Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:44:56.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stochastic Monotonicity and Duality of kth Order with Application to Put-Call Symmetry of Powered Options

Part of: Applications Markov processes Mathematical modeling, applications of mathematics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2018

Vassili N. Kolokoltsov
Vassili N. Kolokoltsov*
Affiliation:
The University of Warwick
*
∗ Postal address: Department of Statistics, The University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK. Email address: v.kolokoltsov@warwick.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We introduce a notion of kth order stochastic monotonicity and duality that allows us to unify the notion used in insurance mathematics (sometimes refereed to as Siegmund's duality) for the study of ruin probability and the duality responsible for the so-called put-call symmetries in option pricing. Our general kth order duality can be interpreted financially as put-call symmetry for powered options. The main objective of this paper is to develop an effective analytic approach to the analysis of duality that will lead to the full characterization of kth order duality of Markov processes in terms of their generators, which is new even for the well-studied case of put-call symmetries.

Keywords

Stochastic monotonicitystochastic dualitygenerators of dual processesdual semigroupput-call symmetry and reversalpowered and digital optionsstraddle

MSC classification

Primary: 60J25: Continuous-time Markov processes on general state spaces
Secondary: 62P05: Applications to actuarial sciences and financial mathematics 97M30: Financial and insurance mathematics 60J60: Diffusion processes 60J75: Jump processes
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Applied Probability , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 82 - 101
Copyright
© Applied Probability Trust 

References

Andreasen, J. and Carr, P. (2002). Put call reversal. Preprint.Google Scholar
Asmussen, S. (1998). Subexponential asymptotics for stochastic processes: extremal behavior, stationary distributions and first passage probabilities. Ann. Appl. Prob. 8, 354–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asmussen, S and Pihlsgård, M. (2007). Loss rates for Lévy processes with two reflecting barriers. Math. Operat. Res. 32, 308–321.Google Scholar
Asmussen, S. and Schock Petersen, S. (1988). Ruin probabilities expressed in terms of storage processes. Adv. Appl. Prob. 20, 913–916.Google Scholar
Asmussen, S. and Sigman, K. (1996). Monotone stochastic recursions and their duals. Prob. Eng. Inf. Sci. 10, 1–20.Google Scholar
Bartels, H.-J. (2000). On martingale diffusions describing the ‘smile-effect’ for implied volatilities. Appl. Stoch. Models Business Industry 16, 1–9.3.0.CO;2-E>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D. S. (1988). The crash premium: option pricing under asymmetric processes, with applications to options on Deutschemark futures. Working paper 38–88, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Biane, P. (1995). Intertwining of Markov semi-groups, some examples. In Séminaire de Probabilités XXIX (Lecture Notes Math. 1613), Springer, Berlin, pp. 30–36.Google Scholar
Carmona, P., Petit, F. and Yor, M. (1998). Beta-gamma random variables and intertwining relations between certain Markov processes. Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana 14, 311–367.Google Scholar
Carr, P. and Chesney, M. (1996). American put call symmetry. Working paper, New York University.Google Scholar
Carr, P. and Lee, R. (2009). Put-call symmetry: extensions and applications. Math. Finance 19, 523–560.Google Scholar
Chen, M.-F. (2004). From Markov Chains to Non-Equilibrium Particle Systems. World Scientific, River Edge, NJ.Google Scholar
Chung, K. L. and Walsh, J. B. (1969). To reverse a Markov process. Acta Math. 123, 225–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djehiche, B. (1993). A large deviation estimate for ruin probabilites. Scand. Actuarial J. 1993, 42–59.Google Scholar
Dubédat, J. (2004). Reflected planar Brownian motions, intertwining relations and crossing probabilities. Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Prob. Statist. 40, 539–552.Google Scholar
Dynkin, E. B. (1985). An application of flows to time shift and time reversal in stochastic processes. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 287, 613–619.Google Scholar
Eberlein, E., Papapantoleon, A. and Shiryaev, A. N. (2008). On the duality principle in option pricing: semimartingale setting. Finance Stoch. 12, 265–292.Google Scholar
Ethier, S. N. and Kurtz, T. G. (1986). Markov Processes. Characterization and Convergence. John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Fajardo, J. and Mordecki, E. (2006). Symmetry and duality in Lévy markets. Quant. Finance 6, 219–227.Google Scholar
Gel'fand., I. M. and Shilov, G. E. (1964). Generalized Functions, Vol. 1, Properties and Operations. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Henderson, V. and Wojakowski, R. (2002). On the equivalence of floating- and fixed-strike Asian options. J. Appl. Prob. 39, 391–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, V., Hobson, D., Shaw, W. and Wojakowski, R. (2007). Bounds for in-progress floating-strike Asian options using symmetry. Ann. Operat. Res. 151, 81–98.Google Scholar
Hirsch, F. and Yor, M. (2009). Fractional intertwinings between two Markov semigroups. Potential Anal. 31, 133–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huillet, T. and Martinez, S. (2011). Duality and intertwining for discrete Markov kernels: relations and examples. Adv. Appl. Prob. 43, 437–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolokoltsov, V. N. (2003). Measure-valued limits of interacting particle systems with k-nary interactions. I. One-dimensional limits. Prob. Theory Relat. Fields 126, 364–394.Google Scholar
Kolokoltsov, V. N. (2011). Markov Processes, Semigroups and Generators. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar
Kolokoltsov, V. N. (2011). Stochastic monotonicity and duality for one-dimensional Markov processes. Math. Notes 89, 652–660.Google Scholar
Kolokoltsov, V. N. and Lee, R. X. (2013). Stochastic duality of Markov processes: a study via generators. Stoch. Anal. Appl. 31, 992–1023.Google Scholar
Liggett, T. M. (2005). Interacting Particle Systems. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
Molchanov, I. and Schmutz, M. (2010). Multivariate extension of put-call symmetry. SIAM J. Financial Math. 1, 396–426.Google Scholar
Mytnik, L. (1996). Superprocesses in random environments. Ann. Prob. 24, 1953–1953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patie, P. and Simon, T. (2012). Intertwining certain fractional derivatives. Potential Anal. 36, 569–587.Google Scholar
Rheinländer, T. and Schmutz, M. (2013). Self-dual continuous processes. Stoch. Process. Appl. 123, 1765–1779.Google Scholar
Rheinländer, T. and Schmutz, M. (2014). Quasi-self-dual exponential Lévy processes. SIAM J. Financial Math. 5, 656–684.Google Scholar
Siegmund, D. (1976). The equivalence of absorbing and reflecting barrier problems for stochastically monotone Markov processes. Ann. Prob. 4, 914–924.Google Scholar
Sigman, K. and Ryan, R. (2000). Continuous-time monotone stochastic recursions and duality. Adv. Appl. Prob. 32, 426–445.Google Scholar
Van Doorn, E. A. (1980). Stochastic monotonicity of birth–death processes. Adv. Appl. Prob. 12, 59–80.Google Scholar