Why the Snell Envelope Is Not an Expected Pathwise Maximum
Summary
The document asks whether the conditional expectation of a payoff process’s maximum over stopping times equals the Snell envelope, which takes the supremum of conditional expected payoffs. It highlights a key distinction: admissible stopping times depend only on information available at the time, whereas choosing the maximum after observing the full path can use future information. The proposed equality proof assumes that a stopping time attains the pathwise maximum; that assumption need not hold, so the argument does not establish equality in general.
The discussion motivates why American option valuation uses optimal stopping and dynamic programming rather than simply taking a pathwise maximum and then its expectation. It provides no worked counterexample or formal conditions for equality, and leaves the mathematical question unresolved. Its value is in identifying the information constraint and the difference between optimizing before and after taking an expectation.
Key ideas
- The Snell envelope optimizes conditional expected payoff over admissible stopping times.
- A pathwise maximum may select a time using future information unavailable to a valid stopping rule.
- The proposed proof relies on a pathwise maximizing stopping time that may not exist or be admissible.
- American option valuation formulates the problem as optimal stopping and dynamic programming.
Tags
Full text
# Interchange Expectation and Supremum in Snell Envelope/American Options
# Interchange Expectation and Supremum in Snell Envelope/American Options
I had a question about the properties of a snell envelope, $\sup_{t\le\tau\le T} \Bbb E\left(Z_\tau\mid \mathcal F_t\right)$, which came to me while studying American options.
I know that in general, the expectation of the supremum is $\geq$ the supremum of the expectation, but that there are special cases where the equality holds. My issue is that I saw a few proofs for the equality holding, but they either involve supremum over deterministic values or using 'policies' such as in stochastic control. So since the snell envelope, involves supremum over stopping times, which are random variables, I am unsure if they can apply here.
So I am trying to compare $\mathbb E\left(\sup_{t\le\tau\le T}Z_\tau\mid \mathcal F_t\right)$ and $\sup_{t\le\tau\le T} \Bbb E\left(Z_\tau\mid \mathcal F_t\right)$, for some payoff process $Z_t$. I haven't been able to find any source that mentions this specific issue, and can't tell how to show whether they are equal. It seems to me like the optimal stopping time is just like a policy, so in that case the result from stochastic control can be used, but I am skeptical since I'd prefer a proof written out.
In a general sense, I know that the Snell Envelope is optimizing the Expectation of the payoff over all acceptable stopping times (random variables that don't look into the future). On the other hand, the expectation of the supremum is taking the expectation of the payoff after it has been optimized over these stopping times. Although I get the syntactical difference between the two, I can't seem to pinpoint an example of where they differ or how to even calculate the supremum of the payoff without using information from the future (to calculate the supremum of a random variable over multiple stopping times it seems like we are choosing the best stopping time based on the realization of the random variable).
I have seen a proof similar to the follows: (but I am not sure if it is valid or if it applies to stopping times)
- $\sup_{t\le\tau\le T} \Bbb E\left(Z_\tau\mid \mathcal F_t\right) \leq \mathbb E\left(\sup_{t\le\tau\le T}Z_\tau\mid \mathcal F_t\right)$ follows due to reasoning such as in: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2230255/supremum-of-expectation-le-expectation-of-supremum
- Let $\tau^*$ be the stopping time such that $\sup_{t\le\tau\le T} Z_\tau= Z_{\tau^*}$, then $\mathbb E\left(\sup_{t\le\tau\le T}Z_\tau\mid \mathcal F_t\right) = \Bbb E\left(Z_{\tau^*}\mid \mathcal F_t\right) \leq \sup_{t\le\tau\le T} \Bbb E\left(Z_\tau\mid \mathcal F_t\right)$, where the last inequality follows since $\tau^*$ is a stopping time contained in the set of all admissible stopping times $t\le\tau\le T$
- So combining the two inequalities $\sup_{t\le\tau\le T} \Bbb E\left(Z_\tau\mid \mathcal F_t\right) \leq \mathbb E\left(\sup_{t\le\tau\le T}Z_\tau\mid \mathcal F_t\right)$ & $\mathbb E\left(\sup_{t\le\tau\le T}Z_\tau\mid \mathcal F_t\right) \leq \sup_{t\le\tau\le T} \Bbb E\left(Z_\tau\mid \mathcal F_t\right)$, we have that $\mathbb E\left(\sup_{t\le\tau\le T}Z_\tau\mid \mathcal F_t\right) =\sup_{t\le\tau\le T} \Bbb E\left(Z_\tau\mid \mathcal F_t\right)$
I know that in general, when doing Monte-Carlo type algorithms for pricing these options, the Snell envelope approach is taken, where the Snell Envelope is turned into a dynamic programming problem, with no mention of the supremum being taken over the payoff itself and then calculating the expectation instead. Was hoping for some clarification on my confusion here. Thanks!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.