Skip to content
All library documents

American Option Value, Optimal Stopping, and Discounted Martingales

Article Quant Q&A · Author: Vim

Summary

The document asks how the value process of an American derivative should be understood under the first fundamental theorem of asset pricing. It contrasts the usual value process, defined as the best conditional expected discounted exercise payoff over future stopping times, with the process stopped at an optimal exercise time. The usual process is described as a supermartingale after discounting, while the author argues that a suitably adjusted stopped value might be a martingale and better represent value to a rational holder.

The discussion is a conceptual proposal rather than a settled derivation. It gives intuition based on the exercise payoff being invested in the money market account after exercise, but does not establish that the proposed process is the traded derivative price or resolves the timing and filtration issues in the stopping-time notation. The distinction is useful for thinking about American option pricing, though the claims should be checked against standard optimal-stopping and asset-pricing results before being used in valuation.

Key ideas

  • The standard American derivative value is the best conditional expected discounted payoff over eligible exercise times.
  • Its discounted value process is generally a supermartingale rather than a martingale.
  • The author proposes tracking value at optimal exercise and growing the realized payoff at the money-market rate afterward.
  • The proposed process is an intuition in the document, not a demonstrated replacement for the standard price process.

Tags

Full text
# What is the true "value" process of American derivatives?


# What is the true "value" process of American derivatives?












Consider a continuous-time market where LOOP (law of one price) holds. The first fundamental theorem of asset pricing states explicitly that in the absence of arbitrage, the risk-neutral measure exists, i.e., for any asset price process $V_t$, the discounted process $V_t/B_t$ is a martingale, where $B_t$ is the risk-free money market account process.

However, there seems to be some ambiguity about American derivatives. The so-called "value process" $V_t$ of an American derivative written on an asset $S_t$ with the intrinsic value (the immediate-exercise value) process $Z_t$ is defined as $$V_t=\sup_{t\le\tau\le T} \Bbb E\left(\frac{B_t}{B_\tau}Z_\tau\mid \mathcal F_t\right)$$ And the first property we learn about $V_t$ is that $V_t/B_t$ is a supermartingale, not necessarily a martingale.

But when we consider the "stopped value process" $V_{\tau(t)\wedge t}$ (in which $\tau(t)$ is the optimal stopping time as seen at time $t$), it is not hard to prove that $V_{\tau(t)\wedge t}/B_{\tau(t)\wedge t}$ is a martingale.

My belief is that First FTAP still applies to American derivatives. It's just that we have not chosen the correct value process ("correct" as seen from the perspective of FTAP) for them. For example, I believe that the "stopped value process" $V_{\tau(t)\wedge t}$ can better characterise the value process of American derivatives because, well, who wouldn't exercise an American derivative when it's optimal to do so? (although $V_{\tau(t)\wedge t}$ still fails the FTAP because $V_{\tau(t)\wedge t}/B_t$ is still not a martingale.)

The so-called "value process" $V_t$ is worse in that it reflects the possibility of missed exercise opportunities i.e. the process still continues even after the optimal exercise boundary, which I think is not indicative of the derivative's true value in a rational market where no optimal exercise opportunities would be let go.

Could anybody kindly clarify?

It seems I have found something which is truly a martingale when discounted, and which is also indicative of the true value of American derivatives: $$V_{\tau(t)\wedge t}\cdot\frac{B_t}{B_{\tau(t)\wedge t}}$$ That it is a m.g. is obvious. And the intuition of this expression is that: along the path $\omega\in\Omega$, the value should be $V_t$ before exercise ($t<\tau$); if already exercised ($t\ge \tau$), we would have got $V_{\tau}$ at $\tau$, and this sum grows in the money market account to $V_{\tau}B_t / B_{\tau}$ at time $t$. I think this should be the "true" value process of American derivatives instead.

Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)

This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.