Why Call Prices Rise with Maturity Even at Negative Rates
Summary
The document examines how call option prices change with maturity when interest rates are negative. It clarifies that the familiar comparison requires care: the monotonicity result applies when options have the same discounted strike, which corresponds to different nominal strikes at different maturities if the rate is nonzero.
The explanation uses the risk-neutral martingale property of the discounted underlying. Applying convexity of the call payoff makes the discounted payoff process a submartingale, so its expected value cannot decline over time. This establishes nondecreasing call values across maturities under the stated setup without specifying a price model or distribution. The result does not establish the same comparison for options held at a fixed nominal strike when rates are negative; that distinction is central to interpreting the claim.
Key ideas
- With negative rates, compare maturities using a common discounted strike to obtain the stated ordering.
- The discounted underlying is a martingale under the pricing measure.
- Convexity of the call payoff makes the discounted payoff a submartingale.
- The argument is model independent under its stated assumptions, but its strike convention matters.
Tags
Full text
# Call option prices in terms of maturity with negative interest rates
# Call option prices in terms of maturity with negative interest rates
let's assume that interest rates are constant, $r$. When $r\geq 0$, we can see that if $T_1<T_2$ and $C_1$ (resp. $C_2$) is the price of a call option on a non-dividend paying stock with maturity $T_1$ (resp. $T_2$), then $C_1<C_2$.
I am trying to understand what happens when $r<0$. But all I have are the optimal bounds $S_0-KB_i < C_i < S_0$, where $K$ is the strike price and $B_i=e^{-rT_i}$. I can't seem to deduce any consequences from this alone.
## Answer by Cettt (score 1)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/37776
the short answer: we have $C_1 \leq C_2$ for all $r \in \Bbb R$. Here it is important to note that $C_1$ and $C_2$ have the same discounted strike, i.e. $C_1$ has strike $K_1 := K \cdot \exp(rT_1)$ and $C_2$ has strike $K_2 := K \cdot \exp(rT_2)$
The longer answer: one way to reason why option prices are increasing with maturity is the fact that the discounted underlying is a martingale (with respect to the pricing measure) and the fact that the function $x \mapsto (x-K)^+$ is convex. To be more precise let's fix a strike $K \in \Bbb R$ and denote the time-$T$ price of the underlying by $S_T$. Then the process $\{\exp(-rT)S_T\}_{T \geq 0}$ is a martingale. A well known result (which is a simple application of Jensen's formula) states that the process $\{(\exp(-rT)S_T - K)^+\}_{T \geq 0}$ is a submartingale. In particular, submartingales have increasing expectations which implies \begin{align} C_1 = & \exp(-rT_1) \cdot \Bbb E \Bigl[\Bigl(S_{T_1} - K \cdot \exp(rT_1) \Bigr)^+ \Bigr] = \Bbb E \Bigl[\Bigl(\exp(-rT_1)S_{T_1} - K \Bigr)^+ \Bigr] \\ \leq & \Bbb E \Bigl[\Bigl(\exp(-rT_2)S_{T_2} - K \Bigr)^+ \Bigr] = \exp(-rT_2) \cdot \Bbb E \Bigl[\Bigl(S_{T_2} - K \cdot \exp(rT_2) \Bigr)^+ \Bigr] = C_2. \end{align}
Note that I did not assume any model or particular distribution for $S$, so this result for 'every' model.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.