Enron Mail

From:rabi.de@enron.com
To:martin.o'leary@enron.com, michael.tribolet@enron.com,connie.estrems@enron.com, william.bradford@enron.com, denise.furey@enron.com
Subject:Option pricing discrepancy for J.C. Penny Transaction
Cc:tanya.tamarchenko@enron.com, amitava.dhar@enron.com,vince.kaminski@enron.com, seksan.kiatsupaibul@enron.com, paulo.issler@enron.com
Bcc:tanya.tamarchenko@enron.com, amitava.dhar@enron.com,vince.kaminski@enron.com, seksan.kiatsupaibul@enron.com, paulo.issler@enron.com
Date:Mon, 26 Feb 2001 02:35:00 -0800 (PST)

Amitava and Seksan have identified the source of the discrepancy between the
option prices calculated by the credit-reserve model and the stand-alone
spreadsheet model used in deal pricing. The discrepancy can be traced to
differences in input variables of the two models and not to any algorithmic
differences.

The options being priced are a strip of options on monthly instruments. The
credit reserve simulation program calculates the time to expiration by
assuming that the option expires on first day of the contract month of the
underlying contract, which is a very reasonable assumption.

The stand-alone option pricing spreadsheet allows specification of the option
expiration date independent of the contract month of the underlying. In the
JC Penney transaction, the monthly options were assumed to expire in the
middle of the contract month, when in reality the underlying monthly
contracts expire before the start of their respective contract months. The
stand-alone spreadsheet model allows such specifications and it is up to the
user to ascertain that the expiration dates entered are legal. At present,
Seksan is ascertaining that the option contracts involved are in deed monthly
options and not a strip of daily options, in which case we would require
estimates of intramonth volatilities for both the spreadsheet model and the
credit reserve model.

Regards,
Rabi De