Change of Numeraire for Pricing a European Exchange Option
Summary
The document introduces pricing a European exchange call that pays the positive difference between two stock prices at maturity. It shows how the payoff can be factored into the first stock’s value and a call-like payoff on the ratio of the second stock to the first. This motivates choosing the first stock as numeraire and examining the ratio’s dynamics.
The question presents correlated geometric Brownian motions, applies Itô’s formula to the price ratio, and proposes a measure change intended to make that ratio a martingale. It then asks how to convert this result into a time-zero option value. The excerpt stops before giving the valuation step or a closed-form price, so it serves as a setup rather than a complete derivation. Its proposed measure change and drift expressions are not independently verified here; a full treatment must ensure the numeraire measure and density are correctly specified.
Key ideas
- The exchange-call payoff can be expressed using the ratio of the two stock prices.
- Choosing one stock as numeraire makes the ratio the relevant underlying quantity.
- The ratio’s dynamics depend on both volatilities and the correlation between the stocks.
- The excerpt poses the measure-change valuation step but does not complete it or establish a final price.
Tags
Full text
# Pricing exchange options
# Pricing exchange options
I am really puzzled about the mechanism of pricing of exchange options using a change in numeraire:
Suppose that $S^{(1)}$ and $S^{(2)}$ are stocks satisfying SDEs
$$dS^{(1)}_t = \mu_1 S^{(1)}_t \,dt + \sigma_1 S^{(1)}_t \, dW^{(1)}_t , \quad \quad dS^{(2)}_t = \mu_2 S^{(2)}_t \,dt + \sigma_2 S^{(2)}_t \, dW^{(2)}_t ,$$ where $W^{(1)}$ and $W^{(2)}$ are Brownian motions with correlation $\rho$.
> We want to price a European exchange call option that pays $\max \{ S^{(2)}_T-S^{(1)}_T ,0 \}$ at maturity $T$.
The approach in my book is to set $S^{(1)}$ as the numeraire and note that $$ \max \{ S^{(2)}_T-S^{(1)}_T ,0 \} = S^{(1)}_T \max \bigg\{ \frac{S^{(2)}_T}{S^{(1)}_T} - 1,0 \bigg\}.$$ Then, by Ito's formula, one can show that $$ d \bigg( \frac{S^{(2)}_t}{S^{(1)}_t} \bigg) = \hat{\mu}\frac{S^{(2)}_t}{S^{(1)}_t}\,dt + \hat{\sigma} \frac{S^{(2)}_t}{S^{(1)}_t} \,dW_t, $$ for some Brownian motion $W$, where $$\hat{\mu}:= \mu_2 - \mu_1 + \sigma^2_1 - \rho \sigma_1 \sigma_2, \quad \quad \quad \hat{\sigma}:= \sqrt{\sigma^2_1 -2 \rho \sigma_1 \sigma_2 + \sigma^2_2} .$$ Therefore, by defining measure $\mathbb{Q}$ as $$ \frac{d \mathbb{Q}}{d \mathbb{P}} := \exp \bigg\{ - (\hat{\mu}- \hat{\sigma})W_T - \frac{1}{2}(\hat{\mu}- \hat{\sigma})^2 T \bigg\}, $$ it follows by Girsanov's theorem that $\{W_t + (\hat{\mu}- \hat{\sigma})t \}_{t \in [0,T]}$ is a $\mathbb{Q}$-Brownian motion and hence $\frac{S^{(2)}_t}{S^{(1)}_t}$ is a $\mathbb{Q}$-martingale.
How to proceed from here?
> In the standard Black-Scholes setting of a stock (with dynamics $S_t$) and cash (with dynamics $B_t$), one constructs a self-financing portfolio with value $\Pi_t$. After showing that $\{ \frac{\Pi_t}{B_t} \}$ is a $\mathbb{Q}$-martingale, for some equivalent measure $\mathbb{Q}$, for $\Pi$ to be a replicating strategy of a contingent claim $X$ at time $T$, we set $\Pi_T = X$, which implies that $$ \text{Value of claim at time } t = \mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}} \big[ \frac{B_t}{B_T} X \big| \mathcal{F}_t \big] = e^{-r(T-t)} \mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}} \big[ X \big| \mathcal{F}_t \big] .$$ However, this approach does not work in this case. We simply cannot set $S^{(2)}_T$ to be equal to $\max \big\{ \frac{S^{(2)}_T}{S^{(1)}_T} - 1,0 \big\}$ just as the case in the Black-Scholes formula. Am I missing something? I am lost...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.