Pricing European Calls with Continuous Yields and Known Cash Dividends
Summary
The document explains an analogy between pricing European calls under a continuous dividend yield and under a known cash dividend. It frames Black–Scholes pricing through the risk-neutral distribution of the terminal asset price: when that price is lognormal, the call formula can be expressed using the forward price and discount factor.
Under a continuous-yield model, the forward reflects the yield-adjusted spot; under an escrowed-dividend model, it reflects spot less the present value of the known dividend. Each adjustment can be represented as an effective initial spot in the formula. This clarifies why the analogy concerns the forward-price input under different modeling assumptions, rather than a pathwise comparison of stock growth. The explanation assumes lognormal dynamics and the stated dividend treatments; it does not establish that these assumptions capture every real-world dividend process.
Key ideas
- The Black–Scholes call formula can be written in terms of the forward price and discount factor.
- A continuous dividend yield changes the forward through a yield-adjusted spot value.
- For a known cash dividend, the escrowed model uses spot minus the dividend’s present value.
- The analogy follows from how each model specifies the forward, subject to its lognormal assumptions.
Tags
Full text
# What is the analogue used by Hull to price European calls with known cash dividends?
# What is the analogue used by Hull to price European calls with known cash dividends?
From The Book by Hull:
And Hull's comment:
> This rule is analogous to the one developed in Section 14.12 for valuing a European option on a stock paying known cash dividends. (In that case we concluded that it is correct to reduce the stock price by the present value of the dividends; in this case we discount the stock price at the dividend yield rate.)
What 14.12 says is if there is a known future cash dividend $(D,\tau)$ then the European call price at the beginning is the value obtained by replacing $S_0$ with $S_0-D_0$ in the BS formula where $D_0=De^{-r\tau}$ represents the present value of the cash dividend at time $0$.
However, I'm quite confused how Hull has developed this analogue.
My attempt to analogise his argument for continuous dividend yield: in the case of a known cash dividend $(D,\tau)$ suppose our stock grows from $S_0$ at time $0$ to $S_T$ at time $T$; then in the absence of this dividend I think the stock would grow to $S_T + De^{r(T-\tau)}$ (a bit dubious); the ratio of growth is thus $(S_T + De^{r(T-\tau)})/S_0$. Now, without any dividend, what initial stock price would grow to $S_T$ following this ratio? It must be $S_T/((S_T + De^{r(T-\tau)})/S_0)$. So it means that replacing $S_0$ with this amount in the BS formula gives the price in case of a known cash dividend, which is completely ridiculous, as the correct formula Hull gives replaces $S_0$ with $S_0-De^{-r\tau}$ instead.
So what is wrong with my reasoning and what should be the correct way to prove this analogue?
## Answer by Quantuple (score 3, accepted)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/33943
Remember that Black-Scholes formula applies to lognormally distributed (under $\Bbb{Q}$) terminal asset prices $S_T$. It is convenient to write this assumption $$ S_T \underset{\Bbb{Q}}{\sim} \ln \mathcal{N}\left( \ln(F(0,T))-\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2 T, \sigma^2 T \right) \tag{A} $$ since it shows that the forward price is the risk-neutral expectation of the future asset price $$\Bbb{E}_0^\Bbb{Q} [ S_T ] = F(0,T)$$
When $(A)$ holds, the price of a European call of strike $K$ and maturity $T$ reads (Black-Scholes formula) $$ C(K,T) = DF(0,T) \left( F(0,T) N(d_+) - K N(d_-) \right) $$ $$ d_{\pm} = \frac{\ln\left( \frac{F(0,T)}{K}\right) \pm \frac{1}{2}\sigma^2 T}{\sigma \sqrt{T}} $$
Now think of how dividends, impact the forward price in [MODEL 1] (dividend yield model) and [MODEL 2] (escrowed model).
- [MODEL 1]: Solving the corresponding SDE $$ dS_t/S_t = (r-q)dt + \sigma dW_t^\Bbb{Q},\,\,\, S(0)=S_0 $$ yields $S_T = S_0 e^{(r-q)T} \mathcal{E}\left[\sigma W_T^\Bbb{Q}\right]$ (lognormal), hence a forward price $$ F(0,T) = S_0 e^{(r-q)T} = \underbrace{S_0 e^{-qT}}_{S_0^*} e^{rT} \tag{B} $$
- [MODEL 2]: Solving the corresponding SDE $$ dS_t/S_t = r dt + \sigma dW_t^\Bbb{Q},\,\, S(0)=S_0-De^{-r\tau} $$ yields $S_T = S(0)e^{(r)T} \mathcal{E}\left[\sigma W_T^\Bbb{Q}\right]$ (lognormal), hence a forward price $$ F(0,T) = \underbrace{\left( S_0 -De^{-r\tau} \right)}_{S_0^*} e^{rT} \tag{C} $$
This shows that, under both of these models, one can use BS formula $(A)$ by provided one replaces the forward price by what it is under each respective modelling assumption, which is mathematically equivalent (looking at the BS formula only) to using the spot value $S_0^*$ (see $(B)$ and $(C)$) instead of $S_0$.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.