2010
DOI: 10.1002/fut.20505
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On approximating deep in‐the‐money Asian options under exponential Lévy processes

Abstract: This note proposes a new approach of valuing deep in-the-money fixed strike and discretely monitoring arithmetic Asian options. This new approach prices Asian options whose underlying asset price evolves according to the exponential of a Lévy process as a weighted sum of European options. Numerical results from experimenting on three different types of Lévy processes-a diffusion process, a jump diffusion process, and a pure jump process-illustrate the accuracy of the approach.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(7 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We would like to point out that the reasoning described in Equations (11) and (12) of Tchuindjo () cannot provide the first equality in Equation (13). Invoking the convexity of the function false(·)+:=max{·,0}, one can argue that this equality should be a “less than or equal,” providing an upper bound for the approximating price in Equation (10) of an Asian option.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…We would like to point out that the reasoning described in Equations (11) and (12) of Tchuindjo () cannot provide the first equality in Equation (13). Invoking the convexity of the function false(·)+:=max{·,0}, one can argue that this equality should be a “less than or equal,” providing an upper bound for the approximating price in Equation (10) of an Asian option.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…
The approximation in Tchuindjo (2012) for the value of the in-the-money arithmetic Asian options in the exponential Lévy setting is shown to be an upper bound, which cannot be smaller than the optimal upper bound derived in Albrecher et al (2005). Consequently, some of the results in Table VIII of Tchuindjo (2012) are inaccurate.
…”
mentioning
confidence: 92%
See 3 more Smart Citations