Skip to content
All library documents

Early Exercise and the Holding Region for FX American Calls

Article Quant Q&A · Author: user107224

Summary

The document examines early exercise of an American call on foreign currency, with domestic and foreign interest rates. It presents a convexity and conditional Jensen argument to support the claim that early exercise is not optimal when the domestic rate is positive and the foreign rate is nonpositive. The argument compares the immediate exercise payoff with the discounted expected payoff from waiting.

It also asks when early exercise may be worthwhile if both rates are positive, and how to formulate a pricing PDE in the continuation or holding region. Those questions are not resolved in the excerpt: it provides neither an explicit exercise boundary nor the PDE derivation. The setup assumes constant rates and volatility and uses a risk-neutral currency process, so its conclusions are tied to those assumptions. The displayed proof is intended to establish the no-early-exercise case, not a complete classification for all rate combinations.

Key ideas

  • The document studies an American call on foreign currency from a domestic investor’s perspective.
  • A convexity argument is used to support no early exercise when the domestic rate is positive and the foreign rate is nonpositive.
  • When both rates are positive, early exercise may occur, but the excerpt does not give a boundary condition or closed-form criterion.
  • The holding-region PDE is raised as a question rather than derived.

Tags

Full text
# FX American call option optimal exercise and holding region


# FX American call option optimal exercise and holding region












Problem

I am considering an American call option which gives a domestic investor the right to buy a unit of foreign currency at a strike of $K$ units of domestic currency. I have an exchange rate $S_t$ in units of domestic to foreign currency which follows $$\frac{\mathrm{d}S_t}{S_t}=\mu\mathrm{d}t+\sigma\mathrm{d}W_t,$$ where $\mu$ and $\sigma$ are positive constants. I am trying to prove the following relations:

- If $r_D>0$ and $r_F\leq0$, the option should not be exercised early. I have managed to prove it, see below.

- If both $r_D$ and $r_F>0$, the option can be exercised early, and for a given exercise boundary $S^{\textrm{Ex}}_t$, I need to also describe the holding region and derive a PDE for the price of the call option in the holding region. I have questions about this part.

i) If $r_F>0$, I know from the inequality I prove in the next section that it is possible for $\max\{S_t-K,0\}$ to be greater than the option price. However, since the inequality that arises does not explicitly involve $r_F$, is there a way to obtain a closed form inequality (if it exists) involving $r_F$ and $r_D$ to cases for optimal exercise? Practically, when would it make sense to exercise?

ii) How would one form the PDE here? Any help is greatly appreciated!

Proof for Part 1.

Under the risk-neutral measure $\mathbb{Q}$, $S_t\mathrm{e}^{-(r_D-r_F)t}$ is a martingale, so the discounted $S_t$ (when investing domestically) satisfies $$\mathbb{E}^\mathbb{Q}\left[S_T\mathrm{e}^{-(r_D-r_F)T}\Big|\mathcal{F}_t\right]=S_t\mathrm{e}^{-r_F(T-t)}.$$

Consider a non-negative, convex function $f(\cdot)$ satisfying $f(0)=0$. Then,

$$\mathbb{E}^\mathbb{Q}\left[\mathrm{e}^{-r_D(T-t)}f(S_T)\Big|\mathcal{F}_t\right]\geq\mathbb{E}^\mathbb{Q}\left[f(S_T\mathrm{e}^{-r_D(T-t)})\Big|\mathcal{F}_t\right].$$

By the conditional Jensen's inequality, we have

$$\mathbb{E}^\mathbb{Q}\left[f(S_T\mathrm{e}^{-r_D(T-t)})\Big|\mathcal{F}_t\right]\geq f\left(\mathbb{E}^\mathbb{Q}\left[S_T\mathrm{e}^{-r_D(T-t)}\Big|\mathcal{F}_t\right]\right)=f\left[S_t\mathrm{e}^{-r_F(T-t)}\right].$$

$f:x\mapsto\max\{x-K,0\}$ is non-negative, convex, and $f(0)=0$, so

$$\mathrm{e}^{-r_D(T-t)}\mathbb{E}^\mathbb{Q}\left[\max\{S_T-K,0\}\Big|\mathcal{F}_t\right]\geq\max\{S_t\mathrm{e}^{-r_F(T-t)}-K,0\}.$$

When exercised at $t$, the payoff is $\max\{S_t-K\}$, which is $<\max\{S_t\mathrm{e}^{-r_F(T-t)}-K,0\}$ is $r_F\leq0$, thereby proving part 1.

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.