American Option Pricing with Discrete and Continuous Time Models: An Empirical Comparison

Journal of Empirical Finance (Impact Factor: 0.84). 06/2011; 18(5). DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1875847

ABSTRACT This paper considers discrete time GARCH and continuous time SV models and uses these for American option pricing. We perform a Monte Carlo study to examine their differences in terms of option pricing, and we study the convergence of the discrete time option prices to their implied continuous time values. Finally, a large scale empirical analysis using individual stock options and options on an index is performed comparing the estimated prices from discrete time models to the corresponding continuous time model prices. The results indicate that, while the differences in performance are small overall, for in the money options the continuous time SV models do generally perform better than the discrete time GARCH specifications.

Download full-text


Available from: Lars Stentoft, Jul 05, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent empirical studies have shown that GARCH models can be successfully used to describe option prices. Pricing such contracts requires knowledge of the risk neutral cumulative return distribution. Since the analytical forms of these distributions are generally unknown, computationally intensive numerical schemes are required for pricing to proceed. Heston and Nandi (2000) consider a particular GARCH structure that permits analytical solutions for pricing European options and they provide empirical support for their model. The analytical tractability comes at a potential cost of realism in the underlying GARCH dynamics. In particular, their model falls in the affine family, whereas most GARCH models that have been examined fall in the non-affine family. This article takes a closer look at this model with the objective of establishing whether there is a cost to restricting focus to models in the affine family. We confirm Heston and Nandi's findings, namely that their model can explain a significant portion of the volatility smile. However, we show that a simple non affine NGARCH option model is superior in removing biases from pricing residuals for all moneyness and maturity categories especially for out-the-money contracts. The implications of this finding are examined. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2005
    Review of Derivatives Research 01/2005; 8(3):129-150. DOI:10.1007/s11147-006-9001-3 · 0.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Substantial progress has been made in developing more realistic option pricing models. Empirically, however, it is not known whether and by how much each generalization improves option pricing and hedging. The authors fill this gap by first deriving an option model that allows volatility, interest rates, and jumps to be stochastic. Using S&P 500 options, they examine several alternative models from three perspectives: (1) internal consistency of implied parameters/volatility with relevant time-series data, (2) out-of-sample pricing, and (3) hedging. Overall, incorporating stochastic volatility and jumps is important for pricing and internal consistency. But for hedging, modeling stochastic volatility alone yields the best performance. Copyright 1997 by American Finance Association.
    The Journal of Finance 02/1997; 52(5):2003-49. DOI:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb02749.x · 4.22 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this paper, we develop an efficient lattice algorithm to price European and American options under discrete time GARCH processes. We show that this algorithm is easily extended to price options under generalized GARCH processes, with many of the existing stochastic volatility bivariate diffusion models appearing as limiting cases. We establish one unifying algorithm that can price options under almost all existing GARCH specifications as well as under a large family of bivariate diffusions in which volatility follows its own, perhaps correlated, process. Copyright The American Finance Association 1999.
    The Journal of Finance 02/1999; 54(1):377-402. DOI:10.1111/0022-1082.00109 · 4.22 Impact Factor