# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

April  2006, 2(2): 177-197. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2006.2.177

## Option pricing under threshold autoregressive models by threshold Esscher transform

 1 Department of Actuarial Mathematics and Statistics, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom 2 London School of Economics, United Kingdom 3 Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China

Received  September 2005 Revised  January 2006 Published  April 2006

This paper develops a valuation model for options under the class of self-exciting threshold autoregressive (SETAR) models and their variants for the price dynamics of the underlying asset using the self-exciting threshold autoregressive Esscher transform (SETARET). In particular, we focus on the first generation SETAR models first proposed by Tong (1977, 1978) and later developed in Tong (1980, 1983) and Tong and Lim (1980), and the second generation models, including the SETAR-GARCH model proposed in Tong (1990) and the double-threshold autoregressive heteroskedastic time series model (DTARCH) proposed by Li and Li (1996). The class of SETAR-GARCH models has the advantage of modelling the non-linearity of the conditional first moment and the varying conditional second moment of the financial time series. We adopt the SETARET to identify an equivalent martingale measure for option valuation in the incomplete market described by the discrete-time SETAR models. We are able to justify our choice of probability measure by the SETARET by considering the self-exciting threshold dynamic utility maximization. Simulation studies will be conducted to investigate the impacts of the threshold effect in the conditional mean described by the first generation model and that in the conditional variance described by the second generation model on the qualitative behaviors of the option prices as the strike price varies.
Citation: Tak Kuen Siu, Howell Tong, Hailiang Yang. Option pricing under threshold autoregressive models by threshold Esscher transform. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2006, 2 (2) : 177-197. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2006.2.177
 [1] Sharif E. Guseynov, Eugene A. Kopytov, Edvin Puzinkevich. On continuous models of current stock of divisible productions. Conference Publications, 2011, 2011 (Special) : 601-613. doi: 10.3934/proc.2011.2011.601 [2] Hao-Zhe Tay, Kok-Haur Ng, You-Beng Koh, Kooi-Huat Ng. Model selection based on value-at-risk backtesting approach for GARCH-Type models. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (5) : 1-20. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2019021 [3] Junling Ma, Zhien Ma. Epidemic threshold conditions for seasonally forced SEIR models. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2006, 3 (1) : 161-172. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2006.3.161 [4] Tao Li, Suresh P. Sethi. A review of dynamic Stackelberg game models. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2017, 22 (1) : 125-159. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2017007 [5] Zhuo Jin, Linyi Qian. Lookback option pricing for regime-switching jump diffusion models. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2015, 5 (2) : 237-258. doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2015.5.237 [6] Bruce D. Craven, Sardar M. N. Islam. Dynamic optimization models in finance: Some extensions to the framework, models, and computation. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2014, 10 (4) : 1129-1146. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2014.10.1129 [7] Mauro Garavello, Benedetto Piccoli. On fluido-dynamic models for urban traffic. Networks & Heterogeneous Media, 2009, 4 (1) : 107-126. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2009.4.107 [8] K Najarian. On stochastic stability of dynamic neural models in presence of noise. Conference Publications, 2003, 2003 (Special) : 656-663. doi: 10.3934/proc.2003.2003.656 [9] Dong-Mei Zhu, Wai-Ki Ching, Robert J. Elliott, Tak-Kuen Siu, Lianmin Zhang. Hidden Markov models with threshold effects and their applications to oil price forecasting. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (2) : 757-773. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016045 [10] Jiapeng Liu, Ruihua Liu, Dan Ren. Investment and consumption in regime-switching models with proportional transaction costs and log utility. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2017, 7 (3) : 465-491. doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2017017 [11] Xu Chen, Jianping Wan. Integro-differential equations for foreign currency option prices in exponential Lévy models. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2007, 8 (3) : 529-537. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2007.8.529 [12] Heikki Haario, Leonid Kalachev, Marko Laine. Reduction and identification of dynamic models. Simple example: Generic receptor model. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2013, 18 (2) : 417-435. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2013.18.417 [13] Nicholas Westray, Harry Zheng. Constrained nonsmooth utility maximization on the positive real line. Mathematical Control & Related Fields, 2015, 5 (3) : 679-695. doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2015.5.679 [14] Na Song, Yue Xie, Wai-Ki Ching, Tak-Kuen Siu. A real option approach for investment opportunity valuation. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (3) : 1213-1235. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016069 [15] Junkee Jeon, Jehan Oh. Valuation of American strangle option: Variational inequality approach. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2019, 24 (2) : 755-781. doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2018206 [16] Gianni Dal Maso, Flaviana Iurlano. Fracture models as $\Gamma$-limits of damage models. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2013, 12 (4) : 1657-1686. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2013.12.1657 [17] Fred Brauer. Some simple epidemic models. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2006, 3 (1) : 1-15. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2006.3.1 [18] Abderrahman Iggidr, Josepha Mbang, Gauthier Sallet, Jean-Jules Tewa. Multi-compartment models. Conference Publications, 2007, 2007 (Special) : 506-519. doi: 10.3934/proc.2007.2007.506 [19] Michał Jóźwikowski, Mikołaj Rotkiewicz. Models for higher algebroids. Journal of Geometric Mechanics, 2015, 7 (3) : 317-359. doi: 10.3934/jgm.2015.7.317 [20] Zhiyu Wang, Yan Guo, Zhiwu Lin, Pingwen Zhang. Unstable galaxy models. Kinetic & Related Models, 2013, 6 (4) : 701-714. doi: 10.3934/krm.2013.6.701

2018 Impact Factor: 1.025