Talk:Rational pricing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Mid‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nice article

Great article. I see you have been doing loads of great work in the option pricing area the last few days Fintor. Thanks very much. Pcb21| Pete 13:45, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree, nice article. Just a small question; Why does the definiton of arbitrage state that it requires two (or more) markets? I.e. two assets with similar CF expectations with different price, could be a arbitrage trade with going short in the overpriced and long in the underpriced. Is it my understanding of a market that is unsufficient or the definition? (Cubic)

I think the thing to be careful about is the definition of "market". If I understand you correctly you are saying that in some single market there could be a product trading at two different prices, hence giving rise to an arbitrage opportunity. Well whilst trying to avoid being circular, that is not possible by definition of "market". A market has one price for an instrument. If two different prices are available then that's two markets. (Yep, so a real-life market is not a mathematical "market".)

Yours!

In this entry it is suggested that:

the interest paymen income securities are always known
that you should always discount at the government bond yield to maturity

If someone calculates his prices that way, he'll end up way to high. Firstly, the payments are only known in advance for Fixed rate bonds. This only constitutes a part of the bond market. I know, the market is called fixed income, but that's a complete misnomer. If everything were fixed, then there would be very little point in being active in it. Secondly, it is suggested to discount all cash flows at the same government (risk free) discount factor. Unfortunately for most companies, they have to pay more than the government as they are less credit worthy... I.e. their discount factors are much lower. In the current formula: r(t) is too low, so the price is too high (hence: Yours!). Btw - if one wants to use zero coupons, it's better to make the formula C(t) * P(t), instead of C(t) / (1+r(t))^t, i.e. using prices instead of rates, as prices would be more readily available. DocendoDiscimus 00:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment - what I was suggesting is that

iff: the coupons are specified exactly
and: there is a zero coupon bond corresponding to each of these
then: one can use the "ytm" of the corresponding zcb to discount each coupon/ payment

Should we qualify the wording such that it is clear that (1) this methodology is limited to the above but (2) that the theory applies in general?

Fintor 07:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the coupons don't have to be defined exactly for this method to be valid - as long as you then talk about the expected value of each coupon (which you can usually calculate using the yield curve).
the most important thing to mention about the zero coupon bond is that it is from the same issuer as the bond we're trying to value. For instance, a zero coupon issued by General Motors would have a much higher YTM than one issued by the US Government.
the third point is correct.

I think it's best to say it is always valid, though the zero-coupon bonds are more or less theoretical (considering they depend on the credit of the issuer, and there are very few non-government zero's) -- DocendoDiscimus 12:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Editing

Why was the previous version clearer?

Duxwing (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edit mostly introduced peculiar idioms in place of fairly standard constructions. For instance, while an "investor" is the standard agent in these kinds of models, your revision introduces the unusual word "arbitrageur". Changing "bring it back into line" to "return it to line" seems like nonsense, or at least a lack of understanding of common English idioms. I wouldn't necessarily choose the wording in the article on this point if I were writing the article, but at least it communicates something sensible. I'm also somewhat averse to apostrophes as in "the financial asset's expected return" over "the expected return of a financial asset". I feel that the latter construction is more natural. Most of the rest of the edit just seems like frobbing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]