One-Factor-Based Exercise Strategies for American Options in Multi-Factor Models

Alfredo Ibáñez, C. Velasco
{"title":"One-Factor-Based Exercise Strategies for American Options in Multi-Factor Models","authors":"Alfredo Ibáñez, C. Velasco","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2151387","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Pricing American equity options in a multi-factor setting is so cumbersome that the typical approach is based on, reduced, one-factor exercise strategies. Practitioners and academics calibrate the model to the European counterpart, but the early-exercise premium is derived from a barrier option or from Black-Scholes, depending only on the stock price. Conventional wisdom dictates that the associated losses are insignificant, a few basis points (bps), but there is no rationale behind it. We challenge this view. We factorize the associated losses in the product of four terms and properly distinguish between a barrier option, which implies a suboptimal exercise policy, and the case of Black-Scholes model, which introduces a misspecified model (but produces lower pricing errors which go either way). Pricing errors are significant (i.e., two-digits bps) only for in-the-money and mid-/long-term American options, in highly skewed models and with larger interest-rate dividend-yield spreads. In-the-money and long-term American options are a \"tough call.\" Skewed models are associated to stochastic volatility. And the interest-rate dividend spread relates to the early-exercise-premium.","PeriodicalId":374825,"journal":{"name":"2012 International Conference of the French Finance Association (AFFI) (Archive)","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2012 International Conference of the French Finance Association (AFFI) (Archive)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2151387","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Pricing American equity options in a multi-factor setting is so cumbersome that the typical approach is based on, reduced, one-factor exercise strategies. Practitioners and academics calibrate the model to the European counterpart, but the early-exercise premium is derived from a barrier option or from Black-Scholes, depending only on the stock price. Conventional wisdom dictates that the associated losses are insignificant, a few basis points (bps), but there is no rationale behind it. We challenge this view. We factorize the associated losses in the product of four terms and properly distinguish between a barrier option, which implies a suboptimal exercise policy, and the case of Black-Scholes model, which introduces a misspecified model (but produces lower pricing errors which go either way). Pricing errors are significant (i.e., two-digits bps) only for in-the-money and mid-/long-term American options, in highly skewed models and with larger interest-rate dividend-yield spreads. In-the-money and long-term American options are a "tough call." Skewed models are associated to stochastic volatility. And the interest-rate dividend spread relates to the early-exercise-premium.
多因素模型下基于单因素的美式期权行使策略
在多因素环境下为美国股票期权定价是如此繁琐,以至于典型的方法是基于简化的单因素行权策略。从业人员和学者将该模型与欧洲同行进行了校准,但早期行权溢价来自障碍期权或布莱克-斯科尔斯期权,仅取决于股价。传统观点认为,相关损失微不足道,只有几个基点(bps),但这背后没有任何理论依据。我们对这种观点提出质疑。我们将相关损失分解为四项的乘积,并适当区分障碍期权和Black-Scholes模型,前者暗示了次优的执行策略,后者引入了一个错误指定的模型(但两者都产生了较低的定价误差)。在高度倾斜的模型和较大的利率股息收益率差中,只有在现价和中长期美国期权中,定价错误才会很严重(即两位数的基点)。现金和长期的美国选择是一个“艰难的决定”。偏态模型与随机波动有关。利率红利差与早期期权溢价有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信