equilibrium price, because sell orders may be
represented as buy orders, as described in the previous
section.
[0974] In this embodiment, accepting limit orders for a DBAR
digital options exchange uses the solution of a nonlinear
optimization problem (one example of an OPF). The problem seeks to
maximize the sum total of notional payouts of orders that can be
executed in equilibrium subject to each order's limit price and the
DBAR digital options equilibrium Equation 7.4.7. Mathematically,
the nonlinear optimization that represents the DBAR digital options
market or auction limit order book may be expressed as follows:
x * = argmax x j = 1 n x j subject to 7.7 .1 g j ( x ) = x j ( .pi.
j ( x ) - w j a ) .ltoreq. 0 ( 1 ) 0 .ltoreq. x j .ltoreq. r j ( 2
) Hp = Tp ( 3 ) ##EQU00077##
The objective function of the optimization problem in 7.7.1 is the
sum of the payout amounts for all of the limit orders that may be
executed in equilibrium. The first constraint, 7.7.1(1), requires
that the limit price be greater than or equal to the equilibrium
price for any payout to be executed in equilibrium (recalling that
all orders, including "sell" orders, may be processed as buy
orders). The second constraint, 7.7.1(2), requires that the
execution payout for the order be positive and less than or equal
to the requested payout of the order. The third constraint,
7.7.1(3) is the DBAR digital option equilibrium equation as
described in Equation 7.4.7.
[0975] 7.8 Transaction Fees
[0976] In this embodiment, before solving the nonlinear
optimization problem, the limit order prices for "sell" orders
provided by the trader are converted into buy orders (as discussed
above) and both buy and "sell" limit order prices are adjusted with
the exchange fee or transaction fee, f.sub.j. The transaction fee
can be set for zero, or it can be expressed as a flat fee as set
forth in this embodiment which is added to the limit order price
received for "sell" orders, and subtracted from the limit order
price paid for buy orders to arrive at an adjusted limit order
price w.sub.j.sup.a for order j, as follows:
For a "sell" order j,w.sub.j.sup.a=1-w.sub.j-f.sub.i 7.8.1
For a buy order j,w.sub.j.sup.f=w.sub.j-f.sub.j 7.8.2
[0977] Alternatively, if the transaction fee f.sub.j is variable,
and expressed as a percentage of the limit order price, w.sub.j,
then the limit order price may be adjusted as follows:
For a "sell" order j,
w.sub.j.sup.a=(1-w.sub.j)*(1-f.sub.j) 7.8.3
For a buy order j,
w.sub.j.sup.a=w.sub.j*(1-f.sub.j) 7.8.4
[0978] The transaction fee f.sub.j can also depend on the time of
trade, to provide incentives for traders to trade early or to trade
certain strikes, or otherwise reflect liquidity conditions in the
contract. Regardless of the type of transaction fee f.sub.j, the
limit order prices w.sub.j should be adjusted to w.sub.j.sup.a
before beginning solution of the nonlinear optimization program.
Adjusting the limit order price adjusts the location of the outer
boundary for optimization set by the limiting equation 7.7.1(1).
After the optimization solution has been reached, the equilibrium
prices for each executed order j, .pi..sub.j(x) can be adjusted by
adding the transaction fee to the equilibrium price to produce the
market offer price, and by subtracting the transaction fee from the
equilibrium price to produce the market bid price.
[0979] 7.9 An Embodiment of the Algorithm to Solve the Limit Order
Book Optimization
[0980] In this embodiment, the solution of Equation 7.7.1 can be
achieved with a stepping iterative algorithm, as described in the
following steps: [0981] (1) Place Opening Orders: For each state,
premium equal to k.sub.i, for i=1, 2, . . . , m, is invested. These
investments are called the "opening orders." The size of such
investments, in this embodiment, are generally small relative to
the subsequent orders. [0982] (2) Convert all "sale" orders to
complementary buy orders. As indicated previously in Section 6.8,
this is achieved by (i) identifying the range of defined states i
complementary to the states being "sold"; and (ii) adjusting the
limit "price" (w.sub.j) to one minus the original limit "price"
(1-w.sub.j). Note that by contrast to the method disclosed in
Section 6.8, there is no need to convert the amount being sold into
an equivalent amount being bought. In this embodiment in this
section, both buy and "sell" orders are expressed in terms of
payout (or notional payout) terms. [0983] (3) For all limit orders,
adjust the limit "prices" (w.sub.j, 1-w.sub.j) with transaction
fee, by subtracting the transaction fee f.sub.j: For a "sell" order
j, the adjusted limit price w.sub.j.sup.a therefore equals
(1-w.sub.j+f.sub.j), while for a buy order j, the adjusted limit
price w.sub.j.sup.a equals (w.sub.j-f.sub.j). [0984] (4) As
indicated above in Section 6.8, group the limit orders by placing
all of the limit orders that span or comprise the same range of
defined states into the same group. Sort each group from the best
(highest "price" buy) to the worst (lowest "price" buy). [0985] (5)
Establish an initial iteration step size, .alpha..sub.j(1). In this
embodiment the initial iteration step size .alpha..sub.j(1) may be
chosen to bear some reasonable relationship to the expected order
sizes to be encountered in the DBAR digital options market or
auction. In most applications, an initial iteration step size
.alpha..sub.j(1) equal to 100 is adequate. The current step size
.alpha..sub.j(.kappa.) will initially equal the initial iteration
step size (.alpha..sub.j(.kappa.)=.alpha..sub.j(1) for first
iteration) until and unless the current step size is adjusted to a
different step size. [0986] (6) Calculate the equilibrium to obtain
the total investment amount T and the state probabilities, p, using
equation 7.4.7. Although the eigenvalues can be computed directly,
this embodiment finds T by Newton-Raphson solution of Equation
7.4.1(b). The solution to T and equation 7.4.1(a) is used to find
the p's. [0987] (7) Compute the equilibrium order prices .pi.(x)
using the p's obtained in step (5). The equilibrium order prices
.pi.(x) are equal to B*p. [0988] (8) Increment the orders (x.sub.j)
that have adjusted limit prices (w.sub.j.sup.a) greater than or
equal to the current equilibrium price for that order .pi..sub.j(x)
(obtained in step (6)) by the current step size
.alpha..sub.j(.kappa.), but not to exceed the requested notional
payout of the order, r.sub.j. Decrement the orders (x.sub.j) that
have a positive executed order amount (x.sub.j>0) and have limit
prices less than the current equilibrium market price .pi..sub.j(x)
by the current step size .alpha..sub.j(.kappa.), but not to an
amount less than zero.
[0989] (9) Repeat steps (5) to (7) in subsequent iterations until
the values obtained for the executed order amounts (x.sub.j's)
achieve a desired convergence, as measured by certain convergence
criteria (set forth in Step (8)a), periodically adjusting the
current step size .alpha..sub.j(.kappa.) and/or the iteration
process after the initial iteration to further progress the
stepping iterative process towards the desired convergence. The
adjustments are set forth in steps (8)b to (8)d. [0990] (8)a In
this embodiment, the stepping iterative algorithm is considered
converged based upon a number of convergence criteria. One such
criterion is a convergence of the state probabilities ("prices") of
the individual defined states. A sampling window can be chosen,
similar to the method by which the rate of progress statistic is
measured (described below), in order to measure whether the state
probabilities are fluctuating or are merely undergoing slight
oscillations (say at the level of 10.sup.-5) that would indicate a
tolerable level of convergence. Another convergence criterion, in
this embodiment, would be to apply a similar rate of progress
statistic to the order steps themselves. Specifically, the
iterative stepping algorithm may be considered converged when all
of the rate of progress statistics in Equation 7.9.1(c) below are
tolerably close to zero. As another convergence criterion, in this
embodiment, the iterative stepping algorithm will be considered
converged when, in, possible combination with other convergence
criteria, the amount of payouts to be paid should any given defined
state occur does not exceed the total amount of investment in the
defined states, T, by a tolerably small amount, such as
10.sup.-5*T. [0991] (8)b In this embodiment, the step size may be
increased and decreased dynamically based upon the experienced
progress of the iterative scheme. If, for example, the iterative
increments and decrements are making steady linear progress, then
it may be advantageous to increase the step size. Conversely, if
the iterative increments and decrements ("stepping") is making less
than linear progress or, in the extreme case, is making little or
no progress, then it is advantageous to reduce the size of the
iterative step. [0992] In this embodiment, the step size may be
accelerated and decelerated using the following:
[0992] .omega. = .mu. * .theta. ( a ) 7.9 .1 mod ( .kappa. .omega.
) = 0 , .kappa. > .omega. ( b ) .gamma. j ( .kappa. ) = x j (
.kappa. ) - x j ( .kappa. - .omega. ) i = 1 .omega. x j ( i ) - x j
( i - 1 ) ( c ) .alpha. j = { .theta. ( .gamma. j ( .kappa. ) *
.theta. - 1 .theta. - 1 ) * .alpha. j ( .kappa. - 1 ) , .gamma. j (
.kappa. ) > 1 .theta. .theta. .gamma. j ( .kappa. ) * .theta. -
1 * .alpha. j ( .kappa. - 1 ) , .gamma. j ( .kappa. ) .ltoreq. 1
.theta. ( d ) ##EQU00078## [0993] where Equation 7.9.1(a) contains
the parameters of the acceleration/deceleration rules. These
parameters have the following interpretation: [0994] .theta.: a
parameter that controls the rate of step size acceleration and
deceleration. Typically, the values for this parameter will range
between 2 and 4, indicating that a maximum range of acceleration
from 100-300%. [0995] .mu.: a multiplier parameter, which, when
used to multiply the parameter .theta., yields a number of
iterations over which the step size remains unchanged. Typically,
the range of values for this parameter are 3 to 10. [0996] .omega.:
the window length parameter, which is the product of .theta. and
.mu. over which the step size remains unchanged. The window
parameter is a number of iterations over which the orders are
stepped with a fixed step size. After these number of iterations,
the progress is assessed, and the step size for each order may be
accelerated or decelerated. Based upon the above described ranges
for .theta. and .mu., the range of values for .omega. is between 6
and 40, i.e., every 6 to 40 iterations the step size is evaluated
for possible acceleration or deceleration. [0997] .kappa.: the
variable denoting the current iteration of the step algorithm where
.kappa. is an integer multiple of the window length, .omega..
[0998] .gamma..sub.j(.kappa.): a calculated statistic, calculated
at every .kappa..sup.th iteration for each order j. The statistic
is a ratio of two quantities. The numerator is the absolute value
of the difference between the quantity of order j filled at the
iteration corresponding to the beginning of the window and at the
iteration at the end of window. It represents, for each order j,
the total amount of progress made, in terms of the execution of
order j by either incrementing or decrementing the executed
quantity of order j, from the start of the window to the end of the
window iteration. The denominator is the sum of the absolute
changes of the order execution for each iteration of the window.
Thus, if an order has made no progress, the .gamma..sub.j(.kappa.)
statistic will be zero. If each step has resulted in progress in
the same direction the .gamma..sub.j(.kappa.) statistic will equal
one. Thus, in this embodiment, the .gamma..sub.j(.kappa.) statistic
represents the amount of progress that has been made over the
previous iteration window, with zero corresponding to no progress
for order j and one corresponding to linear progress for order j.
[0999] .alpha..sub.j(.kappa.): this parameter is the current step
size for order j at iteration count .kappa.. At every
.kappa..sup.th iteration, it is updated using the equation
7.9.1(d). If the .gamma..sub.j(.kappa.) statistic reflects
sufficient progress over the previous window by exceeding the
quantity 1/.theta., then 7.9.1(d) provides for an increase in the
step size, which is accomplished through a multiplication of the
current step size by a number exceeding one as governed by the
formula in 7.9.1(d). Similarly, if the .gamma..sub.j(.kappa.)
statistic reflects insufficient progress by being equal or less
than 1/.theta., the step size parameter will remain the same or
will be reduced according to the formula in 7.9.1(d). [1000] These
parameters are selected, in this embodiment, based upon, in part,
the overall performance of the rules with respect to test data.
Typically, .theta.=2-4, .mu.=3-10 and therefore .omega.=6-40.
Different parameters may be selected depending upon the overall
performance of the rules. Equation 7.9.1(b) states that the
acceleration or deceleration of an iterative step for each order's
executed amount is to be performed only on the .omega.-th
iteration, i.e., .omega. is a sampling window of a number of
iterations (say 6-40) over which the iterative stepping procedure
is evaluated to determine its rate of progress. Equation 7.9.1(c)
is the rate of progress statistic that is calculated over the
length of each sampling window. The statistic is calculated for
each order j on every .omega.-th iteration and measures the rate of
progress over the previous .omega. iterations of stepping. For each
order, the numerator is the absolute value of how much each order j
has been stepped over the sampling window. The larger the
numerator, the larger the amount of total progress that has been
made over the window. The denominator is the sum of the absolute
values of the progress made over each individual step within the
window, summed over the number of steps, .omega., in the window.
The denominator will be the same value, for example, whether 10
positive steps of 100 have been made or whether 5 positive steps of
100 and 5 negative steps of 100 have been made for a given order.
The ratio of the numerator and denominator of Equation 7.9.1(c) is
therefore a statistic that resides on the interval between 0 and 1,
inclusive. If, for example, an order j has not made any progress
over the window period, then the numerator is zero and the
statistic is zero. If, however, an order j has made maximum
progress over the window period, the rate of progress statistic
will be equal to 1. Equation 7.9.1(d) describes the rule based upon
the rate of progress statistic. For each order j at iteration
.kappa. (where .kappa. is a multiple of the window length), if the
rate of progress statistic exceeds 1/.theta., then the step size is
accelerated. A higher choice of the parameter .theta. will result
in more frequent and larger accelerations. If the rate of progress
statistic is less than or equal to 1/.theta., then the step size is
either kept the same or decelerated. It may be possible to employ
similar and related acceleration and deceleration rules, which may
have a somewhat different mathematical parameterization as that
described above, to the iterative stepping of the order amount
executions. [1001] (8)c In this embodiment, a linear program may be
used, in conjunction with the iterative stepping algorithm
described above, to further accelerate the rate of progress. The
linear program would be employed primarily at the point when a
tolerable level of convergence in the defined state probabilities
has been achieved. When the defined state probabilities have
reached a tolerable level of convergence, the nonlinear program of
Equation 7.7.1 is transformed, with prices held constant, into a
linear program. The linear program may be solved using widely
available techniques and software code. The linear program may be
solved using a variety of numerical tolerances on the set of linear
constraints. The linear program will yield a result that is either
feasible or infeasible. The result contains the maximum sum of the
executed order amounts (sum of the x.sub.j), subject to the price,
bounds, and equilibrium constraints of Equation 7.7.1, but with the
prices (the vector p) held constant. In frequent cases, the linear
program will result in executed order amounts that are larger than
those in possession at the current iteration of the stepping
procedure. After the linear program is solved, the iterative
stepping procedure is resumed with the executed order amounts from
the linear program. The linear program is an optimization program
of Equation 7.7.1 but with the vector p from the current iteration
.kappa. held constant. With prices constant, constraints (1) and
(3) of nonlinear optimization problem 7.7.1 become linear and
therefore Equation 7.7.1 is transformed from a nonlinear
optimization program to a linear program. [1002] (8)d Once a
tolerable level of convergence has been achieved for the notional
payout executed for each order, x.sub.j, the entire stepping
iterative algorithm to solve Equation 7.7.1 may then be repeated
with a substantially smaller step size, e.g., a step size,
.alpha..sub.j(.kappa.), equal to 1 until a higher level of
convergence has been achieved.
[1003] 7.10 Limit Order Book Display
[1004] In this embodiment of a DBAR digital options market or
auction, it may be desirable to inform market or auction
participants of the amount of payout that could be executed at any
given limit price for any given DBAR digital call, put, or spread,
as described previously in Section 6.9. The information may be
displayed in such a manner so as to inform traders and other market
participants the amount of an order that may be bought and "sold"
above and below the current market price, respectively, for any
digital call, put, or spread option. In this embodiment, such a
display of information of the limit order book appears in a manner
similar to the data displayed in the following table.
TABLE-US-00037 TABLE 7.10.1 Current Pricing Strike Spread To Bid
Offer Payout Volume <50 0.2900 0.3020 3.3780 110,000,000 <50
PUT Offer Offer Side Volume 0.35 140,002,581 0.32 131,186,810 0.31
130,000,410 MARKET PRICE 0.2900 0.3020 MARKET PRICE 120,009,731
0.28 120,014,128 0.27 120,058,530 0.24 Bid Side Volume Bid
In Table 7.10.1, the amount of payout that a trader could execute
were he willing to place an order at varying limit prices above the
market (for buy orders) and below the market (for "sell" orders) is
displayed. As displayed in the table, the data pertains to a put
option, say for MSFT stock as in Section 6, at a strike price of
50. The current price is 0.2900/0.3020 indicating that the last
"sale" order could have been processed at 0.2900 (the current bid
price) and that the last buy order could have been processed at
0.3020 (the current offer price). The current amount of executed
notional volume for the 50 put is equal to 110,000,000. The data
indicate that a trader willing to place a buy order with limit
price equal to 0.31 would be able to execute approximately
130,000,000 notional payout. Similarly, a trader willing to place a
"sell" order with limit price equal to 0.28 would be able to
achieve indicative execution of approximately 120,000,000 in
notional.
[1005] 7.11 Unique Price Equilibrium Proof
The following is a proof that a solution to Equation 7.7.1 results
in a unique price equilibrium. The first-order optimality
conditions for Equation 5 yield the following complementary
conditions:
(1)g.sub.j(x)<0.fwdarw.x.sub.j=r.sub.j
(2)g.sub.j(x)>0.fwdarw.x.sub.j=0
(3)g.sub.j(x)=0.fwdarw.0.ltoreq.x.sub.j.ltoreq.r.sub.j
The first condition is that if an order's limit price is higher
than the market price (g.sub.j(x)<0), then that order is fully
filled (i.e., filled in the amount of the order request, r.sub.j).
The second condition is that an order not be filled if the order's
limit price is less than the market equilibrium price (i.e.,
g.sub.j(x)>0). Condition 3 allows for orders to be filled in all
or part in the case where the order's limit price exactly equals
the market equilibrium price.
[1006] To prove the existence and convergence to a unique price
equilibrium, consider the following iterative mapping:
F(x)=x-.beta.*g(x) 7.11.2A
Equation 7.11.2A can be proved to be contraction mapping which for
a step size independent of x will globally converge to a unique
equilibrium, i.e., it can be proven that Equation 2A has a unique
fixed point of the form
F(x*)=x* 7.11.3A
To first show that F(x) is a contraction mapping, matrix
differentiation of Equation 2A yields:
F ( x ) x = I - .beta. * D ( x ) where D ( x ) = B * A * Z - 1 * B
T A i , j = { p i * ( 1 - p i ) , i = j - p i * p j , i .noteq. j Z
i , j = { T - y i + p i * y i , i = j p j * y i , i .noteq. j 7.11
.4 A ##EQU00079##
The matrix D(x) of Equation 4A is the matrix of order price first
derivatives (i.e., the order price Jacobian). Equation 7.11.2A can
be shown to be a contraction if the following condition holds:
F ( x ) x < 1 7.11 .5 A ##EQU00080##
which is the case if the following condition holds:
.beta.*.rho.(D)<1,
where
.rho.(D)=max(.lamda..sub.i,(D)), i.e., the spectral radius of D
7.11.6A
By the Gerschgorin's Circle Theorem the eigenvalues of A are
bounded between 0 and 1. The matrix Z.sup.-1 is a diagonally
dominant matrix, all rows of which sum to 1/T. Because of the
diagonal dominance, the other eigenvalues of Z.sup.-1 are clustered
around the diagonal elements of the matrix, and are approximately
equal to p.sub.i/k.sub.i. The largest eigenvalue of Z.sup.-1 is
therefore bounded above by 1/k.sub.i. The spectral radius of D is
therefore bounded between 0 and linear combinations of 1/k.sub.i as
follows:
.rho. ( D ) .ltoreq. L L = 1 i = 1 m 1 k i 7.11 .7 A
##EQU00081##
where the quantity L, a function of the opening order amounts, can
be interpreted as the "liquidity capacitance" of the demand-based
trading equilibrium (mathematically L is quite similar to the total
capacitance of capacitors in series). The function F(x) of Equation
2A is therefore a contraction if
.beta.<L 7.11.8A
[1007] Equation 7.11.8A states that a contraction to the unique
price equilibrium can be guaranteed for contraction step sizes no
larger than L, which is an increasing function of the opening
orders in the demand-based market or auction.
[1008] The fixed point iteration of Equation 2A converges to x*.
Since y*=B.sup.Tx*, y* can be used in Equation 7.4.7 to compute the
fundamental state prices p* and the total quantity of premium
invested T*. If there are linear dependencies in the B matrix, it
may be possible to preserve p* through a different allocation of
the x's corresponding to the linearly dependent rows of B. For
example, consider two orders, x.sub.1 and x.sub.2, which span the
same states and have the same limit order price. Assume that
r.sub.1=100 and r.sub.2=100 and that x.sub.1*=x.sub.2*=50 from the
fixed point iteration. Then clearly, x.sub.1=100 and x.sub.2=0 may
be set without disturbing p*. For example, different order priority
rules may give execution precedence to the earlier submitted
identical order. In any event, the fixed point iteration results in
a unique price equilibrium, that is, unique in p.
8. Network Implementation
[1009] A network implementation of the embodiment described in
Section 7 is a means to run a complete, market-neutral,
self-hedging open book of limit orders for digital options. The
network implementation is formed from a combination of demand-based
trading core algorithms with an electronic interface and a
demand-based limit order book. This embodiment enables the exchange
or sponsor to create products, e.g., a series of demand-based
auctions or markets specific to an underlying event, in response to
customer demand by using the network implementation to conduct the
digital options markets or auctions. These digital options, in
turn, form the foundation for a variety of investment, risk
management and speculative strategies that can be used by market
participants. As shown in FIG. 22, whether accessed using secure,
browser-based interfaces over web sites on the Internet or an
extension of a private network, the network implementation provides
market makers with all the functionality conduct a successful
market or auction including, for example: [1010] (1) Order entry.
Orders are taken by a market maker's sales force and entered into
the network implementation. [1011] (2) Limit order book. All limit
orders are displayed. [1012] (3) Indicative pricing and volumes.
While an auction or market is in progress, prices and order volumes
are displayed and updated in real time. [1013] (4) Price
publication. Prices may be published using the market maker's
intranet (for a private network implementation) or Internet web
site (for an Internet implementation) in addition to market data
services such as Reuters and Bloomberg. [1014] (5) Complete
real-time distribution of market expectations. The network
implementation provides market participants with a display of the
complete distribution of expected returns at all times. [1015] (6)
Final pricing and order amounts. At the conclusion of a market or
an auction, final prices and filled orders are displayed and
delivered to the market maker for entry or export to existing
clearing and settlement systems. [1016] (7) Auction or Market
administration. The network implementation provides all func-tions
necessary to administer the market or auction, including start and
stop functions, and details and summary of all orders by customer
and salesperson.
[1017] A practical example of a demand-based market or auction
conducted using the network implementation follows. The example
assumes that an investment bank receives inquiries for derivatives
whose payouts are based upon a corporation's quarterly earnings
release. At present, no underlying tradable supply of quarterly
corporate earnings exists and few investment banks would choose to
coordinate the "other side" of such a transaction in a continuous
market.
Establishing the Market or Auction: First, the sponsor of the
market or auction establishes and communicates the details that
define the market or auction, including the following: [1018] An
underlying event, e.g., the scheduled release of an earnings
announcement [1019] An auction period or trading period, e.g., the
specified date and time period for the market or auction [1020]
Digital options strike prices, e.g., the specified increments for
each strike Accepting and Processing Customer Limit Orders: During
the auction or trading period, customers may place buy and sell
limit orders for any of the calls or puts, as defined in the market
or auction details establishing the market or auction. Indicative
and Final Clearing of the Limit Order Book: During the auction or
trading period, the network implementation displays indicative
clearing prices and quantities, i.e., those that would exist if the
order book were cleared at that moment. The network implementation
also displays the limit order book for each option, enabling market
participants to assess market depth and conditions. Clearing prices
and quantities are determined by the available intersection of
limit orders as calculated according to embodiments of the present
invention. At the end of the auction or trading period, a final
clearing of the order book is performed and option prices and
filled order quantities are finalized. Market participants remit
and accept premium for filled orders. This completes a successful
market or auction of digital options on an event with no underlying
tradable supply. Summary of Demand-Based Market or Auction
Benefits: Demand-based markets or auctions can operate efficiently
without the requirement of a discrete order match between and among
buyers and sellers of derivatives. The mechanics of demand-based
markets or auctions are transparent. Investment, risk management
and speculative demand exists for large classes of economic events,
risks and variables for which no associated tradable supply exists.
Demand-based markets and auctions meet these demands.
9. Structured Instrument Trading
[1021] In another embodiment, clients can offer instruments
suitable to broad classes of investors. In particular, an
opportunity exists for participation in demand-based markets or
auctions by customers who would otherwise not participate because
they typically avoid leverage and trading in derivatives contracts.
In this embodiment, these customers may transact using existing
financial instruments or other structured products, for example,
risk-linked notes and swaps, simultaneously with customers
transacting using DBAR contingent claims, for example, digital
options, in the same demand-based market or auction.
[1022] In this embodiment, a set of one or more digital options are
created to approximate one or more parameters of the structured
products, e.g., a spread to LIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rate)
or a coupon on a risk-linked note or swap, a note notional (also
referred to, for example, as a face amount of the note or par or
principal), and/or a trigger level for the note or swap to expire
in-the-money. The set of one or more digital options may be
referred to, for example, as an approximation set. The structured
products become DBAR-enabled products, because, once their
parameters are approximated, the customer is enabled to trade them
alongside other DBAR contingent claims, for example, digital
options.
[1023] The approximation, a type of mapping from parameters of
structured products to parameters of digital options, could be an
automatic function built into a computer system accepting and
processing orders in the demand-based market or auction. The
approximation or mapping permits or enables non-leveraged customers
to interface with the demand-based market or auction, side by side
with leverage-oriented customers who trade digital options.
DBAR-enabled notes and swaps, as well as other DBAR-enabled
products, provide non-leveraged customers the ability to enhance
returns and achieve investment objectives in new ways, and increase
the overall liquidity and risk pricing efficiency of the
demand-based market or auction by increasing the variety and number
of participants in the market or auction.
[1024] 9.1 Overview: Customer-Oriented DBAR-Enabled Products
[1025] Instruments can be offered to fit distinct investment
styles, needs, and philosophies of a variety of customers. In this
embodiment, "clientele effects" refers to, for example, the factors
that would motivate different groups of customers to transact in
one type of DBAR-enabled product over another. The following
classes of customers may have varying preferences, institutional
constraints, and investment and risk management philosophies
relevant to the nature and degree of participation in demand-based
markets or auctions: [1026] Hedge Funds
[1027] Proprietary Traders
[1028] Derivatives Dealers
[1029] Portfolio Managers
[1030] Insurers and Reinsurers
[1031] Pension Funds
[1032] Regulatory, accounting, internal institutional policies, and
other related constraints may affect the ability, willingness, and
frequency of participation in leveraged investments in general and
derivatives products such as options, futures, and swaps in
particular. Hedge funds and proprietary traders, for instance, may
actively trade digital options, but may be unlikely to trade in
certain structured note products that have identical risks while
requiring significant capital. On the other hand, "real money"
accounts such as portfolio managers, insurers, and pension funds
may actively trade instruments that bear significant event risk,
but these real money customers may be unlikely to trade DBAR
digital options bearing identical event risks.
[1033] For example, according to the prospectus for their total
return fund, one particular fixed income manager may invest in
fixed income securities for which the return of principal and
payment of interest are contingent upon the non-occurrence of a
specific `trigger` event, such as a hurricane, earthquake, tornado,
or other phenomenon (referred to, for example, as `event-linked
bonds`). These instruments typically pay a spread to LIBOR should
losses not exceed a stipulated level.
[1034] On the other hand, a fixed-income manager may not trade in
an Industry Loss Warranty market or auction with insurers
(discussed above in Section 3), even though the risks transacted in
this market or auction, effectively a market or auction for digital
options on property risks posed by hurricanes, may be identical to
the risks borne in the underwritten Catastrophe-linked (CAT)
securities. Similarly, the fixed-income manager and other fixed
income managers may participate widely in the corporate bond
market, but may participate to a lesser extent in the default swap
market (convertible into a demand-based market or auction), even
though a corporate bond bears similar risks as a default swap
bundled with a traditional LIBOR-based note or swap.
[1035] The unifying theme to these clientele effects is that the
structure and form in which products are offered can impact the
degree of customer participation in demand-based markets or
auctions, especially for real money customers which avoid leverage
and trade few, if any, options but actively seek fixed-income-like
instruments offering significant spreads to LIBOR for bearing some
event-related risk on an active and informed basis.
[1036] This embodiment addresses these "clientele effects" in the
risk-bearing markets by allowing demand-based markets or auctions
to simultaneously offer both digital options and DBAR-enabled
products, such as, for example, risk-linked FRNs (or floating rate
notes) and swaps, to different customers within the same
risk-pricing, allocation, and execution mechanism. Thus, hedge
funds, arbitrageurs, and derivatives dealers can transact in the
demand-based market or auction in terms of digital options, while
real money customers can transact in the demand-based market or
auction in terms of different sets of instruments: swaps and notes
paying spreads to LIBOR. For both types of customers, the payout is
contingent upon an observed outcome of an economic event, for
example, the level of the economic statistic at the release date
(or e.g., at the end of the observation period).
[1037] 9.2 Overview: FRNs and swaps
[1038] For FRN and swap customers, according to this embodiment, a
nexus of counterparties to contingent LIBOR-based cash flows based
upon material risky events can be created in a demand-based market
or auction. Schematically, the cash flows resemble a multiple
counterparty version of standard FRN or swap LIBOR-based cash
flows. FIG. 23 illustrates the cash flows for each participant. The
underlying properties of DBAR markets or auctions will still apply
(as described below), the offering of this event-linked FRN is
market-neutral and self-hedging. In this embodiment, as with other
embodiments of the present invention, a demand-based market or
auction is created, ensuring that the receivers of positive spreads
to LIBOR are being funded, and completely offset, by those
out-of-the-money participants who receive par.
[1039] In this example, with actual ECI at 0.9%, the participants,
each with trigger levels of 0.7%, 0.8%, or 0.9% are all
in-the-money, and will earn LIBOR plus the corresponding spread for
those triggers on. Those participants with trigger levels above
0.9% receive par.
[1040] 9.3 Parameters: FRNs and Swaps vs. Digital Options
[1041] The following information provides an illustration of
parameters related to a principal-protected Employment Cost
Index(ECI)-linked FRN note and swap and ECI-linked digital options:
[1042] End of Trading Period: Oct. 23, 2001 [1043] End of
Observation Period: Oct. 25, 2001 [1044] Coupon Reset Date: Oct.
25, 2001 [1045] (also referred to, for example, as the "FRN Fixing
Date") [1046] Note Maturity: Jan. 25, 2002 [1047] (when par amount
needs to be repaid) [1048] Option payout date: Jan. 25, 2002 [1049]
(when payout of digital option is paid, can be set to be the same
date as Note Maturity or a different date) [1050] Trigger Index:
Employment Cost Index ("ECI") [1051] (also known as the strike
price for an equivalent DBAR digital option) [1052] Principal
Protection: Par
TABLE-US-00038 [1052] TABLE 9.3 Indicative Trigger Levels and
Indicative Pricing Spread to LIBOR* ECI Trigger (%) (bps) 0.7 50
0.8 90 0.9 180 1 350 1.1 800 1.2 1200 *For the purposes of the
example, assume mid-market LIBOR execution
[1053] In this example, a customer (for example, an FRN holder or a
note holder) places an order for an FRN with $100,000,000 par (also
referred to, for example, as the face value of the note or notional
or principal of the note), selecting a trigger of 0.9% ECI and a
minimum spread of 180 bps to LIBOR (180 basis points or 1.80% in
addition to LIBOR) during a trading period. After the end of the
trading period, Oct. 23, 2001, if the market or auction determines
the coupon for the note (e.g., the spread to LIBOR) equal to 200
bps to LIBOR, and the customer's note expires in-the-money at the
end of the observation period, Oct. 25, 2001, then the customer
will receive a return of 200 bps plus LIBOR on par ($100,000,000)
on the note maturity date, Jan. 25, 2002.
[1054] Alternatively, if the market or auction fixes the rate on
the note or sets the spread to 180 bps to LIBOR, and the customer's
note expires-in-the money at the end of the observation period,
then the customer will receive a return of 180 bps plus LIBOR (the
selected minimum spread) on par on the note maturity date. If a
3-month LIBOR is equal to 3.5%, and the spread of 180 bps to LIBOR
is also for a 3 month period, and the note expires in-the-money,
then the customer receives a payout $101,355,444.00 on Jan. 25,
2002, or:
in - the - money payout = par + par .times. ( L I B O R + spread )
.times. daycount basis 9.3 A ##EQU00082##
[1055] An "in-the-money note payout" may be a payout that the
customer receives if the FRN expires in-the-money. Analogously, an
"out-of-the-money note payout" may be a payout that the customer
receives if the FRN expires out-of-the-money. "Daycount" is the
number of days between the end of the coupon reset date and the
note maturity date (in this example, 92 days). Basis is the number
of days used to approximate a year, often set at 360 days in many
financial calculations. The variable, "daycount/basis" is the
fraction of a year between the observation period and the note
maturity date, and is used to adjust the relevant annualized
interest rates into effective interest rates for a fraction of a
year.
[1056] If the note expires out-of-the-money, because the ECI is
observed to be 0.8%, for example, on Oct. 25, 2001 (the end of the
observation period), then the customer receives an out-of-the-money
payout of par on Jan. 25, 2002, the note maturity date, or:
out-of-the-money note payout=par 9.3B
[1057] Alternatively, the FRN could be structured as a swap, in
which case the exchange of par does not occur. If the swap is
structured to adjust the interest rates into effective interest
rates for the actual amount of time elapsed between the end of the
observation period and the note maturity date, then the customer
receives a swap payout of $1,355,444. If the ECI fixes below 0.9%
(and the swap is structured to adjust the interest rates), then the
FRN holder loses or pays a swap loss of $894,444 or LIBOR times par
(see equation 9.3D). The swap payout and swap loss can be
formulated as follows:
swap payout = par .times. ( L I B O R + spread ) .times. daycount
basis 9.3 C swaploss = par .times. L I B O R .times. daycount basis
9.3 D ##EQU00083##
[1058] As opposed to FRNs and swaps, digital options provide a
notional or a payout at a digital payout date, occurring on or
after the end of the observation period (when the outcome of the
underlying event has been observed). The digital payout date can be
set at the same time as the note maturity date or can occur at some
other earlier time, as described below. The digital option customer
can specify a desired or requested payout, a selected outcome, and
a limit on the investment amount for limit orders (as opposed to
market orders, in which the customer does not place a limit on the
investment amount needed to achieve the desired or requested
payout).
[1059] 9.4 Mechanics: DBAR-Enabling FRNs and Swaps
[1060] In this embodiment, as discussed above, both digital options
and risk-linked FRNs or swaps may be offered in the same
demand-based market or auction. Due to clientele effects,
traditional derivatives customers may follow the market or auction
in digital option format, while the real money customers may
participate in the market or auction in an FRN format. Digital
options customers may submit orders, inputting option notional (as
a desired payout), a strike price (as a selected outcome), and a
digital option limit price (as a limit on the investment amount).
FRN customers may submit orders, inputting a notional note size or
par, a minimum spread to LIBOR, and a trigger level or levels,
indicating the level (equivalently, a strike price) at or above
which the FRN will earn the market or auction-determined spread to
LIBOR or the minimum spread to LIBOR. An FRN may provide, for
example, two trigger levels (or strike prices) indicating that the
FRN will earn a spread should the ECI Index fall between them at
the end of the observation period.
[1061] In this embodiment, the inputs for an FRN order (which are
some of the parameters associated with an FRN) can be mapped or
approximated, for example, at a built-in interface in a computer
system, into desired payouts, selected outcomes and limits on the
investment amounts for one or more digital options in an
approximation set, so that the FRN order can be processed in the
same demand-based market or auction along with direct digital
option orders. Specifically, each FRN order in terms of a note
notional, a coupon or spread to LIBOR, and trigger level may be
approximated with a LIBOR-bearing note for the notional amount (or
a note for notional amount earning an interest rate set at LIBOR),
and an embedded approximation set of one or more digital
options.
[1062] As a result of the mapping or approximation, all orders of
contingent claims (for example, digital option orders and FRN
orders) are expressed in the same units or variables. Once all
orders are expressed in the same units or variables, an
optimization system, such as that described above in Section 7,
determines an optimal investment amount and executed payout per
order (if it expires in-the-money) and total amount invested in the
demand-based market or auction. Then, at the interface, the
parameters of the digital options in the approximation set
corresponding to each FRN order are mapped back to parameters of
the FRN order. The coupon for the FRN (if above the minimum spread
to LIBOR specified by the customer) is determined as a function of
the digital options in the approximation set which are filled and
the equilibrium price of the filled digital options in the
approximation set, as determined by the entire demand-based market
or auction. Thus, the FRN customer inputs certain FRN parameters,
such as the minimum spread to LIBOR and the notional amount for the
note, and the market or auction generates other FRN parameters for
the customer, such as the coupon earned on the notional of the note
if the note expires-in-the money.
[1063] The methods described above and in section 9.5 below set
forth an example of the type of mapping that can be applied to the
parameters of a variety of other structured products, to enable the
structured products to be traded in a demand-based market or
auction alongside other DBAR contingent claims, including, for
example, digital options, thereby increasing the degree and variety
of participation, liquidity and pricing efficiency of any
demand-based market or auction. The structured products include,
for example, any existing or future financial products or
instruments whose parameters can be approximated with the
parameters of one or more DBAR contingent claims, for example,
digital options. The mapping in this embodiment can be used in
combination with and/or applied to the other embodiments of the
present invention.
9.5 Example
Mapping FRNs into Digital Option Space
[1064] The following notation, figures and equations illustrate the
mapping of ECI-linked FRNs into digital option space, or
approximating the parameters of ECI-linked FRNs into parameters of
an approximation set of one or more digital options, and can be
applied to illustrate the mapping of ECI-linked swaps into digital
option space.
9.5.1 Date and Timing Notation and Formulation
[1065] t.sub.S: the premium settlement date for the direct digital
option orders and the FRN orders, set at the same time or some time
after the TED (or the end of the trading or auction period). [1066]
t.sub.E: the event outcome date or the end of the observation
period (e.g., the date of that the outcome of the event is
observed). [1067] t.sub.O: the option payout date [1068] t.sub.R:
the coupon reset date, or the date when interest (spread to LIBOR,
including, for example, spread plus LIBOR) begins to accrue on the
note notional. [1069] t.sub.N: the note maturity date, or the date
for repayment of the note. [1070] f: the fraction of the year from
date t.sub.R to date t.sub.N. This number may depend on the
day-count convention used, e.g., whether the basis for the year is
set at 365 days per year or 360 days per year. In this example, the
basis for the year is set at 360 days, and f can be formulated as
follows:
[1070] f = number of days between t R and t N 360 9.5 .1 A
##EQU00084##
[1071] As shown in FIG. 24, the market or auction in this example
is structured such that the note maturity date (t.sub.N) occurs on
or after the option payout date (t.sub.O) although, for example,
the market auction can be structured such that t.sub.N occurs
before t.sub.O. Additionally, as illustrated, the option payout
date (t.sub.O) occurs on or after the end of the observation period
(t.sub.E), and the end of the observation period (t.sub.E) occurs
on or after the premium settlement date (t.sub.S). The premium
settlement date (t.sub.S), can occur on or after the end of the
trading period for the demand-based market or auction. Further, the
demand-based market or auction in this example is structured such
that the coupon reset date (t.sub.R) occurs after the premium
settlement date (t.sub.S) and before the note maturity date
(t.sub.N). However, the coupon reset date (also referred to, for
example, as the "FRN Fixing Date") (t.sub.R) can occur at any time
before the note maturity date (t.sub.N), and at any time on or
after the end of the trading period or the premium settlement date
(t.sub.S). The coupon reset date (t.sub.R), for example, can occur
after the end of the observation period (t.sub.E) and/or the option
payout date (t.sub.O). In this example, as shown in FIG. 24, the
coupon reset date (t.sub.R) is set between the end of the
observation period (t.sub.E) and the option payout date
(t.sub.O).
[1072] Similar to the discussion earlier in this specification in
Section 1 that the duration of the trading period can be unknown to
the participants at the time that they place their orders, any of
the dates above can be pre-determined and known by the participants
at the outset, or they can be unknown to the participants at the
time that they place their orders. The end of the trading period,
the premium settlement date or the coupon reset date, for example,
can occur at a randomly selected time, or could occur depending
upon the occurrence of some event associated or related to the
event of economic significance, or upon the fulfillment of some
criterion. For example, for DBAR-enabled FRNs, the coupon reset
date could occur after a certain volume, amount, or frequency of
trading or volatility is reached in a respective demand-based
market or auction. Alternatively, the coupon reset date could
occur, for example, after an nth catastrophic natural event (e.g.,
a fourth hurricane), or after a catastrophic event of a certain
magnitude (e.g., an earthquake of a magnitude of 5.5 or higher on
the Richter scale), and the natural or catastrophic event can be
related or unrelated to the event of economic significance, in this
example, the level of the ECI.
[1073] 9.5.2 Variables and Formulation for Demand-Based Market or
Auction [1074] E: Event of economic significance, in this example,
ECI. The level of the ECI observed on t.sub.E. This event is the
same event for the FRN and direct digital option orders, referred
to, e.g., as a "Trigger Level" for the FRN order, and as a "strike
price" for the direct digital option order. [1075] L: London
Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) from the date t.sub.R to t.sub.N, a
variable that can be fixed, e.g., at the start of the trading
period. [1076] m: number of defined states, a natural number. Index
letter I, i=1, 2 . . . , m. In the example shown in FIG. 9.2, for
example, there can be 7 states depending on the outcome of an
economic event: the level of the ECI on the event observation date.
[1077] ECI<0.7; [1078] 0.7<ECI<0.8; [1079]
0.8.ltoreq.ECI<0.9; [1080] 0.9.ltoreq.ECI<1.0; [1081]
1.0.ltoreq.ECI<1.1; [1082] 1.1.ltoreq.ECI<1.2; and [1083]
ECI.gtoreq.1.2. [1084] n.sub.N: number of FRN orders in a
demand-based market or auction, a non-negative integer. Index
letter j.sub.N, j.sub.N=1,2, . . . n.sub.N. [1085] n.sub.D: number
of direct digital option orders in a demand-based market or
auction, a non-negative integer. Index letter j.sub.D, j.sub.D=1,2,
. . . n.sub.D. Direct digital option orders, include, for example,
orders which are placed using digital option parameters. [1086]
n.sub.AD: number of digital option orders in an approximation set
for a j.sub.N FRN order. In this example, this number is known and
fixed, e.g., at the start of the trading period, however as
described below, this number can be determined during the mapping
process, a non-negative integer. Index letter z, z=1, 2, . . .
n.sub.AD. [1087] n: number of all digital option orders in a
demand-based market or auction, a non-negative integer. Index
letter j, j=1, 2, . . . n. [1088] The above numbers relate to one
another in a single demand-based market or auction as follows:
[1088] n = j N = 1 n N n AD ( j N ) + n D 9.5 .2 A ##EQU00085##
[1089] L: the rate of LIBOR from date t.sub.R to date t.sub.N
[1090] DF.sub.O: the discount factor between the premium settlement
date and the option payout date (t.sub.S and t.sub.O), to account
for the time value of money. DFo can be set using LIBOR (although
other interest rates may be used), and equal to, for example,
1/[1+(L* portion of year from t.sub.S to t.sub.O)]. [1091]
DF.sub.N: the discount rate between the premium settlement date and
the note maturity date, t.sub.S and t.sub.N. DF.sub.N can also be
set using LIBOR (although other interest rates may be used), and
equal to, for example, 1/[1+(L* portion of year from t.sub.S to
t.sub.N)].
[1092] 9.5.3 Variables and Formulations for Each Note j.sub.N in
Demand-Based Market or Auction [1093] A: notional or face amount or
par of note. [1094] U: minimum spread to LIBOR (a positive number)
specified by customer for note, if the customer's selected outcome
becomes the observed outcome of the event. Although both buy and
sell FRN orders can be processed together with buy and sell direct
digital option orders in the same demand-based market or auction,
this example demonstrates the mapping for a buy FRN order. [1095]
N.sub.P: The profit on the note if one or more of the states
corresponding to the selected outcome of the event is identified on
the event outcome date as one or more of the states corresponding
to the observed outcome (e.g., the selected outcome turns out to be
the observed outcome, or the ECI reaching or surpassing the Trigger
Level on the event outcome date), at the coupon rate, c, determined
by this demand-based market or auction.
[1095] N.sub.P=A.times.c.times.f.times.DF.sub.N 9.5.3A [1096]
N.sub.L: The loss on the note if none of the states corresponding
to the selected outcome of the event is identified on the event
outcome date as one more of the states corresponding to the
observed outcome (e.g., the selected outcome does not turn out to
be the observed outcome, or the ECI does not reach the Trigger
Level on the event outcome date).
9.5.3B
[1096] [1097] .pi.: the equilibrium price of each of the digital
options in the approximation set that are filled by the
demand-based market or auction, the equilibrium price being
determined by the demand-based market or auction. [1098] All of the
digital options in the approximation set can have, for example, the
same payout profile or selected outcome, matching the selected
outcome of the FRN. Therefore, all of the digital options in one
approximation set that are filled by the demand-based market or
auction will have, for example, the same equilibrium price.
[1099] 9.5.4 Variables and Formulations for Each Digital Option, z,
in the Approximation Set of One or More Digital Options for Each
Note, j.sub.N, in a Demand-Based Market or Auction [1100] w.sub.z:
digital option limit price for the z.sup.th digital option in the
approximation set. The digital options in the approximation set can
be arranged in descending order by limit price. The first digital
option in the set has the largest limit price. Each subsequent
digital option has a lower limit price, but the limit price remains
a positive number, such that w.sub.z+1<w.sub.z. The number of
digital options in an approximation set can be pre-determined
before the order is placed, as in this example, or can be
determined during the mapping process as discussed below. [1101] In
this example, the limit price for the first digital option (z=1) in
an approximation set for one FRN order (O.sub.N) can be determined
as follows:
[1101] w.sub.1=DF.sub.O*L/(U+L) 9.5.4A [1102] The limit prices for
subsequent digital options can be established such that the
differences between the limit prices in the approximation set
become smaller and eventually approach zero. [1103] r.sub.z:
requested or desired payout or notional for the z.sup.th digital
option in the approximation set. [1104] c: coupon on the FRN, e.g.,
the spread to LIBOR on the FRN, corresponding to the coupon
determined after the last digital option order in the approximation
set is filled according to the methodology discussed, for example,
in Sections 6 and 7. [1105] The coupon, c, can be determined, for
example, by the following:
[1105] c = L .times. DF O - .pi. w z 9.5 .4 B ##EQU00086## [1106]
where w.sub.z is the limit price of the last digital option order z
in the approximation set of an FRN, j.sub.N, to be filled by the
demand-based market or auction.
9.5.5 Formulations for the First Digital Option, z=1, in the
Approximation Set of One or More Digital Options for a Note,
j.sub.N in a Demand-Based Market or Auction
[1107] Assuming that the first digital option in the approximation
set is the only digital option order filled by the demand-based
market or auction (e.g., w.sub.2<.pi..ltoreq.w.sub.1), then
following equation 9.5.4B, then:
c = L .times. DF O - .pi. w 1 9.5 .5 A ##EQU00087##
[1108] When the equilibrium price (for each of the filled digital
options in the approximation set) is equal to the limit price for
the first digital option in the approximation set, .pi.=w.sub.1,
the digital option profit is r.sub.1 (DF.sub.O-w.sub.1) and the
digital option loss is r.sub.1 w.sub.1. Equating the option's
profit with the note's profit yields:
r.sub.1(DF.sub.O-w.sub.1)=A*U*f*DF.sub.N 9.5.5B
[1109] Next, equating the option's loss with the note's loss
yields:
r.sub.1w.sub.1=A*L*f*DF.sub.N 9.5.5C
[1110] The ratio of the option's profit to the option's loss is
equal to the ratio of the note's profit to the note's loss:
r 1 ( DF O - w 1 ) r 1 w 1 = A .times. U .times. f .times. DF N A
.times. L .times. f .times. DF N 9.5 .5 D ##EQU00088##
[1111] Simplifying this equation yields:
DF O - w 1 w 1 = U L 9.5 .5 E DF O w 1 = U L + 1 = L + U L 9.5 .5 F
##EQU00089##
[1112] Solving for w.sub.1 yields:
w 1 = ( L L + U ) DF O 9.5 .5 G ##EQU00090##
[1113] Solving for r.sub.1 from Equation 9.5.5C yields:
r.sub.1=A*L*f*DF.sub.N/w.sub.1 9.5.5H
[1114] Substituting equation 9.5.5G for w.sub.1 into equation
9.5.5H yields the following formulation for the requested payout
for the first digital option in the approximation set:
r 1 = A .times. f .times. DF N .times. ( L + U ) DF O 9.5 .5 I
##EQU00091##
[1115] 9.5.6 Formulations for the Second Digital Option, z=2, in
the Approximation Set of One or More Digital Options for a Note,
j.sub.N, in a Demand-Based Market or Auction:
[1116] Assuming that the second digital option will be filled in
the optimization system for the entire demand-based market or
auction, the coupon earned on the note will be higher than the
minimum spread to LIBOR specified by the customer, e.g.,
c>U.
[1117] As stated above, the profit of the FRN is A * c * f *
DF.sub.N and the loss if the states specified do not occur is A * L
* f * DF.sub.N.
[1118] Now, since w.sub.1 is determined as set forth above, and
w.sub.2 can be set as some number lower than w.sub.1, assuming that
the market or auction fills both the first and the second digital
options and assuming that the equilibrium price is equal to the
limit price for the second digital option (.pi.r=w.sub.2), the
profits for the digital options if they expire in-the-money is
equal to (r.sub.1+r.sub.2)*(DF.sub.O-w.sub.2), and the option loss
is equal to (r.sub.1+r.sub.2)*w.sub.2. Equating the option's profit
with the note's profit yields:
(r.sub.1d-r.sub.2)(DF.sub.O-w.sub.2)=A*c*f*DF.sub.N 9.5.6A
[1119] Equating the option's loss with the note's loss yields:
(r.sub.1+r.sub.2)w.sub.2=A*L*f*DF.sub.N 9.5.6B
[1120] Solving for r2 yields:
r.sub.2=(A*L*f*DF.sub.N)/w.sub.2-r.sub.1 9.5.6C
[1121] Assuming that the second digital option is the highest order
filled in the approximation set by the demand-based market or
auction, the ratio of the profits and losses of both of the options
is approximately equal to the profits and losses of the FRN. This
approximate equality is used to solve for the coupon, c.
Simplifying the combination of the above equations relating to
equating the profits and losses of both options to the profit and
loss of the note, yields the following formulation for the coupon,
c, earned on the note if the note expires in-the-money and
w.sub.2>7E:
c=L*(DF.sub.O-.pi.)w.sub.2 9.5.6D
9.5.7 Formulations for the z.sup.th Digital Option in the
Approximation Set of One or More Digital Options for a Note,
j.sub.N, in a Demand-Based Market or Auction
[1122] The above description sets forth formulae involved with the
first and second digital options in the approximation set. The
following can be used to determine the requested payout for the
z.sup.th digital option in the approximation set. The following can
also be used as the demand-based market's or auction's
determination of a coupon for the FRN if the z.sup.th digital
option is the last digital option in the approximation set filled
by the demand-based market or auction (for example, according to
the optimization system discussed in Section 7), and if the FRN
expires in-the-money.
[1123] The order of each digital option in the approximation set is
treated analogously to a market order (as opposed to a limit
order), where the price of the option, it, is set equal to the
limit price for the option, w.sub.z.
[1124] Thus, the requested payout for each digital option, r.sub.z,
in the approximation set can be determined according to the
following formula:
r z = A .times. L .times. f .times. DF N w z - x = 1 z - 1 r x 9.5
.7 A ##EQU00092##
[1125] Note that the determination of the requested payout for each
digital option, r.sub.z, is recursively dependent on the payouts
for the prior digital options, r.sub.1, r.sub.2, . . . ,
r.sub.z-1.
[1126] The number of digital option orders, n.sub.AD, used in an
approximation set can be adjusted in the demand-based market or
auction. For example, an FRN order could be allocated an initial
set number of digital option orders in the approximation set, and
each subsequent digital option order could be allocated a
descending limit order price as discussed above. After these
initial quantities are established for an FRN, the requested
payouts for each subsequent digital option can be determined
according to equation 9.5.7A. If the requested payout for the
z.sup.th digital option in the approximation set approaches
sufficiently close to zero, where z<n.sub.AD, then the z.sup.th
digital option could be set as the last digital option needed in
the approximation set, n.sub.AD would then equal z.
[1127] The coupon determined by the demand-based market or auction
becomes a function of LIBOR, the discount factor between the
premium settlement date and the option payment date, the
equilibrium price, and the limit price of the last digital option
in the approximation set to be filled by the optimization system
for the demand-based market or auction discussed in Section 7:
c=L*(DF.sub.O-.pi.)/w.sub.z 9.5.7B
where w.sub.z is the limit price of the last digital option order
in the approximation set to be filled by the optimization
system.
9.5.8 Numerical Example of Implementing Formulations for the
z.sup.th Digital Option in the Approximation Set of One or More
Digital Options for a Note, j.sub.N, in a Demand-Based Market or
Auction
[1128] The following provides an illustration of a
principal-protected Employment Cost Index-linked Floating Rate
Note. In this numerical example, the auction premium settlement
date t.sub.S is Oct. 24, 2001; the event outcome date t.sub.E, the
coupon reset date t.sub.R, and the option payout date are all Oct.
25, 2001; and the note maturity date t.sub.N is Jan. 25, 2002.
[1129] In this case, the discount factors can be solved using a
LIBOR rate L of 3.5% and a basis of Actual number of days/360:
[1130] DF.sub.O=0.999903
[1131] DF.sub.N=0.991135
[1132] f=0.255556
(There are 92 days of discounting between Oct. 25, 2001 and Jan.
25, 2002, which is used for the computation off and DF.sub.N.)
[1133] The customer or note holder specifies, in this example, that
the FRN is a principal protected FRN, because the principal or par
or face amount or notional is paid to the note holder in the event
that the FRN expires out-of-the-money. The customer specifies the
trigger level of the ECI as 0.9% or higher, and the customer enters
an order with a minimum spread of 150 basis points to LIBOR. This
customer will receive LIBOR plus 150 bps in arrears on 100 million
USD on Jan. 25, 2002, plus par if the ECI index fixes at 0.9% or
higher. This customer will receive 100 million USD (since the note
is principal protected) on Jan. 25, 2002 if the ECI index fixes at
lower than 0.9%.
[1134] Following the notation for the variables and the formulation
presented above, A=$100,000,000.00 (referred to as the par,
principal, notional, face amount of the note) U=0.015, i.e. bidder
wants to receive a minimum of 150 basis points over LIBOR
[1135] The parameters for the first digital option in the
approximation set for the demand-based market or auction are
determined as follows by equation 9.5.4A:
w.sub.1=(0.035/[0.035+0.015])*0.999903=0.70
[1136] It is reasonable to set w.sub.2, the limit price for the
second digital option order in the approximation set to be equal to
0.69, therefore by equation 9.5.5H:
r.sub.1=$100,000,000*0.035*0.255556*0.991135/0.70=$1,266,500
[1137] The coupon, c, equals 0.015 or 150 basis points, if the
first digital option order becomes the only digital option order
filled by the demand-based market or auction and the equilibrium
price is equal to the limit price for the first digital option
(.pi.=0.7).
[1138] The parameters for the second digital option in the
approximation set for the demand-based market or auction are
determined as follows, setting the limit price for this digital
option to be less than the limit price for the first digital
option, or w.sub.2=0.69, then by equation 9.5.6C:
r 2 = $100 , 000 , 000 * 0.035 * 0.255556 * 0.991135 / 0.69 - $1 ,
266 , 500 = $18 , 306 ##EQU00093##
[1139] If .pi., the equilibrium price of the digital option, is
between 0.69 (w.sub.2) and 0.70 (w.sub.1), e.g., .pi.=0.695, then
the note coupon, c=0.0152=0.035*(0.999903-0.695)/0.70, or 152 bps
spread to LIBOR by equation 9.5.5A. This becomes the coupon for the
note if the demand-based market or auction only fills the first
digital option order in the approximation set and if the
demand-based market or auction sets the equilibrium price for the
selected outcome equal to 0.695.
[1140] If .pi., the equilibrium price of the digital option, is
equal to 0.69 (w.sub.2), the coupon for the FRN becomes 157 basis
points if the second digital option is the highest digital option
order filled by the demand-based market or auction, by equation
9.5.6D:
c=0.035*(0.999903-0.69)/0.69=0.0157 or 157 basis points
[1141] The requested payouts for each subsequent digital option,
and the subsequently determined coupon on the note (determined
pursuant to the limit price of the last digital option in the
approximation set to be filled by the demand-based market or
auction and the equilibrium price for the selected outcome), are
determined using equations 9.5.7A and 9.5.7B.
9.6 CONCLUSION
[1142] These equations present one example of how to map FRNs and
swaps into approximation sets comprised of digital options,
transforming these FRNs and swaps into DBAR-enabled FRNs and swaps.
The mapping can occur at an interface in a demand-based market or
auction, enabling otherwise structured instruments to be evaluated
and traded alongside digital options, for example, in the same
optimization solution. As shown in FIG. 25, the methods in this
embodiment can be used to create DBAR-enabled products out of any
structured instruments, so that a variety of structured instruments
and digital options can be traded and evaluated in the same
efficient and liquid demand-based market or auction, thus
significantly expanding the potential size of demand-based markets
or auctions.
10. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[1143] Referring now to the drawings, similar components appearing
in different drawings are identified by the same reference
numbers.
[1144] FIGS. 1 and 2 show schematically a preferred embodiment of a
network architecture for any of the embodiments of a demand-based
market or auction or DBAR contingent claims exchange (including
digital options). As depicted in FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, the
architecture conforms to a distributed Internet-based architecture
using object oriented principles useful in carrying out the methods
of the present invention.
[1145] In FIG. 1, a central controller 100 has a plurality software
and hardware components and is embodied as a mainframe computer or
a plurality of workstations. The central controller 100 is
preferably located in a facility that has back-up power,
disaster-recovery capabilities, and other similar infrastructure,
and is connected via telecommunications links 110 with computers
and devices 160, 170, 180, 190, and 200 of traders and investors in
groups of DBAR contingent claims of the present invention. Signals
transmitted using telecommunications links 110, can be encrypted
using such algorithms as Blowfish and other forms of public and
private key encryption. The telecommunications links 110 can be a
dialup connection via a standard modem 120; a dedicated line
connection establishing a local area network (LAN) or wide area
network (WAN) 130 running, for example, the Ethernet network
protocol; a public Internet connection 140; or wireless or cellular
connection 150. Any of the computers and devices 160, 170, 180, 190
and 200, depicted in FIG. 1, can be connected using any of the
links 120, 130, 140 and 150 as depicted in hub 111. Other
telecommunications links, such as radio transmission, are known to
those of skill in the art.
[1146] As depicted in FIG. 1, to establish telecommunications
connections with the central controller 100, a trader or investor
can use workstations 160 running, for example, UNIX, Windows NT,
Linux, or other operating systems. In preferred embodiments, the
computers used by traders or investors include basic input/output
capability, can include a hard drive or other mass storage device,
a central processor (e.g., an Intel-made Pentium III processor),
random-access memory, network interface cards, and
telecommunications access. A trader or investor can also use a
mobile laptop computer 180, or network computer 190 having, for
example, minimal memory and storage capability 190, or personal
digital assistant 200 such as a Palm Pilot. Cellular phones or
other network devices may also be used to process and display
information from and communicate with the central controller
100.
[1147] FIG. 2 depicts a preferred embodiment of the central
controller 100 comprising a plurality of software and hardware
components. Computers comprising the central controller 100 are
preferably high-end workstations with resources capable of running
business operating systems and applications, such as UNIX, Windows
NT, SQL Server, and Transaction Server. In a preferred embodiment,
these computers are high-end personal computers with Intel-made
(x86 "instruction set") CPUs, at least 128 megabytes of RAM, and
several gigabytes of hard drive data storage space. In preferred
embodiments, computers depicted in FIG. 2 are equipped with JAVA
virtual machines, thereby enabling the processing of JAVA
instructions. Other preferred embodiments of the central controller
100 may not require the use of JAVA instruction sets.
[1148] In a preferred embodiment of central controller 100 depicted
in FIG. 2, a workstation software application server 210, such as
the Weblogic Server available from BEA Systems, receives
information via telecommunications links 110 from investors'
computers and devices 160, 170, 180, 190 and 200. The software
application server 210 is responsible for presenting human-readable
user interfaces to investors' computers and devices, for processing
requests for services from investors' computers and devices, and
for routing the requests for services to other hardware and
software components in the central controller 100. The user
interfaces that can be available on the software application server
210 include hypertext markup language (HTML) pages, JAVA applets
and servlets, JAVA or Active Server pages, or other forms of
network-based graphical user interfaces known to those of skill in
the art. For example, investors or traders connected via an
Internet connection for HTML can submit requests to the software
application server 210 via the Remote Method Invocation (RMI)
and/or the Internet Inter-Orb Protocol (HOP) running on top of the
standard TCP/IP protocol. Other methods are known to those of skill
in the art for transmitting investors' requests and instructions
and presenting human readable interfaces from the application
server 210 to the traders and investors. For example, the software
application server 210 may host Active Server Pages and communicate
with traders and investors using DCOM.
[1149] In a preferred embodiment, the user interfaces deployed by
the software application server 210 present login, account
management, trading, market data, and other input/output
information necessary for the operation of a system for investing
in groups of DBAR contingent claims according to the present
invention. A preferred embodiment uses the HTML and JAVA
appletlservlet interface. The HTML pages can be supplemented with
embedded applications or "applets" using JAVA based or ActiveX
standards or another suitable application, as known to one of skill
in the art.
[1150] In a preferred embodiment, the software application server
210 relies on network-connected services with other computers
within the central controller 100. The computers comprising the
central controller 100 preferably reside on the same local area
network (e.g., Ethernet LAN) but can be remotely connected over
Internet, dedicated, dialup, or other similar connections. In
preferred embodiments, network intercommunication among the
computers comprising central controller 100 can be implemented
using DCOM, CORBA, or TCP/IP or other stack services known to those
of skilled in the art.
[1151] Representative requests for services from the investors'
computers to the software application server 210 include: (1)
requests for HTML pages (e.g., navigating and searching a web
site); (2) logging onto the system for trading DBAR contingent
claims; (3) viewing real-time and historical market data and market
news; (4) requesting analytical calculations such as returns,
market risk, and credit risk; (5) choosing a group of DBAR
contingent claims of interest by navigating HTML pages and
activating JAVA applets; (6) making an investment in one or more
defined states of a group of DBAR contingent claims; and (7)
monitoring investments in groups of DBAR contingent claims.
[1152] In a preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 2, an Object
Request Broker (ORB) 230 can be a workstation computer operating
specialized software for receiving, aggregating, and marshalling
service requests from the software application server 210. For
example, the ORB 230 can operate a software product called
Visibroker, available from Inprise, and related software products
that provide a number of functions and services according to the
Common Object Request Broker Architecture (CORBA) standard. In a
preferred embodiment, one function of the ORB 230 is to provide
what are commonly known in the object-oriented software industry as
directory services, which correlate computer code organized into
class modules, known as "objects," with names used to access those
objects. When an object is accessed in the form of a request by
name, the object is instantiated (i.e., caused to run) by the ORB
230. For example, in a preferred embodiment, computer code
organized into a JAVA class module for the purpose of computing
returns using a canonical DRF is an object named "DRF_Returns," and
the directory services of the ORB 230 would be responsible for
invoking this object by this name whenever the application server
210 issues a request that returns be computed. Similarly, in the
case of DBAR digital options, computer code organized into a JAVA
class module for the purpose of computing investment amounts using
a canonical DRF is an object named "OPF_Prices," and the directory
services of the ORB 230 would also be responsible for invoking this
object by this name whenever the application server 210 issues a
request that prices or investment amounts be computed.
[1153] In a preferred embodiment, another function of the ORB 230
is to maintain what is commonly known in the object-oriented
software industry as an interface repository, which contains a
database of object interfaces. The object interfaces contain
information regarding which code modules perform which functions.
For example, in a preferred embodiment, a part of the interface of
the object named "DRF_Returns" is a function which fetches the
amount currently invested across the distribution of states for a
group of DBAR contingent claims. Similarly, for DBAR digital
options, a part of the interface of the object named "OPF_Prices"
is a function which fetches the requested payout or returns, the
selected outcomes and the limit prices or amounts for each in a
group of DBAR digital options.
[1154] In a preferred embodiment, as in the other embodiments of
the present invention, another function of the ORB 230 is to manage
the length of runtime for objects which are instantiated by the ORB
230, and to manage other functions such as whether the objects are
shared and how the objects manage memory. For example, in a
preferred embodiment, the ORB 230 determines, depending upon the
request from the software application server 210, whether an object
which processes market data will share such data with other
objects, such as objects that allocate returns to investments in
defined states.
[1155] In a preferred embodiment, as the other embodiments of the
present invention, another function of the ORB 230 is to provide
the ability for objects to communicate asynchronously by responding
to messages or data at varying times and frequencies based upon the
activity of other objects. For example, in a preferred embodiment,
an object that computes returns for a group of DBAR contingent
claims responds asynchronously in real-time to a new investment and
recalculates returns automatically without a request by the
software application server 210 or any other object. In preferred
embodiments, such asynchronous processes are important where
computations in real-time are made in response to other activity in
the system, such as a trader making a new investment or the
fulfillment of the predetermined termination criteria for a group
of DBAR contingent claims.
[1156] In a preferred embodiment, as the other embodiments of the
present invention, another function of the ORB 230 is to provide
functions related to what is commonly known in the object-oriented
software industry as marshalling. Marshalling in general is the
process of obtaining for an object the relevant data it needs to
perform its designated function. In preferred embodiments of the
present invention, such data includes for example, trader and
account information and can itself be manipulated in the form of an
object, as is common in the practice of object-oriented
programming. Other functions and services may be provided by the
ORB 230, such as the functions and services provided by the
Visibroker product, according to the standards and practices of the
object-oriented software industry or as known to those of skill in
the art.
[1157] In a preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 2, which can be
applied to the other embodiments of the present invention,
transaction server 240 is a computer running specialized software
for performing various tasks including: (1) responding to dka
requests from the ORB 230, e.g., user, account, trade data and
market data requests; (2) performing relevant computations
concerning groups of DBAR contingent claims, such as intra-trading
period and end-of-trading-period returns allocations and credit
risk exposures; and (3) updating investor accounts based upon DRF
payouts for groups of DBAR contingent claims and applying debits or
credits for trader margin and positive outstanding investment
balances. The transaction server 240 preferably processes all
requests from the ORB 230 and, for those requests that require
stored data (e.g., investor and account information), queries data
storage devices 260. In a preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 2,
a market data feed 270 supplies real-time and historical market
data, market news, and corporate action data, for the purpose of
ascertaining event outcomes and updating trading period returns.
The specialized software running on transaction server 240
preferably incorporates the use of object oriented techniques and
principles available with computer languages such as C++ or Java
for implementing the above-listed tasks.
[1158] As depicted in FIG. 2, in a preferred embodiment the data
storage devices 260 can operate relational database software such
as Microsoft's SQL Server or Oracle's 8i Enterprise Server. The
types of databases within the data storage devices 260 that can be
used to support the DBAR contingent claim and exchange preferably
comprise: (1) Trader and Account databases 261; (2) Market Returns
databases 262; (3) Market Data databases 263; (4) Event Data
databases 264; (5) Risk databases 265; (6) Trade Blotter databases
266; and (7) Contingent Claims Terms and Conditions databases 267.
The kinds of data preferably stored in each database are shown in
more detail in FIG. 4. In a preferred embodiment, connectivity
between data storage devices 260 and transaction server 240 is
accomplished via TCP/IP and standard Database Connectivity
Protocols (DBC) such as the JAVA DBC (JDBC). Other systems and
protocols for such connectivity are known to those of skill in the
art.
[1159] In reference to FIG. 2, application server 210 and ORB 230
may be considered to form an interface processor, while transaction
server 240 forms a demand-based transaction processor. Further, the
databases hosted on data storage devices 260 may be considered to
form a trade status database. Investors, also referred to as
traders, communicating via telecommunications links 110 from
computers and devices 160, 170, 180, 190, and 200, may be
considered to perform a series of demand-based interactions, also
referred to as demand-based transactions, with the demand-based
transaction processor. A series of demand-based transactions may be
used by a trader, for example, to obtain market data, to establish
a trade, or to close out a trade.
[1160] FIG. 3 depicts a preferred embodiment of the implementation
of a group of DBAR contingent claims. As depicted in FIG. 3, an
exchange first selects an event of economic significance 300. In
the preferred embodiment, the exchange then partitions the possible
outcomes for the event into mutually exclusive and collectively
exhaustive states 305, such that one state among the possible
states in the partitioned distribution is guaranteed to occur, and
the sum of probabilities of the occurrence of each partitioned
state is unity. Trading can then commence with the beginning 311 of
the first trading period 310. In the preferred embodiment depicted
in FIG. 3, a group of DBAR contingent claims has trading periods
310, 320, 330, and 340, with trading period start date 311, 321,
331, 341 respectively, followed by a predetermined time interval by
each trading period's respective trading end dates 313, 323, 333
and 343. The predetermined time interval is preferably of short
duration in order to attain continuity. In the preferred
embodiment, during each trading period the transaction server 240
running JAVA code implementing the DRF for the group of DBAR
contingent claims adjusts returns immediately in response to
changes in the amounts invested in each of the defined states.
Changes in market conditions during a trading period, such as price
and volatility changes, as well as changes in investor risk
preferences and liquidity conditions in the underlying market,
among other factors, will cause amounts invested in each defined
state to change thereby reflecting changes in expectations of
traders over the distribution of states defining the group of DBAR
contingent claims.
[1161] In a preferred embodiment, the adjusted returns calculated
during a trading period, i.e., intra-trading period returns, are of
informational value only--only the returns which are finalized at
the end of each trading period are used to allocate gains and
losses for a trader's investments in a group or portfolio of groups
of DBAR contingent claims. In a preferred embodiment, at the end of
each trading period, for example, at trading end dates 313, 323,
333, and 343, finalized returns are allocated and locked in. The
finalized returns are the rates of return to be allocated per unit
of amount invested in each defined state should that state occur.
In a preferred embodiment, each trading period can therefore have a
different set of finalized returns as market conditions change,
thereby enabling traders to make investments during later trading
periods which hedge investments from earlier trading periods that
have since closed.
[1162] In another preferred embodiment, not depicted, trading
periods overlap so that more than one trading period is open for
investment on the same set of predefined states. For example, an
earlier trading period can remain open while a subsequent trading
period opens and closes. Other permutations of overlapping trading
periods are possible and are apparent to one of skill in the art
from this specification or practice of the present invention.
[1163] The canonical DRF, as previously described, is a preferred
embodiment of a DRF which takes investment across the distribution
of states and each state, the transaction fee, and the event
outcome and allocates a return for each state if it should occur. A
canonical DRF of the present invention, as previously described,
reallocates all amounts invested in states that did not occur to
the state that did occur. Each trader that has made an investment
in the state that did occur receives a pro-rata share of the trades
from the non-occurring states in addition to the amount he
originally invested in the occurring state, less the exchange
fee.
[1164] In the preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 3, at the close
of the final trading period 343, trading ceases and the outcome for
the event underlying the contingent claim is determined at close of
observation period 350. In a preferred embodiment, only the outcome
of the event underlying the group of contingent claims must be
uncertain during the trading periods while returns are being locked
in. In other words, the event underlying the contingent claims may
actually have occurred before the end of trading so long as the
actual outcome remains unknown, for example, due to the time lag in
measuring or ascertaining the event's outcome. This could be the
case, for instance, with macroeconomic statistics like consumer
price inflation.
[1165] In the preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 2, once the
outcome is observed at time 350, process 360 operates on the
finalized returns from all the trading periods and determines the
payouts. In the case of a canonical DRF previously described, the
amounts invested in the losing investments finance the payouts to
the successful investments, less the exchange fee. In a canonical
DRF, successful investments are those made during a trading period
in a state which occurred as determined at time 350, and
unsuccessful investments are those made in states which did not
occur. Examples 3.1.1-3.1.25 above illustrate various preferred
embodiments of a group of DBAR contingent claims using a canonical
DRF. In the preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 3, the results of
process 360 are made available to traders by posting the results
for all trading periods on display 370. In a preferred embodiment
not depicted, trader accounts are subsequently updated to reflect
these results.
[1166] FIG. 4 provides a more detailed depiction of the data
storage devices 260 of a preferred embodiment of a DBAR contingent
claims exchange which can be applied to the other embodiments of
the present invention. In a preferred embodiment, data storage
devices 260, on which relational database software is installed as
described above, is a non-volatile hard drive data storage system,
which may comprise a single device or medium, or may be distributed
across a plurality of physical devices, such as a cluster of
workstation computers operating relational database software, as
described previously and as known in the art. In a preferred
embodiment, the relational database software operating on the data
storage devices 260 comprises relational database tables, stored
procedures, and other database entities and objects that are
commonly contained in relational database software packages. In the
preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 4, databases 261-267 each
contain such tables and other relational database entities and
objects necessary or desirable to implement an embodiment of the
present invention. FIG. 4 identifies the kinds of information that
can be stored in such devices. Of course, the kinds of data shown
in the drawing are not exhaustive. The storage of other data on the
same or additional databases may be useful depending on the nature
of the contingent claim being traded. Moreover, in the preferred
embodiment depicted in FIG. 4, certain data are shown in FIG. 4 as
stored in more than one storage device. In various other preferred
embodiments, such data may be stored in only one such device or may
be calculated. Other database designs and architectures will be
apparent to those of skill in the art from this specification or
practice of the present invention.
[1167] In the preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 4, the Trader
and Account database 261 stores data related to the identification
of a DBAR trader such as name, password, address, trader
identification number, etc. Data related to the trader's credit
rating can also be stored and updated in response to changes in the
trader's credit status. Other information that can be stored in
Trader and Account database 261 includes data related to the
trader's account, for example, active and inactive investments, the
trader's balance, the trader's margin limits, outstanding margin
amounts, interest credited on outstanding trade balances and
interest paid on outstanding margin balances, any restrictions the
trader may have regarding access to his account, and the trader's
profit and loss information regarding active and inactive
investments. Information related to multi-state investments to be
allocated can also be stored in Trader and Account database 261.
The data stored in database 261 can be used, for example, to issue
account related statements to traders.
[1168] In the preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 4, the Market
Returns database 262 contains information related to returns
available at various times for active and inactive groups of DBAR
contingent claims. In a preferred embodiment, each group of
contingent claims in database 262 is identified using a unique
identifier previously assigned to that group. Returns for each
defined state for each group of contingent claims reflected are
stored in database 262. Returns calculated and available for
display to traders during a given trading period are stored in
database 262 for each state and for each claim. At the end of each
trading period, finalized returns are computed and stored in Market
Returns database 262. Marginal returns, as previously described,
can also be stored in database 262. The data in Market Returns
database 262 may also include information relevant to a trader's
decisions such as current and past intra-period returns, as well as
information used to determine payouts by a DRF or investment
amounts by an OPF for a group of DBAR contingent claims.
[1169] In the preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 4, Market Data
database 263 stores market data from market data feed 270. In a
preferred embodiment, the data in Market Data database 263 include
data relevant for the types of contingent claims that can be traded
on a particular exchange. In a preferred embodiment, real-time
market data include data such as real-time prices, yields, index
levels, and other similar information.
[1170] In a preferred embodiment, such real-time data from Market
Data database 263 are presented to traders to aid in making
investment decisions can be used by the DRF to allocate returns and
by the OPF to determine investment amounts for groups of contingent
claims that depend on such information. Historical data relating to
relevant groups of DBAR contingent claims can also be stored in
Market Data database 263. In preferred embodiments, news items
related to underlying groups of DBAR contingent claims (e.g.,
comments by the Federal Reserve) are also stored in Market Data
database 263 and can be retrieved by traders.
[1171] In the preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 4, Event Data
database 264 stores data related to events underlying the groups of
DBAR contingent claims that can be traded on an exchange. In a
preferred embodiment, each event is identified by a previously
assigned event identification number. Each event has one or more
associated group of DBAR contingent claims based on that event and
is so identified with a previously assigned contingent claim group
identification number. The type of event can also be stored in
Event database 264, for example, whether the event is based on a
closing price of a security, a corporate earnings announcement, a
previously calculated but yet to be released economic statistic,
etc. The source of data used to determine the outcome of the event
can also be stored in Event database 264. After an event outcome
becomes known, it can also be stored in Event database 264 along
with the defined state of the respective group of contingent claims
corresponding to that outcome.
[1172] In the preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 4, Risk
database 265 stores the data and results and analyses related to
the estimation and calculation of market risk and credit risk. In a
preferred embodiment, Risk database 265 correlates the derived
results with an account identification number. The market and
credit risk quantities that can be stored are those related to the
calculation of CAR and CCAR, such as the standard deviation of unit
returns for each state, the standard deviation of dollar returns
for each state, the standard deviation of dollar returns for a
given contingent claim, and portfolio CAR. Intermediate estimation
and simulation data such as correlation matrices used in VAR-based
CAR and CCAR calculations and scenarios used in MCS-based
calculations can also be stored in Risk database 265.
[1173] In the preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 4, Trade
Blotter database 266 contains data related to the investments, both
active and inactive, made by traders for all the groups of DBAR
contingent claims that can be traded on the particular exchange.
Such data may include previously assigned trader identification
numbers previously assigned investment identification numbers,
previously assigned account identification numbers, previously
assigned contingent claim identification numbers, state
identification numbers previously assigned corresponding to each
defined state, the time of each investment, the units of value used
to make each investments (e.g., dollars), the investment amounts,
the desired or requested payouts or returns, the limits on
investment amounts (for DBAR digital options), how much margin is
used to make the investments, and previously assigned trading
period identification numbers. In addition, data related to whether
an investment is a multi-state investment can also be stored. The
payout distribution that a trader desires to replicate and that the
exchange will implement using a multi-state investment allocation,
as described above, can also be stored in Trade Blotter database
266.
[1174] In the preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 4, Contingent
Claims Terms and Conditions database 267 stores data related to the
definition and structure of each group of DBAR contingent claims.
In a preferred embodiment, such data are called "terms and
conditions" to indicate that they relate to the contractual terms
and conditions under which traders agree to be bound, and roughly
correspond to material found in prospectuses in traditional
markets. In a preferred embodiment, as well as other embodiments of
the present invention, the terms and conditions provide the
fundamental information regarding the nature of the contingent
claim to be traded, e.g., the number of trading periods, the
trading period(s)' start and end times, the type of event
underlying the contingent claim, how the DRF finances successful
investments from unsuccessful investments, how the OPF determines
order prices or investment amounts as a function of the requested
payout, selection of outcomes and limits for each order for a DBAR
digital options auction or market, the time at which the event is
observed for determining the outcome, other predetermined
termination criteria, the partition of states in which investments
can be made, and the investment and payout value units (e.g.,
dollars, numbers of shares, ounces of gold, etc.). In a preferred
embodiment, contingent claim and event identification numbers are
assigned and stored in Contingent Claims Terms and Conditions
database 267 so that they may be readily referred to in other
tables of the data storage devices.
[1175] FIG. 5 shows a flow diagram depicting illustrative processes
used and illustrative decisions made by a trader using a preferred
embodiment of the present invention. For purposes of illustration
in FIG. 5, it is assumed that the trader is making an investment in
a DBAR range derivative (RD) examples of which are disclosed above.
In particular, it is assumed for the purposes of illustration that
the DBAR RD investment being made is in a contingent claim based
upon the closing price of IBM common stock on Aug. 3, 1999 (as
indicated in the display 501 of FIG. 6).
[1176] In process 401, depicted in FIG. 5, the trader requests
access to the DBAR contingent claim exchange. As previously
described in a preferred embodiment, the software application
server 210 (depicted in FIG. 2) processes this request and routes
it to the ORB 230, which instantiates an object responsible for the
authentication of traders on the exchange on transaction server
240. The authentication object on transaction server 240, for
example, queries the Trader and Account database 261 (depicted in
FIG. 4) for the trader's username, password, and other identifying
information supplied. The authentication object responds by either
allowing or denying access as indicated in process 402 depicted in
FIG. 5. If authentication fails in this illustration, process 403
prompts the trader to retry a logon or establish valid credentials
for logging onto the system. If the trader has been granted access,
the software application server 210 (depicted in FIG. 2) will
display to the trader many user interfaces that may be of interest.
For example, in a preferred embodiment, the trader can navigate
through a sample of groups of DBAR contingent claims currently
being traded, as represented in process 404.
[1177] The trader may also check current market conditions by
requesting those interfaces in process 404 that contain current
market data as obtained from market data feed 270 (depicted in FIG.
2) and stored in Market Data database 263 (as depicted in FIG. 4).
Process 405 of FIG. 5 represents the trader requesting the
application server 210 for relevant information regarding the
trader's account, such as the trader's current portfolio of trades,
trade amounts, current amount of margin outstanding, and account
balances. In a preferred embodiment, this information is obtained
by objects running on transaction server 240 (FIG. 2) that query
Trader and Account database 261 and Trade Blotter database 266
(FIG. 4).
[1178] As depicted in FIG. 5, process 407 represents the selection
of a group of DBAR contingent claims by a trader for the purpose of
making an investment. The application server 210 (depicted in FIG.
2) can present user interfaces to the trader such as the interface
shown in FIG. 6 as is known in the art. Process 408 represents the
trader requesting data and analysis which may include calculations
as to the effect the trader's proposed investment would have on the
current returns. The calculations can be made using the implied
"bid" and "offer" demand response equations described above. The
processes that perform these data requests and manipulation of such
data are, in a preferred embodiment, objects running on transaction
server 240 (as depicted in FIG. 2). These objects, for example,
obtain data from database 262 (FIG. 4) by issuing a query that
requests investment amounts across the distribution of states for a
given trading period for a given group of contingent claims. With
the investment amount data, other objects running on transaction
server 240 (FIG. 2) can perform marginal returns calculations using
the DRF of the group of contingent claims as described above. Such
processes are objects managed by the ORB 230 (as depicted in FIG.
2).
[1179] Returning to the illustration depicted in FIG. 5, process
411 represents a trader's decision to make an investment for a
given amount in one or more defined states of the group of DBAR
contingent claims of interest. In a preferred embodiment, the
trader's request to make an investment identifies the particular
group of claims, the state or states in which investments are to be
made, the amount to be invested in the state or states, and the
amount of margin to be used, if any, for the investments.
[1180] Process 412 responds to any requests to make an investment
on margin. The use of margin presents the risk that the exchange
may not be able to collect the entire amount of a losing
investment. Therefore, in preferred embodiments, an analysis is
performed to determine the amount of risk to which a current trader
is exposed in relation to the amount of margin loans the trader
currently has outstanding. In process 413 such an analysis is
carried out in response to a margin request by the trader.
[1181] The proposed trade or trades under consideration may have
the effect of hedging or reducing the total amount of risk
associated with the trader's active portfolio of investments in
groups of DBAR contingent claims. Accordingly, in a preferred
embodiment, the proposed trades and margin amounts should be
included in a CAR analysis of the trader's portfolio.
[1182] In a preferred embodiment, the CAR analysis performed by
process 413, depicted in FIG. 5, can be conducted according to the
VAR, MCS, or HS methodologies previously discussed, using data
stored in Risk database 265 (FIG. 2), such as correlation of state
returns, correlation of underlying events, etc. In a preferred
embodiment, the results of the CAR calculation are also stored in
Risk database 265. As depicted in FIG. 5, process 414 determines
whether the trader has sufficient equity capital in his account by
comparing the computed CAR value and the trader's equity in
accordance with the exchange's margin rules. In preferred
embodiments, the exchange requires that all traders maintain a
level of equity capital equal to some portion or multiple of the
CAR value for their portfolios. For example, assuming CAR is
computed with a 95% statistical confidence as described above, the
exchange may require that traders have 10 times CAR as equity in
their accounts. Such a requirement would mean that traders would
suffer drawdowns to equity of 10% approximately 5% of the time,
which might be regarded as a reasonable tradeoff between the
benefits of extending margin to traders to increase liquidity and
the risks and costs associated with trader default. In addition, in
preferred embodiments, the exchange can also perform CCAR
calculations to determine the amount of credit risk in the group of
DBAR contingent claims due to each trader. In a preferred
embodiment, if a trader does not have adequate equity in his
account or the amount of credit risk posed by the trader is too
great, the request for margin is denied, as depicted in process 432
(FIG. 5).
[1183] As further depicted in FIG. 5, if the trader has requested
no margin or the trader has passed the margin tests applied in
process 414, process 415 determines whether the investment is one
to be made over multiple states simultaneously in order to
replicate a trader's desired payout distribution over such states.
If the investment is multi-state, process 460 requests trader to
enter a desired payout distribution. Such communication will
comprise, for example, a list of constituent states and desired
payouts in the event that each constituent state occurs. For
example, for a four-state group of DBAR contingent claims, the
trader might submit the four dimensional vector (10, 0, 5, 2)
indicating that the trader would like to replicate a payout of 10
value units (e.g., dollars) should state 1 occur, no payout should
state 2 occur, 5 units should state 3 occur, and 2 units should
state 4 occur. In a preferred embodiment, this information is
stored in Trade Blotter database 266 (FIG. 4) where it will be
available for the purposes of determining the investment amounts to
be allocated among the constituent states for the purposed of
replicating the desired payouts. As depicted in FIG. 5, if the
investment is a multi-state investment, process 417 makes a
provisional allocation of the proposed investment amount to each of
the constituent states.
[1184] As further depicted in FIG. 5, the investment details and
information (e.g., contingent claim, investment amount, selected
state, amount of margin, provisional allocation, etc.) are then
displayed to the trader for confirmation by process 416. Process
418 represents the trader's decision whether to make the investment
as displayed. If the trader decides against making the investment,
it is not executed as represented by process 419. If the trader
decides to make the investment and process 420 determines that it
is not a multi-state investment, the investment is executed, and
the trader's investment amount is recorded in the relevant defined
state of the group of DBAR contingent claims according to the
investment details previously accepted. In a preferred embodiment,
the Trade Blotter database 266 (FIG. 4) is then updated by process
421 with the new investment information such as the trader ID,
trade ID, account identification, the state or states in which
investments were made, the investment time, the amount invested,
the contingent claim identification, etc.
[1185] In the illustration depicted in FIG. 5, if the trader
decides to make the investment, and process 420 determines that it
is a multi-state investment, process 423 allocates the invested
amount to the constituent states comprising the multi-state
investment in amounts that generate the trader's desired payout
distribution previously communicated to the exchange in process 460
and stored in Trader Blotter database 266 (FIG. 4). For example, in
a preferred embodiment, if the desired payouts are identical
payouts no matter which state occurs among the constituent states,
process 423 will update a suspense account entry and allocate the
multi-state trade in proportion to the amounts previously invested
in the constituent states. Given the payout distribution previously
stored, the total amount to be invested, and the constituent states
in which the "new" investment is to be made, then the amount to be
invested in each constituent state can be calculated using the
matrix formula provided in Example 3.1.21, for example. Since these
calculations depend on the existing distributions of amounts
invested both during and at the end of trading, in a preferred
embodiment reallocations are performed whenever the distribution of
amounts invested (and hence returns) change.
[1186] As further depicted in FIG. 5, in response to a new
investment, Process 422 updates the returns for each state to
reflect the new distribution of amounts invested across the defined
states for the relevant group of DBAR contingent claims. In
particular, process 422 receives the new trade information from
Trade Blotter database 266 as updated by process 421, if the
investment is not multi-state, or from Trader and Account database
261 as updated by suspense account process 423, if the investment
is a multi-state investment. Process 422 involves the ORB 230 (FIG.
2) instantiating an object on transaction server 240 for
calculating returns in response to new trades. In this
illustration, the object queries the new trade data from the Trade
Blotter database 266 or the suspense account in Trader and Account
database 261 (FIG. 4), computes the new returns using the DRF for
the group of contingent claims, and updates the intra-trading
period returns stored in Market Returns database 262.
[1187] As depicted in FIG. 5, if the investment is a multi-state
investment as determined by process 450, the exchange continues to
update the suspense account to reflects the trader's desired payout
distribution in response to subsequent investments entering the
exchange. Any updated intra-trading period returns obtained from
process 422 and stored in Market Returns database 262 are used by
process 423 to perform a reallocation of multi-state investments to
reflect the updated returns. If the trading period has not closed,
as determined by process 452, the reallocated amounts obtained from
the process 423 are used, along with information then
simultaneously stored in Trade Blotter database 266 (FIG. 4), to
perform further intra-trading period update of returns, per process
422 shown in FIG. 5. However, if the trading period has closed, as
determined in this illustration by process 452, then the
multi-state reallocation is performed by process 425 so that the
returns for the trading period can be finalized per process
426.
[1188] In a preferred embodiment, the closing of the trading period
is an important point since at that point the DRF object running on
Transaction server 240 (FIG. 2) calculates the finalized returns
and then updates Market Returns database 262 with those finalized
returns, as represented by process 426 depicted in FIG. 5. The
finalized returns are those which are used to compute payouts once
the outcome of the event and, therefore, the state which occurred
are known and all other predetermined termination criteria are
fulfilled. Even though a multi-state reallocation process 425 is
shown in FIG. 5 between process 452 and process 426, multi-state
reallocation process 425 is not carried out if the investment is
not a multi-state investment.
[1189] Continuing with the illustration depicted in FIG. 5, process
427 represents the possible existence of subsequent trading periods
for the same event on which the given group of DBAR contingent
claims is based. If such periods exist, traders may make
investments during them, and each subsequent trading period would
have its own distinct set of finalized returns. For example, the
trader in a group of contingent claims may place a hedging
investment in one or more of the subsequent trading periods in
response to changes in returns across the trading periods in
accordance with the method discussed in Example 3.1.19 above. The
ability to place hedging trades in successive trading periods, each
period having its own set of finalized returns, allows the trader
to lock-in or realize profits and losses in virtually continuous
time as returns change across the trading periods. In a preferred
embodiment, the plurality of steps represented by process 427 are
performed as previously described for the earlier portions of FIG.
5.
[1190] As further depicted in FIG. 5, process 428 marks the end of
all the trading periods for a group of contingent claims. In a
preferred embodiment, at the end of the last trading period, the
Market Returns database 262 (FIG. 4) contains a set of finalized
returns for each trading period of the group of contingent claims,
and Trade Blotter database 266 contains data on every investment
made by every trader on the illustrative group of DBAR contingent
claims.
[1191] In FIG. 5, process 429 represents the observation period
during which the outcome of the event underlying the contingent
claim is observed, the occurring state of the DBAR contingent claim
determined and any other predetermined termination criteria are
fulfilled. In a preferred embodiment, the event outcome is
determined by query of the Market Data database 263 (FIG. 4), which
has been kept current by Market Data Feed 270. For example, for a
group of contingent claims on the event of the closing price of IBM
on Aug. 3, 1999, the Market Data database 263 will contain the
closing price, 1193/8, as obtained from the specified event data
source in Event Data database 264. The event data source might be
Bloomberg, in which case an object residing on transaction server
240 previously instantiated by ORB 230 will have updated the Market
Returns database 262 with the closing price from Bloomberg. Another
similarly instantiated object on transaction server 240 will query
the Market Returns database 262 for the event outcome (1193/8),
will query the Contingent Claims Terms and Conditions database 267
for the purpose of determining the state identification
corresponding to the event outcome (e.g., Contingent Claim # 1458,
state #8) and update the event and state outcomes into the Event
Data database 264.
[1192] As further depicted in FIG. 5, process 430 shows an object
instantiated on transaction server 240 by ORB 230 performing payout
calculations in accordance with the DRF and other terms and
conditions as contained in Contingent Claims Terms and Conditions
database 267 for the given group of contingent claims. In a
preferred embodiment, the object is responsible for calculating
amounts to be paid to successful investments and amounts to be
collected from unsuccessful investments, i.e., investments in the
occurring and non-occurring states, respectively.
[1193] As further depicted in FIG. 5, process 431 shows trader
account data stored in Trader and Account database 261 (FIG. 4)
being updated by the object which determines the payouts in process
430. Additionally, in process 431 in this illustration and
preferred embodiments, outstanding credit and debit interest
corresponding to positive and margin balances are applied to the
relevant accounts in Trader and Account database 261.
[1194] FIG. 6 depicts as preferred embodiment of a sample HTML page
used by traders in an exchange for groups of DBAR contingent claims
which illustrates sample display 500 with associated input/output
devices, such as display buttons 504-507 and can be used with other
embodiments of the present invention. As depicted in FIG. 6,
descriptive data 501 illustrate the basic investment and market
information relevant to an investment. In the investment
illustrated in FIG. 6, the event is the closing price of IBM common
stock at 4:00 p.m. on Aug. 3, 1999. As depicted in FIG. 6, the
sample HTML page displays amount invested in each defined state,
and returns available from Market Returns database 262 depicted in
FIG. 4. In this illustration and in preferred embodiments, returns
are calculated on transaction server 240 (FIG. 2) using, for
example, a canonical DRF. As also depicted in FIG. 6, real-time
market data is displayed in an intraday "tick chart", represented
by display 503, using data obtained from Market Data Feed 270, as
depicted in FIG. 7, and processed by transaction server 240,
depicted in FIG. 2. Market data may also be stored
contemporaneously in Market Data database 263.
[1195] In the preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 6, traders may
make an investment by selecting Trade button 504. Historical
returns and time series data, from Market Data database 263 may be
viewed by selecting Display button 505. Analytical tools for
calculating opening or indicative returns or simulating market
events are available by request from Software Application Server
210 via ORB 230 and Transaction Server 240 (depicted in FIG. 2) by
selecting Analyze button 506 in FIG. 6. As returns change
throughout the trading period, a trader may want to display how
these returns have changed. As depicted in FIG. 6, these intraday
or intraperiod returns are available from Market Returns database
262 by selecting Intraday Returns button 507. In addition, marginal
intra-period returns, as discussed previously, can be displayed
using the same data in Market Returns database 262 (FIG. 2). In a
preferred embodiment, it is also possible for each trader to view
finalized returns from Market Returns database 262.
[1196] In preferred embodiments that are not depicted, display 500
also includes information identifying the group of contingent
claims (such as the claim type and event) available from the
Contingent Claims Terms and Conditions database 267 or current
returns available from Market Returns database 262 (FIG. 2). In
other preferred embodiments (e.g., any embodiments of the present
invention), display 500 includes means for requesting other
services which may be of interest to the trader, such as the
calculation of marginal returns, for example by selecting Intraday
Returns button 507, or the viewing of historical data, for example
by selecting Historical Data button 505.
[1197] FIG. 7 depicts a preferred embodiment of the Market Data
Feed 270 of FIG. 2 in greater detail. In a preferred embodiment
depicted in FIG. 7, which can be applied to other embodiments of
the present invention, real-time data feed 600 comprises quotes of
prices, yields, intraday tick graphs, and relevant market news and
example sources. Historical data feed 610, which is used to supply
market data database 263 with historical data, illustrates example
sources for market time series data, derived returns calculations
from options pricing data, and insurance claim data. Corporate
action data feed 620 depicted in FIG. 7 illustrates the types of
discrete corporate-related data (e.g., earnings announcements,
credit downgrades) and their example sources which can form the
basis for trading in groups of DBAR contingent claims of the
present invention. In preferred embodiments, functions listed in
process 630 are implemented on transaction server 240 (FIG. 2)
which takes information from data feeds 600, 610, and 620 for the
purposes of allocating returns, simulating outcomes, calculating
risk, and determining event outcomes (as well as for the purpose of
determining investment amounts).
[1198] FIG. 8 depicts a preferred embodiment of an illustrative
graph of implied liquidity effects of investments in a group of
DBAR contingent claims. As discussed above, in preferred
embodiments of the present invention, liquidity variations within a
group of DBAR contingent claim impose few if any costs on traders
since only the finalized or closing returns for a trading period
matter to a trader's return. This contrasts with traditional
financial markets, in which local liquidity variations may result
in execution of trades at prices that do not fairly represent fair
fundamental value, and may therefore impose permanent costs on
traders.
[1199] Liquidity effects from investments in groups of DBAR
contingent claims, as illustrated in FIG. 8, include those that
occur when an investment materially and permanently affects the
distribution of returns across the states. Returns would be
materially and perhaps permanently affected by a trader's
investment if, for example, very close to the trading period end
time, a trader invested an amount in a state that represented a
substantial percentage of aggregate amount previously invested in
that state. The curves depicted FIG. 8 show in preferred
embodiments the maximum effect a trader's investment can have on
the distribution of returns to the various states in the group of
DBAR contingent claims.
[1200] As depicted in FIG. 8, the horizontal axis, p, is the amount
of the trader's investment expressed as a percentage of the total
amount previously invested in the state (the trade could be a
multi-state investment, but a single state is assumed in this
illustration). The range of values on the horizontal axis depicted
in FIG. 8 has a minimum of 0 (no amount invested) to 10% of the
total amount invested in a particular state. For example, assuming
the total amount invested in a given state is $100 million, the
horizontal axis of FIG. 8 ranges from a new investment amount of 0
to $10 million.
[1201] The vertical axis of FIG. 8 represents the ratio of the
implied bid-offer spread to the implied probability of the state in
which a new investment is to be made. In a preferred embodiment,
the implied bid-offer spread is computed as the difference between
the implied "offer" demand response, q.sub.i.sup.O(.DELTA.T.sub.i),
and the implied "bid" demand response,
q.sub.i.sup.B(.DELTA.T.sub.i), as defined above. In other words,
values along the vertical axis depicted in FIG. 8 are defined by
the following ratio:
q i O ( .DELTA. T i ) - q i B ( .DELTA. T i ) q i ##EQU00094##
As displayed in FIG. 8, this ratio is computed using three
different levels of q.sub.i, and the three corresponding lines for
each level are drawn over the range of values of p: the ratio is
computed assuming a low implied q.sub.i(q.sub.i=0.091, denoted by
the line marked S(p,l)), a middle-valued q.sub.i(q.sub.i=0.333,
denoted by the line marked S(p,m)), and a high value for
q.sub.i(q.sub.i=0.833 denoted by the line marked S(p,h)), as
shown.
[1202] If a trader makes an investment in a group of DBAR
contingent claims of the present invention and there is not enough
time remaining in the trading period for returns to adjust to a
fair value, then FIG. 8 provides a graphical depiction, in terms of
the percentage of the implied state probability, of the maximum
effect a trader's own investment can have on the distribution of
implied state probabilities. The three separate curves drawn
correspond to a high demand and high implied probability (S(p,h)),
medium demand and medium implied probability (S(p,m)), and low
demand and low implied probability (S(p,l)). As used in this
context, the term "demand" means the amount previously invested in
the particular state.
[1203] The graph depicted in FIG. 8 illustrates that the degree to
which the amount of a trader's investment affects the existing
distribution of implied probabilities (and hence returns) varies
with the amount of demand for the existing state as well as the
amount of the trader's investment. If the distribution of implied
probabilities is greatly affected, this corresponds to a larger
implied bid-offer spread, as graphed on the vertical axis of the
graph of FIG. 8. For example, for any given investment amount p,
expressed as a percentage of the existing demand for a particular
state, the effect of the new investment amount is largest when
existing state demand is smallest (line S(p,l), corresponding to a
low demand/low implied probability state). By contrast, the effect
of the amount of the new investment is smallest when the existing
state demand is greatest (S(p,h), corresponding to a high
demand/high implied probability state). FIG. 8 also confirms that,
in preferred embodiments, for all levels of existing state demand,
the effect of the amount invested on the existing distribution of
implied probabilities increases as the amount to be invested
increases.
[1204] FIG. 8 also illustrates two liquidity-related aspects of
groups of DBAR contingent claims of the present invention. First,
in contrast to the traditional markets, in preferred embodiments of
the present invention the effect of a trader's investment on the
existing market can be mathematically determined and calculated and
displayed to all traders. Second, as indicated by FIG. 8, the
magnitude of such effects are quite reasonable. For example, in
preferred embodiments as depicted by FIG. 8, over a wide range of
investment amounts ranging up to several percent of the existing
demand for a given state, the effects on the market of such
investments amounts are relatively small. If the market has time to
adjust after such investments are added to demand for a state, the
effects on the market will be only transitory and there may be no
effect on the implied distribution of probabilities owing to the
trader's investment. FIG. 8 illustrates a "worst case" scenario by
implicitly assuming that the market does not adjust after the
investment is added to the demand for the state.
[1205] FIGS. 9a to 9c illustrate, for a preferred embodiment of a
group of DBAR contingent claims, the trader and credit
relationships and how credit risk can be quantified, for example in
process 413 of FIG. 5. FIG. 9a depicts a counterparty relationship
for a traditional swap transaction, in which two counterparties
have previously entered into a 10-year swap which pays a
semi-annual fixed swap rate of 7.50%. The receiving counterparty
701 of the swap transaction receives the fixed rate and pays a
floating rate, while the paying counterparty 702 pays the fixed
rate and receives the floating rate. Assuming a $100 million swap
trade and a current market fixed swap rate of 7.40%, based upon
well-known swap valuation principles implemented in software
packages such as are available from Sungard Data Systems, the
receiving counterparty 701 would receive a profit of $700,000 while
the paying swap counterparty 702 would have a loss of $700,000. The
receiving swap counterparty 701 therefore has a credit risk
exposure to the paying swap counterparty 702 as a function of
$700,000, because the arrangement depends on the paying swap party
702 meeting its obligation.
[1206] FIG. 9b depicts illustrative trader relationships in which a
preferred embodiment of a group of the DBAR contingent claims and
exchange effects, as a practical matter, relationships among all
the traders. As depicted in FIG. 9b, traders C1, C2, C3, C4, and C5
each have invested in one or more states of a group of DBAR
contingent claims, with defined states S1 to S8 respectively
corresponding to ranges of possible outcomes for the year swap
rate, one year forward. In this illustration, each of the traders
has a credit risk exposure to all the others in relation to the
amount of each trader's investment, how much of each investment is
on margin, the probability of success of each investment at any
point in time, the credit quality of each trader, and the
correlation between and among the credit ratings of the traders.
This information is readily available in preferred embodiments of
DBAR contingent claim exchanges, for example in Trader and Account
database 261 depicted in FIG. 2, and can be displayed to traders in
a form similar to tabulation 720 shown in FIG. 9c, where the amount
of investment margin in each state is displayed for each trader,
juxtaposed with that trader's credit rating. For example, as
depicted in FIG. 9c, trader C1 who has a AAA credit rating has
invested $50,000 on margin in state 7 and $100,000 on margin in
state 8. In a preferred embodiment, the amount of credit risk borne
by each trader can be ascertained, for example using data from
Market Data database 263 on the probability of changes in credit
ratings (including probability of default), amounts recoverable in
case of default, correlations of credit rating changes among the
traders and the information displayed in tabulation 720.
[1207] To illustrate such determinations in the context of a group
of DBAR contingent claims depicted in FIG. 9c, the following
assumptions are made: (i) all the traders C1, C2, C3, C4 and C5
investing in the group of contingent claims have a credit rating
correlation of 0.9; (ii) the probabilities of total default for the
traders C1 to C5 are (0.001, 0.003, 0.007, 0.01, 0.02)
respectively; (iii) the implied probabilities of states 51 to S8
(depicted in FIG. 9c) are (0.075,0.05,0.1,0.25,0.2,0.15,0.075,0.1),
respectively. A calculation can be made with these assumptions
which approximates the total credit risk for all of the traders in
the group of the DBAR contingent claims of FIG. 9c, following Steps
(i)-(vi) previously described for using VAR methodology to
determine Credit-Capital-at-Risk.
[1208] Step (i) involves obtaining for each trader the amount of
margin used to make each trade. For this illustration, these data
are assumed and are displayed in FIG. 9c, and in a preferred
embodiment, are available from Trader and Account database 261 and
Trade Blotter database 266.
[1209] Step (ii) involves obtaining data related to the probability
of default and the percentage of outstanding margin loans that are
recoverable in the event of default. In preferred embodiments, this
information is available from such sources as the JP Morgan
CreditMetrics database. For this illustration a recovery percentage
of zero is assumed for each trader, so that if a trader defaults,
no amount of the margin loan is recoverable.
[1210] Step (iii) involves scaling the standard deviation of
returns (in units of the amounts invested) by the percentage of
margin used for each investment, the probability of default for
each trader, and the percentage not recoverable in the event of
default. For this illustration, these steps involve computing the
standard deviations of unit returns for each state, multiplying by
the margin percentage in each state, and then multiplying this
result by the probability of default for each trader. In this
illustration, using the assumed implied probabilities for states 1
through 8, the standard deviations of unit returns are: (3.5118,
4.359,3,1.732,2,2.3805,3.5118,3). In this illustration these unit
returns are then scaled by multiplying each by (a) the amount of
investment on margin in each state for each trader, and (b) the
probability of default for each trader, yielding the following
table:
TABLE-US-00039 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 C1, 175.59 300 AAA C2, AA
285.66 263.385 C3, AA 1400 999.81 C4, A+ 2598 2000 C5, A 7023.6
4359 4800
[1211] Step (iv) involves using the scaled amounts, as shown in the
above table and a correlation matrix C.sub.s containing a
correlation of returns between each pair of defined states, in
order to compute a Credit-Capital-At-Risk. As previously discussed,
this Step (iv) is performed by first arranging the scaled amounts
for each trader for each state into a vector U as previously
defined, which has dimension equal to the number of states (e.g., 8
in this example). For each trader, the correlation matrix C.sub.s
is pre-multiplied by the transpose of U and post-multiplied by U.
The square root of the result is a correlation-adjusted CCAR value
for each trader, which represents the amount of credit risk
contributed by each trader. To perform these calculations in this
illustration, the matrix C.sub.s having 8 rows and 8 columns and
1's along the diagonal is constructed using the methods previously
described:
C s = 1 - .065 - .095 - .164 - .142 - .12 - .081 - .095 - .065 1 -
.076 - .132 - .115 - .096 - .065 - .076 - .095 - .076 1 - .192 -
.167 - .14 - .095 - .111 - .164 - .132 - .192 1 - .289 - .243 -
.164 - .192 - .142 - .115 - .167 - .289 1 - .21 - .142 - .167 - .12
- .096 - .14 - .243 - .21 1 - .12 - .14 - .081 - .065 - .095 - .164
- .142 - .12 1 - .095 - .095 - .076 - .111 - .192 - .167 - .14 -
.095 1 ##EQU00095##
[1212] The vectors U.sub.1, U.sub.2, U.sub.3, U.sub.4, and U.sub.5
for each of the 5 traders in this illustration, respectively, are
as follows:
U 1 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 175.59 300 U 2 = 0 0 0 0 0 285.66 263.385 0 U 3 =
0 0 0 0 1400 999.81 0 0 U 4 = 0 0 0 2598 2000 0 0 0 ##EQU00096## U
5 = 7023.6 4359 4800 0 0 0 0 0 ##EQU00096.2##
Continuing with the methodology of Step (iv) for this illustration,
five matrix computations are performed as follows:
CCAR.sub.i= {square root over (U.sub.i.sup.T*C.sub.s*U.sub.i)}
for i=1 . . . 5. The left hand side of the above equation is the
credit capital at risk corresponding to each of the five
traders.
[1213] Pursuant to Step (v) of the CCAR methodology as applied to
this example, the five CCAR values are arranged into a column
vector of dimension five, as follows:
w CCAR = 332.9 364.58 1540.04 2783.22 8820.77 ##EQU00097##
[1214] Continuing with this step, a correlation matrix (CCAR) with
a number of rows and columns equal to the number of traders is
constructed which contains the statistical correlation of changes
in credit ratings between every pair of traders on the
off-diagonals and 1's along the diagonal. For the present example,
the final Step (vi) involves the pre-multiplication of CCAR by the
transpose of W.sub.CCAR and the post multiplication of C.sub.CCAR
by w.sub.CCAR, and taking the square root of that product, as
follows:
CCAR.sub.TOTAL= {square root over
(C.sub.CCAR.sup.T*C.sub.CCAR.sup.T*w.sub.CCAR)}
In this illustration, the result of this calculation is:
CCAR TOTAL = 332.9 364.58 1540.04 2783.22 8820.77 * 1 .9 .9 .9 .9
332.9 .9 1 .9 .9 .9 364.58 .9 .9 1 .9 .9 * 1540.04 .9 .9 .9 1 .9
2783.22 .9 .9 .9 .9 1 8820.77 = 1342.74 ##EQU00098##
[1215] In other words, in this illustration, the margin total and
distribution showing in FIG. 9c has a single standard deviation
Credit-Capital-At-Risk of $13,462.74. As described previously in
the discussion of Credit-Capital-At-Risk using VAR methodology,
this amount may be multiplied by a number derived using methods
known to those of skill in the art in order to obtain a
predetermined percentile of credit loss which a trader could
believe would not be exceeded with a predetermined level of
statistical confidence. For example, in this illustration, if a
trader is interested in knowing, with a 95% statistical confidence,
what loss amount would not be exceeded, the single deviation
Credit-Capital-At-Risk figure of $13,462.74 would be multiplied by
1.645, to yield a figure of $22,146.21.
[1216] A trader may also be interested in knowing how much credit
risk the other traders represent among themselves. In a preferred
embodiment, the preceding steps (i)-(vi) can be performed excluding
one or more of the traders. For example, in this illustration, the
most risky trader, measured by the amount of CCAR associated with
it, is trader C5. The amount of credit risk due to C1 through C4
can be determined by performing the matrix calculation of Step (v)
above, by entering 0 for the CCAR amount of trader C5. This yields,
for example, a CCAR for traders C1 through C4 of $4,870.65.
[1217] FIG. 10 depicts a preferred embodiment of a feedback process
for improving of a system or exchange for implementing the present
invention which can be used with other embodiments of the present
invention. As depicted in FIG. 10, in a preferred embodiment,
closing and intraperiod returns from Market Returns database 262
and market data from Market Data database 263 (depicted in FIG. 2)
are used by process 910 for the purpose of evaluating the
efficiency and fairness of the DBAR exchange. One preferred measure
of efficiency is whether a distribution of actual outcomes
corresponds to the distribution as reflected in the finalized
returns. Distribution testing routines, such as Kolmogorov-Smirnoff
tests, preferably are performed in process 910 to determine whether
the distributions implied by trading activity in the form of
returns across the defined states for a group of DBAR contingent
claims are significantly different from the actual distributions of
outcomes for the underlying events, experienced over time.
Additionally, in preferred embodiments, marginal returns are also
analyzed in process 910 in order to determine whether traders who
make investments late in the trading period earn returns
statistically different from other traders. These "late traders,"
for example, might be capturing informational advantages not
available to early traders. In response to findings from analyses
in process 910, a system according to the present invention for
trading and investing in groups of the DBAR contingent claims can
be modified to improve its efficiency and fairness. For example, if
"late traders" earn unusually large profits, it could mean that
such a system is being unfairly manipulated, perhaps in conjunction
with trading in traditional security markets. Process 920 depicted
in FIG. 10 represents a preferred embodiment of a counter-measure
which randomizes the exact time at which a trading period ends for
the purposes of preventing manipulation of closing returns. For
example, in a preferred embodiment, an exchange announces a trading
closing end time falling randomly between 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m.
on a given date.
[1218] As depicted in FIG. 10, process 923 is a preferred
embodiment of another process to reduce risk of market
manipulation. Process 923 represents the step of changing the
observation period or time for the outcome. For example, rather
than observing the outcome at a discrete time, the exchange may
specify that a range of times for observation will used, perhaps
spanning many hours, day, or weeks (or any arbitrary time frame),
and then using the average of the observed outcomes to determine
the occurrence of a state.
[1219] As further depicted in FIG. 10, in response to process 910,
steps could be taken in process 924 to modify DRFs in order, for
example, to encourage traders to invest earlier in a trading
period. For example, a DRF could be modified to provide somewhat
increased returns to these "early" traders and proportionately
decreased returns to "late" traders. Similarly for digital options,
an OPF could be modified to provide somewhat discounted prices for
"early" traders and proportionately marked-up prices for "late"
traders. Such incentives, and others apparent to those skilled in
the art, could be reflected in more sophisticated DRFs.
[1220] In a preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 10, process 921
represents, responsive to process 910, steps to change the
assumptions under which opening returns are computed for the
purpose of providing better opening returns at the opening of the
trading period. For example, the results of process 910 might
indicate that traders have excessively traded the extremes of a
distribution in relation to actual outcomes. There is nothing
inherently problematic about this, since trader expectations for
future possible outcomes might reflect risk preferences that cannot
be extracted or analyzed with actual data. However, as apparent to
one of skill in the art, it is possible to adjust the initial
returns to provide better estimates of the future distribution of
states, by, for example, adjusting the skew, kurtosis, or other
statistical moments of the distribution.
[1221] As depicted in FIG. 10, process 922 illustrates changing
entirely the structure of one or more groups of DBAR contingent
claims. Such a countermeasure can be used on an ad hoc basis in
response to grave inefficiencies or unfair market manipulation. For
example, process 922 can include changes in the number of trading
periods, the timing of trading periods, the duration of a group of
DBAR contingent claims, the number of and nature of the defined
state partitions in order to achieve better liquidity and less
unfair market manipulation for groups of DBAR contingent claims of
the present invention.
[1222] As discussed above (Section 6), in a preferred embodiment of
a DBAR Digital Options Exchange ("DBAR DOE"), traders may buy and
"sell" digital options, spreads, and strips by either placing
market orders or limit orders. A market order typically is an order
that is unconditional, i.e., it is executed and is viable
regardless of DBAR contingent claim "prices" or implied
probabilities. A limit order, by contrast, typically is a
conditional investment in a DBAR DOE in which the trader specifies
a condition upon which the viability or execution (i.e., finality)
of the order depends. In a preferred embodiment, such conditions
typically stipulate that an order is conditional upon the "price"
for a given contingent claim after the trading period has been
completed upon fulfillment of the trading period termination
criteria. At this point, all of the orders are processed and a
distribution of DBAR contingent claim "prices"--which for DBAR
digital options is the implied probability that the option is "in
the money"--are determined.
[1223] In a preferred embodiment of a DBAR DOE of the present
invention, limit orders may be the only order type that is
processed. In a preferred embodiment, limit orders are executed and
are part of the equilibrium for a group of DBAR contingent claims
if their stipulated "price" conditions (i.e., probability of being
in the money) are satisfied. For example, a trader may have placed
limit buy order at 0.42 for MSFT digital call options with a strike
price of 50. With a the limit condition at 0.42, the trader's order
will be filled only if the final DBAR contingent claim distribution
results in the 50 calls having a "price" which is 0.42 or "better,"
which, for a buyer of the call, means 0.42 or lower.
[1224] Whether a limit order is included in the final DBAR
equilibrium affects the final probability distribution or "prices."
Since those "prices" determine whether such limit orders are to be
executed and therefore included in the final equilibrium, in a
preferred embodiment an iterative procedure, as described in detail
below, may be carried out until an equilibrium is achieved.
[1225] As described above, in a preferred embodiment, A DBAR DOE
equilibrium results for a contract, or group of DBAR contingent
claims including limit orders, when at least the following
conditions have been met: [1226] (1) At least some buy ("sell")
orders with a limit "price" greater (less) than or equal to the
equilibrium "price" for the given option, spread or strip are
executed or "filled." [1227] (2) No buy ("sell") orders with limit
"prices" less (greater) than the equilibrium "price" for the given
option, spread or strip are executed. [1228] (3) The total amount
of executed lots equals the total amount invested across the
distribution of defined states. [1229] (4) The ratio of payouts
should each constituent state of a given option, spread, or strike
occur is as specified by the trader, (including equal payouts in
the case of digital options), within a tolerable degree of
deviation. [1230] (5) Conversion of filled limit orders to market
orders for the respective filled quantities and recalculating the
equilibrium does not materially change the equilibrium. [1231] (6)
Adding one or more lots to any of the filled limit orders converted
to market orders in step (5) and recalculating of the equilibrium
"prices" results in "prices" which violate the limit "price" of the
order to which the lot was added (i.e., no more lots can be
"squeaked in" without forcing market prices to go above the limit
"prices" of buy orders or below the limit "prices" of sell
orders).
[1232] In a preferred embodiment, the DBAR DOE equilibrium is
computed through the application of limit and market order
processing steps, multistate composite equilibrium calculation
steps, steps which convert "sell" orders so that they may be
processed as buy orders, and steps which provide for the accurate
processing of limit orders in the presence of transaction costs.
The descriptions of FIGS. 11-18 which follow explain these steps in
detail. Generally speaking, in a preferred embodiment, as described
in Section 6, the DBAR DOE equilibrium including limit orders is
arrived at by: [1233] (i) converting any "sell" orders to buy
orders; [1234] (ii) aggregating the buy orders (including the
converted "sell" orders) into groups for which the contingent
claims specified in the orders share the same range of defined
states; [1235] (iii) adjusting the limit orders for the effect of
transaction costs by subtracting the order fee from the order's
limit "price;" [1236] (iv) sorting the orders upon the basis of the
(adjusted) limit order "prices" from best (highest) to worst
(lowest); [1237] (v) searching for an order with a limit "price"
better (i.e., higher) than the market or current equilibrium
"price" for the contingent claim specified in the order; [1238]
(vi) if such a better order can be found, adding as many
incremental value units or "lots" of that order for inclusion into
the equilibrium calculation as possible without newly calculated
market or equilibrium "price" exceeding the specified limit "price"
of the order (this is known as the "add" step); [1239] (vii)
searching for an order with previously included lots which now has
a limit "price" worse than the market "price" for the contingent
claim specified in the order (i.e., lower than the market "price");
[1240] (viii) removing the smallest number of lots from the order
with the worse limit "price" so that the newly calculated
equilibrium "price," after such iterative removal of lots, is just
below the order's limit "price" (this is known as the "prune" step,
in the sense that lots previously added are removed or "pruned"
away); [1241] (ix) repeating the "add" and "prune" steps until no
further orders remain which are either better than the market which
have lots to add, or worse than the market which have lots to
remove; [1242] (x) taking the "prices" resulting from the final
equilibrium resulting from step (ix) and adding any applicable
transaction fee to obtain the offer "price" for each respective
contingent claim ordered and subtracting any applicable transaction
fee to obtain the bid "price" for each respective contingent claim
ordered; and [1243] (xi) upon fulfillment of all of the termination
criteria related to the event of economic significance or state of
a selected financial product, allocating payouts to those orders
which have investments on the realized state, where such payouts
are responsive to the final equilibrium "prices" of the orders'
contingent claims and the transaction fees for such orders.
[1244] Referring to FIG. 11, illustrative data structures are
depicted which may be used in a preferred embodiment to store and
manipulate the data relevant to the DBAR DOE embodiment and other
embodiments of the present invention. The data structure for a
"contract" or group of DBAR contingent claims, shown in 1101,
contains data members which store data which are relevant to the
construction of the DBAR DOE contract or group of claims.
Specifically, the contract data structure contains (i) the number
of defined states (contract.numStates); (ii) the total amount
invested in the contract at any given time
(contract.totallnvested); (iii) the aggregate profile trade
investments required to satisfy the aggregate profile trade
requests for profile trades (a type of trade which is described in
detail below) (iv) the aggregate payout requests made by profile
trades; (v) the total amount invested or allocated in each defined
state at any given time (contract.stateTotal); (vi) the number of
orders submitted at any given time (contract.numOrders); and (vii)
a list of the orders, which is itself a structure containing data
relevant to the orders (contract.orders[ ]).
[1245] A preferred embodiment of "order" data structures, shown in
1102 of FIG. 11, illustrates the data which are typically needed to
process a trader's order using the methods of the DBAR DOE of the
present invention. Specifically, the order data structure contains
the following relevant members for order processing: [1246] (i) the
amount of the order which the trader desires to transact. For
orders which request the purchase ("buys") of a digital option,
strip, or spread, the amount is interpreted as the amount to invest
in the desired contingent claim. Thus, for buys, the order amount
is analogous to the option premium for conventional options. For
orders which request "sales" of a DBAR contingent claim, the order
amount is to be interpreted as the amount of net payout that the
trader desires to "sell." Selling a net payout in the context of a
DBAR DOE of the present invention means that the loss that a trader
suffers should the digital option, strip or spread "sold" expire in
the money is equal to the payout "sold." In other words, by selling
a net payout, the trader is able to specify the amount of net loss
that would occur should the option "sold" expire in the money. If
the contingent claim "sold" expires out of the money, the trader
would receive a profit equal to the net payout multiplied by the
ratio of (a) the final implied probability of the option expiring
in the money and (b) the implied probability of the option expiring
out of the money. In other words, in a preferred embodiment of a
DBAR DOE, "buys are for premium, and sells are for net payout"
which means that buy orders and sell orders in terms of the order
amount are interpreted somewhat differently. For a buy order, the
premium is specified and the payout, should the option expire in
the money, is not known until all of the predetermined termination
criteria have been met at the end of trading. For a "sell" order,
in contrast, the payout to be "sold" is specified (and is equal to
the net loss should the option "sold" expire in the money), while
the premium, which is equal to the trader's profit should the
option "sold" expire out of the money, is not known until all of
the predetermined termination criteria have been met (e.g., at the
end of trading); [1247] (ii) the amount which must be invested in
each defined state to generate the desired digital option, spread
or strip specified in the order is contained in data member
order.invest[ ]; [1248] (iii) the data members order.buySell
indicates whether the order is a buy or a "sell"; [1249] (iv) the
data members order.marketLimit indicates whether the order is a
limit order whose viability for execution is conditional upon the
final equilibrium "price" after all predetermined termination
criteria have been met, or a market order, which is unconditional;
[1250] (v) the current equilibrium "price" of the digital option,
spread or strip specified in the order; [1251] (vi) a vector which
specifies the type of contingent claim to be traded (order.ratio[
]). For example, in a preferred embodiment involving a contract
with seven defined states, an order for a digital call option which
would expire in the money should any of the last four states occur
would be rendered in the data member order. ratio[ ] as
order.ratio[0,0,0,1,1,1,1] where the 1's indicate that the same
payout should be generated by the multistate allocation process
when the digital option is in the money, and the 0's indicate that
the option is out of the money, or expires on one of the respective
out of the money states. As another example in a preferred
embodiment, a spread which is in the money should states either
states 1,2, 6, or 7 occur would be rendered as
order.ratio[1,1,0,0,0,1,1]. As another example in a preferred
embodiment, a digital option strip, which allows a trader to
specify the relative ratios of the final payouts owing to an
investment in such a contingent claim would be rendered using the
ratios over which the strip is in the money. For example, if a
trader desires a strip which pays out three times much as state 3
should state 1 occur, and twice as much as state 3 if state 2
occurs, the strip would be rendered as order.ratio[3,2,1,0,0,0,0];
[1252] (vii) the amount of the order than can be executed or filled
at equilibrium. For market orders, the entire order amount will be
filled, since such orders are unconditional. For limit orders,
none, all, or part of the order amount may be filled depending upon
the equilibrium "prices" prevailing when the termination criteria
are fulfilled; [1253] (viii) the transaction fee applicable to the
order; [1254] (ix) the payout for the order, net of fees, after all
predetermined termination criteria have been met; and [1255] (x) a
data structure which, for trades of the profile type (described
below in detail), contains the desired amount of payout requested
by the order should each state occur.
[1256] FIG. 12 depicts a logical diagram of the basic steps for
limit and market order processing in a preferred embodiment of a
DBAR DOE of the present invention. Step 1201 of FIG. 12 loads the
relevant data into the contract and order data structures of FIG.
11. Step 1202 initializes the set of DBAR contingent claims, or the
"contract," by placing initial amounts of value units (i.e.,
initial liquidity) in each state of the set of defined states. The
placement of initial liquidity avoids a singularity in any of the
defined states (e.g., an invested amount in a given defined state
equal to zero) which may tend to impede multistate allocation
calculations. The initialization of step 1202 may be done in a
variety of different ways. In a preferred embodiment, a small
quantity of value units is placed in each of the defined states.
For example, a single value unit ("lot") may be placed in each
defined state where the single value unit is expected to be small
in relation to the total amount of volume to be transacted. In step
1202 of FIG. 12, the initial value units are represented in the
vector init[contract.numStates].
[1257] In a preferred embodiment, step 1203 of FIG. 12 invokes the
function convertSales( ) which converts all of the "sell" orders to
complementary buy orders. The function convertSales( ) is described
in detail in FIG. 15, below. After the completion of step 1203, all
of the orders for contingent claims--whether buy or "sell" orders,
can be processed as buy orders.
[1258] In a preferred embodiment, step 1204 groups these buy orders
based upon the distinct ranges of states spanned by the contingent
claims specified in the orders. The range of states comprising the
order are contained in the data member order.ratio[ ] of the order
data structure 1102 depicted in FIG. 11.
[1259] In a preferred embodiment, for each order[j] there is
associated a vector of length equal to the number of defined states
in the contract or group of DBAR contingent claims
(contract.numStates). This vector, which is stored in
order[j].ratio[ ], contains integers which indicate the range of
states in which an investment is to be made in order to generate
the expected payout profile of the contingent claim desired by the
trader placing the order.
[1260] In a preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 12, a separate
grouping in step 1204 is required for each distinct order[j].ratio[
] vector. Two order[j].ratio[ ] vectors are distinct for different
orders when their difference yields a vector that does not contain
zero in every element. For example, for a contract which contains
seven defined states, a digital put option which spans that first
three states has an order[1].ratio[ ] vector equal to
(1,1,1,0,0,0,0). A digital call option which spans the last five
states has an order[2].ratio[ ] vector equal to (0,0,1,1,1,1,1).
Because the difference of these two vectors is equal to
(1,1,0,-1,-1,-1,-1), these two orders should be placed into
distinct groups, as indicated in step 1204.
[1261] In a preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 12, step 1204
aggregates orders into relevant groups for processing. For the
purposes of processing limit orders: (i) all orders may be treated
as limit orders since orders without limit "price" conditions,
e.g., "market orders," can be rendered as limit buy orders
(including "sale" orders converted to buy orders in step 1203) with
limit "prices" of 1, and (ii) all order sizes are processed by
treating them as multiple orders of the smallest value unit or
"lot."
[1262] The relevant groups of step 1204 of FIG. 12 are termed
"composite" since they may span, or comprise, more than one of the
defined states. For example, the MSFT
[1263] Digital Option contract depicted above in Table 6.2.1, for
example, has defined states (0,30], (30,40], (40,50], (50,60], (60,
70], (70, 80], and (80,00]. The 40 strike call options therefore
span the five states (40,50], (50,60], (60, 70], (70, 80], and
(80,00]. A "sale" of a 40 strike put, for example, would be
converted at step 1203 into a complementary buy of a 40 strike call
(with a limit "price" equal to one minus the limit "price" of the
sold put), so both the "sale" of the 40 strike put and the buy of a
40 strike call would be aggregated into the same group for the
purposes of step 1204 of FIG. 12.
[1264] In the preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 12, step 1205
invokes the function feeAdjustOrders( ) This function is required
so as to incorporate the effect of transaction or exchange fees for
limit orders. The function feeAdjustOrders( ) shown in FIG. 12,
described in detail with reference to FIG. 16, basically subtracts
from the limit "price" of each order the fee for that order's
contingent claim. The limit "price" is then set to this adjusted,
lower limit "price" for the purposes of the ensuing equilibrium
calculations.
[1265] At the point of step 1206 of the preferred embodiment
depicted in FIG. 12, all of the orders may be processed as buy
orders (because any "sell" orders have been converted to buy orders
in step 1203 of FIG. 12) and all limit "prices" have been adjusted
(with the exception of market orders which, in a preferred
embodiment of the DBAR DOE of the present invention, have a limit
"price" equal to one) to reflect transaction costs equal to the fee
specified for the order's contingent claim (as contained in the
data member order[j].fee). For example, consider the steps depicted
in FIG. 12 leading up to step 1206 on three hypothetical orders:
(1) a buy order for a digital call with strike price of 50 with a
limit "price" of 0.42 for 100,000 value units (lots) (on the
illustrative MSFT example described above); (2) a "sale" order for
a digital put with a strike price of 40 with a limit price of 0.26
for 200,000 value units (lots); and (3) a market buy order for a
digital spread which is in the money should MSFT stock expire
greater than or equal to 40 and less than or equal to 70. In a
preferred embodiment, the representations of the range of states
for the contingent claims specified in the three orders are as
follows: (1) buy order for 50-strike digital call: order[1].ratio[
]=(0,0,0,1,1,1,1); (2) "sell" order for 40-strike digital put:
order[2].ratio[ ]=(0,0,1,1,1,1,1); and (3) market buy order for a
digital spread in the money on the interval [40,70):
order[3].ratio[ ]=(0,0,1,1,1,1,0). Also in this preferred
embodiment, the "sell" order of the put covers the states as a
"converted" buy order which are complementary to the states being
sold (sold states=order.ratio[ ]=(1,1,0,0,0,0,0)), and the limit
"price" of the converted order is equal to one minus the limit
"price" of the original order (i.e., 1-0.26=0.74). Then in a
preferred embodiment, all of the orders' limit "prices" are
adjusted for the effect of transaction fees so that, assuming a fee
for all of the orders equal to 0.0005 (i.e., 5 basis points of
notional payout), the fee-adjusted limit prices of the orders are
equal to (1) for the 50-strike call: 0.4195 (0.42-0.0005); (2) for
the converted sale of 40-strike put: 0.7395 (1-0.26-0.0005); and
(3) for the market order for digital spread: 1 (limit "price" is
set to unity). In a preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 12, step
1204 then would aggregate these hypothetical orders into distinct
groups, where orders in each group share the same range of defined
states which comprise the orders' contingent claim. In other words,
as a result of step 1204, each group contains orders which have
identical vectors in order.ratio[ ]. For the illustrative three
hypothetical orders, the orders would be placed as a result of step
1204 into three separate groups, since each order ranges over
distinct sets of defined states as indicated in their respective
order[j].ratio[ ] vectors (i.e., (0,0,0,1,1,1,1), (0,0,1,1,1,1,1),
and (0,0,1,1,1,1,0), respectively).
[1266] For the purposes of step 1206 of the preferred embodiment
depicted in FIG. 12, all of the order have been converted to buy
orders and have had their limit "prices" adjusted to reflect
transaction fees, if any. In addition, such orders have been placed
into groups which share the same range of defined states which
comprise the contingent claim specified in the orders (i.e., have
the same order[j].ratio[ ] vector). In this preferred embodiment
depicted in FIG. 12, step 1206 sorts each group's orders based upon
their fee-adjusted limit "prices," from best (highest "prices") to
worst (lowest "prices"). For example, consider a set of orders in
which only digital calls and puts have been ordered, both to buy
and to "sell," for the MSFT example of Table 6.2.1 in which strike
prices of 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80 are available. A "sale" of a
call is converted to a buy of a put, and a "sale" of a put is
converted into a purchase of a call by step 1204 of the preferred
embodiment depicted in FIG. 12. Thus, in this embodiment all of the
grouped orders preferably are grouped in terms of calls and puts at
the indicated strike prices of the orders.
[1267] The grouped orders, after conversion and adjustment for
fees, can be illustrated in Diagram 1 shown in FIG. 27, which
depicts the results of a grouping process for a set of illustrative
and assumed digital puts and calls.
[1268] Referring to Diagram 1 the call and put limit orders have
been grouped by strike price (distinct order[j].ratio[ ] vectors)
and then ordered from "best price" to "worst," moving away from the
horizontal axis. As shown in the table, "best price" for buy orders
are those with higher prices (i.e., buyers with a higher
willingness to pay). Diagram 1 includes "sales" of puts which have
been converted to complementary purchases of calls and "sales" of
calls which have been converted to complementary purchases of puts,
i.e., all orders for the purposes of Diagram 1 may be treated as
buy orders.
[1269] For example, as depicted in Diagram 1 the grouping which
includes the purchase of the 40 calls (labeled "C40") would also
include any converted "sales" of the 40 puts (i.e., "sale" of the
40 puts has an order.ratio[ ] vector which originally is equal to
(1,1,0,0,0,0,0) and is then converted to the complementary
order.ratio[ ] vector (0,0,1,1,1,1,1) which corresponds to the
purchase of a 40-strike call).
[1270] Diagram 1 illustrates the groupings that span distinct sets
of defined states with a vertical bar. The labels within each
vertical bar in Diagram 1 such as "C50", indicate whether the
grouping corresponds to a call ("C") or put ("P") and the relevant
strike price, e.g., "C50" indicates a digital call option with
strike price of 50. The horizontal lines within each vertical bar
shown on Diagram 1 indicates the sorting by price within each
group. Thus, for the vertical bar above the horizontal axis marked
"C50" in Diagram 1, there are five distinct rectangular groupings
within the vertical bar. Each of these groupings is an order for
the digital call options with strike price 50 at a particular limit
"price." By using the DBAR methods of the present invention, there
is no matching of buyers and "sellers," or buy orders and "sell"
orders, which is typically required in the traditional markets in
order for transactions to take place. For example, Diagram 1
illustrates a set of orders that contains only buy orders for the
digital puts struck at 70 ("P70").
[1271] In a preferred embodiment of a DBAR DOE of the present
invention, the aggregation of orders into groups referred to by
step 1204 of the preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 12
corresponds to DBAR digital options, spread, and strip trades which
span distinct ranges of the defined states. For example, the 40
puts and the 40 calls are represented as distinct state sets since
they span or comprise different ranges of defined states.
[1272] Proceeding with the next step of the preferred embodiment
depicted in FIG. 12, step 1207 queries whether there is at least a
single order which has a limit "price" which is "better" than the
current equilibrium "price" for the ordered option. In a preferred
embodiment for the first iteration of step 1207 for a trading
period for a group of DBAR contingent claims, the current
equilibrium "prices" reflect the placement of the initial liquidity
from step 1202. For example, with the seven defined states of the
MSFT example described above, one value unit may have been
initialized in each of the seven defined states. The "prices" of
the 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80 digital call options, are therefore
6/7, 5/7, 4/7, 3/7, 2/7, and 1/7, respectively. The initial
"prices" of the 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80 digital puts are 1/7,
2/7, 3/7, 4/7, 5/7, 6/7, respectively. Thus, step 1207 may identify
a buy order for a 60 digital call option with limit "price" greater
than 3/7 (0.42857) or a "sell" order, for example, for the 40
digital put option with limit "price" less than 2/7 (0.28571)
(which would be converted into a buy order of the 40 calls with
limit "price" of 5/7 (i.e., 1-2/7)). In a preferred embodiment an
order's limit "price" or implied probability would take into
account transaction or exchange fees, since the limit "prices" of
the original orders would have been already adjusted by the amount
of the transaction fee (as contained in order[j].fee) from step
1205 of FIG. 12, where the function fee Adjust Orders( ) is
invoked.
[1273] As discussed above, transaction or exchange fees, and
consequently bid/offer "prices" or implied probability, can be
computed in a variety of ways. In a preferred embodiment, such fees
are computed as a fixed percentage of the total amount invested
over all of the defined states. The offer (bid) side of the market
for a given digital option (or strip or spread) is computed in this
embodiment by taking the total amount invested less (plus) this
fixed percentage, and dividing it by the total amount invested over
the range of states comprising the given option (or strip or
spread). This reciprocal of this quantity then equals the offer
(bid) "price" in this embodiment. In another preferred embodiment,
transaction fees are computed as a fixed percentage of the payout
of a given digital option, strip or spread. In this embodiment, if
the transaction fee is f basis points of the payout, then the offer
(bid) price is equal to the total amount invested over the range of
state comprising the digital option (strip or spread) plus (minus)
f basis points. For example, assume that f is equal to 5 basis
points or 0.0005. Thus, the offer "price" of an in-the-money option
whose equilibrium "price" is 0.50 might be equal to 0.50+0.0005 or
0.5005 and the bid "price" equal to 0.50-0.0005 or 0.4995. An
out-of-the-money option having an equilibrium "price" equal to 0.05
might therefore have an offer "price" equal to 0.05+0.0005 or
0.0505 and a bid "price" equal to 0.05-0.0005 or 0.0495. Thus, the
embodiment in which transaction fees are a fixed percentage of the
payout yields bid/offer spreads that are a higher percentage of the
out-of-the-money option "prices" than of the in-the-money option
prices.
[1274] The bid/offer "prices" affect not only the costs to the
trader of using a DBAR digital options exchange, but also the
nature of the limit order process. Buy limit orders (including
those buy orders which are converted "sells") must be compared to
the offer "prices" for the option, strip or spread contained in the
order. Thus a buy order has a limit "price" which is "better" than
the market if the limit "price" condition is greater than or equal
to the offer side of the market for the option specified in the
order. Conversely, a "sell" order has a limit "price" which is
better than the market if the limit "price" condition is less than
or equal to the bid side of the market for the option specified in
the order. In the preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 12, the
effect of transaction fees is captured by the adjustment of the
limit "prices" in step 1205, in that in equilibrium an order should
be filled only if its limit "price" is better than the offer
"price", which includes the transaction fee.
[1275] In the preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 12, if step
1207 identifies at least one order which has a limit "price" better
than the current set of equilibrium "prices" (whether the initial
set of "prices" upon the first iteration or the "prices" resulting
from subsequent iterations) then step 1208 invokes the function
fillRemoveLots. The function fillRemoveLots, when called with the
first parameter equal to one as in step 1208, will attempt to add
lots from the order identified in step 1207 which has limit "price"
better than the current set of equilibrium prices. The
fillRemoveLots function is described in detail in FIG. 17, below.
Basically, the function finds the number of lots of the order than
can be added for a buy order (including all "sale" order converted
to buy orders) such that when a new equilibrium set of "prices" is
calculated for the group of DBAR contingent claims with the added
lots (by invoking the function compEq( ) of FIG. 13), no further
lots can be added without causing the new equilibrium "price" with
those added lots to exceed the limit "price" of the buy order being
filled.
[1276] In preferred embodiments, finding the maximum amount of lots
to add so that the limit "price" is just better than the new
equilibrium is accomplished using the method of binary search, as
described in detail with reference to FIG. 17, below. Also in
preferred embodiments the step of "filling" lots refers to the
execution, incrementally and iteratively, using the method of
binary search, of that part of the order quantity that can be
executed or "filled." In a preferred embodiment, the filling of a
buy order therefore requires the testing, via the method of binary
search, to determine whether additional unit lots can be added over
the relevant range of defined states spanning the particular option
for the purposes of equilibrium calculation, without causing the
resulting equilibrium "price" for the order to exceed the limit
"price."
[1277] In the preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 12, step 1209
is executed following step 1208 if lots are filled, or following
step 1207 if no orders were identified with limit "prices" which
are better than the current equilibrium "prices." Step 1209 of FIG.
12 identifies orders filled at least partially at limit "prices"
which are worse (i.e., less) than the current equilibrium "prices."
In preferred embodiments, the filling of lots in step 1208, if
performed prior to step 1209, involves the iterative recalculation
of the equilibrium "prices" by invoking the function compEq( )
which is described in detail with reference to FIG. 13.
[1278] In the preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 12, the
equilibrium computations in step 1208 performed in the process of
filling lots may cause a change in the equilibrium "prices" which
in turn may cause previously filled orders to have limit "prices"
which are now worse (i.e., lower) than the new equilibrium. Step
1209 identifies these orders. In order for the order to comply with
the equilibrium, its limit "price" may not be worse (i.e., less)
than the current equilibrium. Thus, in a preferred embodiment of
the DBAR
[1279] DOE of the present invention, lots for such an order are
removed. This is performed in step 1210 with the invocation of
function fillRemoveLots. Similar to step 1208, in a preferred
embodiment the processing step 1210 uses the method of binary
search to find the minimum amount of lots to be removed from the
quantity of the order that has already been filled such that the
order's limit "price" is no longer worse (i.e., less) than the
equilibrium "price," which is recomputed iteratively. For buy
orders and all buy orders converted from "sell" orders processed in
step 1210, a new filled quantity is found which is smaller than the
original filled quantity so that the buy order's new equilibrium
"price" does not exceed the buy order's specified limit
"price."
[1280] The logic of steps 1207-1210 of FIG. 12 may be summarized as
follows. An order is identified which can be filled (step 1207),
i.e., an order which has a limit "price" better than the current
equilibrium "price" for the option specified in the order. If such
an order is identified, it is filled to the maximum extent possible
without violating the limit "price" condition of the order itself
(step 1208). A buy order's limit "price" condition is violated if
an incremental lot is filled which causes the equilibrium "price,"
taking account of this additional lot, to exceed the buy order's
limit "price." Any previously filled orders may now have limit
order conditions that are violated as a result of lots being filled
in step 1208. These orders are identified, one order at a time, in
step 1209. The filled amounts of such orders with violated limit
order "price" conditions are reduced or "pruned" so that the limit
order "price" conditions are no longer violated. This "pruning" is
performed in step 1210. The steps 1207 to 1210 constitute an "add
and prune" cycle in which an order with a limit "price" better than
the equilibrium of the current iteration has its filled amount
increased, followed by the reduction or pruning of any filled
amounts for orders with a limit "price" condition which is worse
than the equilibrium "price" of the current iteration. In preferred
embodiment, the "add and prune" cycle continues until there remain
no further orders with limit "price" conditions which are either
better or worse than the equilibrium, i.e., no further adding or
pruning can be performed.
[1281] When no further adding or pruning can be performed, an
equilibrium has been achieved, i.e., all of the orders with limit
"prices" worse than the equilibrium are not executed and at least
some part of all of the orders with limit "prices" better or equal
to the equilibrium are executed. In the preferred embodiment of
FIG. 12, completion of the "add and prune" cycle terminates limit
and market order processing as indicated in step 1211. The final
"prices" of the equilibrium calculation resulting from the "add and
prune" cycle of steps 1207-1210 can be designated as the mid-market
"prices." The bid "prices" for each contingent claim are computed
by subtracting a fee from the mid-market "prices," and the offer
"prices" are computed by adding a fee to the mid-market "prices."
Thus, equilibrium mid-market, bid, and offer "prices" may then be
published to traders in a preferred embodiment of a DBAR DOE.
[1282] Referring now to the preferred embodiment of a method of
composite multistate equilibrium calculation depicted FIG. 13, the
function compEq( ) which is a multistate allocation algorithm, is
described. In a preferred embodiment of a DBAR DOE, digital options
span or comprise more than one defined state, with each of the
defined states corresponding to at least one possible outcome of an
event of economic significance or a financial instrument. As
depicted in Table 6.2.1 above, for example, the MSFT digital call
option with strike price of 40 spans the five states above 40 or
(40,50], (50,60], (60, 70], (70, 80], and (80,00]. To achieve a
profit and loss scenario that traders conventionally expect from a
digital option, in a preferred embodiment of the present invention
a digital option investment of value units designates a set of
defined states and a desired return-on-investment from the
designated set of defined states, and the allocation of investments
across these states is responsive to the desired
return-on-investment from the designated set of defined states. For
a digital option, the desired return on investment is often
expressed as a desire to receive the same payout regardless of the
state that occurs among the set of defined states that comprise the
digital option. For instance, in the illustrative example of the
MSFT stock prices shown in FIG. 6.2.1, a digital call option with
strike price of 40 would be, in a preferred embodiment, allocated
the same payout irrespective of which state of the five states
above 40 occurs.
[1283] In preferred embodiments of the DBAR DOE of the present
invention, traders who invest in digital call options (or strips or
spreads) specify a total amount of investment to be made (if the
amount is for a buy order) or notional payout to be "sold" (if the
amount is for a "sell" order). In a preferred embodiment, the total
investment is then allocated using the compEq( ) multistate
allocation method depicted in FIG. 13. In another preferred
embodiment, the total amount of the payout to be received, should
the digital option expire in the money, is specified by the
investor, and in a preferred embodiment the investment amount
required to produce such payouts are computed by the multistate
allocation method depicted in FIG. 14.
[1284] In either embodiment, the investor specifies a desired
return on investment from a designated set of defined states. A
return on investment is the amount of value units received from the
investment less the amount of value units invested, divided by the
amount invested. In the embodiment depicted in FIG. 13, the amount
of value units invested is specified and the amount of value units
received, or the payout from the investment, is unknown until the
termination criteria are fulfilled and the payouts are calculated.
In the embodiment depicted in FIG. 14, the amount of value units to
be paid out is specified but the investment amount to achieve that
payout it is unknown until the termination criteria are fulfilled.
The embodiment depicted in FIG. 13 is known, for example, as a
composite trade, and the embodiment depicted in FIG. 14 is known,
for example, as a profile trade.
[1285] Referring back to FIG. 13, step 1301 invokes a function call
to the function profEq( ). This function handles those types of
trades in which a desired return-on-investment for a designated set
of defined states is specified by the trader indicating the payout
amount to be received should any of the designated set of defined
states occur. For example, a trader may indicate that a payout of
$10,000 should be received should the MSFT digital calls struck at
40 finish in the money. Thus, if MSFT stock is observed at the
expiration date to have a price of 45, the investor receives
$10,000. If the stock price were to be below 40, the investor would
lose the amount invested, which is calculated using the function
profEq( ). This type of desired return-on-investment trade is
referred to as a multistate profile trade, and FIG. 14 depicts the
detailed logical steps for a preferred embodiment of the profEq( )
function. In preferred embodiments of a DBAR DOE of the present
invention, there need not be any profile trades.
[1286] Referring back to FIG. 13, step 1302 initializes control
loop counter variables. Step 1303 indicates a control loop that
executes for each order. Step 1304 initializes the variable "norm"
to zero and assigns the order being processed, order[j], to the
order data structure. Step 1305 begins a control loop that executes
for each of defined states that comprise a given order. For
example, the MSFT digital call option with strike of 40 illustrated
in Table 6.2.1 spans the five states that range from 40 and
higher.
[1287] In the preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 13, step 1306
executes while the number of states in the order are being
processed to calculate of the variable norm, which is the weighted
sum of the total investments for each state of the range of defined
states which comprise the order. The weights are contained in
order.ratio[i], which is a vector type member of the order data
structure illustrated in FIG. 11 as previously described. For
digital call options, whose payout is the same regardless of the
defined state which occurs over the range of states for which the
digital option is in the money, all of the elements of order.ratio[
] are equal over the range. For trades involving digital strips,
the ratios in order.ratio[ ] need not be equal. For example, a
trader may desire a payout which is twice as great should a range
of states occur compared to another range of states. The data
member order.ratio[ ] would therefore contain information about
this desired payout ratio.
[1288] In the preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 13, after all
of the states in the range of states spanning the order have been
processed, the control loop counter variable is re-initialized in
step 1307, step 1308 begins another control loop the defined states
spanning the order. In preferred embodiments, step 1309 calculates
the amount of the investment specified by the order that must be
invested in each defined state spanning the range of states for the
order. Sub-step 2 of step 1309 contains the allocation which is
assigned to order.invest[i], for each of these states. This
sub-step allocates the amount to be invested in an in-the-money
state in proportion to the existing total investment in that state
divided by the sum of all of the investment in the in-the-money
states. Sub-steps 3 and 4 of step 1309 add this allocation to the
investment totals for each state (contract.stateTotal[state]) and
for all of the states (contract.totallnvested) after subtracting
out the allocation from the previous iteration (temp). In this
manner, the allocation steps proceed iteratively until a tolerable
level of error convergence is achieved.
[1289] After all of the states in the order have been allocated in
1309, step 1310 of the preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 13
calculates the "price" or implied probability of the order. The
"price" of the order is equal to the vector product of the order
ratio (a vector quantity contained in order.ratio[ ]) and the total
invested in each state (a vector quantity contained in
contract.stateTotal[ ]) divided by the total amount invested over
all of the defined states (contained in contract.totallnvested),
after normalization by the maximum value in the vector order.ratio[
]. As further depicted in step 1310 the resulting "price" for the
digital option, strip, or spread is stored in the price member of
the order data structure (order.price).
[1290] In the preferred embodiment of the method of multistate
composite equilibrium calculation for a DBAR DOE of the present
invention. Step 1311 moves the order processing step to the next
order. After all of the orders have been processed, step 1312 of
the preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 13 calculates the level
of error, which is based upon the percentage deviations of the
payouts resulting from the previous iteration to the payouts
expected by the trader. If the error is tolerably low (e.g.,
epsilon=10.sup.-8), the compEq( ) function terminates (step 1314).
If the error is not tolerably low, then compEq( ) is iterated
again, as shown in step 1313.
[1291] FIG. 14 depicts a preferred embodiment of a method of
multistate profile equilibrium calculation in a DBAR DOE of the
present invention. As shown in FIG. 14, when a new multistate
profile trade is added, the function addProfile( ) of step 1401
adds information about the trade to the data structure members of
the contract data structure, as described above in FIG. 11. The
first step of the profEq( ) function, step 1402, shows that the
profEq( ) function proceeds iteratively until a tolerable level of
convergence is achieved, i.e., an error below some error parameter
epsilon (e.g., 10.sup.-8). If the error objective has not been met,
in a preferred embodiment all of the previous allocations from any
prior invocations of profEq( ) are subtracted from the total
investments in each state and from the total investment for all of
the states, as indicated in step 1405. This is done for each of the
states, as indicated in control loop 1404 after initialization of
the loop counter (step 1403).
[1292] In a preferred embodiment, the next step, step 1406,
computes the investment amount necessary to generate the desired
return-on-investment with a fixed payout profile. Sub-step 1 of
1406 shows that the investment amount required to achieve this
payout profile for a state is a positive solution to the quadratic
equation CDRF 3 set forth in Section 2.4 above. In the preferred
embodiment depicted in FIG. 14, the solution, contract.poTrade[i],
is then added to the total investment amount in that state as
indicated in sub-step 2 of step 1406. The total investment amount
for all of the states is also increased by contract.poTrade[i], and
sub-step 4 of 1406 increments the control loop counter for the
number of states. In the preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 14,
the calculation of the quadratic equation of sub-step 3 of step
1406 is completed for each of the states, and then repeated
iteratively until a tolerable level of error is achieved.
[1293] FIG. 15 depicts a preferred embodiment of a method for
converting "sell" orders to buy orders in a DBAR DOE of the present
invention. The method is contained in the function convertSales( )
called within the limit and market order processing steps
previously discussed with reference to FIG. 11.
[1294] As discussed above in a preferred embodiment of a DBAR DOE,
buy orders and "sell" order are interpreted somewhat differently.
The amount of a buy order (as contained in the data structure
member order.orderAmount) is interpreted as the amount of the
investment to be allocated over the range of states spanning the
contingent claim specified in the order. For example, a buy order
for 100,000 value units for an MSFT digital call with strike price
of 60 (order.ratio[ ]=(0,0,0,0,1,1,1) in the MSFT stock example
depicted in Table 6.2.1) will be allocated among the states
comprising the order so that, in the case of a digital option, the
same payout is received regardless of which constituent state of
the range of states is realized. For a "sell" order the order
amount (as also contained in the member data structure
order.orderAmount) is interpreted to be the amount which the trader
making the sale stands to lose if the contingent claim (i.e.,
digital option, spread, or strip) being "sold" expires in the money
(i.e., any of the constituent states comprising the sale order is
realized). Thus, the "sale" order amount is interpreted as a payout
(or "notional" or "notional payout") less the option premium
"sold," which is the amount that may be lost should the contingent
claim "sold" expire in the money (assuming, that is, the entire
order amount can be executed if the order is a limit order). A buy
order, by contrast, has an order amount which is interpreted as an
investment amount which will generate a payout whose magnitude is
known only after the termination of trading and the final
equilibrium prices finalized, should the option expire in the
money. Thus, a buy order has a trade amount which is interpreted as
in investment amount or option "premium" (using the language of the
conventional options markets) whereas a DBAR DOE "sell" order has
an order amount which is interpreted to be a net payout equal to
the gross payout lost, should the option sold expire in the money,
less the premium received from the "sale." Thus, in a preferred
embodiment of a DBAR DOE, buy orders have order amounts
corresponding to premium amounts, while "sell" orders have order
amounts corresponding to net payouts.
[1295] One advantage of interpreting the order amount of the buy
and "sell" orders differently is to facilitate the subsequent
"sale" of a buy order which has been executed (in all or part) in a
previous trading period. In the case where a subsequent trading
period on the same underlying event of economic significance or
state of a financial product is available, a "sale" may be made of
a previously executed buy order from a previous and already
terminated and finalized trading period, even though the
observation period may not be over so that it is not known whether
the option finished in the money. The previously executed buy
order, from the earlier and finalized trading period, has a known
payout amount, should the option expire in the money. This payout
amount is known since the earlier trading period has ended and the
final equilibrium "prices" have been calculated. Once a subsequent
trading period on the same underlying event of economic
significance is open for trading (if such a trading period is made
available), a trader who has executed the buy order may then sell
it by entering a "sell" order with an order. The amount of the
"sell" order can be a function of the finalized payout amount of
the buy order (which is now known with certainty, should the
previously bought contingent claim expire in the money), and the
current market price of the contingent claim being "sold." Setting
this order amount of the "sale" equal to y, the trader may enter a
"sale" such that y is equal to:
y=P*(1-q)
where P is the known payout from the previously finalized buy order
from a preceding trading period, and q is the "price" of the
contingent claim being "sold" during the subsequent trading period.
In preferred embodiments, the "seller" of the contingent claim in
the second period may enter in a "sale" order with order amount
equal to y and a limit "price" equal to q. In this manner the
trader is assured of "selling" his claim at a "price" no worse than
the limit "price" equal to q.
[1296] Turning now to the preferred embodiment of a method for
converting "sale" orders to buy orders depicted in FIG. 15, in step
1501 a control loop is initiated of orders (contract.numOrders).
Step 1502 queries whether the order under consideration in the loop
is a buy (order.buySell=1) or a "sell" order (order.buySell=-1). If
the order is a buy order then no conversion is necessary, and the
loop is incremented to the next order as indicated in step
1507.
[1297] If, on the other hand, the order is a "sell" order, then in
preferred embodiments of the DBAR DOE of the present invention
conversion is necessary. First, the range of states comprising the
contingent claim must be changed to the complement range of states,
since a "sale" of a given range of states is treated as equivalent
to a buy order for the complementary range of states. In the
preferred embodiment of FIG. 15, step 1503 initiates a control loop
to execute for each of the defined states in the contract
(contract.numStates), step 1504 does the switching of the range of
states sold to the complementary states to be bought. This is
achieved by overwriting the original range of states contained in
order[j].ratio[ ] to a complement range of states. In this
preferred embodiment, the complement is equal to the maximum entry
for any state in the original order[ ].ratio[ ] vector (for each
order) minus the entry for each state in order[j].ratio[ ]. For
example, if a trader has entered an order to sell 50-strike puts in
MSFT example depicted in Table 6.2.1, then originally order.ratio[
] is the vector (1,1,1,0,0,0,0), i.e., 1's are entered which span
the states (0,30], (30,40], (40,50] and zeroes are entered
elsewhere. To obtain the complement states to be bought, the
maximum entry in the original order.ratio[ ] vector for the order
is obtained. For the put option to be "sold," the maximum of
(1,1,1,0,0,0,0) is clearly 1. Each element of the original
order.ratio[ ] vector is then subtracted from the maximum to
produce the complementary states to be bought. For this example,
the result of this calculation is (0,0,0,1,1,1,1), i.e., a purchase
of a 50-strike call is complementary to the "sale" of the 50-strike
put. If for example, the original order was for a strip in which
the entries in order.ratio[ ] are not equal, in a preferred
embodiment the same calculation method would be applied. For
example, a trader may desire to "sell" a payout should any of the
same three states which span the 50-strike put occur, but desires
to sell a payout of three times the amount of state (40,50] should
state (0,30] occur and sell twice the payout of (40,50] should
state (30,40] occur. In this example, the original order.ratio for
the "sale" of a strip is equal to (3,2,1,0,0,0,0). The maximum
value for any state of this vector is equal to 3. The complementary
buy vector is then equal to each element of the original vector
subtracted from the maximum, or (0, 1, 2, 3,3,3,3,). Thus, a "sale"
of the strip (3,2,1,0,0,0,0) is revised to a purchase of a strip
with order.ratio[ ] equal to (0, 1, 2, 3,3,3,3).
[1298] In the preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 15, after the
loop has iterated through all of the states (the state counter is
incremented in step 1505) the loop terminates. After looping
through all of the states, the limit order "price" of the "sale"
must be revised so that it may be converted into a complementary
buy. This step is depicted in step 1506, where the revised limit
order "price" for the complementary buy is equal to one minus the
original limit order "price" for the "sell". After finishing the
switching of each state in order.ratio[ ] and setting the limit
order "price" for each order, the loop which increments over the
orders goes to the next order, as indicated in step 1507. The
conversion of "sell" orders to buy orders terminates when all
orders have been processed as indicated in step 1508.
[1299] FIG. 16 depicts a preferred embodiment of a method for
adjusting limit orders in the presence of transaction fees in a
DBAR DOE of the present invention. The function which implements
this embodiment is feeAdjustOrders( ) and is invoked in the method
for processing limit and market orders depicted and discussed with
reference to FIG. 11. Limit order are adjusted for transaction fees
to reflect the preference that orders (after all "sell" orders have
been converted to buy orders) should only be executed when the
trader specifies that he is willing to pay the equilibrium "price,"
inclusive of transaction fees. The inclusion of fees in the "price"
produces the "offer" price. Therefore, in a preferred embodiment,
all or part of an order with a limit "price" which is greater than
or equal to the "offer" price should be executed in the final
equilibrium, and an order with a limit "price" lower than the
"offer" price of the final equilibrium should not be executed at
all. To ensure that this equilibrium condition obtains, in a
preferred embodiment the limit order "prices" specified by the
traders are adjusted for the transaction fee assessed for each
order before they are processed by the equilibrium calculation,
specifically the "add and prune" cycle discussed in Section 6 above
and with reference to FIG. 17 below, which involves the
recomputation of equilibrium "prices." Thus, the "add and prune"
cycle is performed with the adjusted limit order "prices."
[1300] Referring back to FIG. 16, which discloses the steps of the
function feeAdjustOrders( ) step 1601 initiates a control loop for
each order in the contract (contract.numOrders). The next step 1602
queries whether the order being considered is a market order
(order.marketLimit=1) or a limit order (order.marketLimit=0). A
market order is unconditional and in a preferred embodiment need
not be adjusted for the presence of transaction fee, i.e., it is
executed in full regardless of the "offer" side of the market.
Thus, if the order is market order, its "limit" price or implied
probability is set equal to one as shown in step 1604
(order[j].limitPrice=1). If the order being processed in the
control loop of step 1601 is a limit order, then step 1603 revises
the initial limit order by setting the new limit order "price"
equal to the initial limit order "price" less the transaction fee
(order.fee). In a preferred embodiment, this function is called
after all "sell" orders have been converted to buy orders, so that
the adjustment for all orders may involve only making the buy
orders less likely to be executed by adjusting their respective
limit "prices" down by the amount of the fee. After each adjustment
is made, the loop over the orders is incremented, as shown in step
1605. After all of the orders have been processed, the function
feeAdjustOrders( ) terminates as shown in step 1606.
[1301] FIG. 17 discloses a preferred embodiment of a method for
filling or addition and removal of lots in a DBAR DOE of the
present invention. The function fillRemoveLots( ) which is invoked
in the central "add and prune" cycle of FIG. 11, is depicted in
detail in FIG. 17. The function fillRemoveLots( ) implements the
method of binary search to determine the appropriate number of lots
to add (or "fill") or remove. in the preferred embodiment depicted
in FIG. 17, lots are filled or added when the function is called
with the first parameter equal to 1 and lots are removed when the
function is called with the first parameter equal to zero. The
first step of function fillRemoveLots( ) is indicated in step 1701.
If lots are to be removed, then the method of binary search will
try to find the minimum number of lots to be removed such that the
limit "price" of the order (order.limitPrice) is greater than or
equal to the recalculated equilibrium "price" (order.price). Thus,
if orders are to be removed, step 1701 sets the maxPremium variable
to the number of lots which are currently filled in the order, and
sets the minPremium variable to zero. In other words, in preferred
embodiments in a first iteration the method of binary search will
try to find a new number of lots somewhere on the interval between
the currently filled number of lots and zero, so that the number of
lots to be filled after the step is completed is the same or lower
than the number of lots currently filled. If lots are to be filled
or added, then the method of binary search sets the maxPremium
variable to the order amount (order.amount) since this is the
maximum amount that can be filled for any given order, and the
minimum amount equal to the currently filled amount
(minPremium=order.filled). That is, if lots are to be filled or
added, the method of binary search will try to find the maximum
number of lots that can be filled or added so that the new number
of filled between the current number of lots filled and the number
of lots requested in the order.
[1302] In the preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 17, step 1702
bisects the intervals for binary search created in step 1701 by
setting the variable midPremium equal to the mid point of the
interval created in step 1701. A calculation of equilibrium
"prices" or implied probabilities for the group of DBAR contingent
claims equilibrium calculation will then be attempted with the
number of lots for the relevant orders reflected by this midpoint,
which will be greater than the current amount filled if lots are to
be added and less than the current amount filled if lots are to be
removed.
[1303] Step 1703 queries whether any change (to within a tolerance)
in the mid-point of the interval has occurred between the last and
current iteration of the process. If no change has occurred, a new
order amount that can be filled has been found and is revised in
step 1708, and the function fillRemoveLots( ) terminates in step
1709. If the is different from the midpoint of last iteration, then
the new equilibrium is calculated with the greater (in the case of
addition) or lower (in the case of removal) number of lots as
specified in step 1702 of the binary search. In a preferred
embodiment the equilibrium "prices" are calculated with these new
fill amounts by the multistate allocation function, compEq( ),
which is described in detail with reference to FIG. 13. After the
invocation of the function compEq( ), each order will have a
current equilibrium "price" as reflected in the data structure
member order.price. The limit "price" of the order under
consideration (order[j])) is then compared to the new equilibrium
"price" of the order under consideration (order[j].price), as shown
in step 1705. If the limit "price" is worse, i.e., less than the
new equilibrium or market "price," then the binary search has
attempted to add too many lots and tries again with fewer lots. The
lesser number of lots with which to attempt the next iteration is
obtained by setting the new top end of the interval being bisected
to the number of lots just attempted (which turned out to be too
large). This step is depicted in step 1706 of the preferred
embodiment of FIG. 17. With the interval thus redefined and shifted
lower, a new midpoint is obtained in step 1702, and a new iteration
is performed. If, in step 1705, the newly calculated equilibrium
"price" is less than or equal to the order's limit price, then the
binary search will attempt to add or fill additional lots. In the
preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 17, the higher number of lots
to add is obtained in step 1707 by setting the lower end of the
search interval equal to the number of lots for which an
equilibrium calculation was performed in the previous iteration. A
new midpoint of the newly shifted higher interval is then obtained
in step 1702, so that the another iteration of the search may be
performed with a higher number of lots. As previously indicated,
once further iterations no longer change the number of lots that
are filled, as indicated in step 1703, the number of lots of the
current iteration is stored, as indicated in step 1708, and the
function fillRemoveLots( ) terminates, as indicated in step
1709.
[1304] FIG. 18 depicts a preferred embodiment of a method of
calculating payouts to traders in a DBAR DOE of the present
invention, once the realized state corresponding to the event of
economic significance or state of a selected financial product is
known. Step 1801 of FIG. 18 shows that the predetermined
termination criteria with respect to the submission of orders by
traders have been fulfilled, for example, the trading period has
ended at a previous time (time=t) and the final contingent claim
prices have been computed and finalized. Step 1802 confirms that
the event of economic significance or state of a financial product
has occurred (at a later time=T, where T.gtoreq.t) and that the
realized state is determined to be equal to state k. Thus,
according to step 1802, state k is the realized state. In the
preferred embodiment depicted in FIG. 18, step 1803 initializes a
control loop for each order in the contract (contract.numOrders).
For each order, the payout to the trader is calculated. In
preferred embodiments, the payout is a function of the amount
allocated to the realized state (order.invest[k]), the unit payout
of the realized state
(contract.totalInvested/contract.stateTotal[k]), and the
transaction fee of the order as a percentage of the order price
(order.fee/order.price). Other methods of allocating payouts net of
transaction fees are possible and would be apparent to one of
ordinary skill in the art.
[1305] The foregoing detailed description of the figures, and the
figures themselves, are designed to provide and explain specific
illustrations and examples of the embodiments of methods and
systems of the present invention. The purpose is to facilitate
increased understanding and appreciation of the present invention.
The detailed description and figures are not meant to limit either
the scope of the invention, its embodiments, or the ways in which
it may be implemented or practiced. To the contrary, additional
embodiments and their equivalents within the scope of this
invention will be apparent to those of skill in the art from
reviewing this specification or practicing this invention.
[1306] In the embodiment described in Section 7, the DBAR DOE
equilibrium is computed through a nonlinear optimization to
determine the equilibrium executed amount for each order, x.sub.j,
in terms of the notional payout received should any state of the
set of constituent states of a DBAR digital option occur (defined
by B), such that limit orders can be accepted and processed which
are expressed in terms of each trader's desired payout (r.sub.j).
The descriptions of FIGS. 19 and 20 that follow explain this
process in detail. Other aspects of this and other embodiments of
the present invention are depicted in FIGS. 21 to 25, referenced in
Sections 3, 8 and 9 of this specification.
[1307] Generally speaking, in this embodiment, as described in
Section 7, the DBAR DOE equilibrium executed amount for the orders
is arrived at by: [1308] (i) inputting into the system how many
orders (n) and how many states (m) are present in the contract;
[1309] (ii) for each order j, accepting specifications for order or
trade including: (1) if the order is a buy order or a "sell" order;
(2) requested notional payout size (r.sub.j); (3) if the order is
market order or limit order; (4) limit order price (w.sub.j) (or if
order is market order, then w.sub.j=1); (5) the payout profile or
set of defined states for which desired digital option is in-the
money (row j in matrix B); and (6) the transaction fee (f.sub.j).
[1310] (iii) loading contract and order data structures; [1311]
(iv) placing opening orders (initial invested premium for each
state, k.sub.i); [1312] (v) converting "sell" orders to
complementary buy orders simply by identifying the range of
complementary states being "sold" and, for each "sell" order j,
adjusting the limit "price" (w.sub.j) to one minus the original
limit "price" (1-w.sub.j); [1313] (vi) adjusting the limit "price"
to incorporate the transaction fee to produce an adjusted limit
price w.sub.j.sup.a for each order j; [1314] (vii) grouping the
limit orders by placing all of the limit orders which span or
comprise the same range of defined states into the same group;
[1315] (viii) sorting the orders upon the basis of the limit order
"prices" from the best (highest "price" buy) to the worst (lowest
"price" buy); [1316] (ix) establishing an initial iteration step
size, .alpha..sub.j(1), the current step size,
.alpha..sub.j(.kappa.), will equal the initial iteration step size,
.alpha..sub.j(1), until and unless adjusted in step (xii); [1317]
(x) calculating the equilibrium to obtain the total investment
amount T and the state probabilities, p's, using Newton-Raphson
solution of Equation 7.4.1(b); [1318] (xi) computing equilibrium
order prices (.pi..sub.j's) using the p's obtained in step (viii);
[1319] (xii) incrementing the orders (x.sub.j) which have adjusted
limit prices (w.sub.j.sup.a) greater than or equal to the current
equilibrium price for that order (.pi..sub.k) from step (ix) by the
current step size .alpha..sub.j(.kappa.); [1320] (xiii)
decrementing the orders (x.sub.j) which have limit prices (w.sub.j)
less than the current equilibrium price for that order (.pi..sub.j)
from step (ix) by the current step size .alpha..sub.j(.kappa.);
[1321] (xiv) repeating steps (ix) to (xii) in subsequent iterations
until the values obtained for the executed order notional payouts
achieve a desired convergence, adjusting the current step size
.alpha..sub.k(.kappa.) and/or the iteration process after the
initial iteration to further progress towards the desired
convergence; [1322] (xv) achieving a desired convergence (along
with a final equilibrium of the prices p's and the total premium
invested T) of the maximum executed notional payout orders x.sub.j
when predetermined convergence criteria are met; [1323] (xvi)
taking the "prices" resulting from the solution final equilibrium
resulting from step (xiii) and adding any applicable transaction
fee to obtain the offer "price" for each respective contingent
claim ordered and subtracting any applicable transaction fee to
obtain the bid "price" for each respective contingent claim
ordered; and [1324] (xvii) upon fulfillment of all of the
termination criteria related to the event of economic significance
or state of a selected financial product, allocating payouts to
those orders which have investments on the realized state, where
such payouts are responsive to the final equilibrium "prices" of
the orders' contingent claims and the transaction fees for such
orders.
[1325] Referring to FIG. 19, illustrative data structures are
depicted which may be used to store and manipulate the data
relevant to the DBAR DOE embodiment described in Section 7 (as well
as other embodiments of the present invention): data structures for
a "contract" (1901), for a "state" (1902) and for an "order"
(1903). Each data structure is described below, however it is
understood that depending on the actual implementation of the
stepping iterative algorithm, different data members or additional
data members may be used to solve the optimization problem in
7.7.1.
[1326] The data structure for a "contract" or group of DBAR
contingent claims, shown in 1901, includes data members which store
data which are relevant to the construction of the DBAR DOE
contract or group of claims under the embodiment described in
Section 7 (as well under other embodiments of the present
invention). Specifically, the contract data structure includes the
following members (also listing the variables denoted by such
members as described above, if any, and proposed member names for
later programming the stepping iterative algorithm): [1327] (i) the
number of defined states i (m, contract.numStates); [1328] (ii) the
total premium invested in the contract (T, contract.totallnvested);
[1329] (iii) the number of orders j (n, contract.numOrders); [1330]
(iv) a list of the orders and each order's data (contract.orders [
]); and [1331] (v) a list of the states and each state's data
(contract.states [ ]).
[1332] The data structure for a "state", shown in 1902, includes
data members which store data which are relevant to the
construction of each DBAR DOE state (or spread or strip) under the
embodiment described in Section 7, as well as under other
embodiments of the present invention. Specifically, each state data
structure includes the following members (also listing the
variables denoted by such members as described above, if any, and
proposed member names for later programming the stepping iterative
algorithm): [1333] (i) the total premium invested in each state i
(T.sub.i, state.stateTotal); [1334] (ii) the executed notional
payout per defined state i (y.sub.i, state.poReturn[ ]); [1335]
(iii) the price/probability for each state i (p.sub.i,
state.statePrice); and [1336] (iv) the initial invested premium for
each state i to initialize the contract (k.sub.i,
state.initialState).
[1337] The data structure for an "order", shown in 1903, includes
data members which store data which are relevant to the
construction of each DBAR DOE order under the embodiment described
in Section 7, as well as under other embodiments of the present
invention. Specifically, each order data structure includes the
following members (also listing the variables denoted by such
members as described above, if any, and proposed member names for
later programming the stepping iterative algorithm): [1338] (i) the
limit price for each order j (w.sub.j, order.limitPrice); [1339]
(ii) the executed notional payout per order j, net of fees, after
all predetermined termination criteria have been met (x.sub.j,
order.executedPayout); [1340] (iii) the equilibrium
price/probability for each order j (.pi..sub.j, order.orderPrice);
[1341] (iv) the payout profile for each order j (row j of B,
order.ratio[ ]), specifically it is a vector which specifies the
type of contingent claim to be traded (order.ratio[ ]). For
example, in an embodiment involving a contract with seven defined
states, an order for a digital call option which would expire in
the money should any of the last four states occur would be
rendered in the data member order. ratio[ ] as
order.ratio[0,0,0,1,1,1,1] where the 1's indicate that the same
payout should be generated by the multistate allocation process
when the digital option is in the money, and the 0's indicate that
the option is out of the money, or expires on one of the respective
out of the money states. As another example, a spread which is in
the money should states either states 1,2, 6, or 7 occur would be
rendered as ordersatio[1,1,0,0,0,1,1]. As another example, a
digital option strip, which allows a trader to specify the relative
ratios of the final payouts owing to an investment in such a
contingent claim would be rendered using the ratios over which the
strip is in the money. For example, if a trader desires a strip
which pays out three times much as state 3 should state 1 occur,
and twice as much as state 3 if state 2 occurs, the strip would be
rendered as order.ratio[3,2,1,0,0,0,0]. In other words, the vector
stores integers which indicate the range of states in which an
investment is to be made in order to generate the payout profile of
the contingent claim desired by the trader placing the order.
[1342] (v) the transaction fee for each order j (f.sub.j,
order.fee); [1343] (vi) the requested notional payout per order j
(r.sub.j, order.requestedPayout); [1344] (vii) whether order j is a
limit order whose viability for execution is conditional upon the
final equilibrium "price" being below the limit price after all
predetermined termination criteria have been met, or whether order
j is a market order, which is unconditional (order.marketLimit=0
for a limit order, =1 for a market order); [1345] (viii) whether
order j is a buy order or a "sell" order (order.buySell=1 for a
buy, and =-1 for a "sell"); and [1346] (ix) the difference between
market price and limit price per order j (g.sub.j,
order.priceGap).
[1347] FIG. 20 depicts a logical diagram of the basic steps for
limit and market order processing in the embodiment of a DBAR DOE
described in Section 7, which can be applied to other embodiments
of the present invention. Step 2001 of FIG. 20 inputs into the
system how many orders (contract.numOrders) and how many states
(contract.numStates) are present in the contract. Then, in step
2002, the computer system accepts specifications from the trader or
user for each order, including: (1) if order is a buy order or a
"sell" order (order.buySell); (2) requested notional payout size
(order.requestedPayout); (3) if order is market order or limit
order (order.marketLimit); (4) limit order price (order.limitPrice)
(or if order is market order, then order.limitPrice=1); (5) the
payout profile or set of defined states for which desired digital
option is in-the money (order.ratio[ ]); and (6) transaction fee
(order.fee).
[1348] Step 2003 of FIG. 20 loads the relevant data into the
contract, state and order data structures of FIG. 19. The initial
value of order.executedPayout and state.poReturn are set at
zero.
[1349] Step 2004 initializes the set of DBAR contingent claims, or
the "contract," by placing initial amounts of value units (i.e.,
initial liquidity) in each state of the set of defined states. The
placement of initial liquidity avoids a singularity in any of the
defined states (e.g., an invested amount in a given defined state
equal to zero) which may tend to impede multistate allocation
calculations. The initialization of step 2004 may be done in a
variety of different ways. In this embodiment, a small quantity of
value units is placed in each of the defined states. For example, a
single value unit ("lot") may be placed in each defined state where
the single value unit is expected to be small in relation to the
total amount of volume to be transacted. In step 2004 of FIG. 20,
the initial value units are represented in the vector
init[contract.numStates].
[1350] In this embodiment, step 2005 of FIG. 20 invokes the
function adjustLimitPrice( ) which converts the limit order price
of the "sell" orders to the limit order price of complementary buy
orders, and adjusts the limit order prices to account for the
transaction fee charged for the order (subtracting the fee from the
limit order price for a buy order and subtracting the fee from the
converted limit order price for a "sell" order). After the
completion of step 2005, all of the limit order prices for
contingent claims--whether buy or "sell" orders, can be processed
as buy orders together, and the limit order prices are adjusted
with fees for the purpose of the ensuing equilibrium
calculations.
[1351] In this embodiment, step 2006 groups these buy orders based
upon the distinct ranges of states spanned by the contingent claims
specified in the orders. The range of states comprising the order
are contained in the data member order.ratio[ ] of the order data
structure 1903 depicted in FIG. 19. As with the DBAR DOE embodiment
discussed in section 6 and FIG. 12 above and other embodiments of
the present invention, each distinct order[j].ratio[ ] vector in
step 2006 in FIG. 20 is grouped separately from the others in step
2006. Two order[j].ratio[ ] vectors are distinct for different
orders when their difference yields a vector that does not contain
zero in every element. For example, for a contract which contains
seven defined states, a digital put option which spans that first
three states has an order[1].ratio[ ] vector equal to
(1,1,1,0,0,0,0). A digital call option which spans the last five
states has an order[2].ratio[ ] vector equal to (0,0,1,1,1,1,1).
Because the difference of these two vectors is equal to
(1,1,0,-1,-1,-1,-1), these two orders should be placed into
distinct groups, as indicated in step 2006.
[1352] In this embodiment, step 2006 aggregates orders into
relevant groups for processing. For the purposes of processing
limit orders: (i) all orders may be treated as limit orders since
orders without limit "price" conditions, e.g., "market orders," can
be rendered as limit buy orders (including "sale" orders converted
to buy orders in step 2005) with limit "prices" of 1, and (ii) all
order sizes are processed by treating them as multiple orders of
the smallest value unit or "lot."
[1353] The relevant groups of step 2006 of FIG. 20 are termed
"composite" since they may span, or comprise, more than one of the
defined states. For example, the MSFT Digital Option contract
depicted above in Table 6.2.1 has defined states (0,30], (30,40],
(40,50], (50,60], (60, 70], (70, 80], and (80,00]. The 40 strike
call options therefore span the five states (40,50], (50,60], (60,
70], (70, 80], and (80,00]. A "sale" of a 40 strike put, for
example, would be aggregated into the same group for the purposes
of step 2004 of FIG. 20, because the "sell" limit order of a 40
strike put has been converted at step 2005 into a complementary buy
order of a 40 strike call simply by converting the limit order
price for the put order into the complementary limit order price of
the call order.
[1354] Similar to step 1206 of DBAR DOE embodiment described with
reference to FIG. 12, at the point of step 2007 of this embodiment
shown in FIG. 20, all of the orders may be processed as buy orders
(because any "sell" orders have been converted to buy orders in
step 2005 of FIG. 20) and all limit "prices" have been adjusted
(with the exception of market orders which, in an embodiment of the
DBAR DOE or other embodiments of the present invention, have a
limit "price" equal to one) to reflect transaction costs equal to
the fee specified for the order's contingent claim (as contained in
the data member order[j].fee).
[1355] In this embodiment, step 2007 sorts each group's orders
based upon their fee-adjusted limit "prices," from best (highest
"prices") to worst (lowest "prices"). The grouped orders follow the
same aggregation as illustrated in Diagram 1 shown in FIG. 27, and
in Section 6. Step 2008 establishes an initial iteration step size,
init[order.stepSize], the current step size, order.stepSize, will
equal the initial iteration step size until and unless adjusted in
step 2018.
[1356] Initially as part of a first iteration (numlteration=1)
(2009a), and later as part of subsequent iterations, step 2009
invokes the function findTotal( ) which calculates the equilibrium
of Equation 7.4.7 to obtain the total investment amount
(contract.totallnvested) and the state probabilities
(state.statePrice). Step 2010 invokes the function findOrderPrices(
) which computes the equilibrium order prices (order.orderPrice)
using the state probabilities (state.statePrice) obtained in step
2009. The equilibrium order price for each order (order.orderPrice)
is equal to the payout profile for the order (order.ratio[ ])
multiplied with a vector made up of the probabilities for all
states i (state. statePrice[contract.numStates]).
[1357] Proceeding with the next step of this embodiment depicted in
FIG. 20, step 2011 queries whether there is at least a single order
which has a limit "price" which is "better" than the current
equilibrium "price" for the ordered option. In this embodiment, for
the first iteration of step 2011 for a trading period for a group
of DBAR contingent claims, the current equilibrium "prices" reflect
the placement of the initial liquidity from step 2004. Step 2012
invokes the incrementing( ) function, which increments the executed
notional payout (order.executedPayout) with the current step size
(order.stepSize) for each order which has a limit price
(order.limitPrice) greater than or equal to the current equilibrium
price for that order (order.orderPrice) obtained from step 2010
(however, in this embodiment, such incrementing should not exceed
the order's requested payout r.sub.j).
[1358] Similarly, step 2013 queries whether there is at least a
single order which has a limit "price" which is "worse" than the
current equilibrium "price" for the ordered option. Step 2014
invokes the decrementing( ) function, which decrements the executed
notional payout (order.executedPayout) with the current step size
(order.stepSize) for each order which has a limit price
(order.limitPrice) less than the current equilibrium price for that
order (order.orderPrice) obtained from step 2010 (but, in this
embodiment, such decrementing should not produce an executed order
payout below zero).
[1359] This embodiment of the DBAR DOE (described in Section 7)
simplifies the complex comparison and removes the necessity of the
"add" and "prune" method for buy and "sell" orders in the DBAR DOE
embodiment described in Section 6. In this embodiment (depicted in
FIG. 20), once the limit order price for "sell" orders has been
converted to a complementary limit order price for a buy order,
with both types of orders already being expressed in terms of
payout, the notional payout executed for either a buy or a "sell"
order (order.executedPayout) is simply incremented by the current
step size (order.stepSize) if the limit order price
(order.limitPrice) is greater than or equal to the current
equilibrium price (order.orderPrice), and decremented by the
current step size (order.stepSize) if the limit order price
(order.limitPrice) is less than the current equilibrium price
(order.orderPrice).
[1360] In step 2015, the counter for the iteration (numIteration)
is incremented by 1. Repeat steps 2009 to 2014 for a second
iteration (until numIteration=3). Step 2016 queries whether the
quantities calculated for the executed notional payouts for the
orders (order.executedPayout) are converging, and whether the
convergence needs to be accelerated. If the executed notional
payouts calculated in 2014 are not converging or the convergence
needs to be accelerated, step 2017 queries if the step size
(order.stepSize) needs to be adjusted. If the step size needs to be
adjusted, step 2018 adjusts the step size (order.stepSize). Step
2019 queries if the iteration process needs to accelerated. Step
2020 initiates a linear program if the iteration process needs to
be accelerated. Then, the iteration process (steps 2009 to 2014) is
repeated, again.
[1361] However, if after step 2016, the quantities calculated for
the executed notional payouts for the orders (order.executedPayout)
have converged (according to some possibly predetermined or
dynamically determined convergence criteria), then the iteration
process is complete, and the desired convergence has been achieved
in step 2021, along with a final equilibrium of the order prices
(order.orderPrice) and total premium invested in the contract
(contract.totalInvested), and determination of the maximum executed
notional payouts for the orders (order.executedPayout).
[1362] In step 2022, the order price, not including transaction
fees, is calculated by adding any applicable transaction fee
(order.fee) to the equilibrium order price (order.orderPrice) to
produce the equilibrium offer price, and subtracting any applicable
transaction fee (order.fee) to the equilibrium order price
(order.orderPrice) to produce the equilibrium bid price.
[1363] In step 2023, upon fulfillment of all of the termination
criteria related to the event of economic significance or state of
a selected financial product, allocating payouts to those orders
which have investments on the realized state, where such payouts
are responsive to the final equilibrium "prices" of the orders'
contingent claims (order.orderPrice) and the transaction fees for
such orders (order.fee).
[1364] The steps and data structures described above and shown in
FIGS. 11 to 25 for embodiments of DBAR digital options (discussed,
for example, in Sections 6 and 7 herein) and an embodiment of a
demand-based market or auction for structured financial products
(discussed, for example, in Section 9 herein), can be implemented
within the computer system described above in reference to FIGS. 1
to 10, as well as in other embodiments of the present invention.
The computer system can include one or more parallel processors to
run, for example, the linear program for the optimization solution
(Section 7), and/or to run one or more functions in the DRF or OPF
in parallel with a main processor in the acceptance and processing
of any DBAR contingent claims, including digital options. For DBAR
digital options, in addition to determining and allocating a payout
at the end of the trading period, the trader or user or investor
specifies and inputs a desired payout, a selected outcome and a
limit order price (if any) into the system during the trading
period, and the system determines the investment amount for the
order at the end of the trading period along with an allocation of
payouts. In other words, the processor and other components
(including computer usable medium having computer readable program
code, and computer usable information storage medium encoded with a
computer-readable data structure) causes the computer system to
accept inputs of information related to a DBAR digital option or to
other DBAR contingent claims, perhaps by way of a propagated signal
or from a remote terminal by way of the Internet or a private
network with dedicated circuits, including each trader's identity,
and the desired payout, payout profile, and limit price for each
order, then throughout the trading period the computer system
updates the allocation of payouts per order and the investment
amounts per order, and communicates these updated amounts to the
trader (and, in the case of other DBAR contingent claims, inputted
information may include the investment amount so that the computer
system can allocate payouts per defined state). At the end of the
trading period, the computer system determines a finalized
investment amount per order (for DBAR digital options) and
allocation of payouts per order if the states selected in the order
become the states corresponding to the observed outcome of the
event of economic significance. In the above DBAR digital option
embodiments, the orders are executed after the end of the trading
period at these finalized amounts. The determination of the
investment amount and payout allocation can be accomplished using
any of the embodiments disclosed herein, alone or in combination
with each other.
[1365] Additionally, the implementations in a computer system (or
with a network implementation) and the methods described herein to
determine the investment amount and payout allocation as a function
of the desired payout, selected outcomes, and limit order prices
for each order placed in a DBAR digital options market or auction
(or to determine the payout as a function of the selected outcomes,
and investment amounts for each order in other embodiments of DBAR
contingent claims), can be used by a broker to provide financial
advice to his/her customers by helping them determine when they
should invest in a DBAR digital options market or auction based on
the type of return they would like to receive, the outcomes they
would like to select, and the limit order price (if any) that they
would like to pay or if they should invest in another DBAR
contingent claim market or auction based on the amount they would
like to invest, their selected outcomes and other information as
described herein.
[1366] Similarly; the implementations and methods described herein
can be used by an investor as a method of hedging for any of the
types of economic events (including any underlying economic events
or measured parameters of an underlying economic event as discussed
above, including Section 3). Hedging involves determining an
investment risk in an existing portfolio (even if it includes only
one investment) or determining a risk in an asset portfolio (a risk
in a lower farm output due to bad weather, for example), and
offsetting that risk by taking a position in a DBAR digital option
or other DBAR contingent claim that has an opposing risk. On the
flip side, if a trader is interested in increasing the risk in an
existing portfolio of investments or assets, the DBAR digital
option or other DBAR contingent claim is a good tool for
speculation. Again, the trader determines the investment risk in
their asset or investment portfolio, but then takes a position in
DBAR digital option or other DBAR contingent claim with a similar
risk.
[1367] The DBAR digital option described above is one type of
instrument for trading in a demand-based market or auction. The
digital option sets forth designations of information which are the
parameters of the option (like a coupon rate for a Treasury bill),
such as the payout profile (corresponding to the selected outcomes
for the option to be in-the-money), the desired payout of the
option, and the limit order price of the option (if any). Other
DBAR contingent claims described above are other types of
instruments for trading in a demand-based market or auction. They
set forth parameters including the investment amount and the payout
profile. All instruments are investment vehicles providing
investment capital into a demand-based market or auction in the
manner described herein.
11. ADVANTAGES OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
[1368] This specification sets forth principles, methods, and
systems that provide trading and investment in groups of DBAR
contingent claims, and the establishment and operation of markets
and exchanges for such claims. Advantages of the present invention
as it applies to the trading and investment in derivatives and
other contingent claims include: [1369] (1) Increased liquidity:
Groups of DBAR contingent claims and exchanges for investing in
them according to the present invention offer increased liquidity
for the following reasons: [1370] (a) Reduced dynamic hedging by
market makers. In preferred embodiments, an exchange or market
maker for contingent claims does not need to hedge in the market.
In such embodiments, all that is required for a well-functioning
contingent claims market is a set of observable underlying
real-world events reflecting sources of financial or economic risk.
For example, the quantity of any given financial product available
at any given price can be irrelevant in a system of the present
invention. [1371] (b) Reduced order crossing. Traditional and
electronic exchanges typically employ sophisticated algorithms for
market and limit order book bid/offer crossing. In preferred
embodiments of the present invention, there are no bids and offers
to cross. A trader who desires to "unwind" an investment will
instead make a complementary investment, thereby hedging his
exposure. [1372] (c) No permanent liquidity charge: In the DBAR
market, only the final returns are used to compute payouts.
Liquidity variations and the vagaries of execution in the
traditional markets do not, in preferred embodiments, impose a
permanent tax or toll as they typically do in traditional markets.
In any event, in preferred embodiments of the present invention,
liquidity effects of amounts invested in groups of DBAR claims are
readily calculable and available to all traders. Such information
is not readily available in traditional markets. [1373] (2) Reduced
credit risk: In preferred embodiments of the present invention, the
exchange or dealer has greatly increased assurance of recovering
its transaction fee. It therefore has reduced exposure to market
risk. In preferred embodiments, the primary function of the
exchange is to redistribute returns to successful investments from
losses incurred by unsuccessful investments. By implication,
traders who use systems of the present invention can enjoy limited
liability, even for short positions, and a diversification of
counterparty credit risk. [1374] (3) Increased Scalability: The
pricing methods in preferred embodiments of systems and methods of
the present invention for investing in groups of DBAR contingent
claims are not tied to the physical quantity of underlying
financial products available for hedging. In preferred embodiments
an exchange therefore can accommodate a very large community of
users at lower marginal costs. [1375] (4) Improved Information
Aggregation: Markets and exchanges according to the present
invention provide mechanisms for efficient aggregation of
information related to investor demand, implied probabilities of
various outcomes, and price. [1376] (5) Increased Price
Transparency: Preferred embodiments of systems and methods of the
present invention for investing in groups of DBAR contingent claims
determine returns as functions of amounts invested. By contrast,
prices in traditional derivatives markets are customarily available
for fixed quantities only and are typically determined by complex
interactions of supply/demand and overall liquidity conditions. For
example, in a preferred embodiment of a canonical DRF for a group
of DBAR contingent claims of the present invention, returns for a
particular defined state are allocated based on a function of the
ratio of the total amount invested across the distribution of
states to the amount on the particular state. [1377] (6) Reduced
settlement or clearing costs: In preferred embodiments of systems
and methods for investing in groups of DBAR contingent claims, an
exchange need not, and typically will not, have a need to transact
in the underlying physical financial products on which a group of
DBAR contingent claims may be based. Securities and derivatives in
those products need not be transferred, pledged, or otherwise
assigned for value by the exchange, so that, in preferred
embodiments, it does not need the infrastructure which is typically
required for these back office activities. [1378] (7) Reduced
hedging costs: In traditional derivatives markets, market makers
continually adjust their portfolio of risk exposures in order to
mitigate risks of bankruptcy and to maximize expected profit.
Portfolio adjustments, or dynamic hedges, however, are usually very
costly. In preferred embodiments of systems and methods for
investing in groups of DBAR contingent claims, unsuccessful
investments hedge the successful investments. As a consequence, in
such preferred embodiments, the need for an exchange or market
maker to hedge is greatly reduced, if not eliminated. [1379] (8)
Reduced model risk: In traditional markets, derivatives dealers
often add "model insurance" to the prices they quote to customers
to protect against unhedgable deviations from prices otherwise
indicated by valuation models. In the present invention, the price
of an investment in a defined state derives directly from the
expectations of other traders as to the expected distribution of
market returns. As a result, in such embodiments, sophisticated
derivative valuation models are not essential. Transaction costs
are thereby lowered due to the increased price transparency and
tractability offered by the systems and methods of the present
invention. [1380] (9) Reduced event risk: In preferred embodiments
of systems and methods of the present invention for investing in
groups of DBAR contingent claims, trader expectations are solicited
over an entire distribution of future event outcomes. In such
embodiments, expectations of market crashes, for example, are
directly observable from indicated returns, which transparently
reveal trader expectations for an entire distributions of future
event outcomes. Additionally, in such embodiments, a market maker
or exchange bears greatly reduced market crash or "gap" risk, and
the costs of derivatives need not reflect an insurance premium for
discontinuous market events. [1381] (10) Generation of Valuable
Data: Traditional financial product exchanges usually attach a
proprietary interest in the real-time and historical data that is
generated as a by-product from trading activity and market making.
These data include, for example, price and volume quotations at the
bid and offer side of the market. In traditional markets, price is
a "sufficient statistic" for market participants and this is the
information that is most desired by data subscribers. In preferred
embodiments of systems and methods of the present invention for
investing in groups of DBAR contingent claims, the scope of data
generation may be greatly expanded to include investor expectations
of the entire distribution of possible outcomes for respective
future events on which a group of DBAR contingent claims can be
based. This type of information (e.g., did the distribution at time
t reflect traders' expectations of a market crash which occurred at
time t+1?) can be used to improve market operation. Currently, this
type of distributional information can be derived only with great
difficulty by collecting panels of option price data at different
strike prices for a given financial product, using the methods
originated in 1978 by the economists Litzenberger and Breeden and
other similar methods known to someone of skill in the art.
Investors and others must then perform difficult calculations on
these data to extract underlying distributions. In preferred
embodiments of the present invention, such distributions are
directly available. [1382] (11) Expanded Market for Contingent
Claims: Another advantage of the present invention is that it
enables a well functioning market for contingent claims. Such a
market enables traders to hedge directly against events that are
not readily hedgable or insurable in traditional markets, such as
changes in mortgage payment indices, changes in real estate
valuation indices, and corporate earnings announcements. A
contingent claims market operating according to the systems and
methods of the present invention can in principle cover all events
of economic significance for which there exists a demand for
insurance or hedging. [1383] (12) Price Discovery: Another
advantage of systems and methods of the present invention for
investing in groups of DBAR contingent claims is the provision, in
preferred embodiments, of a returns adjustment mechanism ("price
discovery"). In traditional capital markets, a trader who takes a
large position in relation to overall liquidity often creates the
risk to the market that price discovery will break down in the
event of a shock or liquidity crisis. For example, during the fall
of 1998, Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) was unable to
liquidate its inordinately large positions in response to an
external shock to the credit market, i.e., the pending default of
Russia on some of its debt obligations. This risk to the system was
externalized to not only the creditors of LTCM, but also to others
in the credit markets for whom liquid markets disappeared. By
contrast, in a preferred embodiment of a group of DBAR contingent
claims according to the present invention, LTCM's own trades in a
group of DBAR contingent claims would have lowered the returns to
the states invested in dramatically, thereby reducing the incentive
to make further large, and possibly destabilizing, investments in
those same states. Furthermore, an exchange for a group of DBAR
contingent claims according to the present invention could still
have operated, albeit at frequently adjusted returns, even during,
for example, the most acute phases of the 1998 Russian bond crisis.
For example, had a market in a DBAR range derivative existed which
elicited trader expectations on the distribution of spreads between
high-grade United States Treasury securities and lower-grade debt
instruments, LTCM could have "hedged" its own speculative positions
in the lower-grade instruments by making investment in the DBAR
range derivatives in which it would profit as credit spreads
widened. Of course, its positions by necessity would have been
sizable thereby driving the returns on its position dramatically
lower (i.e., effectively liquidating its existing position at less
favorable prices). Nevertheless, an exchange according to preferred
embodiments of the present invention could have provided increased
liquidity compared to that of the traditional markets. [1384] (13)
Improved Offers of Liquidity to the Market: As explained above, in
preferred embodiments of groups of DBAR contingent claims according
to the present invention, once an investment has been made it can
be offset by making an investment in proportion to the prevailing
traded amounts invested in the complement states and the original
invested state. By not allowing trades to be removed or cancelled
outright, preferred embodiments promote two advantages: [1385] (1)
reducing strategic behavior ("returns-jiggling") [1386] (2)
increasing liquidity to the market [1387] In other words, preferred
embodiments of the present invention reduce the ability of traders
to make and withdraw large investments merely to create
false-signals to other participants in the hopes of creating
last-minute changes in closing returns. Moreover, in preferred
embodiments, the liquidity of the market over the entire
distribution of states is information readily available to traders
and such liquidity, in preferred embodiments, may not be withdrawn
during the trading periods. Such preferred embodiments of the
present invention thus provide essentially binding commitments of
liquidity to the market guaranteed not to disappear. [1388] (14)
Increased Liquidity Incentives: In preferred embodiments of the
systems and methods of the present invention for trading or
investing in groups of DBAR contingent claims, incentives are
created to provide liquidity over the distribution of states where
it is needed most. On average, in preferred embodiments, the
implied probabilities resulting from invested amounts in each
defined state should be related to the actual probabilities of the
states, so liquidity should be provided in proportion to the actual
probabilities of each state across the distribution. The
traditional markets do not have such ready self-equilibrating
liquidity mechanisms--e.g., far out-of-the-money options might have
no liquidity or might be excessively traded. In any event,
traditional markets do not generally provide the strong
(analytical) relationship between liquidity, prices, and
probabilities so readily available in trading in groups of DBAR
contingent claims according to the present invention. [1389] (15)
Improved Self-Consistency: Traditional markets customarily have
"no-arbitrage" relationships such as put-call parity for options
and interest-rate parity for interest rates and currencies. These
relationships typically must (and do) hold to prevent risk-less
arbitrage and to provide consistency checks or benchmarks for
no-arbitrage pricing. In preferred embodiments of systems and
methods of the present invention for trading or investing in groups
of DBAR contingent claims, in addition to such "no-arbitrage"
relationships, the sum of the implied probabilities over the
distribution of defined states is known to all traders to equal
unity. Using the notation developed above, the following relations
hold for a group of DBAR contingent claims using a canonical
DRF:
[1389] r i = ( 1 - f ) * i T i T i - 1 ( a ) q i = 1 - f r i + 1 =
T i i T i ( b ) i q i = 1 ( c ) ##EQU00099## [1390] In other words,
in a preferred embodiment, the sum across a simple function of all
implied probabilities is equal to the sum of the amount traded for
each defined state divided by the total amount traded. In such an
embodiment, this sum equals 1. This internal consistency check has
no salient equivalent in the traditional markets where complex
calculations are typically required to be performed on illiquid
options price data in order to recover the implied probability
distributions. [1391] (16) Facilitated Marginal Returns
Calculations: In preferred embodiments of systems and methods of
the present invention for trading and investing in groups of DBAR
contingent claims, marginal returns may also be calculated readily.
Marginal returns r.sup.m are those that prevail in any sub-period
of a trading period, and can be calculated as follows:
[1391] r i , t - 1 , t m = r i , t * T i , t - r i , t - 1 * T i ,
t - 1 T i , t - T i , t - 1 ( 1 ) ##EQU00100## [1392] where the
left hand side is the marginal returns for state i between times
t-1 and t; r.sub.i,t and r.sub.i,t-1 are the unit returns for state
i at times t, and t-1, and T.sub.i,t and T.sub.i,t-1 are the
amounts invested in state i at times t and t-1, respectively.
[1393] In preferred embodiments, the marginal returns can be
displayed to provide important information to traders and others as
to the adjustment throughout a trading period. In systems and
methods of the present invention, marginal returns may be more
variable (depending on the size of the time increment among other
factors) than the returns which apply to the entire trading period.
[1394] (17) Reduced Influence By Market Makers: In preferred
embodiments of the systems and methods of the present invention,
because returns are driven by demand, the role of the supply side
market maker is reduced if not eliminated. A typical market maker
in the traditional markets (such as an NYSE specialist or a swaps
book-runner) typically has privileged access to information (e.g.,
the limit order book) and potential conflicts of interest deriving
from dual roles as principal (i.e., proprietary trader) and market
maker. In preferred embodiments of the present invention, all
traders have greater information (e.g., investment amounts across
entire distribution of states) and there is no supply-side conflict
of interest. [1395] (18) Increased Ability to Generate and
Replicate Arbitrary Payout Distributions: In preferred embodiments
of the systems and methods of the present invention for investing
and trading in groups of DBAR contingent claims, traders may
generate their own desired distributions of payouts, i.e., payouts
can be customized very readily by varying amounts invested across
the distribution of defined states. This is significant since
groups of DBAR contingent claims can be used to readily replicate
payout distributions with which traders are familiar from the
traditional markets, such as long stock positions, long and short
futures positions, long options straddle positions, etc.
Importantly, as discussed above, in preferred embodiments of the
present invention, the payout distributions corresponding to such
positions can be effectively replicated with minimal expense and
difficulty by having a DBAR contingent claim exchange perform
multi-state allocations. For example, as discussed in detail in
Section 6 and with reference to FIGS. 11-18, in preferred
embodiments of the system and methods of the present invention,
payout distributions of investments in DBAR contingent claims can
be comparable to the payout distributions expected by traders for
purchases and sales of digital put and call options in conventional
derivatives markets. While the payout distributions may be
comparable, the systems and methods of the present invention,
unlike conventional markets, do not require the presence of sellers
of the options or the matching of buy and sell orders. [1396] (19)
Rapid implementation: In various embodiments of the systems and
methods of the present invention for investing and trading in
groups of DBAR contingent claims, the new derivatives and risk
management products are processed identically to derivative
instruments traded in the over-the-counter (OTC) markets, regulated
identically to derivative instruments traded in the OTC markets and
conform to credit and compliance standards employed in OTC
derivatives markets. The product integrates with the practices,
culture and operations of existing capital and asset markets as
well as lends itself to customized applications and objectives.
[1397] In addition to the above advantages, the demand-based
trading system may also provide the following benefits: [1398] (1)
Aggregation of liquidity: Fragmentation of liquidity, which occurs
when trading is spread across numerous strike prices, can inhibit
the development of an efficient options market. In a demand-based
market or auction, no fragmentation occurs because all strikes fund
each other. Interest in any strike provides liquidity for all other
strikes. Batching orders across time and strike price into a
demand-based limit order book is an important feature of
demand-based trading technology and is the primary means of
fostering additional liquidity. [1399] (2) Limited liability: A
unique feature of demand-based trading products is their limited
liability nature. Conventional options offer limited liability for
purchases only. Demand-based trading digital options and other DBAR
contingent claims have the additional benefit of providing a known,
finite liability to option sellers, based on the notional amount of
the option traded. This will provide additional comfort for short
sellers and consequently will attract additional liquidity,
especially for out-of-the money options. [1400] (3)
Visibility/Transparency: Customers trading in demand-based trading
products can gain access to unprecedented transparency when
entering and viewing orders. Prices for demand-based trading
products (such as digital options) at each strike price can be
displayed at all times, along with the volume of orders that would
be cleared at the indicated price. A limit order book displaying
limit orders by strike can be accessible to all customers. Finally,
the probability distribution resulting from all successful orders
in the market or auction can be displayed in a familiar histogram
form, allowing market participants to see the market's true
consensus estimate for possible future outcomes. [1401]
Demand-based trading solutions can use digital options, which may
have advantages for measuring market expectations: the price of the
digital option is simply the consensus probability of the specific
event occurring. Since the interpretation of the pricing is direct,
no model is required and no ambiguity exists when determining
market expectations. [1402] (4) Efficiency: Bid/Ask spreads in
demand-based trading products can be a fraction of those for
options in traditional markets. The cost-efficient nature of the
demand-based trading mechanism translates directly into increased
liquidity available for taking positions. [1403] (5) Enhancing
returns with superior forecasting: Managers with superior expertise
can benefit from insights, generating significant incremental
returns without exposure to market volatility. Managers may find
access to digital options and other DBAR contingent claims useful
for dampening the effect of short-term volatility of their
underlying portfolios. [1404] (6) Arbitrage: Many capital market
participants engage in macroeconomic `arbitrage.` Investors with
skill in economic and financial analysis can detect imbalances in
different sectors of the economy, or between the financial and real
economies, and exploit them using DBAR contingent claims,
including, for example, digital options, based on economic events,
such as changes in values of economic statistics.
12. TECHNICAL APPENDIX
[1405] This technical appendix provides the mathematical foundation
underlying the computer code listing of Table 1: Illustrative
Visual Basic Computer Code for Solving CDRF 2. That computer code
listing implements a procedure for solving the Canonical Demand
Reallocation Function (CDRF 2) by preferred means which one of
ordinary skill in the art will recognize are based upon the
application of a mathematical method known as fixed point
iteration.
[1406] As previously indicated in the specification, the
simultaneous system embodied by CDRF 2 does not provide an explicit
solution and typically would require the use of numerical methods
to solve the simultaneous quadratic equations included in the
system. In general, such systems would typically be solved by what
are commonly known as "grid search" routines such as the
Newton-Raphson method, in which an initial solution or guess at a
solution is improved by extracting information from the numerical
derivatives of the functions embodied in the simultaneous
system.
[1407] One of the important advantages of the demand-based trading
methods of the present invention is the careful construction of
CDRF 2 which allows for the application of fixed point iteration as
a means for providing a numerical solution of CDRF 2. Fixed point
iteration means are generally more reliable and computationally
less burdensome than grid search routines, as the computer code
listing in Graph 12.1 shown in FIG. 28 illustrates.
Fixed Point Iteration
[1408] The solution to CDRF 2 requires finding a fixed point to a
system of equations. Fixed points represent solutions since they
convey the concept of a system at "rest" or equilibrium, i.e., a
fixed point of a system of functions or transformations denoted
g(a) exists if
a=g(a)
[1409] Mathematically, the function g(a) can be said to be a map on
the real line over the domain of a. The map, g(x), generates a new
point, say, y, on the real line. If x=y, then x is called a fixed
point of the function g(a). In terms of numerical solution
techniques, if g(a) is a non-linear system of equations and if x is
a fixed point of g(a), then a is also the zero of the function. If
no fixed points such as x exist for the function g(a), then grid
search type routines can be used to solve the system (e.g., the
Newton-Raphson Method, the Secant Method, etc.). If a fixed point
exists, however, its existence can be exploited in solving for the
zero of a simultaneous non-linear system, as follows.
[1410] Choose an initial starting point, x.sub.0, which is believed
to be somewhere in the neighborhood of the fixed point of the
function g(a). Then, assuming there does exist a fixed point of the
function g(a), employ the following simple iterative scheme:
x.sub.i+1=g(x.sub.i), where x.sub.0 is chosen as starting point
where i=0, 1, 2, . . . n. The iteration can be continued until a
desired precision level, .epsilon., is achieved, i.e.,
x.sub.n=g(x.sub.n-1), until |g(x.sub.n-1)-x.sub.n<.epsilon.
The question whether fixed point iteration will converge, of
course, depends crucially on the value of the first derivative of
the function g(x) in the neighborhood of the fixed point as shown
in FIG. 28. As previously indicated, an advantage of the present
invention is the construction of CDRF 2 in such a way so that it
may be represented in terms of a multivariate function, g(x), which
is continuous and has a derivative whose value is between 0 and 1,
as shown below.
Fixed Point Iteration as Applied to CDRF 2
[1411] This section will demonstrate that (1) the system of
equations embodied in CDRF 2 possesses a fixed point solution and
(2) that this fixed point solution can be located using the method
of fixed point iteration described in Section A, above. The well
known fixed point theorem provides that, if g: [a, b]-->[a, b]
is continuous on [a, b] and differentiable on (a, b) and there is a
constant k<1 such that for all x in (a, b),
|g'(x)|.ltoreq.k
then g has a unique fixed point x* in [a, b]. Moreover, for any x
in [a, b] the sequence defined by
x.sub.0=x and x.sub.n+1=g(x.sub.n)
converges to x* and for all n
x n - x * .ltoreq. k n * x 1 - x 0 1 - k . ##EQU00101##
The theorem can be applied CDRF 2 as follows. First, CDRF 2 in a
preferred embodiment relates the amount or amounts to be invested
across the distribution of states for the CDRF, given a payout
distribution, by inverting the expression for the CDRF and solving
for the traded amount matrix A:
A=P*.PI.(A,f).sup.-1 (CDRF 2)
CDRF 2 may be rewritten, therefore, in the following form:
A=g(A)
where g is a continuous and differentiable function. By the
aforementioned fixed point theorem, CDRF 2 may be solved by means
of fixed point iteration if:
g(A)<1
i.e., the multivariate function g(A) has a first derivative less
than 1. Whether g(A) has a derivative less than 1 with respect to A
can be analyzed as follows. As previously indicated in the
specification, for any given trader and any given state I, CDRF2
contains equations of the following form relating the desired
payout p (assumed to be greater than 0) to the traded amount a
required to generate the desired payout, given a total traded
amount already traded for state i of T.sub.i (also assumed to be
greater than 0) and the total traded amount for all the states of
T:
.alpha. = ( T i + .alpha. T + .alpha. ) * p ##EQU00102## so
that
g ( .alpha. ) = ( T i + .alpha. T + .alpha. ) * p ##EQU00103##
Differentiating g(.alpha.) with respect to .alpha. yields:
g ' ( .alpha. ) = ( T - T i T + .alpha. ) * p T + .alpha.
##EQU00104##
Since the DRF Constraint defined previously in the specification
requires that payout amount p not exceed the total amount traded
for all of the states, the following condition holds:
p T + .alpha. .ltoreq. 1 ##EQU00105## and therefore since
( T - T i T + .alpha. ) < 1 ##EQU00106## it is the case that
0<g'(.alpha.)<1
so that the solution to CDRF 2 can be obtained by means of fixed
point iteration as embodied in the computer code listing of Table
1.
13. CONCLUSION
[1412] Preferred embodiments of the invention have been described
in detail above, various changes thereto and equivalents thereof
will be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art and
are encompassed within the scope of this invention and the appended
claim. For example, many types of demand reallocation functions
(DRFs) can be employed to finance gains to successful investments
with losses from unsuccessful investments, thereby achieving
different risk and return profiles to traders. Additionally, this
disclosure has primarily discussed methods and systems for groups
and portfolios of DBAR contingent claims, and markets and exchanges
and auctions for those groups. The methods and systems of the
present invention can readily be adapted by financial
intermediaries for use within the traditional capital and insurance
markets. For example, a group of DBAR contingent claims can be
embedded within a traditional security, such as a bond for a given
corporate issuer, and underwritten and issued by an underwriter as
previously discussed. It is also intended that such embodiments and
their equivalents are encompassed by the present invention and the
appended claims.
[1413] The present invention has been described above in the
context of trading derivative securities, specifically the
implementation of an electronic derivatives exchange which
facilitates the efficient trading of (i) financial-related
contingent claims such as stocks, bonds, and derivatives thereon,
(ii) non-financial related contingent claims such as energy,
commodity, and weather derivatives, and (iii) traditional insurance
and reinsurance contracts such as market loss warranties for
property-casualty catastrophe risk. The present invention has also
been described above in the context of a DBAR digital options
exchange, and in the context of offering DBAR-enabled financial
products. The present invention is not limited to these contexts,
however, and can be readily adapted to any contingent claim
relating to events which are currently uninsurable or unhedgable,
such as corporate earnings announcements, future semiconductor
demand, and changes in technology.
[1414] In the preceding specification, the present invention has
been described with reference to specific exemplary embodiments
thereof. It will, however, be evident that various modifications
and changes may be made thereunto without departing from the
broader spirit and scope of the present invention as set forth in
the claims that follow. The specification and drawings are
accordingly to be regarded in an illustrative rather than
restrictive sense.
* * * * *
References