{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016666666666666666, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.659685863874346, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Internal Valuation of Assets with Liquidity Risk

FVA, funding valuation adjustment, is a new and controversial adjustment to the value of a firm’s derivatives position, joining CVA (credit valuation adjustment) and DVA (debt valuation adjustment), both of which attempt to account for the effects of counterparty credit risk on the value of a contract on a firm’s books. FVA adjusts for the fact that an investor who holds a security but finances it in the money market will have to pay a premium over the riskless rate in order to do so. This premium reduces the investment value of the position by an amount that is supposed to be captured by the FVA. The problem that Nauta raises is that this treatment does not distinguish between a security that is traded in a liquid market and can be sold for its fair value at any time, meaning overnight funding is OK, versus an illiquid security that must be financed through maturity. The article shows how this key difference translates into a liquidity-based FVA and an optimal funding horizon for less than perfectly liquid assets.