Skip to content
All library documents

Fourier Transform of a European Put and Its Convergence Strip

Article Quant Q&A · Author: Giogre

Summary

The discussion derives the generalized Fourier transform of a European put payoff, defined as the positive part of strike minus the underlying price, when the underlying is represented in log-price coordinates. Integrating only over log prices below the log strike yields a transform with poles at zero and at the imaginary unit. The original question’s indefinite integral misses the payoff’s exercise-region boundary and does not establish convergence at the lower endpoint.

The derivation also identifies where the transform exists: the complex Fourier variable must have negative imaginary part so the exponential terms vanish as log price approaches negative infinity. It contrasts this with the call payoff’s regularity region, which lies above imaginary part one. These are payoff-transform results, not a complete option-pricing method; using them in pricing requires an appropriate inversion formula and attention to the transform’s domain.

Key ideas

  • A put payoff in log-price coordinates is nonzero only below the log strike, which sets the integration bounds.
  • The transform integral converges when the Fourier variable has a negative imaginary part.
  • The put payoff transform has poles at zero and the imaginary unit.
  • The call payoff has a distinct convergence region above imaginary part one.
  • The transform describes the payoff and must be combined with suitable inversion methods for pricing.

Tags

Full text
# Fourier transform of a European put


# Fourier transform of a European put












In book The concepts and practice of mathematical finance, in the context of illustrating the stochastic volatility model, the Fourier transform $\hat{P}(\xi, V, T)$ of a European put $P(x, V, T)$ is listed as

$$ \hat{P}(\xi, V, T) = - \frac{K^{i \xi + 1}}{\xi^2 - i \xi} $$

where $x = \log S$ is the logarithm of real world underlying stock values $S$, $\xi$ the respective Fourier variable, $V$ is square vol, $T$ the time maturity, $i$ the imaginary unit. My development of the Fourier integral, using $K - e^x$ as payout for the put, leads to a different result:

$$ \hat{P}(\xi, V, T) = \int e^{i \xi x} ( K - e^x ) dx =\\ \frac{K}{i \xi} e^{i \xi x} - \frac{1}{1 + i \xi} e^{(1 + i \xi) x} = e^{i \xi x} \frac{K + i \xi (K - e^x)}{i \xi - \xi^2} $$

Where have I gone wrong? How to reach the book result?

## Answer by Kevin (score 4, accepted)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/66094

The generalised Fourier transform $\hat{P}(z)$ of the payoff of a put option with $P(x)=\max\{e^k-e^x,0\}$ is \begin{align*} \hat{P}(z) &= \int_{-\infty}^\infty e^{izx} \left( e^k - e^x \right)^+ \mathrm{d}x \\ &= \int_{-\infty}^k \left( e^ke^{izx}-e^{i(z-i)x} \right)\mathrm{d}x \\ &= \left[ e^k\frac{e^{izx}}{iz} -\frac{e^{i(z-i)x}}{i(z-i)} \right]_{-\infty}^k \\ &= \left( e^k\frac{e^{izk}}{iz} - \frac{e^{i(z-i)k}}{i(z-i)} \right)-0\\ &= \frac{e^{i(z-i)k}}{iz} - \frac{e^{i(z-i)k}}{i(z-i)} \\ &= -\frac{e^{ik(z-i)}}{z(z-i)}. \end{align*} The computation above is only valid if the summand for $x=-\infty$ indeed equals zero. In general, if $z\in\mathbb{R}$, $\lim\limits_{x\to-\infty}e^{ixz}$ does not make sense since $e^{izx}$ merely describes points on the unit circle around the origin. However, if $z=a+ib$ is complex, $e^{izx}=e^{-bx} e^{iax}$ which at least converges to zero as $x\to-\infty$ if $b=\text{Im}(z)<0$ since it contracts the unit circle into the origin. Equivalently, $\lim\limits_{x\to-\infty} |e^{izx}|=\lim\limits_{x\to-\infty} e^{-bx}=0$ if $b=\text{Im}(z)<0$.

Thus, we require $\text{Im}(z)<0$ for the first summand and $\text{Im}(z-i)<0$ for the latter. Both conditions together lead to $\text{Im}(z)<0$. Consequently, the generalised Fourier transform $\hat{P}(z)$ is only well-defined in the open strip $\mathcal{S}_P=\{z\in\mathbb{C}:\text{Im}(z)<0\}$.

The strip of regularity for a call option is $\mathcal{S}_C=\{z\in\mathbb{C}:\text{Im}(z)>1\}$.

Note: it is no coincidence to have $i$ and $0$ as poles of the payoff transform. You can use inversion theorems to see how they relate to $N(d_1)$ and $N(d_2)$ (or more general exercise probabilities).

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.