IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jjrfmx/v15y2022i12p591-d997755.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Mathematical Formulation of the Valuation of Ether and Ether Derivatives as a Function of Investor Sentiment and Price Jumps

Author

Listed:
  • Rebecca Abraham

    (Huizenga College of Business-SBE, Nova Southeastern University, 3301 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314, USA)

  • Hani El-Chaarani

    (Department of Finance, College of Business, Tripoli Campus, Beirut Arab University, Riad El Solh, P.O. Box 11-50-20, Beirut 11072809, Lebanon)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to create quantitative models to value ether, ether futures, and ether options based upon the ability of cryptocurrencies to transform existing intermediary-verified payments to non-intermediary-based currency transfers, the ability of ether as a late mover to displace bitcoin as the first mover, and the valuation of ether in the context of investor irrationality models. The risk-averse investor’s utility function is a combination of expectations of the performance of ether, expectations of cryptocurrencies’ transformative power, and expectations of ether superseding bitcoin. The moderate risk-taker’s utility function is an alt-Weibull distribution, along with a gamma distribution. Risk-takers have a utility function in the form of a Bessel function. Ether price functions consist of a Levy jump process. Ether futures are valued as the combination of current spot prices along with term prices. The value of spot prices is the product of a spot premium and a lognormal distribution of spot prices. The value of term prices is equal to the product of a term premium, and the Levy jump process of price fluctuations during the delivery period. For ether options, a less risky ether option portfolio offsets ether’s risk by a fixed-income trading strategy.

Suggested Citation

  • Rebecca Abraham & Hani El-Chaarani, 2022. "A Mathematical Formulation of the Valuation of Ether and Ether Derivatives as a Function of Investor Sentiment and Price Jumps," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-20, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:15:y:2022:i:12:p:591-:d:997755
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/15/12/591/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/15/12/591/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Garcia & Claudio Juan Tessone & Pavlin Mavrodiev & Nicolas Perony, 2014. "The digital traces of bubbles: feedback cycles between socio-economic signals in the Bitcoin economy," Papers 1408.1494, arXiv.org.
    2. Hirshleifer, David & Daniel, Kent, 2015. "Overconfident investors, predictable returns, and excessive trading," MPRA Paper 69002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Marvin B. Lieberman & David B. Montgomery, 1988. "First‐mover advantages," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(S1), pages 41-58, June.
    4. Kent Daniel & David Hirshleifer, 2015. "Overconfident Investors, Predictable Returns, and Excessive Trading," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 29(4), pages 61-88, Fall.
    5. Andreas Park & Hamid Sabourian, 2011. "Herding and Contrarian Behavior in Financial Markets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 79(4), pages 973-1026, July.
    6. J. Michael Harrison & David M. Kreps, 1978. "Speculative Investor Behavior in a Stock Market with Heterogeneous Expectations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 92(2), pages 323-336.
    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. ÅžimÅŸek, Alp, 2021. "The Macroeconomics of Financial Speculation," CEPR Discussion Papers 15733, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Hwang, Soosung & Rubesam, Alexandre & Salmon, Mark, 2021. "Beta herding through overconfidence: A behavioral explanation of the low-beta anomaly," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    3. Paul Fischer & Chongho Kim & Frank Zhou, 2022. "Disagreement about fundamentals: measurement and consequences," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 1423-1456, December.
    4. Abootaleb Shirvani & Svetlozar T. Rachev & Frank J. Fabozzi, 2019. "A Rational Finance Explanation of the Stock Predictability Puzzle," Papers 1911.02194, arXiv.org.
    5. Qingjing Zhang & Taufiq Choudhry & Jing-Ming Kuo & Xiaoquan Liu, 2021. "Does liquidity drive stock market returns? The role of investor risk aversion," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 929-958, October.
    6. Bennett, Donyetta & Mekelburg, Erik & Strauss, Jack & Williams, T.H., 2024. "Unlocking the black box of sentiment and cryptocurrency: What, which, why, when and how?," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    7. Victor Stango & Joanne Yoong & Jonathan Zinman, 2017. "Quicksand or Bedrock for Behavioral Economics? Assessing Foundational Empirical Questions," NBER Working Papers 23625, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Firth, Chris, 2020. "Protecting investors from themselves: Evidence from a regulatory intervention," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 27(C).
    9. Zahra Murad & Martin Sefton & Chris Starmer, 2016. "How do risk attitudes affect measured confidence?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 21-46, February.
    10. Helen X. H. Bao & Steven Haotong Li, 2016. "Overconfidence And Real Estate Research: A Survey Of The Literature," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 61(04), pages 1-24, September.
    11. Philippe Jehiel, 2018. "Investment Strategy and Selection Bias: An Equilibrium Perspective on Overoptimism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(6), pages 1582-1597, June.
    12. Yi Luo & Steven E. Salterio, 2022. "The Effect of Gender on Investors’ Judgments and Decision-Making," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 179(1), pages 237-258, August.
    13. Cheung, Stephen L. & Johnstone, Lachlan, 2017. "True Overconfidence, Revealed through Actions: An Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 10545, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Jitender Kumar & Neha Prince, 2022. "Overconfidence bias in the Indian stock market in diverse market situations: an empirical study," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 13(6), pages 3031-3047, December.
    15. Francesco Angelini & Massimiliano Castellani & Lorenzo Zirulia, 2022. "Overconfidence in the art market: a bargaining pricing model with asymmetric disinformation," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 39(3), pages 961-988, October.
    16. Ramzi Boussaidi, 2022. "Implications of the overconfidence bias in presence of private information: Evidence from MENA stock markets," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 3660-3678, July.
    17. Tatiana Fedyk & Zvi Singer & Theodore Sougiannis, 2020. "The Accrual Anomaly: Accrual Originations, Accrual Reversals, and Resolution of Uncertainty," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(2), pages 885-916, June.
    18. Ahrens, Steffen & Bosch-Rosa, Ciril & Roulund, Rasmus, 2019. "Price Dynamics and Trader Overconfidence," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 161, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    19. Martin Chegere & Paolo Falco & Marco Nieddiu & Lorenzo Pandolfi & Mattea Stein, 2022. "The Magic of the Game:Experimental Evidence on Sports Betting Behavior," CSEF Working Papers 655, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy, revised 15 Nov 2024.
    20. Victor Stango & Jonathan Zinman, 2019. "We Are All Behavioral, More or Less: Measuring and Using Consumer-Level Behavioral Sufficient Statistics," Working Papers 19-14, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.

    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:gam:jjrfmx:v:15:y:2022:i:12:p:591-:d:997755. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.