Abstract
This paper extends the traditional jump-diffusion model to a comprehensive general Lévy process model with the stochastic interest rate for European-style options pricing. By using the Girsanov theorem and Itô formula, we derive the uniform formalized pricing formulas under the equivalent martingale measure. This model contains not only the traditional jump-diffusion model, such as the compound Poisson model, the renewal model, the pure-birth jump-diffusion model, but also the infinite activities Lévy model.
1. Introduction
European-style options such as vanilla call and put options are some of the most widely traded contracts among financial instruments and were first successfully priced in 1973 by Black and Scholes [1]. However, this framework demonstrates inconsistency with the empirical characteristics of the real market where the presence of stock prices “jumps” and continuous-time trading is physically impossible. Moreover, it is unreasonable to assume that the short-term interest rate is periodically-constant, either. Merton (1975) [2] introduced the European-style option pricing formula with stock prices following the jump-diffusion model. Kou (2002) [3] proposed the double exponential jump-diffusion model and derived the analytical solutions to European call and put options. Carr and Wu (2003) [4] confirmed that there is a diffusion part and a jump part in the S&P 500 index. Zhang, Zhao and Chang (2012) [5] considered the option pricing problem under the equilibrium pricing model where the stock price satisfies the jump-diffusion process. Fu (2012) [6] investigated the equilibrium approach of asset pricing for Lévy process. Liang and Li (2015) [7] introduced Normal Tempered Stable (NTS) process and derived explicit formulae for option pricing and hedging by means of the characteristic function based methods. Deelstra and Simon (2017) [8] considered the pricing of some multivariate European options, when the risky assets involved are modeled by Markov-Modulated Lévy Processes (MMLPs). More recently, Bao and Zhao (2019) [9] studied the pricing of European options under Markovian regime switching exponential Lévy models with stochastic interest rates model. Nowak and Pawłowski (2019) [10] used a Lévy process of jump–diffusion type for description of an underlying asset and derived analytical option pricing formulas using the minimal equivalent martingale measure. Feng, Tan, Jiang and Chen (2020) [11] proposed a European option-pricing model with stochastic volatility and stochastic interest rates and pure-jump Lévy processes.
The purpose of this paper is threefold. Firstly, the paper extends the traditional jump-diffusion model to a comprehensive general Lévy process model which contains not only the traditional jump-diffusion model, such as the compound Poisson model, the renewal model, the pure-birth jump-diffusion model, but also the infinite activities Lévy model. Secondly, to be more realistic, the model puts forward “stochastic interest rate” assumptions as well as “constant interest rate”. Thirdly, by using the Girsanov theorem and Itô formula, we have derived the uniform formalized European-style options pricing formulas under the equivalent martingale measure.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 gives the basic knowledge required for theorem-proof and formula derivation. Section 3 presents the general market model, i.e., the stock price meets the general Lévy process, of which the interest rate is subject to the Vasieck stochastic one. Section 4 derives the uniform formalized European option pricing formula under the market assumption. Section 5 focuses on some special cases. Given these examples, the innovation of the work done in this article can be justified. The Section 6 conducts numerical experiments by using some examples under the framework of our proposed model so as to illustrate its applicable value. The paper is concluded with Section 7.
2. Preliminaries
In this section, we mainly give serval notations and definitions of Lévy process and Lévy measure. The reader may refer to [12,13,14,15] for more detail.
Definition 1.
A cádág stochastic process defined on a probability space is a Lévy process satisfying following properties:
- (1) (a.s.);
- (2) X has independent and stationary increments;
- (3) X is stochastically continuous, i.e., for all and for all
Definition 2.
is a Lévy process in , we say that is X’s Lévy measure if:
where is a Borel σ-algebra defined in .
Lemma 1.
If is a Lévy process, is a Lévy measure which satisfying following properties:
Then, we have can be expressed as
where
and is jump component, defined as
Remark 1.
If , the process in Equation (1) can be represented as
where . If ν is a finite measure, the process is a compound Poisson process.
3. The Market Model
In this section, we propose a comprehensive general Lévy process model with the stochastic interest rate. The model extends to the previous market assumptions in the option pricing literature, such as Merton (1975) [2], Kou (2002) [3], Liang and Li (2015) [7] and etc., so that the model could capture more sophisticated and flexible jump structure of the underlying asset as well as the systematic interest rate risk. In the following, the dynamics of the general Lévy process model with the stochastic interest rate will be firstly specified, with which one can easily see how our model is constructed.
We consider intertemporal economy, the market uncertainty are represented by the complete probability space , where is probability measure function in , is the information filtration.
Suppose there are only two continuously tradable assets in a financial market, one is risky assets, it may be set as stocks . In the probability space , satisfies the general Lévy process.
where is a Lévy process which has the following form like Equation (2) or Lemma 1:
is the overall level of volatility, is the jump component and is the Lévy measure of jump parts.
The other one is risk-free assets, it may be set as bond which has short-term interest rate , satisfing the Vasicek stochastic interest rate model.
where , , are deterministic functions of time t, is 1-dimensional standard Brownian motions on and . Furthermore, is independent of .
Theorem 1.
Proof of Theorem 1.
Using the Itô formula for in Equation (3), we get the following stochastic differential equation.
Using the theorem of the existence of equivalent martingale measure, we can find a risk neutral measure , equivalent to physical measure . Under this new equivalent measure, if all jump risks are nonsystematic, Equation (7) can be written as follows
where determines the overall level of volatility of the sample paths into continuous, and is 1-dimensional standard Brownian motions on . is the jump component and is the Lévy measure of jump parts.
Then, considering the stochastic interest rate in the market model, we assume that is a 2-dimensional standard Brownian motions on and
where , are 1-dimensional standard Brownian motions on the probability space , . Let us rewrite Equations (4) and (8) as follows
and
where , .
Using the Itô’s formula, we obtain the solution of Equation (9)
For , the Itô’s formula for Equation (10) is
where .
Notice that
where
□
4. Option Pricing under General Lévy Process Model with Stochastic Interest Rate
In this section, we focus on the European-style options pricing based on the market model proposed in Section 3. We derive the uniform formalized options pricing formulas under the equivalent martingale measure, beginning with the comprehensive general Lévy process, in which the Normal Tempered Stable model, the compound Poisson model, the Merton model, the BS model are viewed as special cases.
Theorem 2.
Let the stock price and interest rate satisfy process Equations (5) and (6), and T is the expiration date. Then the price of an European call option with the strike price K at time t is given by
where
is the expectation operator of , and is the cumulative distribution function of the standard normal distribution.
Proof of Theorem 2.
The European call option that pays at time T. By using the no-arbitrage hypothesis and martingale representation theorem, we split the last integral into two parts
We begin by considering so,
where
Let be a new measure. Then the Girsanov’s differential can be written as
By using Girsanov’s theorem, and under the new probability measure we obtain a 2-dimensional standard Brownian motion where .
Now let
then
Hence,
where
Let us now consider ,
Similarly, let be a new measure. Then,
Hence, is a standard Brownian motion under measure . Therefore, we have
where
□
5. Some Special Cases
In this section, we give some special Lévy processes of exponential type.
Remark 2.
where
ξ is the jump size, λ is the jump intensity, , , and is the expectation operator of ξ.
As seen from this example, once the distribution function or expression of and the specific form of , we can get the corresponding option pricing formula according to formula Equations (13) and (14), not just limited to the stock price satisfying the specific jump diffusion process model. This is the most important innovation of this article.
Remark 3.
If the short-rate is a constant, then we can simplify Equations (13) and (14), then obtain the Merton model in paper [2].
Remark 4.
If the stoke price is a diffusion process, which means that there are no jumps, and the short-rate is a constant, then Equations (13) and (14) yields the well-known Black-Scholes [1] formula.
6. Numerical Experiment
In this section, we conduct the empirical investigation via some example models under our general model framework. We concentrate on four alternative models to price options: the Black-Scholes model termed BS, the Merton model termed Merton, the Normal Tempered Stable model, termed NTS, the compound Poisson process with stochastic interest rate, termed CPSIR, the NTS process with stochastic interest rate, termed NTSSIR. The model selection aims at covering and comparing the following features: a model exhibiting infinite jump activity and small jumps versus a model exhibiting finite jump activity and large jumps; a model with stochastic interest rate versus a model without one; The BS model is a limiting case of every other model and viewed as the benchmark in our empirical study. Daily option prices are used to estimate parameters, while the models’ performance, both in-sample and out-of-sample, are tested respectively.
The option prices used in this study are from the AAPL stock options traded in the Chicago Board Options Exchange. We employ the delayed market quotes on 15 April 2020 as the in-sample data to calibrate the risk-neutral parameters, with the underlying price $284.43, and those on 16 April 2020, are used for the out-of-sample test, within the underlying price $286.69. To ensure sufficient liquidity and to alleviate the influences of price discreetness during the valuation, we preclude the option quotes that lower than $0.3 in the sample data.
Model parameters are estimated by minimizing loss function that measures pricing errors between model prices and market prices. Here we adopt the mean logarithmic square error (MLSE) as loss function to avoid overweight in-the-money options contracts in mean square error (MSE) method and non-convergence problem in the calculation for deep-out-of-the-money and deep-in-the-money options in implied volatility MSE (IVMSE) method. The function is defined by Equation (16).
where and denoting the number of maturities and the number of strikes in daily sample, respectively. is the mid-prices of AAPL stock options and is the model-determined prices for a given parameter set.
Compared with the BS model of which only the volatility parameter needs to be estimated, the Merton and NTS model requires both volatility parameter and the jump-related parameters be estimated, where is the jump intensity and is the jump size. The difference between these two models is that the jump structure of Merton model is finite activity and large, while the counterpart of NTS model turns out to be infinite activity and small. In light of the CPSIR and NTSSIR model, the volatility parameter , the jump-related parameters along with stochastic interest rate are estimated. These two models increase the stochastic interest rate, and the jump structure in CPSIR model is finite activity and large jumps whereas in NTSSIR model is infinite activity and small jumps.
Table 1 presents the estimated parameters. Taking into the small standard deviations the model parameters have shown, the stability is justified.
Table 1.
Parameter estimate. This table shows the estimated parameter on 15 April 2020. The parameters are back out using loss function MLSE. For each parameter, we report the mean level and the standard deviation (in parentheses).
Then, we assess and investigate the in-sample and the out-of-sample pricing errors so as to evaluate five model performances. The indicators employed to measure the magnitude of the pricing errors are Mean Absolute Errors (MAE) and Mean Absolute Percentage Errors (MAPE). Furthermore, the option data has been divided into three categories, in line with the moneyness , where S and K denote the AAPL stock price and the exercise price individually. OTM, ATM, ITM represent the out-of-the-money options, at-the-money options, in-the-money options, respectively.
Table 2 and Table 3 are in-sample and out-of-sample pricing errors corresponding to the estimated parameters in Table 1, separately. Several conclusions can be drawn from the empirical results. Firstly, regarding the reported MAE and MAPE value, we have noticed that the consideration of the stochastic interest rate contributes to models’ performance. Secondly, the finite activity and large jumps in NTS process are more suitable for pricing AAPL stock options, in comparison to the compound Poisson process and Merton model. On the whole, NTSSIR shows the best both in-sample and out-of-sample performance, capable of fitting market prices as well as producing jump structure.
Table 2.
In-sample pricing errors. For a given model, we compute the price of each option on on 15 April 2020, using the parameters estimated in Table 1. The group under the heading MAPE reports the sample average of the absolute difference between the market price and the model price for each option in a given moneyness category; the group under the heading MAE reports the sample average of the value derived through dividing the MAE by the market price.
Table 3.
Out-of-sample pricing errors. For a given model, we compute the price of each option on on 16 April 2020, using the parameters estimated in Table 1. The group under the heading MAPE reports the sample average of the absolute difference between the market price and the model price for each option in a given moneyness category; the group under the heading MAE reports the sample average of the value derived through dividing the MAE by the market price.
It should be noted, we only provide one kind of practical utility in determining the prices of AAPL stock options. As our model provides a generalized European-style options price formula, the practitioners can compare and elect more suitable jump process in accordance with the underlying asset distributions.
7. Conclusions
This paper extends the traditional jump-diffusion model to a comprehensive general Lévy process model with a stochastic interest rate for European-style options pricing. The model includes various special models, such as the Poisson process where the stock price follows the jump intensity and the amplitude is constant, or the compound Poisson process where the jump intensity is unchanged and the jump amplitude changes, and pricing model of pure-birth process with varying jump intensity and amplitude. According to the pricing formula Equations (13) and (14) given in this paper, all European option pricing expressions corresponding to their respective models can be derived. In addition, compared with other article assumptions, the article assumes that the stock price is subject to a general index Lévy process so that the relative jump structure has no range limit. It is more convenient to handle in the calculation and practical utility.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, X.T. and S.L.; methodology, X.T.; validation, X.T., S.L. and S.W.; formal analysis, X.T.; writing—original draft preparation, X.T. and S.W.; writing—review and editing, X.T. and S.W.; visualization, X.T.; supervision, S.L.; funding acquisition, S.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.11571310, No.11171304 and No.71371168).
Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful to the editor and the reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions that helped to improve the quality of the paper.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Black, F.; Scholes, M. The pricing of options and corporate liabilities. J. Political Econ. 1973, 81, 637–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merton, R.C. Option pricing when underlying stock returns are discontinuous. J. Financ. Econ. 1975, 3, 125–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kou, S. A Jump-Diffusion Model for Option Pricing. Manag. Sci. 2002, 48, 1086–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carr, P.; Wu, L. What type of process underlies options? A simple robust test. J. Financ. 2003, 58, 2581–2610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.E.; Zhao, H.; Chang, E.C. Equilibrium asset and option pricing under jump diffusion. Math. Financ. An Int. J. Math. Stat. Financ. Econ. 2012, 22, 538–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fu, J.; Yang, H. Equilibruim approach of asset pricing under Lévy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2012, 223, 701–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Liang, C.; Li, S. Option pricing and hedging in incomplete market driven by Normal Tempered Stable process with stochastic volatility. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2015, 423, 701–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deelstra, G.; Simon, M. Multivariate European option pricing in a Markov-modulated Lévy framework. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 2017, 317, 171–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bao, J.; Zhao, Y. Option pricing in Markov-modulated exponential Lévy models with stochastic interest rates. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 2019, 357, 146–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nowak, P.; Pawlowski, M. Pricing European options under uncertainty with application of Levy processes and the minimal Lq equivalent martingale measure. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 2019, 345, 416–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, C.; Tan, J.; Jiang, Z.; Chen, S. A generalized European option pricing model with risk management. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Its Appl. 2020, 545, 123797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brigo, D.; Mercurio, F. Interest Rate Models-Theory and Practice: With Smile, Inflation and Credit; Springer Science & Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Platen, E.; Heath, D. A Benchmark Approach to Quantitative Finance; Springer Science & Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Applebaum, D. Lévy Processes and Stochastic Calculus; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Hirsa, A.; Neftci, S.N. An Introduction to the Mathematics of Financial Derivatives; Academic press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).