IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2006.09955.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Deep learning Profit & Loss

Author

Listed:
  • Pietro Rossi
  • Flavio Cocco
  • Giacomo Bormetti

Abstract

Building the future profit and loss (P&L) distribution of a portfolio holding, among other assets, highly non-linear and path-dependent derivatives is a challenging task. We provide a simple machinery where more and more assets could be accounted for in a simple and semi-automatic fashion. We resort to a variation of the Least Square Monte Carlo algorithm where interpolation of the continuation value of the portfolio is done with a feed forward neural network. This approach has several appealing features not all of them will be fully discussed in the paper. Neural networks are extremely flexible regressors. We do not need to worry about the fact that for multi assets payoff, the exercise surface could be non connected. Neither we have to search for smart regressors. The idea is to use, regardless of the complexity of the payoff, only the underlying processes. Neural networks with many outputs can interpolate every single assets in the portfolio generated by a single Monte Carlo simulation. This is an essential feature to account for the P&L distribution of the whole portfolio when the dependence structure between the different assets is very strong like the case where one has contingent claims written on the same underlying.

Suggested Citation

  • Pietro Rossi & Flavio Cocco & Giacomo Bormetti, 2020. "Deep learning Profit & Loss," Papers 2006.09955, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2006.09955
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.09955
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Longstaff, Francis A & Schwartz, Eduardo S, 2001. "Valuing American Options by Simulation: A Simple Least-Squares Approach," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 14(1), pages 113-147.
    2. Alexander J. McNeil & Rüdiger Frey & Paul Embrechts, 2015. "Quantitative Risk Management: Concepts, Techniques and Tools Revised edition," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 2, number 10496.
    3. Ryan Ferguson & Andrew Green, 2018. "Deeply Learning Derivatives," Papers 1809.02233, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2018.
    4. repec:cdl:anderf:qt43n1k4jb is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alessandro Gnoatto & Athena Picarelli & Christoph Reisinger, 2020. "Deep xVA solver -- A neural network based counterparty credit risk management framework," Papers 2005.02633, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2022.
    2. Lotfi Boudabsa & Damir Filipovi'c, 2022. "Ensemble learning for portfolio valuation and risk management," Papers 2204.05926, arXiv.org.
    3. Hanfeld, Marc & Schlüter, Stephan, 2016. "Operating a swing option on today's gas markets: How least squares Monte Carlo works and why it is beneficial," FAU Discussion Papers in Economics 10/2016, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Institute for Economics.
    4. Patrick Cheridito & John Ery & Mario V. Wüthrich, 2020. "Assessing Asset-Liability Risk with Neural Networks," Risks, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-17, February.
    5. Patrick Cheridito & John Ery & Mario V. Wuthrich, 2021. "Assessing asset-liability risk with neural networks," Papers 2105.12432, arXiv.org.
    6. Samuel N. Cohen & Derek Snow & Lukasz Szpruch, 2021. "Black-box model risk in finance," Papers 2102.04757, arXiv.org.
    7. Weihan Li & Jin E. Zhang & Xinfeng Ruan & Pakorn Aschakulporn, 2024. "An empirical study on the early exercise premium of American options: Evidence from OEX and XEO options," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(7), pages 1117-1153, July.
    8. Abduraimova, Kumushoy, 2022. "Contagion and tail risk in complex financial networks," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    9. Fabian Dickmann & Nikolaus Schweizer, 2014. "Faster Comparison of Stopping Times by Nested Conditional Monte Carlo," Papers 1402.0243, arXiv.org.
    10. Work, James & Hauer, Grant & Luckert, M.K. (Marty), 2018. "What ethanol prices would induce growers to switch from agriculture to poplar in Alberta? A multiple options approach," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 51-62.
    11. Tobias Fissler & Yannick Hoga, 2024. "How to Compare Copula Forecasts?," Papers 2410.04165, arXiv.org.
    12. Kathrin Glau & Ricardo Pachon & Christian Potz, 2019. "Speed-up credit exposure calculations for pricing and risk management," Papers 1912.01280, arXiv.org.
    13. Dong, Wenfeng & Kang, Boda, 2019. "Analysis of a multiple year gas sales agreement with make-up, carry-forward and indexation," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 76-96.
    14. Masahiko Egami & Rusudan Kevkhishvili, 2020. "Time reversal and last passage time of diffusions with applications to credit risk management," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 795-825, July.
    15. Pringles, Rolando & Olsina, Fernando & Penizzotto, Franco, 2020. "Valuation of defer and relocation options in photovoltaic generation investments by a stochastic simulation-based method," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 846-864.
    16. Marta Biancardi & Giovanni Villani, 2017. "Robust Monte Carlo Method for R&D Real Options Valuation," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 49(3), pages 481-498, March.
    17. Avanzi, Benjamin & Taylor, Greg & Wong, Bernard & Yang, Xinda, 2021. "On the modelling of multivariate counts with Cox processes and dependent shot noise intensities," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 9-24.
    18. Pfeifer Dietmar & Mändle Andreas & Ragulina Olena, 2017. "New copulas based on general partitions-of-unity and their applications to risk management (part II)," Dependence Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 246-255, October.
    19. Diba Daraei & Kristina Sendova, 2024. "Determining Safe Withdrawal Rates for Post-Retirement via a Ruin-Theory Approach," Risks, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-21, April.
    20. Gabriel J Power & Charli D. Tandja M. & Josée Bastien & Philippe Grégoire, 2015. "Measuring infrastructure investment option value," Journal of Risk Finance, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 16(1), pages 49-72, January.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2006.09955. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.