Pricing Calls When the Underlying Has an Upper Price Bound
Summary
The document considers a European call when the underlying is modeled as unable to rise above a fixed upper price. It proposes integrating the discounted lognormal payoff only between the strike and the bound, with a separate expression for the chance of finishing above the bound. It also gives a piecewise cap on the call’s theoretical value based on the initial price, strike, and bound, and presents a formula combining these terms.
The discussion distinguishes this setup from a knock-out barrier option: crossing the bound does not itself cancel the contract. Responses suggest first specifying a bounded risk-neutral process, then pricing by simulation or by integrating its distribution; they also point to capped options as a related product. The proposed formula is not validated in the text, and the model’s bounded dynamics and consistency with no-arbitrage conditions require care. The stated assumptions and equations should be checked before practical use.
Key ideas
- A hard upper bound on the underlying limits the payoff of a call and can make calls with strikes at or above the bound worthless.
- The proposed pricing approach truncates the lognormal payoff integral at the upper bound.
- The author distinguishes a bounded underlying from a knock-out option that expires upon crossing a barrier.
- A bounded risk-neutral price process must be specified before simulation or integration can produce a coherent valuation.
- The formulas are presented without independent validation or a full discussion of no-arbitrage assumptions.
Tags
Full text
# Pricing options under restricted domain
# Pricing options under restricted domain
How would I price an option when the underlying security is unable to trade above a certain price? I assumed this would be as simple as restricting the limits of integration of the PDF to B (the barrier) instead of infinity but it doesn't work.
For example, if the present price is 30, the barrier is 40, and the strike is 35 then the option price will never exceed $5. If the strike exceeds the barrier the call option is always worthless.
After 5 days and numerous attempts it works for all all possible prices, barriers and strikes
Define barrier to be $p_d$
Strike $p_s$
Present price $p_1$
Criteria:
$p_s \le p_b$
if $p_b \le p_s$ the option is worthless
The barrier has two effects: it makes calls cheaper for all strikes and it can restrict the maximum call price from $p_1$ to something less
But the barrier itself is not a barrier option meaning that the option doesn't become worthless if it's crossed.
The maximum call price $m$ is:
$m=(p_1-g_1)H(p_1-g_1)$
$g_1=p_s-\left[(p_d-p_1)+(p_s+p_1-p_d)H(p_d-p_1-p_s)\right]$
Where H is the heaviside function
This can be tested plugging in various barriers, strikes, and initial prices. If $p_1=30,p_s=35,p_d=40$ then $m=5$
In general, if $p_1 \le p_d-p_s$ then $m=p_1$
And otherwise $m=p_d-p_s$
Between the strike and the barrier you have a restricted black-scholes :
$u=\ln(p_1)+(r-\alpha^2/2)t$
$a=\sqrt{t}\alpha$
$\int_{p_s}^{p_b}{\frac{e^{-rt}(y-p_s)}{ay\sqrt{2\pi}}\exp{\left[-\frac{(\ln(y) - u)^2}{2a^2 }\right]}}\,dy$
As $p_b \to \infty$ you have the classic black-scholes.
As $\alpha,r,t \to \infty$ it goes to zero and the maximum theroetical price $m$ takes over. Otherwise the call is somewhere in-between.
Probability of expiring above the barrier:
$N(d_1)=\int_{p_d}^{\infty}{\frac{e^{-rt}}{p_1a\sqrt{2\pi}}\exp{\left[-\frac{(\ln(y) - u)^2}{2a^2 }\right]}}\,dy$
And a probability below it: $1-N(d_1)$
Evaluating the integrals and substituting:
$\begin{align} d_1 &= \frac{1}{\alpha\sqrt{t}}\left[\ln\left(\frac{p_1}{p_d}\right) + \left(r + \frac{\alpha^{2}}{2}\right)t\right] \\ d_2 &= \frac{1}{\alpha\sqrt{t}}\left[\ln\left(\frac{p_1}{p_d}\right) + \left(r - \frac{\alpha^{2}}{2}\right)t\right] \\ d_3 &= \frac{1}{\alpha\sqrt{t}}\left[\ln\left(\frac{p_1}{p_s}\right) + \left(r + \frac{\alpha^{2}}{2}\right)t\right] \\ d_4 &= \frac{1}{\alpha\sqrt{t}}\left[\ln\left(\frac{p_1}{p_s}\right) + \left(r - \frac{\alpha^{2}}{2}\right)t\right] \\ \end{align} $
The call is:
$\left[mN(d_1)+(p_1(N(d_3)-N(d_1))+p_se^{-rt}(N(d_2)-N(d_4)))(1-N(d_1))\right]H(p_d-p_s)$
## Answer by user25064 (score 1)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/9986
Well first we would have to write a stochastic process taking values on a bounded space in the real numbers. Check out the dynamics proposed by Detemple, Garcia and Rindisbacher (2003). They call it the NMRCEV process see equation 23 page 12. Essentially just think of it as an extended CEV Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process which is bounded.
A slightly easier dynamics to use might be something like, assume the risk neutral dynamics are given by something
$$ dS_t = (\kappa(1_{S_t < 0} - 1_{S_t > U}) + r) dt + \sigma dW_t(1_{S_t > 0}1_{S_t < U}) $$
I think that creates an absorbing state at the upper barrier for any non-zero interest rate but that may or may not be desirable. For anything resembling no arbitrage, it's likely required. You can price with and without $r$ and see the difference.
Then you could just use Monte Carlo simulation to price the option or better yet under the right assumptions there is no reason you couldn't write those expectations as integrals of the standard normal density.
## Answer by user151781 (score 1)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/15616
There is something called a 'capped option' which does have a restricted domain. There are a couple versions of this, some of which use the method of images combined with automatic exercise at the barrier. It doesn't tell you how existing options behave under the introduction of a barrier in the context of put call parityShown 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.