Next Article in Journal
An Exponentiality Test of Fit Based on a Tail Characterization against Heavy and Light-Tailed Alternatives
Next Article in Special Issue
In Memory of Peter Carr (1958–2022)
Previous Article in Journal
Cyber Insurance Premium Setting for Multi-Site Companies under Risk Correlation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Pricing of Pseudo-Swaps Based on Pseudo-Statistics
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

A Semi-Static Replication Method for Bermudan Swaptions under an Affine Multi-Factor Model

Risks 2023, 11(10), 168; https://doi.org/10.3390/risks11100168
by Jori Hoencamp 1,*, Shashi Jain 2 and Drona Kandhai 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Risks 2023, 11(10), 168; https://doi.org/10.3390/risks11100168
Submission received: 25 August 2023 / Revised: 13 September 2023 / Accepted: 19 September 2023 / Published: 26 September 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please, see the file attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attachement

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper provides a semi-static replication algorithm for Bermudan swaptions under an affine, multi-factor term-structure model. The paper is interesting. 

My main comment is on the error analysis. In the section on error analysis, the error estimates are given in terms of M and epsilon, however M and epsilon are correlated. I think when epsilon is small, M needs to be big. The authors need to discuss this. 

The paper is well written in general, but a careful proof reading will be help to improve the presentation. For example, 

line 5 of the Introduction, It is better to change "Most of these metrics depend on the distributions of the potential future ..." to "Most of these metrics depend on the distribution of the potential future ..."

line 8 of the Introduction, change "The latter is generally considered the involved aspect," to " he latter is generally considered the most involved aspect,"?

 

Author Response

Please see attachement

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has been greatly improved. Let me suggest the acceptance of it.

Back to TopTop