1

I am now reading Alternative Characterization of American Put Options by Carr et all (available at http://www.math.nyu.edu/research/carrp/papers/pdf/amerput7.pdf). There is a theorem called 'Main Decomposition of the American Put'.

Theorem 1 (Main Decomposition of the American Put) On the continuation region $\mathcal{C}$, the American put value, $P_0$, can be decomposed into the corresponding European put price, $p_0$, and the early exercise premium, $e_0$: $$P_0=p_0+e_0$$ where $$e_0=rK \int_{0}^{T} \exp{(-rt)} N\bigg( \frac{\ln{(B_t / S_0)}-e_2 t}{\sigma \sqrt{t}} \bigg)dt,$$ $$e_2=r-\frac{\sigma^2}{2}, \,$$ and $$N(x)=\int_{0}^{x} \frac{\exp{(-z^2/2)}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}dz$$ is the standard normal distribution function.

The proof in the appendix starts with: We wish to prove that: $$P_0=p_0+rK \int_{0}^{T} \exp{(-rt)} N\bigg( \frac{\ln{(B_t / S_0)}-e_2 t}{\sigma \sqrt{t}} \bigg)dt.$$ Let $Z_t \equiv \exp{(−rt)}P_t$ be the discounted put price, defined in the region $D \equiv \{(S, t) : S ∈ [0, \infty), t ∈ [0, T]\}$. In this region, the pricing function $P(S, t)$ is convex in $S$ for all $t$, continuously differentiable in $t$ for all $S$, and a.e. twice continuously differentiable in $S$ for all $t$.

My question is regarding the statement: "the pricing function $P(S, t)$ is convex in $S$ for all $t$". Is it assumed or can we prove it?

I read the definition of convex function from http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ConvexFunction.html:

A convex function is a continuous function whose value at the midpoint of every interval in its domain does not exceed the arithmetic mean of its values at the ends of the interval. More generally, a function $f(x)$ is convex on an interval $[a,b]$ if for any two points $x_1$ and $x_2$ in $[a,b]$ and any $\lambda$ where $0< \lambda <1$, $$f[\lambda x_1 + (1- \lambda x_2)] \leq \lambda f(x_1)+ (1- \lambda) f(x_2)$$

I also have read a question in Price of a European Call option is a convex function of strike price K but I am not sure if it can be applied to my question because (1). I assume the $P(S,t)$ in my question to be the American put value instead of European one, (2). the question in the link is about convex function of strike price while my question is about convex function in $S$ in all $t$, and (3). the convex function definition I got seems different.

Can anyone help me to explain why $P(S, t)$ is convex in $S$ for all $t$? Thank you.

  • First, in the question you link to (mine), I believe that the only reason why it does not say to apply in all $t$ is because neither the asker (I) nor the answerer felt the need to specify it. But of course, the solution refers to all $t$ before maturity, because at maturity, the price is determined and no longer random. Your question refers to the convex function in the strike price $S$ in all $t$, i.e. for a fixed $t<T$, which is implied, but not explicitly included in the notation, in my question and its answer. – Marie. P. Nov 12 '17 at 12:59
  • Second, the two definitions of convexity are equivalent. You say yourself: "...value at the midpoint of every interval in its domain does not exceed the arithmetic mean of its values at the ends of the interval. More generally..." This first definition, using the midpoints of an interval, is exactly what the accepted answer to my question uses with the interval $[K-\delta, K+\delta]$. – Marie. P. Nov 12 '17 at 13:00

0 Answers0