1: \documentclass[11pt,a4paper,reqno,intlimits,sumlimits]{amsart}

2: 

3: \usepackage{amsmath}

4: \usepackage{amssymb}

5: \usepackage{chicago}

6: \usepackage[mathscr]{euscript}

7: \usepackage{enumerate}

8: \usepackage{xspace}

9: \usepackage{color}

10: \usepackage{epsfig,rotating}

11: 

12: \DeclareMathAlphabet{\mathpzc}{OT1}{pzc}{m}{it}

13: 

14: \usepackage[bookmarksopen,pdfstartview=FitH]{hyperref}

15: \hypersetup{colorlinks,%

16:            citecolor=black,%

17:            filecolor=black,%

18:            linkcolor=black,%

19:            urlcolor=black}

20: 

21: 

22: \begin{document}

23: 

24: \theoremstyle{plain}

25: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]

26: \newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}

27: \newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}

28: \newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}

29: 

30: \theoremstyle{definition}

31: \newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}

32: \newtheorem{example}[theorem]{Example}

33: \newtheorem{assumption}[theorem]{Assumption}

34: 

35: \newcommand{\Law}{\ensuremath{\mathop{\mathrm{Law}}}}

36: \newcommand{\loc}{{\mathrm{loc}}}

37: \newcommand{\Log}{\ensuremath{\mathop{\mathcal{L}\mathrm{og}}}}

38: 

39: \let\SETMINUS\setminus

40: \renewcommand{\setminus}{\backslash}

41: 

42: \def\stackrelboth#1#2#3{\mathrel{\mathop{#2}\limits^{#1}_{#3}}}

43: 

44: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}

45: \numberwithin{equation}{section}

46: 

47: \newcommand{\prozess}[1][L]{{\ensuremath{#1=(#1_t)_{0\le t\le T}}}\xspace}

48: \newcommand{\prazess}[1][L]{{\ensuremath{#1=(#1_t)_{0\le t\le T^*}}}\xspace}

49: \newcommand{\scal}[2]{\ensuremath{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}}

50: 

51: %% ================================================================ %%

52: \def\F{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}

53: \def\R{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}

54: \def\C{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}

55: \def\bF{\mathbf{F}}

56: \def\V{\mathbb{V}}

57: 

58: \def\Rmz{\R\setminus\{0\}}

59: \def\Rdmz{\R^d\setminus\{0\}}

60: \def\Rnmz{\R^n\setminus\{0\}}

61: \def\Rp{\mathbb{R}_+}

62: 

63: \def\la{\ensuremath{L^1(\R)}}

64: \def\lad{\ensuremath{L^1(\R^d)}}

65: \def\lat{\ensuremath{L^2(\R)}}

66: \def\lap{\ensuremath{L^\infty(\R)}}

67: \def\labc{\ensuremath{L^1_{\text{bc}}(\R)}}

68: 

69: \def\lev{L\'{e}vy\xspace}

70: \def\lk{L\'{e}vy--Khintchine\xspace}

71: \def\smmg{semimartingale\xspace}

72: \def\mg{martingale\xspace}

73: \def\tih{time-inhomogeneous\xspace}

74: \def\chartri{\ensuremath{(b,\sigma,\nu)}}

75: \def\num{num\'{e}raire\xspace}

76: 

77: \def\eqlaw{\ensuremath{\stackrel{\mathrrefersm{d}}{=}}}

78: 

79: \def\dsdx{\ensuremath{(\ud s, \ud x)}}

80: \def\dtdx{\ensuremath{(\ud t, \ud x)}}

81: 

82: \def\intrr{\ensuremath{\int_{\R}}}

83: 

84: \def\ud{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}}

85: \def\e{\mathrm{e}}

86: \def\dt{\ud t}

87: \def\ds{\ud s}

88: \def\dx{\ud x}

89: \def\dy{\ud y}

90: \def\dz{\ud z}

91: \def\du{\ud u}

92: \def\icc{\mathpzc{i}}

93: \def\ecc{\mathbf{e}_\mathpzc{i}}

94: 

95: \def\EM{\ensuremath{(\mathbb{EM})}\xspace}

96: \def\ES{\ensuremath{(\mathbb{ES})}\xspace}

97: \def\AC{\ensuremath{(\mathbb{AC})}\xspace}

98: 

99: \def\ott{{0\leq t\leq T}}

100: 

101: \def\bg{\ensuremath{\bar g}}

102: \def\logs{\mathpzc s}

103: %% ================================================================ %%

104: 

105: 

106: \title[Analysis of valuation formulas]

107:       {Analysis of fourier transform valuation formulas and applications}

108: 

109: \author[E. Eberlein]{Ernst Eberlein}

110: \author[K. Glau]{Kathrin Glau}

111: \author[A. Papapantoleon]{Antonis Papapantoleon}

112: 

113: \address{Department of Mathematical Stochastics, University of Freiburg,

114:         Eckerstr. 1, 79104 Freiburg, Germany}

115: \email{eberlein@stochastik.uni-freiburg.de}

116: 

117: \address{Department of Mathematical Stochastics, University of Freiburg,

118:         Eckerstr. 1, 79104 Freiburg, Germany}

119: \email{glau@stochastik.uni-freiburg.de}

120: 

121: \address{Institute of Mathematics, TU Berlin, Stra\ss e des 17. Juni 136,

122:          10623 Berlin, Germany \& Quantitative Products

123:          Laboratory, Deutsche Bank AG, Alexanderstr. 5, 10178 Berlin,

124:          Germany}

125: \email{papapan@math.tu-berlin.de}

126: 

127: \keywords{option valuation; Fourier transform; semimartingales; \lev processes;

128:           stochastic volatility models; options on several assets}

129: 

130: \subjclass[2000]{91B28; 42B10; 60G48}

131: 

132: \thanks{We would like to thank Friedrich Hubalek and Gabriel Maresch for

133:         valuable discussions. K.~G. would like to thank the DFG for financial

134:         support through project EB66/11-1, and the Austrian Science Fund (FWF)

135:         for an invitation under grant P18022. A.~P. gratefully acknowledges the

136:         financial support from the Austrian Science Fund (FWF grant Y328,

137:         START Prize). \\\indent

138:         We would like to thank the two anonymous referees for their careful

139:         reading of the manuscript and their valuable suggestions that have

140:         improved the paper.}

141: 

142: \date{}

143: \maketitle

144: 

145: \frenchspacing

146: \pagestyle{myheadings}

147: 

148: 

149: 

150: \begin{abstract}

151: The aim of this article is to provide a systematic analysis of the conditions

152: such that Fourier transform valuation formulas are valid in a general framework;

153: i.e. when the option has an arbitrary payoff function and depends on the path

154: of the asset price process. An interplay between the conditions on the payoff

155: function and the process arises naturally. We also extend these results to the

156: multi-dimensional case, and discuss the calculation of Greeks by Fourier

157: transform methods. As an application, we price options on the minimum of two

158: assets in \lev and stochastic volatility models.

159: \end{abstract}

160: 

161: 

162: 

163: \section{Introduction}

164: 

165: Since the seminal work of \citeN{CarrMadan99} and \citeN{Raible00} on the

166: valuation of options with Fourier transform methods, there have been several

167: articles dealing with extensions and analysis of these

168: valuation formulas. This literature focuses on the extension of the method to

169: other situations, e.g. the pricing of exotic or multi-asset derivatives, or

170: on the analysis of the discretization error of the fast Fourier transform.

171: 

172: The article of \citeN{BorovkovNovikov02} deals with the application of Fourier

173: transform valuation formulas for the pricing of some exotic options, while

174: \shortciteN{HubalekKallsenKrawczyk06} use similar techniques for hedging

175: purposes. Lee \citeyear{Lee04} provides an analysis of the discretization error in the

176: fast Fourier transform, while \citeN{Lord08} extends the method to the pricing

177: of options with early exercise features. Recently, \citeN{HubalekKallsen03},

178: Biagini et al.

179: \citeyear{BiaginiBregmanMeyerBrandis08} and \citeN{HurdZhou09} extend the

180: method to accommodate options on several assets, considering basket options,

181: spread options and catastrophe insurance derivatives.

182: \shortciteN{DufresneGarridoMorales09} also consider the valuation of payoffs

183: arising in insurance mathematics by Fourier methods. In addition, the books

184: of \citeN{ContTankov03}, Boyarchenko and Levendorski\v{\i}

185: \citeyear{BoyarchenkoLevendorskii02book} and

186: \citeN{Schoutens03} are also discussing Fourier transform methods for option

187: pricing. Let us point out that all these results are intimately related to

188: Parseval's formula, cf. \citeN[VI.2.2]{Katznelson04}.

189: 

190: The aim of our article is to provide a systematic analysis of the conditions

191: required for the \textit{existence} of Fourier transform valuation formulas in

192: a general framework: i.e. when the underlying variable can depend on the path

193: of the price process and the payoff function can be discontinuous. Such an

194: analysis seems to be missing in the literature.

195: 

196: In their work, \citeN{CarrMadan99}, \citeN{Raible00} and most others are

197: usually imposing a \emph{continuity} assumption, either on the payoff function

198: or on the random variable (i.e. existence of a Lebesgue density). However, when

199: considering e.g. a one-touch option on a \lev-driven asset, both  assumptions

200: fail: the payoff function is clearly discontinuous, while a priori not much is

201: known about the existence of a density for the distribution of the supremum of

202: a \lev process. Analogous situations can also arise in higher dimensions.

203: 

204: The key idea in Fourier transform methods for option pricing lies in the

205: separation of the \textit{underlying process} and the \textit{payoff function}.

206: We derive conditions on the moment generating function of the underlying random

207: variable and the Fourier transform of the payoff function such that

208: Fourier based valuation formulas hold true in one and several dimensions. An

209: interesting interplay between the continuity conditions imposed on the payoff

210: function and the random variable arises naturally. We also derive a result

211: that allows to easily verify the conditions on the payoff function (cf. Lemma

212: \ref{sobo}).

213: 

214: The results of our analysis can be briefly summarized as follows: for general

215: continuous payoff functions or for variables, whose distribution has a Lebesgue

216: density, the valuation formulas using Fourier transforms are valid as Lebesgue

217: integrals, in one and several dimensions. When the payoff function is discontinuous

218: and the random variable might not possess a Lebesgue density then, in dimension

219: one, we get pointwise convergence of the valuation formulas under additional

220: assumptions, that are typically satisfied. In several dimensions pointwise

221: convergence fails, but we can deduce the valuation function as an $L^2$-limit.

222: 

223: In addition, the structure of the valuation formulas allows us to derive easily

224: formulas for the sensitivities of the option price with respect to the various

225: parameters; otherwise, Malliavin calculus techniques or cubature formulas have

226: to be employed, cf. e.g. \shortciteN{FournieLasryLebuchouxLionsTouzi99},

227: \citeN{Teichmann06} and \citeN{KohatsuHigaYasuda08}. We  discuss results

228: regarding the sensitivities with respect to the initial value, i.e. the delta

229: and the gamma. It turns out that the trade-off between continuity conditions on

230: the payoff function and the random variable established for the valuation

231: formulas, becomes now a trade-off between integrability and smoothness

232: conditions for the calculation of the sensitivities.

233: 

234: The valuation formulas allow to compute prices of European options very fast,

235: hence they allow the efficient calibration of the model to market data for a

236: large variety of driving processes, such as \lev processes and affine stochastic

237: volatility models. Indeed, for \lev and affine processes the moment generating

238: function is usually known explicitly, hence these models are tailor-made for

239: Fourier transform pricing formulas.

240: 

241: We also mention here that the Fourier transform based approach can be applied

242: for the efficient computation of prices in other frameworks as well.

243: An important area is the

244: valuation of interest rate derivatives in \lev driven models. \lev term

245: structure models were developed in a series of papers in the last ten years;

246: this development is surveyed in \citeN{EberleinKluge06}.

247: For the Fourier based formulas we mention the two papers by

248: Eberlein and Kluge \citeyear{EberleinKluge04,EberleinKluge05}, where caps,

249: floors, and swaptions as well as interest rate digital and range digital options

250: are discussed; furthermore Eberlein and Koval \citeyear{EberleinKoval06},

251: where cross currency derivatives are considered and 

252: Eberlein, Kluge, and Sch\"onbucher \citeyear{EberleinKlugeSchoenbucher06}, where

253: pricing formulas for credit default swaptions are derived. Moreover, in the

254: framework of the `affine LIBOR' model (cf.

255: \shortciteNP{KellerResselPapapantoleonTeichmann09}) caps and swaptions can be

256: easily priced by Fourier based methods.

257: 

258: This paper is organized as follows: in Section \ref{gval} we present valuation

259: formulas in the single asset case, and in Section \ref{Rdval} we deal with the

260: valuation of options on several assets. In Section \ref{greeks} we discuss

261: sensitivities. In Section \ref{ch3:payoffs} we review examples of commonly

262: used payoff functions, in dimension one and in multiple dimensions. In Section

263: \ref{LA} we review L\'evy and affine processes. Finally, in Section

264: \ref{ch3:sc5} we provide numerical examples for the valuation of options on

265: several assets in \lev and affine stochastic volatility models.

266: 

267: 

268: 

269: \section{Option valuation: single asset}

270: \label{gval}

271: 

272: \subsection*{1.}

273: Let $\mathscr B=(\Omega,\F,\bF,P)$ be a stochastic basis in the sense of Jacod and 

274: Shiryaev \citeyear[I.1.3]{JacodShiryaev03}, where $\F=\F_T$ and $\bF

275: =(\F_t)_{0\le t\le T}$. We model the price process of a financial

276: asset, e.g. a stock or an FX rate, as an \textit{exponential

277: semimartingale} $S=(S_t)_{0\le t\le T}$, i.e. a stochastic process

278: with representation

279: \begin{equation}\label{ch3:eq1}

280:  S_t = S_0 \e^{H_t},\qquad 0\le t\le T

281: \end{equation}

282: (shortly: $S=S_0\e^H$), where $H=(H_t)_{0\le t\le T}$ is a

283: semimartingale with $H_0=0$.

284: 

285: Every semimartingale $H=(H_t)_{0\le t\le T}$

286: admits a \emph{canonical representation}

287: \begin{equation}\label{ch3:eq2}

288:  H = B + H^c+h(x)*(\mu-\nu) + (x-h(x))*\mu,

289: \end{equation}

290: where $h=h(x)$ is a \emph{truncation function}, $B=(B_t)_{0\le t\le T}$

291: is a predictable process of bounded variation, $H^c=(H_t^c)_{0\le t\le T}$

292: is the continuous martingale part of $H$ with predictable quadratic

293: characteristic $\langle H^c\rangle=C$, and $\nu$ is the predictable

294: compensator of the random measure of jumps $\mu$ of $H$. Here $W*\mu$

295: denotes the integral process of $W$ with respect to $\mu$, and $W*(\mu-\nu)$

296: denotes the stochastic integral of $W$ with respect to the compensated random

297: measure $\mu-\nu$; cf. \citeN[Chapter II]{JacodShiryaev03}.

298: 

299: Let $\mathcal M(P)$, resp. $\mathcal M_\loc(P)$, denote the class of

300: all martingales, resp. local martingales, on the given stochastic

301: basis $\mathscr B$.

302: 

303: Subject to the assumption that the process $1_{\{x>1\}}\e^x*\nu$ has

304: bounded variation, we can deduce the martingale condition

305: \begin{equation}\label{ch3:eq3}

306:  S = S_0\e^H\in\mathcal M_\loc(P)

307:   \Leftrightarrow

308:  B + \frac{C}{2} + (\e^x-1-h(x))*\nu = 0;

309: \end{equation}

310: cf. \shortciteN{EberleinPapapantoleonShiryaev06} for details. The martingale

311: condition can also be expressed in terms of the cumulant process $K$

312: associated to $(B,C,\nu)$, i.e. $K(1)=0$; for the cumulant process see

313: \citeN{JacodShiryaev03}.

314: 

315: Throughout this work, we assume that $P$ is an (equivalent) martingale

316: measure for the asset $S$ and the martingale condition is in force; moreover,

317: for simplicity we assume that the interest rate and dividend yield are zero.

318: By no-arbitrage theory the price of an option on $S$ is calculated as its

319: discounted expected payoff.

320: 

321: 

322: \subsection*{2.}

323: Let $Y=(Y_t)_{0\le t\le T}$ be a stochastic process on the given basis. We

324: denote by $\overline{Y}=(\overline{Y}_t)_{0\le t\le T}$ and

325: $\underline{Y}=(\underline{Y}_t)_{0\le t\le T}$ the supremum and the infimum

326: processes of $Y$ respectively, i.e.

327: \begin{displaymath}

328:  \overline{Y}_t = \sup_{0\leq u\leq t}Y_u

329:   \quad \mathrm{ and } \quad

330:  \underline{Y}_t = \inf_{0\leq u\leq t}Y_u.

331: \end{displaymath}

332: 

333: Notice that since the exponential function is monotonically increasing,

334: the supremum processes of $S$ and $H$ are related via

335: \begin{align}\label{sup-SH}

336: \overline{S}_T & = \sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\left(S_0\e^{H_t}\right)

337:                  = S_0\e^{\sup_{0\leq t\leq T} H_t}

338:                  = S_0\e^{\overline{H}_T}.

339: \end{align}

340: Similarly, the infimum processes of $S$ and $H$ are related via

341: \begin{align*}

342: \underline{S}_T = S_0\e^{\underline{H}_T}.

343: \end{align*}

344: 

345: 

346: \subsection*{3.}

347: The aim of this work is to tackle the problem of efficient valuation for

348: plain vanilla options, such as \emph{European call} and \emph{put} options,

349: as well as for exotic path-dependent options, such as \emph{lookback}

350: and \emph{one-touch} options, in a unified framework. Therefore, we will

351: analyze and prove valuation formulas for options on an asset $S=S_0\e^{H}$

352: with a payoff at maturity $T$ that may depend on the whole path of $S$ up

353: to time $T$. These results, together with analyticity conditions on the

354: Wiener--Hopf factors, will be used in the companion paper

355: \cite{EberleinGlauPapapantoleon09} for the pricing of one-touch and lookback

356: options in \lev models.

357: 

358: 

359: The following example of a fixed strike lookback option will serve as

360: a guideline for our methodology; note that using \eqref{sup-SH} it

361: can be re-written as

362: \begin{align}\label{stdlookb}

363:  \big(\overline{S}_T - K\big)^+ = \big(S_0\e^{\overline{H}_T} - K\big)^+\,.

364: \end{align}

365: 

366: In order to incorporate both plain vanilla options and exotic options in a

367: single framework we separate the \emph{payoff function} from the

368: \emph{underlying process}, where:

369: \begin{enumerate}[(a)]

370: \item the \emph{underlying process} can be the log-asset price

371:       process or the supremum/infimum of the log-asset price process

372:       or an average of the log-asset price process. This process will always be

373:       denoted by $X$ (i.e. $X=H$ or $X=\overline H$ or $X=\underline H$, etc.);

374: \item the \emph{payoff function} is an arbitrary function

375:       $f:\R\rightarrow\Rp$, for example $f(x)=(\e^x-K)^+$ or

376:       $f(x)=1_{\{\e^x>B\}}$, for $K,B\in\Rp$.

377: \end{enumerate}

378: 

379: Clearly, we regard options as dependent on the \textit{underlying process} $X$,

380: i.e. on (some functional of) the logarithm of the asset price process $S$. The

381: main advantage is that the characteristic function of $X$ is easier to handle

382: than that of (some functional of) $S$; for example, for a \lev process $H=X$ it

383: is already known in advance.

384: 

385: Moreover, we consider exactly those options where we can incorporate the

386: path-dependence of the option payoff into the underlying process $X$. European

387: vanilla options are a trivial example, as there is no path-dependence; a

388: non-trivial, example are options on the supremum, see again

389: \eqref{sup-SH} and \eqref{stdlookb}. Other examples are the geometric Asian

390: option and forward-start options.

391: 

392: In addition, we will assume that the initial value of the underlying process $X$

393: is zero; this is the case in all natural examples in mathematical finance. The

394: initial value $S_0$ of the asset price process $S$ plays a particular role,

395: because it is convenient to consider the option price as a function of it, or

396: more specifically as a function of $\logs=-\log S_0$.

397: 

398: Hence, we express a general payoff as

399: \begin{align}

400: \Phi\big(S_0\e^{H_t},\,0\le t\le T\big) = f(X_T-\logs)\,,

401: \end{align}

402: where $f$ is a payoff function and $X$ is the underlying process, i.e.

403: an adapted process, possibly depending on the full history of $H$,

404: with

405: $$X_t:= \Psi(H_s,\,0\le s\le t)\quad \text{ for } \,t\in[0,T],$$

406: and $\Psi$ a measurable functional. Therefore, the time-$0$ price of the option

407: is provided by the (discounted) expected payoff, i.e.

408: \begin{align}\label{genericprice}

409: \mathbb{V}_f(X;\logs)

410:  = E\big[\Phi\big(S_t,\,0\le t\le T\big)\big]

411:  = E\big[ f(X_T-\logs)\big]\,.

412: \end{align}

413: 

414: Note that we consider `European style' options, in the sense that the holder

415: or writer do not have the right to exercise or terminate the option before

416: maturity.

417: 

418: \begin{remark}

419: In case the interest rate $r$ and the dividend yield $\delta$ are non-zero,

420: then the martingale condition \eqref{ch3:eq3} reads

421: \begin{equation*}

422:  (\delta - r)t + B_t + \frac{C_t}{2} + (\e^x-1-h(x))*\nu_t = 0

423: \end{equation*}

424: for all $t$, and the option price is given by

425: $\mathbb{V}_f(X;\logs)

426:  = \e^{-rT}E\big[ f(X_T-\logs)\big]\,.$

427: \end{remark}

428: 

429: 

430: \subsection*{4.}

431: The first result focuses on options with continuous payoff functions, such as

432: European plain vanilla options, but also lookback options.

433: 

434: Let $P_{X_T}$ denote the law, $M_{X_T}$ the moment generating function and

435: $\varphi_{X_T}$ the (extended) characteristic function of the random variable

436: $X_T$; that is

437: \begin{align*}

438: M_{X_T}(u)

439:  = E\big[\e^{uX_T}\big]

440:  = \varphi_{X_T}(-iu),

441: \end{align*}

442: for suitable $u\in\C$. For any payoff function $f$ let $g$ denote the \emph{dampened}

443: payoff function, defined via

444: \begin{align}\label{g-defin}

445: g(x)=\e^{-Rx}f(x)

446: \end{align}

447: for some $R\in\R$. Let $\widehat{g}$ denote the (extended) Fourier transform

448: of a function $g$, and $L^1_{\text{bc}}(\R)$ the space of bounded, continuous

449: functions in $L^1(\R)$.

450: 

451: In order to derive a valuation formula for an option with an

452: arbitrary \emph{continuous} payoff function $f$, we will impose the

453: following conditions.

454: \begin{description}

455: \item[(C1)] Assume that $g\in L^1_{\text{bc}}(\R)$.

456: \item[(C2)] Assume that $M_{X_T}(R)$ exists.

457: \item[(C3)] Assume that $\widehat{g}\in L^1(\R)$.

458: \end{description}

459: 

460: \begin{theorem}\label{valuation}

461: If the asset price process is modeled as an exponential

462: semimartingale process according to \eqref{ch3:eq1}--\eqref{ch3:eq3}

463: and conditions (C1)--(C3) are in force, then the time-0 price function

464: is given by

465: \begin{align}\label{value}

466: \mathbb V_f(X;\logs) =

467:  \frac{\e^{-R\logs}}{2\pi}

468:   \int_\R \e^{-iu\logs}\varphi_{X_T}(u-iR)\widehat{f}(iR-u)\ud u.

469: \end{align}

470: \end{theorem}

471: \begin{proof}

472: Using \eqref{genericprice} and \eqref{g-defin} we have

473: \begin{align}\label{ch3:eq4}

474: \V_f(X;\logs)

475:     = \int_\Omega f(X_T-\logs)\ud P

476:     = \e^{-R\logs}\int_\R \e^{Rx}g(x-\logs)P_{X_T}(\dx).

477: \end{align}

478: By assumption (C1), $g\in\la$ and the Fourier transform of $g$,

479: \begin{align*}

480:  \widehat{g}(u) = \int_\R \e^{iux} g(x)\dx,

481: \end{align*}

482: is well defined for every $u\in\R$ and is also continuous and

483: bounded. Additionally, using assumption (C3) we immediately

484: have that $\widehat{g}\in\labc$.  Therefore, using the Inversion

485: Theorem (cf. \citeNP[Theorem 3.4.4]{Deitmar04}), $\widehat{g}$

486: can be inverted and $g$ can be represented, for \emph{all} $x\in\R$, as

487: \begin{align}\label{ch3:eq7}

488:  g(x) = \frac1{2\pi} \int_\R \e^{-ixu}\widehat{g}(u)\ud u.

489: \end{align}

490: 

491: Now, returning to the valuation problem \eqref{ch3:eq4} we get that

492: \begin{align}\label{ch3:eq8}

493: \V_f(X;\logs)

494:    &= \e^{-R\logs}\int_\R \e^{Rx}

495:       \Bigg(\frac1{2\pi}\int_\R \e^{-i(x-\logs)u}\widehat{g}(u)\ud u\Bigg)P_{X_T}(\dx)\nonumber\\

496:    &= \frac{\e^{-R\logs}}{2\pi}\int_\R \e^{iu\logs}

497:       \Bigg( \int_\R \e^{i(-u-iR)x}P_{X_T}(\dx)\Bigg)\widehat{g}(u)\ud u\nonumber\\

498:    &= \frac{\e^{-R\logs}}{2\pi}\int_\R \e^{iu\logs}\varphi_{X_T}(-u-iR)\widehat{f}(u+iR)\ud u,

499: \end{align}

500: where for the second equality we have applied Fubini's theorem;

501: moreover, for the last equality we have

502: \begin{align*}%\label{ch3:FgFf}

503: \widehat{g}(u) = \int_\R \e^{iux}\e^{-Rx}f(x)\dx

504:                  = \widehat{f}(u+iR).

505: \end{align*}

506: 

507: Finally, the application of Fubini's theorem is justified since

508: \begin{align*}

509: \int_\R\int_\R \e^{Rx}|\e^{-iu(x-\logs)}||\widehat{g}(u)|\ud u P_{X_T}(\dx)

510:   &\le \int_\R\e^{Rx}\bigg(\int_\R |\widehat{g}(u)|\ud u \bigg)P_{X_T}(\dx)\\

511:   &\le K M_{X_T}(R) < \infty,

512: \end{align*}

513: where we have used again that $\widehat{g}\in L^1(\R)$, and the finiteness

514: of $M_{X_T}(R)$ is given by Assumption (C2).

515: \end{proof}

516: 

517: \begin{remark}

518: We could also replace assumptions (C1) and (C3) with the following conditions

519: \begin{center}

520: (C1$'$): $g\in L^1(\R)\quad$ and $\quad$

521: (C3$'$): $\widehat{\e^{Rx}P_{X_T}}\in L^1(\R)$.

522: \end{center}

523: Condition (C3$'$) yields that $\e^{Rx}P_{X_T}$ possesses a continuous

524: bounded Lebesgue density, say $\rho$; cf. \citeN[Theorem 8.39]{Breiman68}.

525: Then, we can identify $\rho$, instead of $g$, with the inverse of its Fourier

526: transform and the proof goes through with the obvious modifications. This

527: statement is almost identical to Theorem 3.2 in \citeN{Raible00}.

528: \end{remark}

529: 

530: \begin{remark}[Numerical evaluation]

531: The option price represented as an integral of the form \eqref{value} can be

532: evaluated numerically very fast. The following simple observation can speed

533: up the computation of this expression even further: notice that for a fixed

534: maturity $T$, the characteristic function -- which is the computationally

535: expensive part -- should only be evaluated \emph{once} for \emph{all}

536: different strikes or initial values. The gain in computational time will be

537: significant when considering models where the characteristic function is not

538: known in closed form; e.g. in affine models where one might need to solve a

539: Riccati equation to obtain the characteristic function. This observation has

540: been termed `caching' by some authors (cf. \citeNP{Kilin07})

541: \end{remark}

542: 

543: 

544: \subsection*{5.}

545: Apart from (C3), the prerequisites of Theorem \ref{valuation} are quite easy

546: to check in specific cases. In general, it is also an interesting question

547: to know when the Fourier transform of an integrable function is integrable.

548: The problem is well understood for smooth ($C^2$ or $C^\infty$) functions, see

549: e.g. \citeN{Deitmar04}, but the functions we are dealing with are typically

550: not smooth. Hence, we will provide below an easy-to-check condition for a

551: non-smooth function to have an integrable Fourier transform.

552: 

553: Let us consider the Sobolev space $H^1(\R)$, with

554: \begin{align*}

555:  H^1(\R) = \Big\{g\in L^2(\R) \;\Big|\; \partial g \text{ exists and } \partial g\in L^2(\R)\Big\},

556: \end{align*}

557: where $\partial g$ denotes the \emph{weak} derivative of a function

558: $g$; see e.g. \citeANP{Sauvigny06} \citeyear{Sauvigny06}. Let $g\in H^1(\R)$, then from

559: Proposition 5.2.1 in \citeN{Zimmer90} we get that

560: \begin{align}\label{fou-der}

561:  \widehat{\partial g}(u) = -iu\widehat{g}(u)

562: \end{align}

563: and $\widehat{g},\widehat{\partial g}\in L^2(\R)$.

564: 

565: \begin{lemma}\label{sobo}

566: Let $g\in H^1(\R)$, then $\widehat{g}\in L^1(\R)$.

567: \end{lemma}

568: \begin{proof}

569: Using the above results, we have that

570: \begin{align}\label{fou-fdf}

571:  \infty

572:   > \int_\R \Big(\big|\widehat{g}(u)\big|^2 + \big|\widehat{\partial g}(u)\big|^2\Big)\ud u

573:   = \int_\R \big|\widehat{g}(u)\big|^2\big(1+|u|^2\big)\ud u.

574: \end{align}

575: Now, by the H\"older inequality, using $(1+|u|)^2\leq3(1+|u|^2)$

576: and \eqref{fou-fdf}, we get that

577: \begin{align*}

578: \int_\R \big|\widehat{g}(u)\big|\ud u

579:  &=   \int_\R \big|\widehat{g}(u)\big|\frac{1+|u|}{1+|u|}\ud u\\

580:  &\le \bigg(\int_\R \big|\widehat{g}(u)\big|^2(1+|u|)^2\ud u\bigg)^{\frac12}

581:       \bigg(\int_\R \frac{1}{(1+|u|)^2}\ud u\bigg)^{\frac12}

582:   < \infty

583: \end{align*}

584: and the result is proved.

585: \end{proof}

586: 

587: \begin{remark}

588: A similar statement can be proved for functions in the Sobolev-Slobodeckij

589: space $H^s(\R)$, for $s>\frac12$.

590: \end{remark}

591: 

592: 

593: \subsection*{6.}

594: Next, we deal with the valuation formula for options whose payoff function can

595: be \textit{discontinuous}, while at the same time the measure $P_{X_T}$ does

596: \textit{not} necessarily possess a Lebesgue density. Such a situation arises

597: typically when pricing one-touch options in purely discontinuous \lev models.

598: Hence, we need to impose different conditions, and we derive the valuation formula

599: as a pointwise limit by generalizing the proof of Theorem 3.2 in \citeN{Raible00}.

600: A similar result (Theorem 1 in \shortciteNP{DufresneGarridoMorales09}) has been

601: pointed out to us by one of the referees.

602: 

603: In this and the following sections we will make use of the following

604: notation; we define the function $\bg$ and the measure $\varrho$ as

605: follows

606: \begin{align*}

607: \bg(x):=g(-x)\quad \text{ and } \quad \varrho(\dx):=\e^{Rx}P_{X_T}(\dx).

608: \end{align*}

609: Moreover $\varrho(\R)=\int\varrho(\dx)$, while $\bg*\varrho$ denotes the

610: convolution of the function $\bg$ with the measure $\varrho$. In this case

611: we will use the following assumptions.

612: 

613: \begin{description}

614: \item[(D1)] Assume that $g\in L^1(\R)$.

615: \item[(D2)] Assume that $M_{X_T}(R)$ exists

616:             ($\Longleftrightarrow \varrho(\R)<\infty$).

617: \end{description}

618: 

619: \begin{theorem}\label{valuation-dc}

620: Let the asset price process be modeled as an exponential

621: semimartingale process according to \eqref{ch3:eq1}--\eqref{ch3:eq3}

622: and conditions (D1)--(D2) be in force. The time-0 price function is

623: given by

624: \begin{align}\label{value-dc}

625: \mathbb V_f(X;\logs) =

626:   \lim_{A\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\e^{-R\logs}}{2\pi}

627:   \int_{-A}^A \e^{-iu\logs}\varphi_{X_T}(u-iR)\widehat{f}(iR-u)\ud u,

628: \end{align}

629: at the point $\logs\in\R$, if $\mathbb V_f(X;\cdot)$ is of bounded

630: variation in a neighborhood of $\logs$, and $\mathbb V_f(X;\cdot)$

631: is continuous at $\logs$.

632: \end{theorem}

633: 

634: \begin{remark}

635: In Section \ref{ch3:payoffs} we will relate the conditions on the

636: valuation function $\mathbb V_f$ to properties of the measure $P_{X_T}$

637: for specific (dampened) payoff functions $g$. These properties are

638: easily checkable -- and typically satisfied -- in many models.

639: \end{remark}

640: 

641: \begin{proof}

642: Starting from \eqref{ch3:eq4}, we can represent the option price function

643: as a convolution of $\bg$ and $\varrho$ as follows

644: \begin{align}\label{value-pw}

645: \V_f(X;\logs) &= \e^{-R\logs}\int_\R \e^{Rx}g(x-\logs)P_{X_T}(\dx)

646:                = \e^{-R\logs}\int_\R \bg(\logs-x)\varrho(\dx) \nonumber\\

647:               &= \e^{-R\logs}\bg*\varrho(\logs).

648: \end{align}

649: Using that $g\in L^1(\R)$, hence also $\bg\in L^1(\R)$, and $\varrho(\R)<\infty$

650: we get that $\bg*\varrho\in L^1(\R)$, since

651: \begin{align}\label{L1-conv}

652: \Vert\bg*\varrho\Vert_{L^1(\R)}

653:  &\le \varrho(\R)\,\Vert\bg\Vert_{\la}<\infty;

654: \end{align}

655: compare with Young's inequality, cf. \citeN[IV.1.6]{Katznelson04}.

656: Therefore, the Fourier transform of the convolution is well defined

657: and we can deduce that, for all $u\in\R$,

658: \begin{align*}

659:  \widehat{\bg*\varrho}(u)=\widehat{\bg}(u)\cdot \widehat{\varrho}(u);

660: \end{align*}

661: compare with Theorem 2.1.1 in \citeN{Bochner55}.

662: 

663: By \eqref{L1-conv} we can apply the inversion theorem for the Fourier

664: transform, cf. Satz 4.2.1 in \citeN{Doetsch50}, and get

665: \begin{align}\label{ug-for}

666: \frac12 \big(\bg*\varrho(\logs+)+\bg*\varrho(\logs-)\big)

667:  &= \frac{1}{2\pi} \lim_{A\rightarrow\infty}

668:     \int_{-A}^A \e^{-iu\logs}\widehat{\varrho}(u)\widehat{\bg}(u)\du,

669: \end{align}

670: if there exists a neighborhood of $\logs$ where

671: $\logs\mapsto\bg*\varrho(\logs)$ is of bounded variation.

672: 

673: We proceed as follows: first we show that the function

674: $\logs\mapsto\bg*\varrho(\logs)$ has bounded variation; then we show

675: that this map is also continuous, which yields that the left hand side

676: of \eqref{ug-for} equals $\bg*\varrho(\logs)$.

677: 

678: For that purpose, we re-write \eqref{value-pw} as

679: \begin{align*}

680: \bg*\varrho(\logs) = \e^{R\logs}\,\mathbb V_f(X;\logs);

681: \end{align*}

682: then, $\bg*\varrho$ is of bounded variation on a compact interval

683: $[a,b]$ if and only if $\mathbb V_f(X;\cdot)\in BV([a,b])$;

684: this holds because the map $\logs\mapsto\e^{R\logs}$ is of bounded

685: variation on any bounded interval on $\R$, and the fact that the

686: space $BV([a,b])$ forms an algebra; cf. Satz 91.3 in \citeN{Heuser01}.

687: Moreover, $\logs$ is a continuity point of $\bg*\varrho$ if and only

688: if $\mathbb V_f(X;\cdot)$ is continuous at $\logs$.

689: 

690: In addition, we have that

691: \begin{align}\label{dc-val-3}

692: \widehat{\bg}(u)

693:  &= \int_\R \e^{-iux}\e^{-Rx}f(x)\dx

694:   = \widehat{f}(iR-u)

695: \end{align}

696: and

697: \begin{align}\label{dc-val-4}

698: \widehat{\varrho}(u)

699:   = \int_\R \e^{iux}\e^{Rx}P_{X_T}(\dx)

700:   = \varphi_{X_T}(u-iR).

701: \end{align}

702: Hence, \eqref{ug-for} together with \eqref{dc-val-3}, \eqref{dc-val-4}

703: and the considerations regarding the continuity and bounded variation

704: properties of the value function yield the required result.

705: \end{proof}

706: 

707: 

708: 

709: \section{Option valuation: multiple assets}

710: \label{Rdval}

711: 

712: \subsection*{1.}

713: We would like to establish valuation formulas for options that depend

714: on several assets or on multiple functionals of one asset.

715: Typical examples of options on several assets are basket options and

716: options on the minimum or maximum of several assets, with payoff

717: \begin{displaymath}

718:   (S_T^1\wedge\cdots\wedge S_T^d-K)^+,

719: \end{displaymath}

720: where $x\wedge y=\min\{x,y\}$. Typical examples of options on functionals

721: of a single asset are \emph{barrier} options, with payoff

722: \begin{displaymath}

723:   (S_T-K)^+1_{\{\overline S_T>B\}},

724: \end{displaymath}

725: and \emph{slide-in} or \emph{corridor} options, with payoff

726: \begin{displaymath}

727:   (S_T-K)^+ \sum_{i=1}^N1_{\{L<S_{T_i}<H\}},

728: \end{displaymath}

729: at maturity $T$, where $0=T_0<T_1<\dots<T_N=T$.

730: 

731: In the previous section we proved that the valuation formulas for a single

732: underlying is still valid -- at least as a pointwise limit, under reasonable

733: additional assumptions -- even if the underlying distribution does not possess

734: a Lebesgue density and the payoff is discontinuous.

735: 

736: In the present section we will generalize the valuation formulas to the case

737: of several underlyings. Once again, if either the joint distribution possesses

738: a Lebesgue density or the payoff function is continuous, the formula is valid

739: as a Lebesgue integral. In case both assumptions fail, we will encounter situations

740: that are apparently of harmless nature, but where the pointwise convergence

741: will fail. In this case we will establish the valuation formulas as an $L^2$-limit;

742: however, with respect to numerical evaluation, a stronger notion of convergence

743: would be preferable.

744: 

745: Analogously to the single asset case we assume that the asset prices evolve

746: as exponential semimartingales. Let the driving process be an $\R^d$-valued

747: semimartingale $H=(H^1,\dots,H^d)^\top$ and $S=(S^1,\dots,S^d)^\top$ be the

748: vector of asset price processes; then each component $S^\icc$ of $S$ is

749: modeled as an exponential semimartingale, i.e.

750: \begin{align}\label{asset-Rd}

751: S^\icc_{t}=S^\icc_0\exp H^\icc_{t}, \qquad \ott, \;1\le \icc\le d,

752: \end{align}

753: where $H^\icc$ is an $\R$-valued

754: semimartingale with canonical representation

755: \begin{equation}\label{Hi-canon}

756:   H^\icc = H^\icc_0 + B^\icc + H^{\icc,c} + h^\icc(x)*(\mu-\nu) + (x^\icc-h^\icc(x))*\mu,

757: \end{equation}

758: with $h^\icc(x)=\e_\icc^\top h(x)$. The martingale condition can be given

759: as in eq. (3.3) in \citeN{EberleinPapapantoleonShiryaev08}.

760: 

761: 

762: \subsection*{2.}

763: In the sequel, we will price options with payoff $f(X_T-\logs)$

764: at maturity $T$, where $X_T$ is an $\F_T$-measurable $\R^d$-valued

765: random variable, possibly dependent of the history of the $d$

766: driving processes, i.e.

767: \begin{align*}

768:  X_T = \Psi\big(H_t,\,0\le t\le T\big),

769: \end{align*}

770: where $\Psi$ is an $\R^d$-valued measurable functional. Further $f$ is a

771: measurable function $f:\R^d\rightarrow\R_+$, and

772: $\logs=(\logs^1,\dots,\logs^d)\in\R^d$ with $\logs^\icc=-\log S_0^\icc$.

773: 

774: Analogously to the single asset case, we use the dampened payoff function

775: \begin{align*}

776:  g(x):= \e^{-\langle R,x\rangle}f(x) \quad\text{ for } x\in\R^d,

777: \end{align*}

778: and denote by $\varrho$ the measure defined by

779: \begin{align*}

780:  \varrho(\dx):= \e^{\langle R,x\rangle} P_{X_T}(\dx),

781: \end{align*}

782: where $R\in\R^d$ serves as a dampening coefficient. Here $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$

783: denotes the Euclidian scalar product in $\R^d$. The scalar product is extended to

784: $\C^d$ as follows: for $u,v\in\C^d$, set $\langle u,v\rangle = \sum_iu_iv_i$, i.e.

785: we do not use the Hermitian inner product. Moreover, $M_{X_T}$ and

786: $\varphi_{X_T}$ denote the moment generating, resp. characteristic, function

787: of the random vector $X_T$.

788: 

789: To establish our results we will make use of the following assumptions.

790: 

791: \begin{description}

792: \item[(A1)] Assume that $g\in L^1(\R^d)$.

793: \item[(A2)] Assume that $M_{X_T}(R)$ exists.

794: \item[(A3)] Assume that $\widehat\varrho\in L^1(\R^d)$.

795: \end{description}

796: 

797: \begin{remark}

798: We can also replace Assumptions (A1) and (A3) with the following

799: assumption

800: \begin{description}

801: \item[(A1$'$)] Assume that $g\in L_{\text{bc}}^1(\R^d)$ and $\widehat{g}\in L^1(\R^d)$;

802: \end{description}

803: this shows again the interplay between the continuity properties of the payoff

804: function and the underlying distribution.

805: \end{remark}

806: 

807: \begin{theorem}\label{valuation-Rd}

808: If the asset price processes are modeled as exponential semimartingale

809: processes according to \eqref{asset-Rd}--\eqref{Hi-canon} and conditions

810: (A1)--(A3) are in force, then the time-$0$ price function is given by

811: \begin{align}\label{value-Rd}

812: \mathbb V_{f}(X;\logs)

813:  &= \frac{\e^{-\langle R,\logs\rangle}}{(2\pi)^d}

814:     \int_{\R^d} \e^{-i\langle u,\logs\rangle} M_{X_T}(R+iu) \widehat{f}(iR-u) \ud u.

815: \end{align}

816: \end{theorem}

817: \begin{proof}

818: Similarly to the one-dimensional case we have that

819: \begin{align}\label{value-map}

820: \V_f(X;\logs) = \e^{-\langle R,\logs\rangle} \bar{g}*\varrho(\logs).

821: \end{align}

822: Since $g\in L^1(\R^d)$ and $\varrho(\R^d)<\infty$, we get that

823: $\bar{g}*\varrho\in L^1(\R^d)$; therefore

824: $\widehat{\bg*\varrho}(u)=\widehat{\bg}(u)\cdot\widehat{\varrho}(u)$ for all

825: $u\in\R^d$. By assumption we know that $\widehat{\varrho}\in L^1(\R^d)$; moreover

826: $\widehat{\bg}\in L^\infty(\R^d)$ since

827: $|\widehat{\bg}|\le\Vert g\Vert_{L^1(\R^d)}<\infty$.

828: These considerations yield that $\widehat{\bg*\varrho}\in L^1(\R^d)$, again by

829: using Young's inequality.

830: 

831: Hence, applying the formula for the Fourier inversion, cf. Corollary

832: 1.21 in \citeN{SteinWeiss71}, we conclude that

833: \begin{align*}

834: \V_f(X;\logs)

835:  &= \frac{\e^{-\langle R,\logs\rangle}}{(2\pi)^d}

836:     \int_{\R^d}\e^{-i\langle u,\logs\rangle}\widehat{\bg}(u)\widehat{\varrho}(u)\du \nonumber\\

837:  &= \frac{\e^{-\langle R,\logs\rangle}}{(2\pi)^d}

838:     \int_{\R^d} \e^{-i\langle u,\logs\rangle} M_{X_T}(R+iu) \widehat{f}(iR-u) \ud u,

839: \end{align*}

840: for a.e. $\logs\in\R^d$.

841: 

842: Moreover, if $\logs\mapsto\V_f(X;\logs)$ is continuous, then the

843: equality holds pointwise for \textit{all} $\logs\in\R^d$. The mapping

844: \eqref{value-map} is continuous if the mapping $\logs\mapsto\bg*\varrho(\logs)$

845: is continuous. Using Assumption (A3) we have that $\varrho$ possesses

846: a bounded continuous Lebesgue density $\rho\in L^1(\R^d)$; cf. Proposition

847: 2.5 (xii) in Sato \citeyear{Sato99}. Then $\bg*\varrho=\bg*\rho$ and

848: \begin{align}\label{Rd-cont}

849: \lim_{|x|\rightarrow0} \bg*\varrho(\logs+x)

850:  &= \lim_{|x|\rightarrow0}\int \bg(\logs+x-z)\rho(z)\dz\nonumber\\

851:  &= \int\lim_{|x|\rightarrow0} \bg(\logs+y)\rho(x-y)\dy

852:   = \bg*\varrho(\logs)

853: \end{align}

854: yielding the continuity of the map. Note that we have used the continuity of

855: $\rho$; additionally, we can interchange integration and limit using the dominated

856: convergence theorem, with majorant $\bg(\cdot)\max_x\rho(x)$.

857: \end{proof}

858: 

859: \begin{remark}

860: The proof using Assumption (A1$'$) follows analogously, with the obvious

861: modifications for \eqref{Rd-cont}.

862: \end{remark}

863: 

864: 

865: \subsection*{3.}

866: Next, we consider the valuation of options on several assets when the

867: payoff function is \emph{discontinuous} and the driving process does

868: \textit{not} necessarily possess a Lebesgue density.

869: 

870: The main difference to the analogous situation in dimension one is that

871: the pointwise convergence of capped Fourier integrals -- as is the case

872: in Satz 4.2.1 in \citeN{Doetsch50} -- cannot be generalized to the

873: multidimensional case. M. Pinsky gives the following astonishing example

874: to illustrate this fact, see section 4.1 in \citeN{Pinsky93}; let $f$ be

875: the indicator function of the unit ball in $\R^3$, then

876: \begin{align}\label{pin-couex}

877: \frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3}}\int_{|x|\le A}\e^{-i\langle u,x\rangle}\widehat{f}(x)\dx\Big|_{u=0}

878:  = 1 - \frac{2}{\pi} \sin(A) + o(1),

879: \end{align}

880: for $A\uparrow \infty$. Extrapolating the convergence results from the

881: one-dimensional case to $\R^3$, we would expect pointwise convergence

882: of the spherical sum to the indicator function, at least in the interior

883: of the ball; on the contrary, the right hand side of \eqref{pin-couex}

884: is even \textit{divergent}.

885: 

886: As a consequence, we only derive an $L^2$-limit for the valuation function.

887: 

888: The setting is similar to the previous sections, and we need to impose the

889: following conditions.

890: \begin{description}

891: \item[(G1)] Assume that $g\in L^1(\R^d)\cap L^2(\R^d)$.

892: \item[(G2)] Assume that $M_{X_T}(R)$ exists.

893: \end{description}

894: 

895: \begin{theorem}\label{L2-valuation}

896: If the asset price process is modeled as an exponential semimartingale

897: process according to \eqref{asset-Rd}--\eqref{Hi-canon} and conditions

898: (G1)--(G2) are in force, then the time-$0$ price function satisfies

899: \begin{align}\label{L2-value}

900: \mathbb V_f(X;\cdot) =

901:  \frac{\e^{-\langle R,\cdot\rangle}}{(2\pi)^d}

902:  \mathop{L^2\hbox{-}\lim}_{A\rightarrow\infty}

903:  \int_{[-A,A]^d}\e^{-i\langle u,\cdot\rangle}\varphi_{X_T}(u-iR)\widehat{f}(iR-u)\ud u.

904: \end{align}

905: \end{theorem}

906: \begin{proof}

907: Similarly to the previous section, we have that

908: \begin{align}\label{ch3:sec5.1}

909: \V_f(X;\logs) = \e^{-\langle R,\logs\rangle}\bg*\varrho(\logs),

910: \end{align}

911: and, for all $u\in\R^d$

912: \begin{align}\label{L2-fouval}

913:  \widehat{\bg*\varrho}(u)=\widehat{\bg}(u)\cdot\widehat{\varrho}(u).

914: \end{align}

915: Now, since $\bg\in L^1(\R^d)\cap L^2(\R^d)$, we get that

916: $\widehat{\bg}\in L^2(\R^d)$ and

917: $\Vert\bg\Vert_{L^2(\R^d)}=\Vert\widehat{\bg}\Vert_{L^2(\R^d)}$; the

918: proofs are analogous to Theorem 9.13 in \citeN{Rudin87}.

919: Moreover, we have that $\bg*\varrho\in L^2(\R^d)$, because

920: \begin{align*}

921: \Vert\bg*\varrho\Vert^2_{L^2(\R^d)}

922:  &\le \varrho(\R^d)^2\,\Vert\bg\Vert^2_{L^2(\R^d)}<\infty.

923: \end{align*}

924: Therefore, since also $\bg*\varrho\in L^1(\R^d)$ we get that

925: $\bg*\varrho\in L^1(\R^d)\cap L^2(\R^d)$

926: and, analogously again to Theorem 9.13 in \citeN{Rudin87}, we get

927: that $\widehat{\bg*\varrho}\in L^2(\R^d)$

928: and $\Vert\bg*\varrho\Vert_{L^2(\R^d)}=\Vert\widehat{\bg*\varrho}\Vert_{L^2(\R^d)}$.

929: 

930: Therefore, the Fourier transform in \eqref{L2-fouval} can be  inverted

931: and the inversion is given as an $L^2$-limit; more precisely, we have

932: \begin{align}\label{dc-val-1}

933: \Vert\bg*\varrho-\psi_A\Vert_{L^2(\R^d)}\rightarrow0

934: \qquad (A\rightarrow\infty)

935: \end{align}

936: where

937: \begin{align}\label{dc-val-2}

938: \psi_A(\logs)

939:  &= \frac{1}{(2\pi)^d}\int_{[-A,A]^d}

940:     \!\e^{-i\langle u,\logs\rangle}\widehat{\bg*\varrho}(u)\ud u\nonumber\\

941:  &= \frac{1}{(2\pi)^d}\int_{[-A,A]^d}\!\e^{-i\langle u,\logs\rangle}

942:     \widehat{f}(iR-u)\varphi_{X_T}(u-iR)\ud u.

943: \end{align}

944: Finally, \eqref{ch3:sec5.1} and \eqref{dc-val-1}--\eqref{dc-val-2}

945: yield the option price function.

946: \end{proof}

947: 

948: \begin{remark}

949: The problem becomes significantly simpler when dealing with the product

950: $f_1(X_T)f_2(Y_T)$ of a continuous payoff function $f_1$ for the variable

951: $X$ and a discontinuous payoff function $f_2$ for the other variable $Y$,

952: even in the absence of Lebesgue densities. A typical example of this situation

953: is the barrier option payoff, where $f_1(x)=(\e^{x}-K)^+$ and

954: $f_2(y)=1_{\{\e^{y}>B\}}$. Then, one can make a measure change using the

955: (normalized) continuous payoff as the Radon--Nikodym derivative, apply Theorem

956: \ref{valuation} and then Theorem \ref{valuation-dc}; this leads to pointwise

957: convergence of the valuation function. The measure change argument is outlined

958: in \citeN{BorovkovNovikov02} and \citeN[Theorem 3.5]{Papapantoleon06}.

959: \end{remark}

960: 

961: 

962: 

963: \section{Sensitivities -- Greeks}

964: \label{greeks}

965: 

966: The structure of the asset price model as an exponential semimartingale,

967: and the resulting structure of the option price function, allows us to

968: easily derive general formulas for the sensitivities of the option price

969: with respect to model parameters. In this section we will focus on the

970: sensitivities with respect to the initial value, i.e. delta and gamma,

971: while sensitivities with respect to other parameters can be derived

972: analogously.

973: 

974: Let us rewrite the option price function as a function of the initial

975: value, using that $S_0=\e^{-\logs}$, as follows:

976: \begin{align}\label{price}

977: \mathbb{V}_f(X;S_0)

978:  &= \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\R} S_0^{R-iu} M_{X_T}(R-iu) \widehat{f}(u+iR) \ud u.

979: \end{align}

980: The delta of an option is the partial derivative of

981: the price with respect to the initial value. For a generic option with payoff

982: $f$, we have that

983: \begin{align}\label{delta}

984: \Delta_f(X;S_0)

985:  &= \frac{\partial\mathbb{V}_f(X;S_0)}{\partial S_0}\nonumber\\

986:  &= \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\R} \frac{\partial}{\partial S_0}S_0^{R-iu}

987:      M_{X_T}(R-iu) \widehat{f}(u+iR) \ud u \nonumber\\

988:  &= \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\R} S_0^{R-1-iu} M_{X_T}(R-iu)

989:      \frac{\widehat{f}(u+iR)}{(R-iu)^{-1}}\ud u.

990: \end{align}

991: The gamma of an option is the partial derivative of the delta with respect

992: to the initial value. For a generic option with payoff $f$, we  get

993: \begin{align}\label{gamma}

994: \Gamma_f(X;S_0)

995:  &= \frac{\partial\Delta_f(X;S_0)}{\partial S_0}

996:   = \frac{\partial^2\mathbb{V}_f(X;S_0)}{\partial^2 S_0}\nonumber\\

997:  &= \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\R} S_0^{R-2-iu}

998:      \frac{M_{X_T}(R-iu)\widehat{f}(u+iR)}{(R-1-iu)^{-1}(R-iu)^{-1}}\ud u.

999: \end{align}

1000: 

1001: In the above equations we have taken \textit{for granted} that we can exchange

1002: integration and differentiation; however, this is the crucial step and we will

1003: provide sufficient conditions when we are allowed to do that. Using Satz

1004: IV.5.7 in \citeN{Elstrodt99} and the elementary inequality

1005: $|\text{Im} f|+|\text{Re} f|\le 2|f|$, we get that we can differentiate under

1006: the integral sign if there exists an integrable function $\wp$ such

1007: that for all $u\in\R$ and all $S_0>0$

1008: \begin{align*}

1009: \Big|\frac{\partial}{\partial S_0}F(u,S_0)\Big|\le \wp(u),

1010: \end{align*}

1011: where

1012: \begin{align*}

1013:  F(u,S_0) = S_0^{R-iu} M_{X_T}(R-iu) \widehat{f}(u+iR).

1014: \end{align*}

1015: Now we can estimate the partial derivative of the function $F$:

1016: \begin{align}\label{D-est}

1017: \Big|\frac{\partial}{\partial S_0}F(u,S_0)\Big|

1018:  &= |\e^{(R-1-iu)\log S_0}||R-iu| |M_{X_T}(R-iu) \widehat{f}(u+iR)|\nonumber\\

1019:  &\le \mathpzc{c}(1+|u|)|M_{X_T}(R-iu)||\widehat{f}(u+iR)|

1020:   =:\wp(u).

1021: \end{align}

1022: Analogously we can estimate for the second derivative of $F$:

1023: \begin{align}\label{G-est}

1024: \Big|\frac{\partial^2}{\partial S_0^2}F(u,S_0)\Big|

1025:   &\le \mathpzc{c}'(1+|u|^2)|M_{X_T}(R-iu)||\widehat{f}(u+iR)|

1026:    =:\wp'(u).

1027: \end{align}

1028: 

1029: Sufficient conditions for the function $\wp$ in \eqref{D-est}, resp.

1030: $\wp'$ in \eqref{G-est}, to be integrable are that

1031: $|u||M_{X_T}(R-iu)|$, resp. $|u|^2|M_{X_T}(R-iu)|$, is integrable and

1032: $\widehat{f}(\cdot+iR)$ is bounded; the first condition dictates in particular

1033: that the measure $P_{X_T}$ -- equivalently $\varrho$ -- has a density of class

1034: $C^1$, resp. $C^2$; see Proposition 28.1 in \citeN{Sato99}. Alternatively, a

1035: sufficient condition is that the function $|u||\widehat{f}(u+iR)|$, resp.

1036: $|u|^2|\widehat{f}(u+iR)|$, is integrable and $M_{X_T}(R-i\cdot)$ is bounded,

1037: highlighting once again the interplay between the properties of the measure

1038: and the payoff function.

1039: 

1040: 

1041: 

1042: \section{Examples of payoff functions}

1043: \label{ch3:payoffs}

1044: 

1045: \subsection*{1.}

1046: Here we list some representative examples of payoff functions used in

1047: finance, together with their Fourier transforms and comment on whether

1048: they satisfy some of the required assumptions for option pricing. The

1049: calculations for the call option are provided explicitly and for other

1050: options they follow  along the same lines.

1051: 

1052: \begin{example}[Call and put option]\label{ch3:ex-call}

1053: The payoff of the standard call option with strike $K\in\Rp$ is $f(x)=(\e^x-K)^+$.

1054: Let $z\in\C$ with $\Im z\in(1,\infty)$, then the

1055: Fourier transform of the payoff function of the call option is

1056: \begin{align}\label{ch3:eqop:1}

1057:  \widehat{f}(z)

1058:   &= \int_\R\e^{izx}(\e^x-K)^+\dx

1059:    = \int_{\ln K}^\infty \e^{(1+iz)x}\dx -K\int_{\ln K}^\infty \e^{izx}\dx\nonumber\\

1060: %  &= -\frac{1}{1+iz}\e^{(1+iz)\ln K} + \frac{K}{iz}\e^{iz\ln K}\\

1061:   &= -K^{1+iz}\frac{1}{1+iz} + K^{iz}\frac{K}{iz}

1062:    = \frac{K^{1+iz}}{iz(1+iz)}.

1063: \end{align}

1064: Now, regarding the dampened payoff function of the call option, we

1065: easily get for $R\in(1,\infty)$ that $g\in\labc\cap L^2(\R)$. The weak

1066: derivative of $g$ is

1067: \begin{align}

1068:  \partial g(x) =

1069: \left\{%

1070: \begin{array}{ll}

1071:     0, & \hbox{if $x<\ln K$,} \\

1072:     \e^{-Rx}(\e^x-R\e^x+RK), & \hbox{if $x>\ln K$.} \\

1073: \end{array}%

1074: \right.

1075: \end{align}

1076: Again, we have that $\partial g\in L^2(\R)$. Therefore, $g\in H^1(\R)$ and

1077: using Lemma \ref{sobo} we can conclude that $\widehat{g}\in\la$. Summarizing,

1078: conditions (C1) and (C3) of Theorem \ref{valuation} are fulfilled for the

1079: payoff function of the call option.

1080: 

1081: Similarly, for a put option, where $f(x)=(K-\e^x)^+$, we

1082: have that

1083: \begin{align}\label{ch3:eqop:2}

1084:  \widehat{f}(z) = \frac{K^{1+iz}}{iz(1+iz)},

1085:   \qquad  \Im z\in (-\infty,0).

1086: \end{align}

1087: Analogously to the case of the call option, we can conclude for the dampened

1088: payoff function of the put option that $g\in\labc$ and $g\in H^1(\R)$ for $R<0$,

1089: yielding $\widehat{g}\in\la$. Hence, conditions (C1) and (C3) of Theorem

1090: \ref{valuation}  are also fulfilled for the payoff function of the put option.

1091: \end{example}

1092: 

1093: \begin{example}[Digital option]\label{ch3:ex-dig}

1094: The payoff of a digital call option with barrier $B\in\Rp$ is

1095: $1_{\{\e^x>B\}}$. Let $z\in\C$ with $\Im z\in(0,\infty)$, then

1096: the Fourier transform of the payoff function of the digital call

1097: option is

1098: \begin{align}\label{ch3:eqop:3}

1099:  \widehat{f}(z)

1100:    = -\frac{B^{iz}}{iz}.

1101: \end{align}

1102: Similarly, for a digital put option, where $f(x)=1_{\{\e^x<B\}}$,

1103: we have that

1104: \begin{align}\label{ch3:eqop:4}

1105:  \widehat{f}(z) = \frac{B^{iz}}{iz},

1106:   \qquad  \Im z\in (-\infty,0).

1107: \end{align}

1108: For the dampened payoff function of the digital call and put option,

1109: we can easily check that $g\in\la$ for $R\in(0,\infty)$

1110: and $R\in(-\infty,0)$.

1111: 

1112: Regarding the continuity and bounded variation properties of the value

1113: function, we have that

1114: \begin{align*}

1115: \mathbb{V}_f(X,\logs)

1116:  &= E\big[1_{\{\e^{X_T-\logs}>B\}}\big]

1117:   = P\big(X_T>\log(B)+\logs\big)

1118:   = 1-F_{X_T}\big(\log(B)+\logs\big),

1119: \end{align*}

1120: where $F_{X_T}$ denotes the cumulative distribution function of $X_T$.

1121: Therefore, $\logs\mapsto\mathbb{V}_f(X,\logs)$ is monotonically decreasing,

1122: hence it has locally bounded variation. Moreover, we can conclude

1123: that $\logs\mapsto\mathbb{V}_f(X,\logs)$ is continuous if the

1124: measure $P_{X_T}$ is \textit{atomless}.

1125: 

1126: Summarizing, condition (D1) is always satisfied for the payoff function of the

1127: digital option, while the prerequisites of Theorem \ref{valuation-dc} on

1128: continuity and bounded variation are satisfied if the measure $P_{X_T}$ does

1129: not have atoms.

1130: \end{example}

1131: 

1132: \begin{example}

1133: A variant of the digital option is the so-called

1134: \emph{asset-or-nothing digital}, where the option holder receives

1135: one unit of the \emph{asset}, instead of \emph{currency}, depending

1136: on whether the underlying reaches some barrier or not. The payoff of

1137: the asset-or-nothing digital call option with barrier $B\in\Rp$ is

1138: $f(x)=\e^x1_{\{\e^x>B\}}$, and the Fourier transform, for $z\in\C$

1139: with $\Im z\in(1,\infty)$, is

1140: \begin{align}

1141:  \widehat{f}(z)

1142:    = -\frac{B^{1+iz}}{1+iz}.

1143: \end{align}

1144: Arguing analogously to the previous example, we can deduce that condition

1145: (D1) is always satisfied for the payoff function of the asset-or-nothing

1146: digital option, while the prerequisites of Theorem \ref{valuation-dc} are

1147: satisfied if the measure $P_{X_T}$ does not have atoms.

1148: \end{example}

1149: 

1150: \begin{example}[Double digital option]\label{ch3:ddig}

1151: The payoff of the double digital call option with barriers

1152: $\underline{B},\overline{B}>0$ is

1153: $1_{\{\underline{B}<\e^x<\overline{B}\}}$. Let $z\in\C\setminus\lbrace0\rbrace$,

1154: then the Fourier transform of the payoff function is

1155: \begin{align}

1156:  \widehat{f}(z)

1157:   = \frac{1}{iz}\left(\overline{B}^{iz}-\underline{B}^{iz}\right).

1158: \end{align}

1159: The dampened payoff function of the double digital option

1160: satisfies $g\in\la$ for all $R\in\R$.

1161: 

1162: Moreover, we can decompose the value function of the double

1163: digital option as

1164: \begin{align*}

1165: \mathbb{V}_f(X,\logs)

1166:  &= \mathbb{V}_{f_1}(X,\logs)-\mathbb{V}_{f_2}(X,\logs),

1167: \end{align*}

1168: where $f_1(x)=1_{\{\e^{x}<\overline{B}\}}$ and

1169: $f_2(x)=1_{\{\underline{B}\le\e^{x}\}}$. Hence, by the results of Example

1170: \ref{ch3:ex-dig}, we get that condition (D1) is always satisfied for the

1171: payoff function of the double digital option, while the prerequisites of

1172: Theorem \ref{valuation-dc} are satisfied if the measure $P_{X_T}$ does not

1173: have atoms.

1174: \end{example}

1175: 

1176: \begin{example}[Self-quanto and power options]

1177: The payoff of a self-quanto call option with strike $K\in\Rp$ is

1178: $f(x)=\e^x(\e^x-K)^+$. The Fourier transform of the payoff function of the

1179: self-quanto call option, for $z\in\C$ with $\Im z\in(2,\infty)$, is

1180: \begin{align}

1181:  \widehat{f}(z)

1182:   &= \frac{K^{2+iz}}{(1+iz)(2+iz)}.

1183: \end{align}

1184: The payoff of a power call option with strike $K\in\Rp$ and power $2$ is

1185: $f(x)=[(\e^x-K)^+]^2$; for $z\in\C$ with $\Im z\in(2,\infty)$, the Fourier

1186: transform is

1187: \begin{align}

1188: \widehat{f}(z)

1189:   &= -\frac{2K^{2+iz}}{iz(1+iz)(2+iz)}.

1190: \end{align}

1191: The payoff functions for the respective put options are defined in the

1192: obvious way, while the Fourier transforms are identical, with the range

1193: for the imaginary part of $z$ being respectively $(-\infty,1)$ and

1194: $(-\infty,0)$.

1195: 

1196: Analogously to Example \ref{ch3:ex-call}, we can deduce that conditions

1197: (C1) and (C3) of Theorem \ref{valuation} are fulfilled for the payoff

1198: function of the self-quanto and the power option.

1199: \end{example}

1200: 

1201: \begin{remark}

1202: For power options of higher order we refer to Raible \citeyear[Chapter 3]{Raible00}.

1203: \end{remark}

1204: 

1205: 

1206: \subsection*{2.}

1207: Next we present some examples of payoff functions for options on

1208: several assets and for options on multiple functionals of one asset,

1209: together with their corresponding Fourier transforms.

1210: 

1211: \begin{example}[Option on the minimum/maximum]\label{min-two-asset}

1212: The payoff function of a call option on the minimum of $d$ assets is

1213: \begin{align*}

1214:  f(x)=(\e^{x_1}\wedge\dots\wedge\e^{x_d}-K)^+,

1215: \end{align*}

1216: for $x\in\R^d$. The Fourier transform of this payoff function is

1217: \begin{align}\label{Fou-min-d}

1218: \widehat{f}(z)

1219:    = -\frac{K^{1+i\sum_{k=1}^d z_k}}{(-1)^d(1+i\sum_{k=1}^d z_k)\prod_{k=1}^d (iz_k)},

1220: \end{align}

1221: where $z\in\C^d$ with $\Im z_k>0$ for $1\le k\le d$ and

1222: $\Im(\sum_{k=1}^d z_k)>1$; for more details we refer to Appendix

1223: \ref{fou-min}. Then, we can easily deduce for the dampened payoff function

1224: that $g\in L^1_{\text{bc}}(\R^d)$.

1225: 

1226: Moreover, for the put option on the maximum of $d$ assets, the payoff

1227: function is

1228: \begin{align*}

1229:  f(x)=(K-\e^{x_1}\vee\dots\vee\e^{x_d})^+,

1230: \end{align*}

1231: for $x\in\R^d$, where $a\vee b=\max\{a,b\}$. The Fourier transform is

1232: \begin{align}\label{Fou-max-d}

1233: \widehat{f}(z)

1234:  = \frac{K^{1+i\sum_{k=1}^d z_k}}{(1+i\sum_{k=1}^d z_k)\prod_{k=1}^d (iz_k)},

1235: \end{align}

1236: with the restriction now being $\Im z_k<0$ for all $1\le k\le d$. Again, we can

1237: easily deduce that the dampened payoff function satisfies

1238: $g\in L^1_{\text{bc}}(\R^d)$. Therefore, condition (A1) of Theorem

1239: \ref{valuation-Rd} is satisfied.

1240: \end{example}

1241: 

1242: \begin{example}

1243: A natural example of multi-asset payoff functions are products of single

1244: asset payoff functions. These payoff functions have the form

1245: \begin{align*}

1246:  f(x) = \prod_{\icc=1}^d f_\icc(x_\icc),

1247: \end{align*}

1248: for $x\in\R^d$, where $x_\icc\in\R$ and $f_\icc:\R\rightarrow\R_+$, for all

1249: $1\le\icc\le d$; for example, one can consider $f_1(x_1)=(\e^{x_1}-K)^+$

1250: and $f_2(x_2)=1_{\{\e^{x_2}>B\}}$.

1251: 

1252: The Fourier transform of these payoff functions is simply the product

1253: of the Fourier transform of the `marginal' payoff functions, since

1254: \begin{align*}

1255: \widehat{f}(z)

1256:  &= \int_{\R^d} \e^{i\langle z,x\rangle}\prod_{\icc=1}^d f_\icc(x_\icc)\dx

1257:   = \prod_{\icc=1}^d\int_{\R} \e^{iz_\icc x_\icc}f_\icc(x_\icc)\ud x_\icc

1258:   = \prod_{\icc=1}^d\widehat{f}_\icc(z_\icc),

1259: \end{align*}

1260: for $z\in\C^d$ and $z_\icc\in\C$, with $\Im z$ in an appropriate range such

1261: that $\widehat{g}\in L^1(\R^d)$. This range, as well as other properties of

1262: $\widehat{f}$, are dictated by the corresponding properties of the Fourier

1263: transforms $\widehat{f}_\icc$ of the marginal payoff functions $f_\icc$.

1264: \end{example}

1265: 

1266: \begin{remark}

1267: Further examples of multiple asset payoff functions, such as basket

1268: and spread options, and their Fourier transforms can be found in

1269: \citeN{HubalekKallsen03}.

1270: \end{remark}

1271: 

1272: 

1273: \subsection*{3.}

1274: We add a short remark on the rate of decay of the Fourier transform of

1275: the various payoff functions and its consequence for numerical implementations.

1276: 

1277: Consider the standard call option, where the Fourier transform of

1278: the dampened payoff function has the form, cf. \eqref{ch3:eqop:1},

1279: \begin{align*}

1280: \widehat{g}(u) = \frac{K^{1-R}\e^{iu\log{K}}}{(R-iu)(R-1-iu)},

1281:   \qquad u\in\R.

1282: \end{align*}

1283: Then, we have that

1284: \begin{align*}

1285: |\widehat{g}(u)|

1286:  \leq \frac{K^{1-R}}{\sqrt{R^2+u^2}\sqrt{(R-1)^2+u^2}}

1287:  \leq \frac{K^{1-R}}{(R-1)^2+u^2},

1288: \end{align*}

1289: which shows that $\widehat{g}(u)$ behaves like $\frac{1}{u^2}$ for

1290: $|u|>1$. On the other hand, a similar calculation for the digital

1291: option shows that the Fourier transform of the dampened digital

1292: payoff behaves like $\frac{1}{u}$ for $|u|>1$.

1293: 

1294: Therefore, splitting a call option into the difference of an

1295: asset-or-nothing digital and a digital option, as many authors have

1296: proposed in the literature (cf. e.g. \citeNP{Heston93}), is not only

1297: `conceptually' sub-optimal, as can be seen by Theorems \ref{valuation}

1298: and \ref{valuation-dc}. More importantly, it is also not optimal from

1299: the numerical perspective, since the rate of decay for the digital

1300: option is much slower than for the call option, leading to slower

1301: numerical evaluation of the corresponding option prices.

1302: 

1303: Indeed, we have calculated the prices of call options corresponding

1304: to 11 strikes and 10 maturities, first using the formula for the call

1305: option, and then representing the call option as the difference of two

1306: digital options. The numerical calculation using the second method

1307: lasts twice as long (6 secs compared to less than 3 secs) in a

1308: standard Matlab implementation.

1309: 

1310: 

1311: 

1312: \section{Examples of driving processes}

1313: \label{LA}

1314: 

1315: The application of Fourier transform valuation formulas in practice requires

1316: the explicit knowledge of the moment generating function of the underlying

1317: random variable. As such, Fourier methods are tailor-made for pricing European

1318: options in \lev and affine models, since in these models one typically knows

1319: the moment generating function explicitly (at least up to the solution of a

1320: Riccati equation). In order to give a flavor, we present here an overview of

1321: \lev and affine processes, referring to the literature for specific formulas

1322: and proofs.

1323: 

1324: In \lev processes, the moment generating function of the random variable is

1325: described by the celebrated \lk formula; for a \lev process \prozess[H] with

1326: triplet ($b,c,\lambda$) we have:

1327: \begin{align}

1328: E\big[\e^{\scal{u}{H_t}}\big] = \exp\left(\kappa(u)\cdot t\right),

1329: \end{align}

1330: for suitable $u\in\R^d$, where the cumulant generating function is

1331: \begin{align}\label{lk-mgf-general}

1332: \kappa(u) = \scal{b}{u} + \frac{1}{2}\scal{u}{cu}

1333:           + \int_{\R^d}\left(\e^{\scal{u}{x}}-1-\scal{u}{h(x)}\right)\lambda(\dx);

1334: \end{align}

1335: here $h$ denotes a suitable truncation function. The most popular \lev models

1336: are the VG and CGMY processes (cf. \citeNP{MadanSeneta90}, 

1337: Carr et al. \citeyearNP{Carretal02}), the hyperbolic, NIG and GH processes

1338: (cf. Eberlein and Keller \citeyearNP{EberleinKeller95},

1339: \citeNP{Barndorff-Nielsen98}, \citeNP{Eberlein01a}), and the Meixner model (cf.

1340: \citeNP{SchoutensTeugels98}).

1341: 

1342: In affine processes, the moment generating functions are described by the

1343: very definition of these processes. Let \prozess[X] be an affine process

1344: on the state space $D=\R^m\times\Rp^n\subseteq\R^d$, starting from $x\in D$;

1345: i.e., under suitable conditions, there exist functions

1346: $\phi:[0,T]\times\mathcal{I}\to\R$ and

1347: $\psi:[0,T]\times\mathcal{I}\to\R^d$ such that

1348: \begin{align}

1349: E_x\big[\e^{\scal{u}{X_t}}\big] = \exp\left(\phi_t(u) + \scal{\psi_t(u)}{x} \right),

1350: \end{align}

1351: for all $(t,u,x)\in[0,T]\times\mathcal{I}\times D$, $\mathcal{I}\subseteq\R^d$.

1352: The functions $\phi$ and $\psi$ satisfy generalized Riccati equations, while

1353: their time derivatives

1354: \begin{align*}

1355:  F(u) = \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\big|_{t=0}\phi_t(u)

1356: \quad\text{ and }\quad

1357:  R(u) = \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\big|_{t=0}\psi_t(u),

1358: \end{align*}

1359: are of \lk form \eqref{lk-mgf-general}; we refer to

1360: \shortciteN{DuffieFilipoviSchachermayer03} and 

1361: Keller-Ressel \citeyear{KellerRessel08} for

1362: comprehensive expositions and the necessary details. The class of affine

1363: processes contains as special cases -- among others -- many stochastic

1364: volatility models, such as the \citeN{Heston93} model, the BNS model (cf.

1365: Barndorff-Nielsen and Shephard

1366: \citeyearNP{Barndorff-NielsenShephard01}, \citeNP{NicolatoVenardos03}), and

1367: time-changed \lev models (cf. \shortciteNP{Carretal03}, \citeNP{Kallsen06}).

1368: 

1369: 

1370: 

1371: \section{Numerical illustration}

1372: \label{ch3:sc5}

1373: 

1374: As an illustration of the applicability of Fourier-based valuation formulas

1375: even for the valuation of options on several assets, we present a numerical

1376: example on the pricing of an option on the minimum of two assets. As driving

1377: motions we consider a 2d normal inverse Gaussian (NIG) \lev process and a

1378: 2d affine stochastic volatility model.

1379: 

1380: Let $H$ denote a 2d NIG random variable,

1381: i.e. \[H=(H^1,H^2)\sim\text{NIG}_2(\alpha,\beta,\delta,\mu,\Delta),\]

1382: where the parameters have the following domain of definition:

1383: $\alpha,\delta\in\R_+$, $\beta,\mu\in\R^2$, and

1384: $\Delta\in\R^{2\times2}$ is a symmetric, positive-definite matrix; w.l.o.g.

1385: we can assume that $\text{det}(\Delta)=1$; in addition,

1386: $\alpha^2>\scal{\beta}{\Delta\beta}$. Then, the moment generating function of

1387: $H$, for $u\in\R^2$ with $\alpha^2-\langle \beta+u,\Delta(\beta+u)\rangle\ge0$,

1388: is

1389: \begin{align}\label{2d-NIG-MGF}

1390: M_{H}(u)

1391:  &= \exp\left( \langle u,\mu\rangle

1392:        + \delta\left(\sqrt{\alpha^2-\langle \beta,\Delta\beta\rangle}

1393:            -\sqrt{\alpha^2-\langle \beta+u,\Delta(\beta+u)\rangle}\right)\right).

1394: \end{align}

1395: In the $\text{NIG}_2$ model, we specify the parameters $\alpha,\beta,\delta$

1396: and $\Delta$, and the drift vector $\mu$ is determined by the martingale

1397: condition. Note that the marginals $H^\icc$ are also NIG

1398: distributed (cf. \citeNP[Theorem 1]{Blaesild81}), hence the drift vector can be

1399: easily evaluated from the cumulant of the univariate NIG law. The covariance

1400: matrix corresponding to the $\text{NIG}_2$-distributed random variable $H$ is

1401: \begin{align*}

1402: \Sigma_{\text{NIG}}

1403:  &= \delta \left( \alpha^2-\scal{\beta}{\Delta\beta} \right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}

1404:     \left( \Delta + \left( \alpha^2-\scal{\beta}{\Delta\beta} \right)^{-1}

1405:            \Delta\beta\beta^{\top}\Delta\right),

1406: \end{align*}

1407: cf. \citeN[eq. (4.15)]{Prause99}. A comprehensive exposition of the

1408: multivariate generalized hyperbolic distributions can be found in

1409: \citeN{Blaesild81}; cf. also \citeN{Prause99}.

1410: 

1411: We will also consider the following affine stochastic volatility model

1412: introduced by \citeN{DempsterHong02}, that extends the framework of Heston

1413: \citeyear{Heston93} to the multi-asset case. Let $H=(H^1,H^2)$ denote the logarithm

1414: of the asset price processes $S=(S^1,S^2)$, i.e. $H^\icc=\log S^\icc$; then,

1415: $H^\icc$, $\icc=1,2$ satisfy the following SDEs:

1416: \begin{align*}

1417: \ud H^1_t &= -\frac{1}{2}\sigma_1^2v_t\dt + \sigma_1\sqrt{v_t}\ud W_t^1 \nonumber\\

1418: \ud H^2_t &= -\frac{1}{2}\sigma_2^2v_t\dt + \sigma_2\sqrt{v_t}\ud W_t^2\\

1419: \ud v_t &= \kappa(\mu-v_t)\dt + \sigma_3\sqrt{v_t}\ud W_t^3, \nonumber

1420: \end{align*}

1421: with initial values $H_0^1,H_0^2,v_0>0$. The parameters have the

1422: following domain of definition: $\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\sigma_3>0$ and

1423: $\mu,\kappa>0$. Here $W=(W^1,W^2,W^3)$ denotes a 3-dimensional

1424: Brownian motion with correlation coefficients

1425: \begin{align*}

1426: \scal{W^1}{W^2}=\rho_{12},\quad

1427: \scal{W^1}{W^3}=\rho_{13},\quad\text{ and }\quad

1428: \scal{W^2}{W^3}=\rho_{23}.

1429: \end{align*}

1430: The moment generating function of the vector $H=(H^1,H^2)$ has been calculated

1431: by \citeN{DempsterHong02}; for $u=(u_1,u_2)\in\R^2$ we have

1432: \begin{align*}

1433: M_{H_t}(u)

1434:  &= \exp\bigg( \scal{u}{H_0}

1435:               + \frac{2\zeta(1-\e^{-\theta t})}{2\theta - (\theta-\gamma)(1-\e^{-\theta t})}\cdot v_0

1436:   \nonumber\\

1437:   &\qquad\qquad - \frac{\kappa\mu}{\sigma_3^2}

1438:             \Big[ 2\cdot\log\Big(\frac{2\theta -

1439:                  (\theta-\gamma)(1-\e^{-\theta t})}{2\theta}\Big) + (\theta-\gamma)t \Big] \bigg),

1440: \end{align*}

1441: where $\zeta=\zeta(u)$, $\gamma=\gamma(u)$, and $\theta=\theta(u)$ are

1442: \begin{align*}

1443: \zeta &=

1444:  \frac{1}{2}\Big(\sigma_1^2u_1^2 + \sigma_2^2u_2^2 + 2\rho_{12}\sigma_1\sigma_2u_1u_2

1445:                   - \sigma_1^2u_1 - \sigma_2^2u_2\Big),\\

1446: \gamma &=

1447:  \kappa - \rho_{13}\sigma_1\sigma_3u_1 - \rho_{23}\sigma_2\sigma_3u_2,\\

1448: \theta &=

1449:  \sqrt{\gamma^2 - 2\sigma_3^2\zeta}.

1450: \end{align*}

1451: 

1452: We can deduce that all three models satisfy conditions (A2) and (A3) of Theorem

1453: \ref{valuation-Rd} for certain values of $R$. Explicit calculations for the 2d

1454: NIG model are deferred to Appendix \ref{regularity-2D-NIG}; analogous calculations

1455: yield the results for the other models.

1456: 

1457: The Fourier transform of the payoff function

1458: $f(x)=(\e^{x_1}\wedge\e^{x_2}-K)^+$, $x\in\R^2$, corresponding to the option on

1459: the minimum of two assets is given by \eqref{Fou-min-d} for $d=2$, and we get

1460: that condition (A1) of Theorem \ref{valuation-Rd} is satisfied for $R_1,R_2>0$

1461: such that $R_1+R_2>1$.

1462: 

1463: Therefore, applying Theorem \ref{valuation-Rd}, the price of an option on the

1464: minimum of two assets is given by

1465: \begin{align*}%\label{ch3:tac}

1466: \mathbb{MTA}_T(S^1,S^2;K)

1467:  &= \frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int_{\R^2}

1468:     (S_0^1)^{R_1+iu_1}(S_0^2)^{R_2+iu_2}

1469:     M_{H_T}(R_1+iu_1,R_2+iu_2)\nonumber\\

1470:  & \qquad \times

1471:    \frac{K^{1-R_1-R_2-iu_1-iu_2}}{(R_1+iu_1)(R_2+iu_2)(R_1+R_2-1+iu_1+iu_2)}\ud u,

1472: \end{align*}

1473: where $M_{H_T}$ denotes the moment generating function of the random vector

1474: $H_T$, and $R_1,R_2$ are suitably chosen.

1475: 

1476: In the numerical illustrations, we consider the following parameters: strikes

1477: \[

1478: K=\left\{85,90,92.5,95,97.5,100,102.5,105,107.5,110,115\right\}

1479: \]

1480: and times to maturity

1481: \[

1482: T = \left\{\tfrac{1}{12},\tfrac{2}{12},0.25,0.50,0.75,1.00\right\}.

1483: \]

1484: In the 2d NIG model, we consider some typical parameters, e.g.

1485: $S_0^1=100$, $S_0^2=95$, $\alpha=6.20$, $\beta_1=-3.80$, $\beta_2=-2.50$ and

1486: $\delta = 0.150$; we consider two matrices

1487: $\Delta^+=\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix}1&0\\0&1\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$ and

1488: $\Delta^-=\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix}1&-1\\-1&2\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$, which

1489: give positive and negative correlations respectively; indeed we get that

1490: \begin{align*}

1491: \Sigma_{\text{NIG}}^+ =

1492: \begin{pmatrix}

1493:     0.0646  &  0.0191\\

1494:     0.0191  &  0.0481

1495: \end{pmatrix}

1496: \quad \text{and} \quad

1497: \Sigma_{\text{NIG}}^- =

1498: \begin{pmatrix}

1499:     0.0287  & -0.0258\\

1500:    -0.0258  &  0.0556

1501: \end{pmatrix}.

1502: \end{align*}

1503: The option prices in these two cases are exhibited in Figure \ref{Fig:2NIG}.

1504: 

1505: \begin{figure}

1506: \begin{center}

1507:  \includegraphics[width=6.250cm,keepaspectratio=true]{2NIG_MTA_PosCorr.eps}

1508:  \includegraphics[width=6.250cm,keepaspectratio=true]{2NIG_MTA_NegCorr.eps}

1509:   \caption{Option prices in the 2d NIG model with positive (left) and

1510:            negative (right) correlation.}

1511:   \label{Fig:2NIG}

1512: \end{center}

1513: \end{figure}

1514: 

1515: Finally, in the stochastic volatility model we consider the parameters used in

1516: \citeN{DempsterHong02}, that is $S_0^1=96$, $S_0^2=100$, $\sigma_1=0.5$,

1517: $\sigma_2=1.0$, $\sigma_3=0.05$, $\rho_{12}=0.5$, $\rho_{13}=0.25$,

1518: $\rho_{23}=-0.5$, $v_0=0.04$, $\kappa=1.0$ and $\mu=0.04$; the option prices are

1519: shown in Figure \ref{Fig:2SV}.

1520: 

1521: \begin{figure}

1522: \begin{center}

1523:  \includegraphics[width=8.00cm,keepaspectratio=true]{2SV_MTA.eps}

1524:   \caption{Option prices in the 2d stochastic volatility model.}

1525:   \label{Fig:2SV}

1526: \end{center}

1527: \end{figure}

1528: 

1529: 

1530: 

1531: \appendix

1532: \section{Fourier transforms of multi-asset options}

1533: \label{fou-min}

1534: 

1535: In this appendix we outline the derivation of the Fourier transform

1536: corresponding to the payoff function of an option on the minimum of

1537: several assets; the derivation for the maximum is completely analogous

1538: and therefore omitted.

1539: 

1540: The payoff of a (call) option on the minimum of $d$ assets is

1541: \begin{align*}

1542: (S^1\wedge S^2\wedge\dots\wedge S^d -K)^+.

1543: \end{align*}

1544: The payoff function $f$ corresponding to this option is given,

1545: for $x\in\R^d$, by

1546: \begin{align*}

1547: f(x)

1548:  &=(\e^{x_1}\wedge\e^{x_2}\wedge\dots\wedge\e^{x_d} -K)^+

1549:   = (\e^{x_1\wedge x_2\wedge\dots\wedge x_d}-K)^+. %\nonumber\\

1550: \end{align*}

1551: The following decomposition holds, if $x_i\neq x_j$ for $i\neq j$,

1552: $1\le i,j\le d$

1553: \begin{align*}

1554: f(x)

1555:   = \sum_{i=1}^d(\e^{x_i}-K)^+1_{\{x_i\le x_j, \forall j\}}

1556:   = \sum_{i=1}^d(\e^{x_i}-K)

1557:     \prod_{\substack{j=1\\j\neq i}}^d1_{\{k<x_i<x_j\}},

1558: \end{align*}

1559: where $k=\log K$. Define also the auxiliary functions $f_i$, $1\le i\le d$, where

1560: \begin{align*}

1561: f_i(x)= (\e^{x_i}-K)\prod_{\substack{j=1\\j\neq i}}^d1_{\{k<x_i<x_j\}}.

1562: \end{align*}

1563: 

1564: The dampened payoff function is $g(x)=\e^{-\langle R,x\rangle}f(x)$,

1565: where $R\in\R^d$; we define analogously the dampened $f_i$-functions,

1566: i.e. $g_i(x)=\e^{-\langle R,x\rangle}f_i(x)$. For simplicity, we first

1567: calculate the Fourier transform of the dampened $f_1$-function; for

1568: $u\in\R^d$ we get

1569: \begin{align}

1570: \widehat{g}_1(u)

1571:  &= \int_{\R^d}\e^{\langle iu-R,x\rangle}(\e^{x_1}-K)\prod_{j=2}^d1_{\{k<x_1\le x_j\}}\dx\nonumber\\

1572:  &= \int_k^{\infty}\int_{x_1}^{\infty}\dots\int_{x_1}^{\infty}

1573:     \e^{\langle iu-R,x\rangle}(\e^{x_1}-K)\dx_d\dots\dx_1 \nonumber\\

1574:  &= \int_k^{\infty}\e^{(iu_1-R_1)x_1}(\e^{x_1}-K)

1575:     \left(\prod_{j=2}^d\int_{x_1}^{\infty}\e^{(iu_j-R_j)x_j}\dx_j\right)\dx_1 \nonumber\\

1576:  &= \int_k^{\infty}\e^{(iu_1-R_1)x_1}(\e^{x_1}-K)

1577:     \prod_{j=2}^d\left(-\frac{\e^{(iu_j-R_j)x_1}}{iu_j-R_j}\right)\dx_1\nonumber\\

1578:  &= \frac{1}{\prod_{j=2}^d(R_j-iu_j)}

1579:     \int_k^{\infty}\e^{\sum_{j=1}^d(iu_j-R_j)x_1}(\e^{x_1}-K)\dx_1 \nonumber\\

1580:  &= \frac{1}{\prod_{j=2}^d(R_j-iu_j)}\left(

1581:      -\frac{K^{1+\sum_{j=1}^d(iu_j-R_j)}}{1+\sum_{j=1}^d(iu_j-R_j)}

1582:      +\frac{K^{1+\sum_{j=1}^d(iu_j-R_j)}}{\sum_{j=1}^d(iu_j-R_j)}\right)\nonumber\\

1583:  &= \frac{K^{1+\sum_{j=1}^d(iu_j-R_j)}}

1584:          {\prod_{j=2}^d(R_j-iu_j)\times\left(1+\sum_{j=1}^d(iu_j-R_j)\right)

1585:            \times\left(\sum_{j=1}^d(iu_j-R_j)\right)} \nonumber,

1586: \end{align}

1587: subject to the conditions $R_j>0$ for all $j\ge2$ and

1588: $\sum_{j=1}^dR_j>1$.

1589: 

1590: Hence, in general we have that

1591: \begin{align*}

1592: \widehat{g}_l(u)

1593:  &= \frac{K^{1+\sum_{j=1}^d(iu_j-R_j)}}

1594:          {\prod_{\substack{j=1\\j\neq l}}^d(R_j-iu_j)

1595:           \times\left(1+\sum_{j=1}^d(iu_j-R_j)\right)\times\left(\sum_{j=1}^d(iu_j-R_j)\right)},

1596: \end{align*}

1597: subject to the conditions $R_j>0$ for all $1\le j\le d$ and

1598: $\sum_{j=1}^dR_j>1$.

1599: 

1600: Now, we recall that $f(x)=\sum_{l=1}^df_l(x)$, hence $g(x)=\sum_{l=1}^dg_l(x)$

1601: which yields $\widehat{g}(u)=\sum_{l=1}^d\widehat{g}_l(u)$; therefore

1602: \begin{align*}

1603: \widehat{g}(u)

1604:  &= \sum_{l=1}^d\frac{K^{1+\sum_{j=1}^d(iu_j-R_j)}}

1605:          {\prod_{\substack{j=1\\j\neq l}}^d(R_j-iu_j)

1606:           \times\left(1+\sum_{j=1}^d(iu_j-R_j)\right)\times\left(\sum_{j=1}^d(iu_j-R_j)\right)} \nonumber\\

1607:  &= \frac{K^{1+\sum_{j=1}^d(iu_j-R_j)}}

1608:          {\left(1+\sum_{j=1}^d(iu_j-R_j)\right)\times\left(\sum_{j=1}^d(iu_j-R_j)\right)}

1609:     \;\sum_{l=1}^d\frac{R_l-iu_l}{\prod_{j=1}^d(R_j-iu_j)}\nonumber\\

1610:  &= \frac{-K^{1+\sum_{j=1}^d(iu_j-R_j)}}

1611:          {(-1)^d\prod_{j=1}^d(iu_j-R_j)\left(1+\sum_{j=1}^d(iu_j-R_j)\right)}.

1612: \end{align*}

1613: This we can also rewrite as

1614: \begin{align}

1615: \widehat{f}(z)

1616:  &= - \frac{K^{1+i\sum_{j=1}^d z_j}}

1617:            {(-1)^d\prod_{j=1}^d(iz_j)\left(1+i\sum_{j=1}^dz_j\right)},

1618: \end{align}

1619: subject to the conditions $\Im z_j>0$ for all $1\le j\le d$ and

1620: $\sum_{j=1}^d \Im z_j>1$.

1621: 

1622: 

1623: 

1624: \section{Calculations for the 2d NIG model}

1625: \label{regularity-2D-NIG}

1626: 

1627: By the moment generating function of the 2d NIG process, cf. \eqref{2d-NIG-MGF},

1628: it is evident that assumption (A2) is satisfied for $R\in\R^2$ with

1629: $\alpha^2-\langle\beta+R,\Delta(\beta+R)\rangle\ge0$. In order to verify

1630: condition (A3) we have to show that the function $u\mapsto M_H(R+iu)$ is

1631: integrable; it suffices to show that the real part of the exponent of

1632: $M_H(R+iu)$ decays like $-|u|$. We have

1633: \begin{align*}

1634: \log\big(M_H(R+iu)\big)

1635:  &= i \langle  \mu,u \rangle +  \langle  \mu,R\rangle  + \delta \sqrt{ \alpha^2 - \langle \beta,\Delta \beta \rangle }\\

1636:  &\quad - \delta \sqrt{ \alpha^2 - \langle \beta+R+iu, \Delta(\beta + R +iu)\rangle}\,.

1637: \end{align*}

1638: Recall that the product $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ over $\C^d$ is defined

1639: as follows: for $u,v\in\C^d$ set $\langle u,v\rangle = \sum_iu_iv_i$. Then

1640: \begin{multline*}

1641: \langle \beta+R+iu, \Delta(\beta + R +iu)\rangle \\ =

1642:  \langle \beta+R, \Delta(\beta + R )\rangle - \langle u, \Delta u\rangle + 2 i \langle \beta+R, \Delta u\rangle

1643: \end{multline*}

1644: and since

1645: $\sqrt{z} = \sqrt{\frac{1}{2}(|z| + \Re(z))} + i \frac{\Im(z)}{|\Im(z)|}\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}(|z| - \Re(z))}$,

1646: we get

1647: \begin{align*}

1648: \lefteqn{ \Re\big(  \log\big( M_H(R+iu)\big)\big)}\\

1649: &=

1650:    \langle  \mu,R\rangle  + \delta \sqrt{ \alpha^2 - \langle

1651: \beta,\Delta \beta \rangle }

1652: -\frac{\delta}{\sqrt{2}}\Big\{

1653: \big| \alpha^2 - \langle \beta+R+iu, \Delta(\beta + R +iu)\rangle \big|  \\

1654: &\quad+ \alpha^2 - \langle \beta+R,\Delta( \beta+R) \rangle + \langle u,

1655: \Delta u\rangle  \Big\}^{1/2} \\

1656: &\le

1657:   \langle  \mu,R\rangle  + \delta \sqrt{ \alpha^2 - \langle \beta,\Delta

1658: \beta \rangle }

1659: -  \delta \sqrt{ \alpha^2 - \langle \beta+R,\Delta (\beta +R)\rangle +

1660: \langle u, \Delta u\rangle  } \\

1661: &\le

1662: \langle  \mu,R\rangle  + \delta \sqrt{ \alpha^2 - \langle \beta,\Delta

1663: \beta \rangle }

1664: - \delta \sqrt{\lambda_{\min}} |u| \,,

1665: \end{align*}

1666: where $\lambda_{\min}$ denotes the smallest eigenvalue of the matrix $\Delta$.

1667: 

1668: 

1669: 

1670: \bibliographystyle{chicago}

1671: %\bibliography{C:/WorkFiles/Papers/references}

1672: % \bibliography{H:/Papers/references}

1673: %\bibliography{/home/famuser/papapan/Papers/references}

1674: \bibliography{references}

1675: 

1676: 

1677: 

1678: \end{document}