arxiv: v3 [q-fin.pr] 22 Aug 2018

Transcription

1 The Binomial Tree Method and Explicit Difference Schemes for American Options with Time Dependent Coefficients Hyong-chol O, Song-gon Jang, Il-Gwang Jon, Mun-Chol Kim, Gyong-Ryol Kim, Hak-Yong Kim, Faculty of Mathematics, Kim Il Sung University, Pyongyang, D P R Korea hc.o@ryongnamsan.edu.kp arxiv: v3 [q-fin.pr] Aug 08 Abstract Binomial tree methods BTM) and explicit difference schemes EDS) for the variational inequality model of American options with time dependent coefficients are studied. When volatility is time dependent, it is not reasonable to assume that the dynamics of the underlying asset s price forms a binomial tree if a partition of time interval with equal parts is used. A time interval partition method that allows binomial tree dynamics of the underlying asset s price is provided. Conditions under which the prices of American option by BTM and EDS have the monotonic property on time variable are found. Using convergence of EDS for variational inequality model of American options to viscosity solution the decreasing property of the price of American put options and increasing property of the optimal exercise boundary on time variable are proved. First, put options are considered. Then the linear homogeneity and callput symmetry of the price functions in the BTM and the EDS for the variational inequality model of American options with time dependent coefficients are studied and using them call options are studied. Keywords American option; binomial tree method; explicit difference scheme; convergence; viscosity solution; time dependent coefficient 00 Mathematics Subect Classification 35Q9, 35R35, 65M06, 65M, 9B0 Introduction There are two kinds of numerical methods for option pricing; one is based on the probabilistic approach and another one is the finite difference method for PDE. The binomial tree method BTM), first proposed by Cox, Ross and Rubinstein [6], is one of the probabilistic numerical methods for pricing options. Due to its simplicity and flexibility, it has become one of the most popular approaches to pricing options. [,, 5, 0, 4, 8, 9] It is well known that the BTM for European option in Black - Scholes diffusion model converges to the corresponding continuous time model of Black and Scholes [8]). In particular, Jiang [0] showed that the BTM for European option is equivalent to a special explicit finite difference scheme for Black-Scholes PDE and proved its convergence using PDE approach. Amin and Khanna [] first proved the convergence of BTM for American options using probabilistic approach. Jiang and Dai [, ]) proved the convergence of explicit difference scheme and BTM for American options using viscosity solution theory of PDE. They showed that the BTM for American option is equivalent to a special explicit finite difference scheme for a variational inequality related to Black-Scholes PDE, proved monotonic property of the price by BTM and explicit finite difference scheme, existence and monotones of approximated optimal exercise boundary and used the method of Barles et al [3, 4] and comparison principle of [3, 7]. Jiang and Dai [3] studied the convergence of BTM for European and American

2 Hyong-chol O, S.G. Jang, I.G. Jon, M.C. Kim, G.R. Kim, H.Y. Kim path dependent options by PDE approach. Liang et al [6] obtained a convergence rate of the BTM for American put options with penalty method and Hu et al [9] obtained an optimal convergence rate for an explicit finite difference scheme and BTM for a variational inequality problem of American put options. BTM is extended to the ump-diffusion models for option pricing. Amin [] generalized their algorithm of [] to ump-diffusion models. Zhang [5] studied numerical analysis for American option in ump-diffusion models. Xu et al [4] studied numerical analysis for BTM for European options in Amin s ump-diffusion models and gave strict error estimation for explicit difference scheme and optimal error estimation for BTM. Qian et al [3] proved equivalence of BTM and explicit difference scheme for American option in ump-diffusion models, convergence of explicit difference scheme, existence and monotones of optimal exercise boundary. Luo [9] studied approximated optimal exercise boundary of American option in ump-diffusion model. Liang [5] obtained a convergence rate of the BTM for American put options in ump-diffusion models. Liang et al [7] obtained an optimal convergence rate for BTM for a variational inequality problem of American put options in ump-diffusion models and a convergence rate estimate of approximated optimal exercise boundary to the actual free boundary. The above all results are obtained under the assumption that the interest rate and volatility are all constants. On the other hand, Jiang [0] studied Black-Scholes PDE with time dependent coefficients as a model for European options in diffusion model and provided the generalized Black-Scholes formula. H.C. O et al [] derived a pricing formula of higher order binary with time dependent coefficients and using it, studied the pricing problem of corporate zero coupon bonds. Such higher order binaries with time dependent coefficients are arising in the pricing problem of corporate bonds with discrete coupon []). H.C. O et al [0] studied some general properties of solutions to inhomogeneous Black-Scholes PDEs with discontinuous maturity payoffs and time dependent coefficients. This article concerns with binomial tree methods and monotonic properties for American put options with time dependent coefficients. We consider monotonic properties and convergences of prices by binomial tree methods and explicit difference schemes for the variational inequality model of American put options with time dependent coefficients and then using them prove the decreasing property of the price of American put options and increasing property of the optimal exercise boundary on time variable. When the coefficients are time dependent, in particular, in the case with time dependent volatility, it is not reasonable to assume that the dynamics of the underlying assets price forms a binomial tree if we use a partition of time interval with equal parts. Thus one of our main problems is to find a time interval partition method that allows binomial tree dynamics of the underlying assets price. Another point is to prove the monotonic property of option price and approximated optimal exercise boundary. Jiang and Dais convergence proof []) strongly depends on the monotonic property of option price but such monotonic property of option price may not hold when coefficients including interest rate and volatility are time dependent as you can see in the following remark 3.. We found a special time interval partition method and conditions under which the prices of American put option by BTM and explicit difference scheme have the monotonic property on time variable. Such a special partition of time interval needs some annoying consideration in proving convergence to viscosity solutions.

3 BTM and EDS for American options with Time Dependent Coefficients 3 The remainder of this article is organized as follows. In section, we find a time interval partition method that allows binomial tree dynamics of the underlying assets price and briefly mention BTM for European options. In section 3, we study BTM price of American put option, its monotonic property and existence of approximate optimal exercise boundary. In section 4, we study explicit difference scheme for variational inequality model for American put option and show the monotonicity of option price on time-variable and existence of approximated optimal exercise boundary. Section 5 is devoted to the convergence proof of the explicit difference scheme and BTM. In Section 6, Section 7 and Section 8 the linear homogeneity and call-put symmetry of the price functions in the BTM and the EDS for the variational inequality model of American options with time dependent coefficients are studied and the results on American call options are provided. Time Interval Partition and BTM for European Options with Time dependent coefficients. Let rt), qt) and σt) be the interest rate, the dividend rate and the volatility of the underlying asset of option, respectively. Let 0 = t 0 < t < < t N = T be a partition of life time interval [0, T ] and denote as follows r n = rt n ), q n = qt n ), σ n = σt n ), η n = + q n t n, ρ n = + r n t n, t n = t n+ t n, n =,, N. The volatility σt) of the underlying asset determines the fluctuation of its price in time interval [t, t+ t]. So if we divide [0, T ] by equal parts, then the dynamics of the underlying assets price in subinterval [t n, t n+ ] of time may not form a binomial tree. It makes BTM difficult in the case with time dependent coefficients. On the other hand, from the practical meaning of the volatility σ n, although we consider the underlying assets price S in the some interval [t n, t n+ ], the underlying assets price S largely changes if σ n is large; the underlying assets price S changes a little if σ n is small. So we can imagine that we can make the widths of changes of S in all subintervals a constant if we differently define the length t n = t n+ t n of subinterval [t n, t n+ ] according to the size of σ n. In other words, if we define t n = t n+ t n such that σ n t n = const = ln u), then we can assume that the width of change of S in every subinterval [t n, t n+ ] is u and the dynamics of S in every subinterval [t n, t n+ ] satisfies one period - two states model [0]. Then S t are random variables and the evolution in [0, T ] forms a binomial tree. Such a partition method provides a key to overcome the difficulty arising in the case with time dependent coefficients. Let us define t n n =,, N) more definitely. Let assume u >. First, we define t 0 = 0, σ 0 = σt 0 ), t 0 = If t T, then we define as follows: σ = σt ), t = ln u) σ0, t = t 0 + t 0 = ln u) ln u) σ, t = t + t = ln u) σ 0 + σ. σ 0 ).

4 4 Hyong-chol O, S.G. Jang, I.G. Jon, M.C. Kim, G.R. Kim, H.Y. Kim Inductively, if t n T, then we define as follows: σ n = σt n ), t n = ln u) σn, t n+ = t n + t n = ln u) σ ) σn..) Such a process is continued until t N T < t N+. Then the number N of subintervals depends on u, T and σt). If we assume that 0 < σ σt) σ,.) then we obtain lower and upper bounds for the size t n of subintervals of time and the number N of subintervals. From the definition.) of t n, we have ln u) σ t n On the other hand, if we use t N T < t N+, then we have ln u) σ..3) T σ ln u) < N T σ ln u)..4) Remark.. If u, then N and 0 T t N < t N = ln u) σ N 0. Now we consider the dynamics of the underlying asset s price S. Assume that the width of change of S in every subinterval [t n, t n+ ] is u, d = u and the dynamics of S in every subinterval [t n, t n+ ] satisfies one period - two states model. That is, the underlying assets price S tn at time t n is changed into S tn u or S tn d. If the initial price of S is S 0, then S tn can take one of the following values S n α = S 0 u n α d α 0 α n) or S = S 0 u = n, n,, n +, n). Assume that dη n < ρ n < uη n, n = 0,,, N..5) If we denote θ n = ρ n/η n d, n = 0,,, N..6) u d then we have 0 < θ n < and BTM price of European option with time dependent coefficients is provided as follows: Vα N = Sα N E) + for call) or E Sα N ) + for put), 0 α N, Vα n = [θ n Vα+ n+ η + θ n)vα n+ ], 0 α n, n = N,,, 0..7) n Remark.. Using Jiang s method [0]), we can easily prove the followings: BTM can be seen as a special explicit difference scheme for Black-Scholes PDE V t + σ t) [ ] V x + rt) qt) σ t) V rt)v = 0, < x <, 0 t < T, x V x, T ) = e x E) + or E e x ) +, < x <..8)

5 BTM and EDS for American options with Time Dependent Coefficients 5 Let x m = m x < m < ), 0 = t 0 < t < < t N = T and t n = t n+ t n. Denote V n m = V x m, t n ). Then the explicit difference scheme for.8) is provided as follows: Vm N = e m x E) + or E e m x ) +, { ) Vm n = σ n t n + r n t n x V n+ + [ σ n t n x r n q n σ n m + ) tn x [ σ n t n x + ) ] r n q n σ n tn Vm+ n+ x ] } Vm n+, n = N,,, 0..9) The scheme.9) is consistent if rt),qt) and σt) are bounded and continuous on [0, T ]. Such an explicit difference scheme is stable if σ n t n x ; σ n r n q n σ n x 0, 0 n N. Let x 0. Then t n 0 and.9) converges to the solution to.8). So BTM price.7) also converges to the solution to.8). 3 BTM for American Put Options with Time Dependent Coefficients. Let 0 = t 0 < t < < t N T be the partition of time defined in.) and let S = S 0 u = n, n,, n +, n ; n = 0,, N), Then BTM prices V n V N = ϕ, V n = max ϕ = E S ) +. = V S, t n ) of American put option are provided as follows: [ θn V n+ + ρ + θ n)v n+ ], ϕ, n = N,,, 0. 3.) n Now we consider the monotonic property of BTM price V n for American put option. Theorem 3. BTM prices of American put option V n = P S, t n ; E) n = 0,,, N, = n, n,, n +, n) 3.) are decreasing with respect to S and increasing with respect to E. That is, V n = P S, t n ; E) P S +, t n ; E) = V+, n P S, t n ; E ) P S, t n ; E ) if E < E.

6 6 Hyong-chol O, S.G. Jang, I.G. Jon, M.C. Kim, G.R. Kim, H.Y. Kim Proof assume that V k+ V k+ + Thus V k V N = ϕ = E S ) + is decreasing function on S and increasing on E. Now when n = k +. Then we have { = max V k max [ θk V k+ + ρ + θ k)v k+ k { [ θk V k+ + ρ + θ k)v k+ k is decreasing on S. Similarly, we can prove V k In order to prove that V n ], ϕ } ], ϕ+ } = V k +. is increasing on E. QED) is decreasing on time variable, we need the following lemmas. Lemma 3. i) If rt)/σ t) is increasing on t, then ρ n ρ n+. ii) If qt)/σ t) is decreasing on t, then η n η n+. iii) If rt)/σ t) is increasing, qt)/σ t) decreasing and t n is sufficiently small, then ρ n /η n ρ n+ /η n+ ; θ n θ n+. Proof i) If rt)/σ t) is increasing, then from the definition of t n, we have r n+ σn+ r n σn ln u) rn+ σn+ ln u) rn σn ρ n+ = + r n+ t n+ + r n t n = ρ n. ii) is proved in similar way with i). iii) If t n is sufficiently small, then η n > 0. Since ρ n ρ n+ and η n η n+, we have ρ n /η n ρ n+ /η n+. Thus from.6), we have θ n θ n+. QED) Lemma 3. i) If A B and 0 α β, then αa + α)b βa + β)b. Proof αa + α)b βa β)b = β α)b A) 0. QED) Theorem 3. Assume that.5) is satisfies, rt)/σ t) is increasing and qt)/σ t) decreasing on t. Then for BTM prices V n of American put option we have V n V n. Proof From 3.) we have V N ϕ = V N = N, N,, N +, N).

7 BTM and EDS for American options with Time Dependent Coefficients 7 Now assume that V k V k+ ). Then we have V k [ = max θk V+ k + θ k )V k ], ϕ ρ k [ max θk V k+ + ρ + θ k )V k+ ], ϕ k [ max θk V k+ + ρ + θ k )V k+ ], ϕ k [ max θk V k+ + ρ + θ k)v k+ ], ϕ+ = V k k Here the first inequality comes from the induction assumption V k V k+ ), the second inequality from lemma 3. i), the last inequality from lemma 3. iii), theorem 3. and lemma 3.. QED) Remark 3.. Theorem 3. strongly represents the effect of time dependent coefficients. Here the main tools are lemma 3. and lemma 3.. Remark 3.. The conditions of theorem 3. are essential. See the following figures:. Figure : Plot t n : V S, t n )) when rt) = 0., q = 0, σ =, T = 5, E =, = Remark 3.3. Only using the analogs of lemma 3. and lemma 3., it seems difficult to

8 8 Hyong-chol O, S.G. Jang, I.G. Jon, M.C. Kim, G.R. Kim, H.Y. Kim Figure : rt) is increasing, so V is decreasing on t. Figure 3: Plot t n : V S, t n )) when rt) = P iecewise{{0., 0 t < }, {0., t < 5}}; q = 0, σ =, T = 5, E =, =

9 BTM and EDS for American options with Time Dependent Coefficients 9 Figure 4: rt) is not increasing, so V is not decreasing on t prove that American call option s BTM price is decreasing on t. Now we consider the existence of approximated optimal exercise boundary. Theorem 3.3 Let t n be sufficiently small. Under the conditions of theorem 3., for every t n 0 n N ), there exists a n Z such that Furthermore we have V n = ϕ for n, V n > ϕ for = n +, V n ϕ for n ) n n. 3.4) Proof Without loss of generality, we assume that S 0 = and E =. Otherwise, use change of variables Ŝ = S/E, ĥ = V/E.) Since V N = S ) + = ϕ, = N, N,, N +, N), we have Since V N ϕ = V N = 0 0); ϕ = V N > 0, ). { = max ρ N [θ N ϕ + + θ N )ϕ ], ϕ }, we have V N 0 = V N = ϕ, 0.

10 0 Hyong-chol O, S.G. Jang, I.G. Jon, M.C. Kim, G.R. Kim, H.Y. Kim In particular, V N Now we consider the case of. V N = ϕ ); V N 0 = ρ N θ N )ϕ > 0 = ϕ ) = max [θ N ϕ + + θ N )ϕ ], ϕ ρ N { [ = max θn u + ) + θ N ) u ) ] }, ϕ ρ N = max { ρ N η N u, u }. 3.6) Note that if, then ρ N η N u < and u. So there exists N = max{ Z :, ρ N η N u u }. If N, then we have ρ N η N u u and thus V N = u = ϕ. If N +, then we have ρ N η N u > u and thus V N > ϕ. So N satisfies 3.3) with n = N. In particular if η N q N 0), then N =.) Now assume that when n = k, there exists k satisfying 3.3) and 3.4). Then if k, then V k = ϕ, V k + = ϕ + and thus from the formula 3.) and the same calculation in 3.6) we have V k = max [θ k ϕ + + θ k )ϕ ], ϕ = max u, u. ρ k ρ k η k In the case that η k > q k > 0), let l = max{ Z : k, ρ k η k u u }, then we have l k. If l < k, then we define k = l. Then using the similar way with the consideration when n = N and theorem 3., we have k V k If l = k that is, V k = ϕ ; = k + V k = k + V k > ϕ ; k + V k = ϕ for all k ), then note that V k > ϕ ; k + V k V k ϕ. V k ϕ. Generally, we have V k ϕ when = k. So if V k k > ϕ k, then we define k = k. If V k k = ϕ k, then we define k = k. Thus in any case k k ) is well defined. QED)

11 BTM and EDS for American options with Time Dependent Coefficients 4 The Explicit Difference Scheme for Variational Inequality Model of American Options with Time Dependent Coefficients. A Variational Inequality pricing model of American option with time dependent coefficients is provided as follows: { min V } t σt) S V V rt) qt))s S S + rt)v, V ψ = 0, 0 t < T, 0 < S <, Here Using the transformation V S, T ) = ψs), 0 < S <. 4.) ψs) = S E) + for call), ψs) = E S) + for put). ux, t) = V S, t); S = e x, 4.) the problem 4.) is changed to the following problem { min u t σt) ) } u rt) x qt) σt) u x + rt)u, u ϕ = 0, 0 t < T, < x <, Here ux, T ) = ϕx), < x <. 4.3) ϕx) = e x E) + for call), ϕx) = E e x ) + for put). We construct a lattice on Σ = { < x <, 0 t < T } as follows: Select any c R and x. Let x = x + c. When 0 < α, we define as follows: t 0 = 0, t 0 = α x σ t 0 ), t = t 0 + t 0, t = α x σ t ),, t n = t n + t n, This process is continued until t N such that t n = α x σ, n = 0,,,. 4.4) t n ) t N = t N + t N T < t N+ = t N + α x σ t N ). Then we have a lattice on Σ = { < x <, 0 t < T }: Under the assumption.) we have Q c = {x, t n ) : x = x + c, 0 n N, Z}. 4.5) α x σ t n α x σ. 4.6)

12 Hyong-chol O, S.G. Jang, I.G. Jon, M.C. Kim, G.R. Kim, H.Y. Kim Thus there exists N such that t N T < t N+ and we have T σ α x < N T σ α x. 4.7) Therefore if x 0, then N and 0 T t N t N α x σ 0. u n = u x+c, t n) represents the value of approximation at x+c, t n ) and let ϕ = ϕ x+c). Taking explicit difference for time and the conventional difference discretization for space variable in 4.3), we have min { un+ u n σ t n ) t n [ rt n ) qt n ) σ t n ) un+ + un+ + u n+ x ] u n+ + } un+ + rt n )u n, u n ϕ = ) x If we denote r n = rt n ), q n = qt n ), σ n = σt n ), then 4.8) is equivalent to { u n = max + r n t n + x σ n { σ n t n x Here, if we denote S 0 = e c, then r n q n σ n ) u n+ + σ n t n x ]} )) u n+ [ + x )) σn r n q n σ n u n+ +, ϕ }. ϕ = S 0 e x E) + for call), ϕ = E S 0 e x ) + for put). From 4.4) we have α = σ n tn x and let a n = + x σ n Then we have the explicit difference scheme ) r n q n σ n. 4.9) U N = ϕ, Z, 4.0) { U n { = max α)u n+ + α [ } a n U n+ + ρ + a n)u n+ ]}, ϕ, 4.) n n = N,,, 0. Note that ρ n = + r n t n.) In particular, if α = σ n tn x =, then x = σ n tn and U n [ = max an U n+ + ρ + a n)u n+ ], ϕ, n = N,,, 0. 4.) n Now we consider the relation of BTM and explicit difference scheme for American option.

13 BTM and EDS for American options with Time Dependent Coefficients 3 Lemma 4. If ln u = x = σ n tn, we have θ n = + x ) σn r n q n σ n + O x 3 ). Here θ n are coefficients of BTM defined by.6). The proof is easy. Contrasting 3.) and 4.), BTM is equivalent to a special explicit difference scheme 4.) in the sense of neglecting O x 3 ). Now we show the conditions for American put) option price be monotonic. Theorem 4. Assume that 0 < α and x σn r n q n σ n ) <. i) If ϕ = S 0 e x E) + call), then U n U n + and 0 U n e x+c. ii) If ϕ = E S 0 e x ) + put), then U n U n + and 0 U n E. Proof From the assumption we have 0 < a n. i) U N = ϕ = S 0 e x E) + S 0 e +) x E) + = ϕ + = U+ N. Now assume that U k+ U k+ +. Then we have { U k = max max { α)u k+ + α [ a k U k+ + ρ + a k)u k+ k { { α)u k+ + ρ + α [ a k U k+ + + a k)u k+ k ii) is proved in the same way as i). QED) Theorem 4. Assume that 0 < α, x σn and qt)/σ t) decreasing on t. Then prices U n 4.) with ϕ = E S 0 e x ) + are decreasing on t, that is, ]}, ϕ } } ]}, ϕ+ = U+. k r n q n σ n ) <, rt)/σ t) is increasing U n U n+, Z, n = N,,, 0. of American put option given by 4.0) and Proof When n = N, from 4.) we have U N ϕ = U N, Z. Assume that U k+ U k+, Z. From the assumption and lemma 3. i) we have ρ k ρ k+ and thus { U k = max max { α)u k+ + α [ a k U k+ + ρ + a k)u k+ k { { α)u k+ + α [ a k U k+ + ρ + a k)u k+ k+ ]}, ϕ } } ]}, ϕ.

14 4 Hyong-chol O, S.G. Jang, I.G. Jon, M.C. Kim, G.R. Kim, H.Y. Kim From a k = + x rk σ k ) q k σk and the assumption, we have a k a k+. By theorem 4. ii), we have U k+ U k+ + and thus lemma 3. with a k a k+ gives us a k+ U k+ + + a k+)u k+ a ku k+ + + a k)u k+. Therefore we have { U k { max α)u k+ + α [ } a k+ U k+ + ρ + a k+)u k+ ]}, ϕ = U k+. k+ QED) Remark 4.. Theorem 4. strongly represents the effect of time dependent coefficients. Here the main tools are lemma 3. i) and lemma 3.. The conditions of theorem 4. are essential. If rt)/σ t) is not increasing, then the price of American put option by explicit difference scheme might not be decreasing on t as in remark 4. Remark 4.. Only using the analogs of lemma 3. and lemma 3., it seems difficult to prove that American call option s price is decreasing on t. See Section 6 and 7. Now we show the existence of approximated optimal exercise boundary. Theorem 4.3 Under the assumptions of theorem 4., for any 0 n N, there exists n Z such that n U n = ϕ ; = n + U n > ϕ ; n + U n ϕ. 4.3) 0 N. 4.4) Proof Note that U N = E S 0 e x ) + = ϕ is decreasing on Z. Let Then if k then,, + k and k = max{ Z; E S 0 e x > 0}. 4.5) ϕ = E S 0 e x x, ϕ = E S 0 e x, ϕ + = E S 0 e x+ x > 0. Let u = e x, d = e x and ψ = Then we have E ρ N S 0 u α+α[a N u+ a N )d] ρ N, then { U N = max [ α)ϕ + αa N ϕ + + a N )ϕ )], ϕ ρ N = max{ψ, ϕ }. lim ψ = E ρ N < E = lim ϕ, k ). First, we consider the case that ψ ϕ k ). If k then U N = ϕ, and if = k + then ϕ = ϕ + = 0, ϕ > 0 and thus we have U N α an ) = max ϕ, 0 > 0 = ϕ. ρ N }

15 BTM and EDS for American options with Time Dependent Coefficients 5 If k +, then from 4.) we have U N ϕ. So if U N k > ϕ k, then we define N = k ; and if U N k = ϕ k, then we define N = k. Next, we consider the case that k ) : ψ > ϕ. We define Then we have N = max{ < k : ψ ϕ }. N ψ ϕ U N = ϕ, = N + ψ > ϕ U N = ψ > ϕ, N + U N ϕ. Thus we proved the existence of N k. Now we assume that when n = k + there exists k+ such that k+ k+ N, k+ U k+ = ϕ, = k+ + U k+ > ϕ, k+ + U k+ ϕ. 4.6) If k+, then +,, k+ and thus U k+ i = ϕ i i =,, + ). As the above, let ψ = E ρ k S 0 u α+α[a ku+ a k )d] ρ k. Then by 4.) we have U k = max [ α)ϕ + αa k ϕ + + a k )ϕ )], ϕ ρ k = max{ψ, ϕ }. Note that ψ < ϕ for sufficiently large Z. In the case that ψ ϕ k+ ), we have U k = ϕ for all k+. From theorem 4. and the inductive assumption 4.6) we have the fact that = k+ + U k U k+ > ϕ ; k+ + U k U k+ ϕ. Therefore if U k k+ > ϕ k+, then let k = k+. If U k k+ = ϕ k+, then let k = k+. In the case that k+ ) : ψ > ϕ, we define k = max{ < k+ : ψ ϕ }. Then k U k = ϕ, = k + U k = ψ > ϕ, k + U k ϕ. Thus we proved the existence of k k+. QED) Remark 4.3.If x is enough small, then k [ k+, k+ ]. Now we estimate the optimal exercise boundary near the maturity. In the first part of the proof of theorem 4.3, we proved the existence of N, the approximated optimal exercise boundary near the maturity. If k is the one defined in

16 6 Hyong-chol O, S.G. Jang, I.G. Jon, M.C. Kim, G.R. Kim, H.Y. Kim 4.5) and S 0 = e c, then k = max{ Z; E e x+c > 0} and for k, we have ϕ = E e x+c and let ψ = ρ N [ α)ϕ + αa N ϕ + + a N )ϕ )]. In the case that ψ ϕ k ) we know N = k or k. Then we have E e N x+c > 0, E e N +) x+c 0 and thus we have ln E x N x + c ln E. 4.7) In the case that k ) : ψ > ϕ, by theorem 4.3, we have N = max{ k : ψ ϕ 0}. By using the definition of a n and Taylor expansion, we have Then for k we have ψ ϕ = a n e x + a n )e x = + r n q n σn x + O x 4 ). = α)e e x+ ) + α [ a N E e +) x+ ) + a N )E e ) x+ ) ] E e x+ ) = σ N t N ρ N x ρ N [q N e x+c r N E) x σ N ] + O x 4 ). Note that E > e x+c for k. If q N r N, then r N E > q N e x+c and therefore if x is enough small, then we have ψ < ϕ k ). Thus in our case, since k ) : ψ > ϕ, we must have q N > r N. Then for sufficiently small x, we have N = max{ k : q N e x+c r N E} and therefore N x+c ln r N q N E. If = N +, then q N e x+c > r N E and thus N + ) x + c > ln r N q N E. So we have ln r N q N E x < N x + c ln r N q N E. Thus combining this inequality with 4.7), we have the following theorem which provides an estimate of the approximated optimal exercise boundary near the maturity. Theorem 4.4 ln min E, ) r N q N E x N x + c ln min E, ) r N q N E. For fixed x, the approximated optimal exercise boundary x = ρ x t) is defined as follows: ρ x t) = t t n n+ x + c) + t n+ t n x + c), t [t n, t n+ ], n = 0,, N. t n+ t n t n+ t n Corollary i) ρ x t N ) ii) ρ x t) is increasing on t. [ ln min E, r N q N E ) x, ln min E, )] r N q N E.

17 BTM and EDS for American options with Time Dependent Coefficients 7 5 Convergence of the Explicit Difference Scheme and BTM for American Put Option. In this section we will prove that the explicit difference scheme 4.0) and 4.) for American put option converges to the viscosity solution to the variational inequality 4.3) and using it prove the monotonic properties of the price of American put option and its optimal exercise boundary. We denote by l Z) the Banach space of all bounded two sided sequences with sup norm. In l Z), we define U ) V ) U V, Z. For fixed every n, the two sided sequence U n =, U, ) = of American put option s prices U, Z given by 4.0) and 4.) is bounded from theorem 4.. If we denote the right side of 4.) by F n U n+ ), then F n defines an operator U n := F n U n+ = {F n U n+ ) } = 5.) sending the sequence U n+ of t n+ -time prices to the sequence U n of t n -time prices. The operator F n depends not only on n and x but also on t n and t n. ) Lemma 5. If 0 < α, r n q n σ n <, then Fn is increasing, that is, x σn U V, U, V l Z) F n U F n V. Proof) Noting that from the assumption we have α 0 and 0 < a n <, the required result easily comes from 4.). QED) Lemma 5. If U l Z) and K =, K, K, K ) with K 0, then Proof) Since ρ n >, we have F n U + K) F n U + K. F n U + K) = ) = max [ α)u + K) + α a n U + + K) + a n )U + K))], ϕ ρ n ) K max [ α)u + α a n U + + a n )U )], ϕ + max, 0 ρ n ρ n QED) F n U + K. Define the extension function u x x, t) as follows: = x [ /) x + c, + /) x + c), t [t n, t n+ ) u x x, t) := U n, 5.) x [ /) x + c, + /) x + c), t [t N, T ) u x x, t) := U N. 5.3) Remark 5.. Here u x is piecewise continuous function. The following discussion is also true if we define u x as a continuous function interpolating the data set x+c, t n ; U n ). =

18 8 Hyong-chol O, S.G. Jang, I.G. Jon, M.C. Kim, G.R. Kim, H.Y. Kim From Theorem 4., we have 0 u x x, t) E. 5.4) Therefore, for every fixed t, if we denote u x, t) := {u x x, t) : x R}, then we have u x, t) l Z). When t [t n, t n+ ), n = 0,, N, if we define t = tt, x) := then t + t [t n+, t n+ ) and thus we have t t n = t tn t n+ t n σ n+ σ n t t n t n+ + t n+ t t n, 5.5) t n+ t n t n+ t n u x, t) = F n u x, t + t). 5.6) and. Thus if σt) is continuous, then this ratio converges to when x 0. Like this, we proved the following lemma: + tn+ t t n+ t n is a convex linear combination of σ n+ σ n Lemma 5.3 Assume that σt) is continuous. Then lim x 0 tt, x) t n =. In order to prove the convergence, we recall the notion of viscosity solutions. Let USC[0, T ] R) LSC[0, T ] R)) be the space of all upper lower) semi-continuous functions defined on [0, T ] R. If u USC[0, T ] R) LSC[0, T ] R)) satisfies the following two conditions, then u is called the viscosity subsolution supersolution) of the variational inequality 4.3): i) ux, T ) )ϕx), ii) If Φ C, [0, T ] R) and u Φ attains its local maximum minimum) at x, t) [0, T ] R, we have { min Φ t σt) ) } Φ rt) x qt) σt) Φ x + rt)u, u ϕ )0 x,t) u C[0, T ] R) is called the viscosity solution of the variational inequality 4.3) if it is both viscosity subsolution and viscosity supersolution of 4.3). Lemma 5.4 Comparison lemma) [7] If u and v are viscosity subsolution and supersolution of 4.3) and ux, t), vx, t) E, then u v. Theorem 5. [7] If rt), qt) are continuous on [0, T ], then the problem 4.3) has a unique viscosity solution. Furtheremore, there exists an optimal exercise boundary ρt) : [0, T ] R continuous function) such that if x < ρt), then ux, t) = ϕx) ; if x > ρt), then ux, t) > ϕx) and in this region ux, t) is a classical solution to the equation u t σt) ) u rt) x qt) σt) u + rt)u = 0. x

19 BTM and EDS for American options with Time Dependent Coefficients 9 Remark 5.. It is easy to show ρt ) = ln E min[, rt )/qt )], using the way of [0]. Theorem 5. Suppose that ux, t) is the viscosity solution of 4.3). Assume that 0 < α, rt)/σ t) is increasing and qt)/σ t) decreasing on t. Then we have i) u x x, t) converges to ux, t) as x 0. ii) ρ x t) converges to ρt) as x 0. Proof Suppose that ux, t) is the viscosity solution of 4.3) and denote u x, t) = u x, t) = lim sup u xy, s), x 0, y,s) x,t) lim inf u xy, s) 5.7) x 0, y,s) x,t) From 5.4), u and u are well defined and we have 0 u x, t) u x, t) E. Obviously u USC[0, T ] R) and u LSC[0, T ] R). If we prove that u and u are subsolution and supersolution of 4.3), respectively, then from lemma 5.4, we have u u and thus u = u = ux, t) becomes a viscosity solution of 4.3), and therefore we have the convergence of the approximated solution u x x, t). We will prove that u is a subsolution of 4.3). The fact that u is a supersolution is similarly proved.) From the definition 5.3), we can easily know that u x, T ) = ϕx) = E e x ) +. Suppose that φ C, [0, T ] R) and u φ attains a local maximum at x 0, t 0 ) [0, T ) R. We might as well assume that u φ)x 0, t 0 ) = 0 and x 0, t 0 ) is a strict local maximum on B r = {x, t) : t 0 t t 0 + r, x x 0 r}, r > 0. Let Φ = φ ɛ, ɛ > 0, then u Φ attains a strict local maximum at x 0, t 0 ) and u Φ)x 0, t 0 ) > ) From the definition of u, there exists a sequence u xk y k, s k ) such that x k 0, y k x 0, s k t 0 and lim u x k y k, s k ) = u x 0, t 0 ). 5.9) k If we denote the global maximum point of u xk Φ on B r by ŷ k, Ŝk), then there exists a subsequence u xki ŷ k, Ŝk) such that x ki 0, ŷ ki, Ŝk i ) x 0, t 0 ), u xki Φ)ŷ ki, Ŝk i ) u Φ)x 0, t 0 ) as k i.5.0) Indeed, suppose ŷ ki, Ŝk i ) ŷ, ŝ), then from 5.9) we have u Φ)x 0, t 0 ) = lim u x ki Φ)y ki, s ki ) lim u x ki Φ)ŷ ki, k i k Ŝk i ) u Φ)ŷ, ŝ). i Therefore we have ŷ, ŝ) = x 0, t 0 ), since x 0, t 0 ) is a strict local maximum of u Φ). Thus for sufficiently large k i, t = t x ki ) defined by 5.5) is small enough and if x, Ŝk i + t x ki )) B r, then we have u xki Φ)x, Ŝk i + t x ki )) u xki Φ)ŷ ki, Ŝk i ),

20 0 Hyong-chol O, S.G. Jang, I.G. Jon, M.C. Kim, G.R. Kim, H.Y. Kim that is, u xki x, Ŝk i + t x ki )) Φx, Ŝk i + t x ki )) + u xki Φ)ŷ ki, Ŝk i ). 5.) From 5.8) and 5.0), we have u xki Φ)ŷ ki, Ŝk i ) > 0 for sufficiently large k i ). 5.) For every k i, define t n and t n = α x k i σ t as in 4.4) with x n) k i. Select t ni and ki = such that ŷ ki [ /) x ki + c, + /) x ki + c), Ŝ ki [t ni, t ni+), and simply denote t ni = t n and = ki. Then from 5.6), lemma 5. with 5.) and lemma 5. we have Thus we have u xki ŷ ki, Ŝk i ) = U n = F n U n+ ) = [F n u tki, Ŝk i + t x ki ))]ŷ ki ) Therefore using 4.) we have { Φŷ ki, Ŝk i ) max + r n t n {F n [Φ, Ŝk i + t) + u xki Φ)ŷ ki, Ŝk i )]}ŷ ki ) {F n [Φ, Ŝk i + t)]}ŷ ki ) + u xki Φ)ŷ ki, Ŝk i ). Φŷ ki, Ŝk i ) {F n [Φ, Ŝk i + t)]}ŷ ki ) 0. [ ) σ n t n Φŷ ki, x Ŝk i + t x ki ))+ ki + σ n t n [a n Φŷ ki + x ki, x Ŝk i + t) + a n )Φŷ ki x ki, Ŝk i + t)] ki This inequality is equivalent to the following. { [ t n Φŷ ki, min Ŝk i ) Φŷ ki, Ŝk i + t x ki )) + r n t n t n Noting that { min ] }, ϕ 0. σ n Φŷ ki + x ki, Ŝk i + t) Φŷ ki, Ŝk i + t) + Φŷ ki x ki, Ŝk i + t) x ki ) r n q n σ n Φŷki + x ki, Ŝk i + t) Φŷ ki x ki, Ŝk i + t) + x ki ] } +r n Φŷ ki, Ŝk i ), Φŷ ki, Ŝk i ) ϕ 0. t n +r n t n > 0, we have Φŷ ki, Ŝk i ) Φŷ ki, Ŝk i + t x ki )) t n σ n Φŷ ki + x ki, Ŝk i + t) Φŷ ki, Ŝk i + t) + Φŷ ki x ki, Ŝk i + t) x ki ) r n q n σ n Φŷki + x ki, Ŝk i + t) Φŷ ki x ki, Ŝk i + t) + x ki +r n Φŷ ki, Ŝk i ), Φŷ ki, Ŝk i ) ϕ } 0.

21 BTM and EDS for American options with Time Dependent Coefficients This inequality is equivalent to the following. {[ ] Φŷ ki, min Ŝk i ) Φŷ ki, Ŝk i + t x ki )) t x ki ) σ n t x ki ) t n Φŷ ki + x ki, Ŝk i + t) Φŷ ki, Ŝk i + t) + Φŷ ki x ki, Ŝk i + t) x ki ) r n q n σ n Φŷki + x ki, Ŝk i + t) Φŷ ki x ki, Ŝk i + t) + x ki +r n Φŷ ki, Ŝk i ), Φŷ ki, Ŝk i ) ϕ } 0. Let k i, then x ki 0. From lemma 5.3, we have t x k i ) t n { min Φ t σ t) ) Φ x rt) qt) σ t) Φ x + rt)φ, Φ ϕ. Thus we have } 0. x 0, t 0) Here we considered ŷ ki, Ŝ ki ) x 0, t 0 ) and ϕ ki ϕx 0 ). Let ɛ 0, then we have { min φ t σ t) ) } φ x rt) qt) σ t) φ x + rt)φ, φ ϕ 0. x 0, t 0) Since u x 0, t 0 ) = φx 0, t 0 ), u is a subsolution of 4.3). Thus we proved i). Now we will prove ρ x t) converges to ρt) as x 0. The main idea is from []. First, from Corollary of theorem 4.4 and Remark 9, we have lim ρ xt N ) = ln min x 0 [ E, rt ) qt ) E ] = ρt ). Now fix t 0 [0, T ) and suppose x < lim x 0 sup ρ x t 0 ). Then there exists a sequence x k such that x k 0 and lim k ρ xk t 0 ) > x. Denote by {t k) n } the time partition corresponding to x k and let t 0 [t k) n, 0 tk) n 0 ). Then t k) n 0 t 0 as k. Since ρ x is increasing, we have ρ xk t k) n 0 ) ρ xk t 0 ). Select x k such that lim x k = x. For sufficiently large k, x k < ρ xk t k) n 0 ) = n0 x k + c and thus we have u xk x k, t k) n 0 ) = ϕx k ) since x k is in the exercise region). Thus we have x k 0 ux, t 0 ) = ϕx) x ρt 0 ), so we have lim sup ρ x t 0 ) ρt 0 ). Now we will prove lim inf ρ x t 0 ) ρt 0 ). Assume that there exists ɛ > 0 such that lim inf ρ x t 0 ) < ρt 0 ) ɛ. From the fact that ρt) is continuous, there exists δ > 0 such that lim inf ρ x t 0 ) < ρt) ɛ, t [t 0 δ, t 0 +δ]. Therefore there exists a sequence x k 0 such that ρ xk t 0 ) < ρt) ɛ, t [t 0 δ, t 0 + δ]. Now let ρ := min{ρt) : t [t 0 δ, t 0 + δ]} and Q = {x, t) : t t 0 δ, t 0 ], x ρ ɛ, ρ ɛ)}. Then since ρ xk t) is increasing, we have ρ xk t) ρ xk t 0 ) ρ ɛ < x < ρ ɛ for x, t) Q. Therefore we have ρ xk t) < x < ρt) ɛ, x, t) Q. 5.3)

22 Hyong-chol O, S.G. Jang, I.G. Jon, M.C. Kim, G.R. Kim, H.Y. Kim From ρ xk t) < x, let u xk x, t) = U n, then we have U n+ U n σ t n ) U n+ + t [ rt n ) qt n ) σ t n ) n+ U + U n+ x ] U n+ + U n+ + rt n )U n = 0. x Letting x k 0, then u xk x, t) = U n ) converges to the viscosity solution ux, t) and from the regularity of viscosity solution Theorem 5.), we have u t + σt) u x + ) rt) qt) σt) u rt)u = 0, x, t) Q. 5.4) x On the other hand, from 5.3), we have x < ρt) ɛ, thus x is in the exercise region of 4.3) and ux, t) = E e x. So we have u t + σt) u x + This contradicts to 5.4). Thus we proved ) rt) qt) σt) u x rt)u = qt)ex rt)e, x, t) Q. lim inf ρ x t 0 ) ρt 0 ) lim sup ρ x t 0 ). So we have lim ρ x t 0 ) = ρt 0 ).QED) Corollary Monotonicity of American put option s price and optimal exercise boundary) Suppose that ux, t) is the viscosity solution of 4.3). Assume that rt)/σ t) is increasing and qt)/σ t) is decreasing on t. Then we have i) ux, t) is decreasing on x and t. ii) ρt) is increasing on t. Proof) i) comes from Theorem 4. ii), Theorem 4. and Theorem 5. i). ii) comes from ii) of Corollary of Theorem 4.4 and Theorem 5. ii). QED) Lemma 5.5 [] Let Ω R m and f n x,, x m ) be pointwise convergent to a continuous function fx,, x m ). Assume that f n and f are monotone on Ω. Then f n uniformly converges to f on any compact subset of Ω. Theorem 5.3 When x 0, then u x x, t) uniformly converges to ux, t) on any bounded subdomain of [0, T ] R and ρ x t) uniformly converges to ρt). Proof) From the result of Theorem 5.3, ux, t) and ρt) are both monotone. Thus from lemma 5.5, we have the desired results. QED) Remark 5.3. Consider the convergence of the binomial tree methods. As shown in section 3, in the lattice Q c = {x, t n ) : x = x + c, 0 n N, Z}, the explicit

23 BTM and EDS for American options with Time Dependent Coefficients 3 difference scheme 4.) with α = σn t n / x = coincides with BTM in the sense of neglecting O x 3 ). Let U n be the prices by the explicit difference scheme 4.) and V n the BTM prices. Then we have U n [ = max an U n+ + ρ + a n)u n+ ], E S0 e x ) +, n V n [ = max θn V n+ + ρ + θ n)v n+ ], E S0 e x ) +. n Let u = e x. Then we have V n U n [ θn V n+ + ρ a nu n+ + + θ n)v n+ a n)u n+ ] n [ θn V n+ + ρ U n+ + + θ n a n U n+ + + θ n) V n+ U n+ + θ n a n ) U n+ ] n [ V n+ U n+ l Z) + O x 3 ) U n+ ] l Z). ρ n Here we considered lemma 4.: θ n = a n + O x 3 ). Note that U n+ l Z) E, then we have V n U n [ V n+ U n+ l Z) + E O x 3 ) ]. ρ n Since r n /σ n is increasing, we have and using ρ n Therefore we have exp r n t n ) = exp r n x /σ n) exp r 0 x /σ 0) =: A, = + r n t n ) = exp r n t n ) + O t n), then we have V n U n A V n+ U n+ l Z) + AE O x 3 ). V n U n l Z) A V n+ U n+ l Z) + AE O x 3 ) A V n+ U n+ l Z) + A + A )E O x 3 ) A N n V N U N l Z) + A + A + + A N n )E O x 3 ). Here noting that V N U N l Z) = max{ V N U N V n U n l Z) } = 0, we have A A E O x3 ) = O x). Thus from theorem 5., when x 0, the BTM prices V n solution to the variational inequality 4.3). converges to the viscosity

24 4 Hyong-chol O, S.G. Jang, I.G. Jon, M.C. Kim, G.R. Kim, H.Y. Kim 6 Call-put parity in BTM for American option and its applications In order to prove the monotony of prices by American call option s price on t, we need not only Lemma 3. and Lemma 3. but also the following lemmas which are proved in the same way as [0]. Lemma 6. If θ n = ρn/ηn d u d, θ n = ηn/ρn d u d θ n u ρ n = θ n η n, θ n )d ρ n = θ n η n 6.) Proof It is proved in the same way as [0]. Q.E.D) Lemma 6. Homogeneity) If we denote BTM price of American put option by P S ; E) and American call option by CS ; E)E is the exercise price), then we have CαS ; αe) = αcs ; E), P αs ; αe) = αp S ; E) 6.) Proof It is proved in the same way as [0] Q.E.D) By using these two lemmas, we obtain the following call-put symmetry. Theorem 6. Call-Put Symmetry in BTM) Denote prices of American options with the underlying asset s price S, the exercise price E, the interest rate r n and dividend rate q n by CS, E, n) = CS, E, ρ n, η n ) and P S, E, n) = P S, E, ρ n, η n ), respectively. The we have ρ n = + r n t n, η n = + q n t n ) CS, E, ρ n, η n ) = P E, S, η n, ρ n ). 6.3) Proof In the case of n = N, CS, E, N) = S E)+ = P E, S, N) and we have 6.3). Now we assume that 6.3) holds for n = k + and prove when n = k. From.4), the BTM price of American call option is CS, E, ρ n, η n ) = max [θ n CS +, E, n + ) + θ n )CS, E, n + )], S E) + ρ n = max [θ n CS u, E, n + ) + θ n )CS d, E, n + )], S E) + ρ n By using Lemma 6. and Lemma 6.homogeneity), we have CS, E, ρ n, η n ) = max [θ n ucs, Ed, n + ) + θ n )dcs, Eu, n + )], S E) + ρ n = max [ θ η n)cs, Ed, n + ) + θ ncs, Eu, n + )], S E) + n

25 BTM and EDS for American options with Time Dependent Coefficients 5 Using the assumption of induction and BTM price formula of put option, we have CS, E, ρ n, η n ) = max [θ η ncs, Eu, n + ) + θ n)cs, Ed, n + )], S E) + n = max [θ η np Eu, S, n + ) + θ n)p Ed, S, n + )], S E) + n = P E, S, η n, ρ n ) We can prove the decreasing property of call option s price on t by using these results. Q.E.D) Theorem 6. V n n = 0,,, N, = 0, ±, ±, ) is the BTM price of American call option. Assume that rt)/σ t) is decreasing on t and qt)/σ t) is increasing on t. Then we have V n V n. 6.4) Proof We prove by induction. From the property of American option, we have V N ϕ = S E) + = V N = 0, ±, ) Therefore the assertion holds true for n = N. Inductively, we assume that V k V k+. Then V k = max [θ k V+ k + θ k )V k ρ ], ϕ k = max [θ k CS u, E, k) + θ k )CS d, E, k)], ϕ 6.5) ρ k max [θ k CS u, E, k + ) + θ k )CS d, E, k + )], ϕ ρ k Using Lemma 6. and Lemma 6., our assumption of induction, and call-put symmetry Theorem 6.), we have max [θ k ucs, E, k + ) + θ k )dcs, E, k + )], ϕ ρ k = max [θ η k P Eu, S, k + ) + θ k )P Ed, S, k + )], ϕ k V k From the hypotheses of the theorem and Lemma 3., we have ρ k ρ k, η k η k, θ k = η k /ρ k d u d and if we consider P Eu) P Ed) and Lemma 3., we obtain θ k θ k P Eu) + θ k )P Ed) θ kp Eu) + θ k)p Ed).

26 6 Hyong-chol O, S.G. Jang, I.G. Jon, M.C. Kim, G.R. Kim, H.Y. Kim So we have V k max [θ η kp Eu, S, k + ) + θ k)p Ed, S, k + )], ϕ. 6.6) k Using Lemma 6., Lemma 3. and Theorem 6. once more, we have Q.E.D) V k max [θ k CS u, E, k + ) + θ k )CS d, E, k + )], ϕ ρ k = max [θ k V k+ + ρ + θ k)v k+ ], ϕ = V k. 6.7) k We can prove the existence of approximated optimal exercise boundary from the monotonicity of BTM on t. Theorem 6.3 Let V n n = 0,,, N, = 0, ±, ±, ) be the price of American call option and the assumptions of Theorem 6. are satisfied. And assume that rt), qt) > 0. Then for each t n 0 n N ), there exists n such that V n = ϕ for n ; V n > ϕ for = n ; V n ϕ for n. 6.8) 0 k k+ N. 6.9) Remark 6. The condition qt) > 0 is essential and this is the difference from the condition in put option. If qt) = 0, then the optimal exercise boundary doesn t exist and the early exercise is not needed. Proof Just as Theorem 3.3, we assume that E = S 0 =, S = u without loss of generality. Then Therefore if 0 then ϕ = V N V N V N = u ) + = ϕ, = 0, ±, ±, ). = 0 and if then ϕ = u = V N = max [θ N ϕ + + θ N )ϕ ], ϕ, ρ N thus if then ϕ + = ϕ = ϕ and thus V N = V N > 0. From = 0 = ϕ. On the otherhand, if = 0 then ϕ > 0, ϕ 0 = ϕ = 0 and V N 0 = ρ N ϕ > 0 = ϕ 0. So we have V N 0 > ϕ 0 6.0)

27 BTM and EDS for American options with Time Dependent Coefficients 7 If then 0 and ϕ = u > 0, ϕ = u 0, then we have V N = max [θ N u + ) + θ N )u )], u ρ N = max [θ N u + + u θ N u ], u ρ N { [ = max [u uθ N + θ ] ] } N ), u ρ N u { [ = max u uθn + θ ] N ) }, u ρ N ρ N u ρ N From Lemma 6., we have θnu ρ n V N + θn)d ρ n = η n and thus we have { = max u, u η N ρ N Since q N > 0, we have η N > and thus if we compare graphs of η N x ρ N and x, we can see that two cases are possible. In the case that, η N u ρ N u, we have V N = u = ϕ and thus 6.0) gives 6.8) when N =. On the contrary, in the case that, η N u ρ N > u, we define }. N = min { η N u ρ N u }. Then 6.8) holds. That is, N V N the existence of N Z is proved. k V k = ϕ ; = N V N > ϕ. Therefore Assume that when n = k, there is k k k+ N ) such that 6.8) is true, i.e = ϕ ; = k V k > ϕ ; k V k ϕ induction hypothesis). V k = max [θ k V+ k + θ k )V k ρ ], ϕ k and k + k Vi k = ϕ i, i = +,, and so we have V k = max [θ k u + ) + θ k )u )], u ) ρ k { = max u }, u. η k ρ k Since q N > 0, then η k > and there may be the two cases, one is the case that k +, and the another one is the case that k + : u u 6.) η k ρ k η k u ρ k > u. 6.)

28 8 Hyong-chol O, S.G. Jang, I.G. Jon, M.C. Kim, G.R. Kim, H.Y. Kim V k k If 6.) is true, then V k = ϕ. Thus if = k, then V k > ϕ then let k = k + and if V k k = ϕ then let k = k. If 6.) is true, then let { k = min k + : u } u. η k ρ k V k > ϕ. So if Then if k then V k V k V k = ϕ and if = k then V k ϕ. Thus the existence of k k ) is proved. Q.E.D) > ϕ. If k then Remark 6. Theorem 6. and Theorem 6.3 strongly represent the characteristics in the case of time dependent coefficients. Especially it is remarkable that the conditions for time decreasing property are contrary to each other in put and call options. Define the approximated optimal exercise boundary S = S t) on the interval [0, T ] as follows. { u, t = t n S t) = t t n) t n+ t n S t n ) + tn+ t) t n+ t n S t n+ ), t n t t n+. 7 Call-put symmetry in the EDS for variational inequality model of American call option and it s applications The variational inequality model of American options with time dependent coefficients and the time interval partitioning method, lattice configuration and explicit difference scheme are given ust as in Section 4. In the same way as BTM, we need the homogeneity and call-put parity in order to prove the monotonicity on time of the price by the explicit difference scheme for variational inequality model of American call option. Theorem 7. Homogeneity of the price by the explicit difference scheme) If u = e x, then we have UµS 0 u, µe) = µus 0 u, E) µ > 0, Z. 7.) Here u n = u x + c, t n) defined by 4.0) and 4.) is denoted by US 0 u, E; n). Proof It is obvious for n = N and other cases are proved by induction. Q.E.D) Now consider the call-put parity of the price by the explicit difference scheme. Like in BTM, we can write the call and put options prices as following. Now consider the call-put symmetry of the price by the explicit difference scheme. Like in BTM, we can write the call and put options prices as following. cs, E; r, q; k) =

29 BTM and EDS for American options with Time Dependent Coefficients 9 = max [ α)cs, E; k + ) + αa k CSu, E, k + ) + a k )CSd, E, k + ))], S E) + ρ k ps, E; r, q; k) = = max [ α)p S, E; k + ) + αa k P Su, E, k + ) + a k )P Sd, E, k + ))], E S) + ρ k 7.3) Remark 7. For the explicit difference scheme, the perfect symmetry such as 6.3) in BTM can t be obtained. Our goal is to prove 7.) cs, E; r, q; k) = pe, S; q, r; k) + O x δ ) k = N, N,, ) Here δ will be defined later. When k = N, 7.4) holds obviously, since cs, E; N) = S E) + = pe, S; N). In the explicit difference scheme, we use the following notations a n = + x ) σn r n q n σ n, a n = + x σn Considering the homogeneity Theorem 7.), we have q n r n σ n ). 7.5) cs, E; r, q, N ) = = max [ α)cs, E; N) + αa N csu, E, N) + a N )csd, E; N))], S E) + ρ N { an u = max cs, E; N) + α cs, Ed, N) + a ) } N )d cs, Eu, N), S E) + ρ N ρ N ρ N { α) η N an u = max cs, E; N) + α cs, Ed, N) + a ) } N )d cs, Eu, N), S E) + ρ N ρ N ρ N ρ N { α) = max cs, E; N) + α) q N r N α x η N ρ N σn cs, E; N)+ an u +α cs, Ed; N) + a ) } N d) cs, Eu; N), S E) +. ρ N ρ N Now we have a n u ρ n a n η n = ρ n η n = e x ρ n + x σn [ η n e x + x σn r n q n σ n r n q n σ n )) η n x σn )) ρ n x σn q n r n σ n q n r n σ n )) ))].

30 30 Hyong-chol O, S.G. Jang, I.G. Jon, M.C. Kim, G.R. Kim, H.Y. Kim If we abbreviate indexes to avoid complexity, then we have η n e x + x σn r n q n σ n = + x + ρ n x σ n σ n )) = r n q n σ n q n r n σ n )) )) + x qn α σ n = + x σ n σn r n q n σ n q n r n σ n )) + O x 3 ) )) x r nα σn + O x 3 ). Therefore Here η n e x + x σn = x qn α ) σ n )) r n q n σ n + r n α) σ n δ = ρ n x )) σn q n r n σ n = ) + O x 3 ) = O x δ ). {, α < 3, α = 7.6) Thus we have a n u ρ n a n η n = O x δ ). 7.7) In the same way, we have a n )d ρ n Then we obtain a n = x qn α ) η n ρ n η n σn + r ) n α) σn + O x 3 ) = O x δ ). 7.8) cs, E; r, q, N ) = { α) a ) } = max cs, E; N) + α N ) cs, Ed; N) + a N cs, Eu; N) + O x δ ), S E) + η N η N η N { α) a ) } = max pe, S; N) + α N ) ped, S; N) + a N peu, S; N), S E) + + O x δ ) η N η N η N = max [ α)pe, S; N) + αa η N peu, S; N) + a N )ped, S; N))], S E) + + O x δ ) N = pe, S; q, r; N ) + O x δ ) Therefore 7.4) holds true for n = N. Now inductively assume that 7.4) holds for

31 BTM and EDS for American options with Time Dependent Coefficients 3 k = n +. From the homogeneity Theorem 7.), we have cs, E; r, q; n) = = max [ α)cs, E; r, q; n + ) + αa n csu, E; n + ) + a n )csd, E; n + ))], S E) + ρ n { α) an u = max cs, E; r, q; n + ) + α cs, Ed; n + ) + a ) } n)d cs, Eu; n + ), S E) + ρ n ρ n ρ n { α) η n an u = max cs, E; r, q; n + ) + α cs, Ed; n + ) + a ) } n)d cs, Eu; n + ), S E) + ρ n ρ n ρ n ρ n { α) = max cs, E; r, q; n + ) + α) q n r n α x η n ρ n σn cs, E; r, q; n + )+ an u +α cs, Ed; r, q; n + ) + a ) } n)d cs, Eu; r, q; n + ), S E) +. ρ n ρ n Considering the equation 7.7) and 7.8)) { α) = max cs, E; r, q; n + )+ η n ) } a +α n cs, Ed; r, q; n + ) + a n cs, Eu; r, q; n + ), S E) + + O x δ ) η n η n Considering the induction hypothesis) { = max [ α)pe, S; q, r; n + )+ η n +α a n)ped, S; q, r; n + ) + a npeu, S; q, r; n + )), S E) +} + O x δ ) { = max [ α)pe, S; q, r; n + )+ η n +αa npeu, S; q, r; n + ) + a n)ped, S; q, r; n + )), S E) +} + O x δ ) = pe, S; q, r; n) + O x δ ). Thus we proved the following theorem. Theorem 7. Call-put parity in the explicit difference scheme) Here δ is given as 7.6). cs, E; r, q; n) = pe, S; q, r; n) + O x δ ). Theorem 7.3 Assume that rt)/σ t) is decreasing on t and qt)/σ t) increasing on t. Then American call option s price cs, E; r, q; t n ) is decreasing on t neglecting of O x 3 ), that is, cs, E; r, q; t n ) cs, E; r, q; t n ) + O x δ ).

32 3 Hyong-chol O, S.G. Jang, I.G. Jon, M.C. Kim, G.R. Kim, H.Y. Kim Proof The decrease on t is obtained by Theorem 4. and Theorem 7.. cs, E; r, q; t n ) = pe, S; q, r; t n ) + O x δ ) pe, S; q, r; t n+ ) + O x δ ) = cs, E; r, q; t n+ ) + O x δ ) The first and the last equalities are from Theorem 7. and the inequality is from Theorem 4.. Remark 7. Note that unlike in the case of put options the call-put parity and t- decreasing property are only obtained by neglecting of infinitesimal. Now we consider the existence of approximated optimal exercise boundary for the explicit difference scheme. Theorem 7.4 Assume that qt) > 0, rt)/σ t) is decreasing on t and qt)/σ t) increasing on t. For every 0 n N, there exists n Z such that n U n = ϕ ; = n U n > ϕ + O x δ ); n U n ϕ. 0 N. 7.9) Proof First, we prove the case of n = N. ϕ = S 0 e x E) + is increasing on. Let K = min{ Z : S 0 e x E > 0}. Then K ϕ > 0, K ϕ = ) If K + then K and S 0 e x E > 0 i = +,, ). Let u = e x, d = e x, then we have { U N = max [ α)s 0 e x E) + αa N S 0 e +) x E)+ ρ N } + a N )S 0 e ) x E)], S 0 e x E = max [S 0 u α + αa N u a n )d)) E], S 0 u E ρ N { = max S 0 u α) + α[a } N u + a N d)], S 0 u E ρ N = max{ψ, ϕ } Here ψ = S 0 u α)+α[a N u+ a N )d] ρ N E ρ N = BS 0 u E ρ N. a N e x + a N )e x = + r N q N ) x σn + O x 4 ) and q N > 0, so if x is small enough, then 0 < B = α) + α[a N u + a N )d] ρ N = ρ N q N α x σ N + O x 4 ) ρ N <.