Technically speaking, like all options, it has a fixed life in which the underlying swap may be exercised. It differs from its European and Bermudan counterparts in that it allows the user to exercise the swap at any point in its life. The stodgy, rigid European swaptions, on the other hand, permit the swap only on the maturity date, while the Bermudan swaptions grant the user only a handful of additional predetermined dates in which the user may enter the swap.
There is obviously a parallel here to be made. The easiest political point to score here is that the American swaption is the free-est of his kind: unburdened by contracts, the user has complete control over the execution of the swap. There’s no way around it: ceteris paribus, you would take the American Swaption any day of the week.
But ceteris paribus exists only in the offices of our favorite economics professors and in the halls of Congress. The reality is that European swaptions are a lot less messy and a little more predictable: there is a consensus formula analysts use to value the European variety (the Black model, which is essentially the Black-Scholes model), while there are no closed form solutions for the American swaption. The value American swaptions add can be masked by the complexity of the arrangement, and there are more confused message board posts from analysts and traders on the topic than there are solutions. At the end of the day, sometimes (though not always) traders prefer the relative simplicity of the already complicated European design.
You may be disappointed to learn that my anonymous handle is simply a metaphor. It goes like this: although I believe that the American choice (if you will) is the better choice overall, I also think that many of our governing and social institutions are overwrought with so much complexity that it’s often hard to trace value back to the source. Our corporate tax code is a disgrace and seemingly sucks more money out of the system than it adds, via K-Street lobbyists and an army of accountants. Our healthcare system is an inequitable, costly mess. Our political institutions seem frozen in time. It isn’t hard to look across the pond, halfway envious of the simplicity of the Eurozone’s crisis, which appears to be caused by too much action, too soon, with the goal of making things too simple. Even though people are rioting in the streets over there, the wisdom holds, at least it looks like they’re trying to do something about it.
Take the recent debt-ceiling debacle. Is there a better example of “what hath we wrought!” in the world? We just had the closest episode of government default in our nation’s history, and our response was “we’ll figure it out in four months, just leave us alone.” Why, exactly, are lawmakers in this country permitted to spend money before figuring out where to get that money? I’m not talking about raising debt; that’s a necessary function of a federal government, particularly in times of dire need (read as: right now). I’m talking about passing massive omnibus bills without coming clean to citizens about how much money we’d have to raise simultaneously. That’s shameful, and simultaneously so overwrought that it reduces the amount of time and value we can get out of our congressmen and senators, who constantly have to waste valuable political capital on a majority dominated debt ceiling vote.
The metaphor is very simple. We have one of the largest, most fertile, best educated, healthiest, and most diverse populations on the planet. Just like the American swaption, we have a civil society which is based on the principle of freedom. Yet for all our dynamism, our complexity comes at great risk of alienation of investors and creditors. Let the S&P’s downgrade act as a warning shot: if we don’t clean up our act, there are a whole lot of other markets for the world’s money.
I promise this won’t be a manifesto—nor will it be all inclusive. I am a young professional (say, low-mid twenties) with aspirations yet no clear career path. I move between Washington and New York with the wind, and the only long term goal I have right now is the intention of settling down in Pennsylvania in the twilight of my socialite years.
I started this blog because I find that I can fill an underutilized niche in the Econosphere: I am considerably younger than most bloggers who have entered the fray, and as such, speak from a different point of view on a lot of issues. My age and upper class upbringing influence my views of entitlement programs, taxation rates, and government agencies. I am a skeptic of our existing entitlement infrastructure, but I am not a skeptic of the thought process that went into each of the programs; that is to say that my views are consistent with the aims of a social safety net, but I’m dubious that we’ve designed the correct system. My goal is to examine specific programs and work to fix the mess we hath wrought through the lens of what is fair and just.
I keep my blogroll as diverse as my portfolio. From the left: Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, Jon Chait, Felix Salmon, and Kevin Drum. From the right (squishy as that term may be, particularly with this list): Megan McArdle, Tyler Cowen, Scott Sumner, and Barry Ritholtz. From the center/apolitical: Economist of Contempt (though he leans left), FT Alphaville, Calculated Risk, and Free Exchange. I find that I am more sympathetic to the left on issues of social justice, human rights, and the purpose of government, while I subscribe to libertarian skepticism of public policy and I’m a conservative inflation/deficit hawk (with a splash of NGDP targeting thrown in for good measure). My theory can be summarized as such: we should ask for a lot from our government, but we should be prepared to pay for it too.
Literature that I associate myself with at cocktails includes Rawls (specifically A Theory of Justice), Friedman, Okin, Sachs, von Mises, and many others. I happen to think that A Random Walk Down Wall Street should be required reading for every college student in the social sciences. When I’m not forced to be pretentious, however, my favorite authors (and biggest influences) are more commonly found in the children’s literature section of your local library. I consider myself to be a Harry Potter-holic, and I think that you can learn a lot more from reading Dahl, Sachar, and R.L. Stine than you can from some of the authors I listed above.
I try to read the FT and NYT daily. I think the WSJ is trash, with the exception of the back pages of the B and C sections. My favorite periodicals are the Economist andVanity Fair, because I find the writing in both to be among the best in the world. In the absence of these publications, though, I play video games, exercise, and frequently attend “social gatherings” (the polite term for the anarchy of young adulthood).
I hope you all tune in. Whether you do or not, I’ll be here blathering away.