Black–Scholes Call Boundaries at High and Zero Stock Prices
Summary
The document addresses boundary conditions for pricing a European call with an explicit finite-difference solution to the Black–Scholes PDE. Its central point is that at a sufficiently high stock price, the call approaches the stock price less the present value of the strike, rather than the stock price alone. That asymptotic condition follows from treating the corresponding put as worthless at very high prices and applying put–call parity.
This explains why the upper boundary at maturity, where the payoff is stock price minus strike, need not match the boundary used at earlier times: the strike’s present value changes with time. The document also includes a second response questioning the notation and interpretation of the upper boundary, but it does not develop that objection into a clear alternative derivation. The guidance is an asymptotic boundary approximation for a truncated numerical grid; it does not specify grid selection or compare numerical schemes.
Key ideas
- At very high stock prices, a European call approaches the stock price minus the discounted strike.
- Put–call parity supports this upper boundary when the corresponding put value approaches zero.
- The high-stock boundary depends on time because the strike is discounted to expiry.
- At expiry, the boundary agrees with the call payoff of stock price minus strike.
Tags
Full text
# Boundary Conditions for Call Option in Black Scholes Model
# Boundary Conditions for Call Option in Black Scholes Model
Let $C(t,S)$ be the value function of a call option. I want to price that option using (explicit) finite differences and the Black Scholes PDE. I consider the grid $0=t_0<t_1<...<t_{N-1}<t_N=T$ and $S_0<S_1<...<S_{M-1}<S_M$.
I impose the boundary conditions
But isn't there a jump in the option value in the top right corner? At expiry, we use the payoff $C(t_N,S_M)=S_M-K$ but then we use $C(t_{N-1},S_M)=S_M$ as upper stock price boundary condition for all other time points? But that means that over $\Delta t$, the option price jumps by \$$K$.
The conditions for $S=0$ and $t=T$ match in the $(t_N,S_0)$ point but there seems to be a mismatch for $(t_N,S_M)$?
## Answer by ir7 (score 3, accepted)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/61644
Note that:
$$ C(t,S) =S-K{\rm e}^{-r(T-t)} $$
as $S\rightarrow \infty$, for all $t$.
Basically because one can easily accept
$$ P(t,S) =0 $$
as $S\rightarrow \infty$, for all $t$,
and one still expects the put-call parity to hold:
$$ C(t,S) - P(t,S) = S-K{\rm e}^{-r(T-t)} $$
for all $S$.
## Answer by eruiz (score 0)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/61636
I would argue your assumption is a bit confusing. C(T, Smax) is the payoff Smax-K. But in this case, whatever your Maturity time is, Smax can be really large. However when you say C(t,Smax) this is bad because at the starting point you dont know that it is Smax, you only know the current/underlying value of the asset. And in the case of a payoff you are pricing for the end of the time period, T. So C(t,Smax) would not be Smax. At that point the call option does not have value since with European options the best payoff would be at time of execution. But to know that American payoff you would have to know the discounted payoff. I think your boundaries are close but I'm not sure why you high stock price is written as C(t,Smax). That little "t" is the beginning time when you start, where neither the call payoff nor the underlying should be maxed out.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.