# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

• Previous Article
Channel leadership and recycling channel in closed-loop supply chain: The case of recycling price by the recycling party
• JIMO Home
• This Issue
• Next Article
Equilibrium periodic dividend strategies with non-exponential discounting for spectrally positive Lévy processes
doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020042

## A lattice method for option evaluation with regime-switching asset correlation structure

Received  January 2016 Revised  January 2017 Published  March 2020

Fund Project: The first authors are supported by the Adam Smith Business School of the University of Glasow

This paper develops a lattice method for option evaluation in the presence of regime shifts in the correlation structure of assets, aiming at investigating whether the option prices reflect such shifts. We try to investigate whether option prices reflect switches in the correlation between the underlying asset of an option and risk-free rates.We develop and test two models.In the first model we allow all the parameters to follow a regime-switching process while in the second model, in order to isolate the regime-switching correlation effect on the option prices, we allow only the correlation to follow a regime-switching process. We use pentanomial lattices to represent the evolution of the regime-switching underlying assets. This is then applied in our empirical analysis, which focuses on crude oil. We use grid- and patternsearch based techniques to fit our models. Our findings suggest that prices of market traded options reflect the regime-switches and that a model which considers these switches produces significantly more accurate results than a single-regime model. We demonstrate that there is an asymmetry between parameter values obtained from historical data (backward looking) and those that are implied by traded options (for- ward looking) by employing the Kim filter to estimate our model.

Citation: Christoforidou Amalia, Christian-Oliver Ewald. A lattice method for option evaluation with regime-switching asset correlation structure. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, doi: 10.3934/jimo.2020042
##### References:

show all references

##### References:
Binomial tree
Pentanomial tree
Sensitivity of Call Option value to Transition Probabilities
Sensitivity of Call Option Value to the Regime Parameters
Sensitivity of option price to the regime resistance of the two regimes
Sensitivity of Option Price to the regime switching correlation
 Jump Probability Underlying Asset Price Up $\pi_{u}$ $S_{u}$ Horizontal $\pi_{0}$ $S$ Down $\pi_{d}$ $S_{d}$
 Jump Probability Underlying Asset Price Up $\pi_{u}$ $S_{u}$ Horizontal $\pi_{0}$ $S$ Down $\pi_{d}$ $S_{d}$
 Event Probability Underlying Asset Price Asset 1 Asset 2 $E_{1}$ $\pi_{1}$ $S_{p}u_{p}$ $S_{b}u_{b}$ $E_{2}$ $\pi_{2}$ $S_{p}u_{p}$ $S_{b}d_{b}$ $E_{3}$ $\pi_{3}$ $S_{p}d_{p}$ $S_{b}d_{b}$ $E_{4}$ $\pi_{4}$ $S_{p}d_{p}$ $S_{b}u_{b}$ $E_{5}$ $\pi_{5}$ $S_{p}$ $S_{b}$
 Event Probability Underlying Asset Price Asset 1 Asset 2 $E_{1}$ $\pi_{1}$ $S_{p}u_{p}$ $S_{b}u_{b}$ $E_{2}$ $\pi_{2}$ $S_{p}u_{p}$ $S_{b}d_{b}$ $E_{3}$ $\pi_{3}$ $S_{p}d_{p}$ $S_{b}d_{b}$ $E_{4}$ $\pi_{4}$ $S_{p}d_{p}$ $S_{b}u_{b}$ $E_{5}$ $\pi_{5}$ $S_{p}$ $S_{b}$
 Strike Price Market Price Predicted by Lattice Predicted by BS 16 4.9 3.881616 3.9936 17 2.85 3.127282 3.0613 18 2.35 2.373772 2.2162 19 1.65 1.629733 1.5029 20 0.95 0.949999 0.9500 21 0.4 0.399999 0.5587 22 0.2 0.200003 0.3059 23 0.2 0.136097 0.1565 24 0.1 0.105053 0.0750 25 0.15 0.088113 0.0339 Sum of absolute differences 1.110163 2.573241
 Strike Price Market Price Predicted by Lattice Predicted by BS 16 4.9 3.881616 3.9936 17 2.85 3.127282 3.0613 18 2.35 2.373772 2.2162 19 1.65 1.629733 1.5029 20 0.95 0.949999 0.9500 21 0.4 0.399999 0.5587 22 0.2 0.200003 0.3059 23 0.2 0.136097 0.1565 24 0.1 0.105053 0.0750 25 0.15 0.088113 0.0339 Sum of absolute differences 1.110163 2.573241
 Strike Price Market Price Predicted by Lattice Predicted by BS 16 5 4.4153631 4.3208036 17 3.8 3.7998973 3.5464351 18 2.45 2.3996588 2.8585724 19 2.25 1.9270998 2.2636265 20 1.6 1.5997621 1.7622281 21 1.35 1.3087541 1.3499542 22 0.95 1.0205032 1.0186664 23 1.05 1.1713058 0.7580323 24 0.6 0.6000609 0.5569055 25 0.5 0.4960518 0.4043912 Sum of absolute differences 0.4890502 1.1145081
 Strike Price Market Price Predicted by Lattice Predicted by BS 16 5 4.4153631 4.3208036 17 3.8 3.7998973 3.5464351 18 2.45 2.3996588 2.8585724 19 2.25 1.9270998 2.2636265 20 1.6 1.5997621 1.7622281 21 1.35 1.3087541 1.3499542 22 0.95 1.0205032 1.0186664 23 1.05 1.1713058 0.7580323 24 0.6 0.6000609 0.5569055 25 0.5 0.4960518 0.4043912 Sum of absolute differences 0.4890502 1.1145081
 Strike Price Market Price Predicted by Lattice Predicted by BS 16 5 4.4153631 4.3208036 17 3.8 3.7998973 3.5464351 18 2.45 2.3996588 2.8585724 19 2.25 1.9270998 2.2636265 20 1.6 1.5997621 1.7622281 21 1.35 1.3087541 1.3499542 22 0.95 1.0205032 1.0186664 23 1.05 1.1713058 0.7580323 24 0.6 0.6000609 0.5569055 25 0.5 0.4960518 0.4043912 Sum of absolute differences 0.4890502 1.1145081
 Strike Price Market Price Predicted by Lattice Predicted by BS 16 5 4.4153631 4.3208036 17 3.8 3.7998973 3.5464351 18 2.45 2.3996588 2.8585724 19 2.25 1.9270998 2.2636265 20 1.6 1.5997621 1.7622281 21 1.35 1.3087541 1.3499542 22 0.95 1.0205032 1.0186664 23 1.05 1.1713058 0.7580323 24 0.6 0.6000609 0.5569055 25 0.5 0.4960518 0.4043912 Sum of absolute differences 0.4890502 1.1145081
 Strike Price Predicted 16 4.9 1.625144372 17 2.85 1.269327353 18 2.35 0.940833993 19 1.65 0.626509398 20 0.95 0.420399871 21 0.4 0.245524212 22 0.2 0.158808617 23 0.2 0.079890983 24 0.1 0.045583587 25 0.15 0.023566284
 Strike Price Predicted 16 4.9 1.625144372 17 2.85 1.269327353 18 2.35 0.940833993 19 1.65 0.626509398 20 0.95 0.420399871 21 0.4 0.245524212 22 0.2 0.158808617 23 0.2 0.079890983 24 0.1 0.045583587 25 0.15 0.023566284
 [1] Xinyuan Liao, Caidi Zhao, Shengfan Zhou. Compact uniform attractors for dissipative non-autonomous lattice dynamical systems. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2007, 6 (4) : 1087-1111. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2007.6.1087 [2] Yuncherl Choi, Taeyoung Ha, Jongmin Han, Sewoong Kim, Doo Seok Lee. Turing instability and dynamic phase transition for the Brusselator model with multiple critical eigenvalues. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2021  doi: 10.3934/dcds.2021035 [3] Alexey Yulin, Alan Champneys. Snake-to-isola transition and moving solitons via symmetry-breaking in discrete optical cavities. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2011, 4 (5) : 1341-1357. doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2011.4.1341 [4] Armin Lechleiter, Tobias Rienmüller. Factorization method for the inverse Stokes problem. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2013, 7 (4) : 1271-1293. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2013.7.1271 [5] Qiang Guo, Dong Liang. An adaptive wavelet method and its analysis for parabolic equations. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2013, 3 (2) : 327-345. doi: 10.3934/naco.2013.3.327 [6] Tao Wu, Yu Lei, Jiao Shi, Maoguo Gong. An evolutionary multiobjective method for low-rank and sparse matrix decomposition. Big Data & Information Analytics, 2017, 2 (1) : 23-37. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2017006 [7] Deren Han, Zehui Jia, Yongzhong Song, David Z. W. Wang. An efficient projection method for nonlinear inverse problems with sparsity constraints. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2016, 10 (3) : 689-709. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2016017 [8] Boris Kramer, John R. Singler. A POD projection method for large-scale algebraic Riccati equations. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2016, 6 (4) : 413-435. doi: 10.3934/naco.2016018 [9] Petra Csomós, Hermann Mena. Fourier-splitting method for solving hyperbolic LQR problems. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2018, 8 (1) : 17-46. doi: 10.3934/naco.2018002 [10] Christina Surulescu, Nicolae Surulescu. Modeling and simulation of some cell dispersion problems by a nonparametric method. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2011, 8 (2) : 263-277. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2011.8.263 [11] Jiangxing Wang. Convergence analysis of an accurate and efficient method for nonlinear Maxwell's equations. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021, 26 (5) : 2429-2440. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020185 [12] Min Li. A three term Polak-Ribière-Polyak conjugate gradient method close to the memoryless BFGS quasi-Newton method. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2020, 16 (1) : 245-260. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018149 [13] Manfred Einsiedler, Elon Lindenstrauss. On measures invariant under diagonalizable actions: the Rank-One case and the general Low-Entropy method. Journal of Modern Dynamics, 2008, 2 (1) : 83-128. doi: 10.3934/jmd.2008.2.83 [14] Xiaomao Deng, Xiao-Chuan Cai, Jun Zou. A parallel space-time domain decomposition method for unsteady source inversion problems. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2015, 9 (4) : 1069-1091. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2015.9.1069 [15] Marion Darbas, Jérémy Heleine, Stephanie Lohrengel. Numerical resolution by the quasi-reversibility method of a data completion problem for Maxwell's equations. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2020, 14 (6) : 1107-1133. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2020056 [16] Mohsen Abdolhosseinzadeh, Mir Mohammad Alipour. Design of experiment for tuning parameters of an ant colony optimization method for the constrained shortest Hamiltonian path problem in the grid networks. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2021, 11 (2) : 321-332. doi: 10.3934/naco.2020028 [17] Lunji Song, Wenya Qi, Kaifang Liu, Qingxian Gu. A new over-penalized weak galerkin finite element method. Part Ⅱ: Elliptic interface problems. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021, 26 (5) : 2581-2598. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020196 [18] Kaifang Liu, Lunji Song, Shan Zhao. A new over-penalized weak galerkin method. Part Ⅰ: Second-order elliptic problems. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2021, 26 (5) : 2411-2428. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020184

2019 Impact Factor: 1.366

## Tools

Article outline

Figures and Tables