Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 266, Issue 1–2, pp 101–127 | Cite as

Pricing derivatives on multiple assets: recombining multinomial trees based on Pascal’s simplex

  • Dirk SieragEmail author
  • Bernard Hanzon
Analytical Models for Financial Modeling and Risk Management


In this paper a direct generalisation of the recombining binomial tree model by Cox et al. (J Financ Econ 7:229–263, 1979) based on the Pascal’s simplex is constructed. This discrete model can be used to approximate the prices of derivatives on multiple assets in a Black–Scholes market environment. The generalisation keeps most aspects of the binomial model intact, of which the following are the most important: The direct link to the Pascal’s simplex (which specialises to Pascal’s triangle in the binomial case); the matching of moments of the (log-transformed) process; convergence to the correct option prices both for European and American options, when the time step length goes to zero and the completeness of the model, at least for sufficiently small time step. The goal of this paper is to present basic theoretical aspects of this approach. However, we also illustrate the approach by a number of example calculations. Further possible developments of this approach are discussed in a final section.


Financial derivative pricing Multiple assets Complete market Multinomial trees 


  1. Amin, K. I., & Khanna, A. (1994). Convergence of american option values from discrete- to continuous-time financial models. Mathematical Finance, 4(4), 289–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Björk, T. (2004). Arbitrage theory in continuous time (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Black, F., & Scholes, M. (1973). The pricing of options and corporate liabilities. Journal of Political Economy, 81(3), 637–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bleylevens, I. W. M. (2010). Algebraic polynomial system solving and applications (1st ed.). Maastricht: Maastricht University.Google Scholar
  5. Boyle, P. P. (1986). Option valuation using a three-jump process. International Options Journal, 3, 7–12.Google Scholar
  6. Boyle, P. P. (1988). A lattice framework for option pricing with two state variables. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 23(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyle, P. P., Evnine, J., & Gibbs, S. (1989). Numerical evaluation of multivariate contingent claims. The Review of Financial Studies, 2(2), 241–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, R.-R., Chung, S.-L., & Yang, T. T. (2002). Option pricing in a multi-asset, complete market economy. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 37(4), 649–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheyette, O. (1990). Pricing options on multiple assets. Advances in Futures and Options Research, 4, 69–81.Google Scholar
  10. Cox, J. C., Ross, S. A., & Rubinstein, M. (1979). Option pricing: A simplified approach. Journal of Financial Economics, 7, 229–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cox, J. C., Ingersoll, J., & Ross, S. A. (1985). An intertemporal general equilibrium model of asset prices. Econometrica, 53(2), 363–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ekvall, N. (1996). A lattice approach for pricing of multivariate contingent claims. European Journal of Operational Research, 91(2), 214–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fischer, S. (1978). Call option pricing when the exercise price is uncertain, and the valuation of index bonds. The Journal of Finance, 33(1), 169–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gamba, A., & Trigeorgis, L. (2007). An improved binomial lattice method for multi-dimensional options. Applied Mathematical Finance, 14(5), 453–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanzon, B., & Hazewinkel, M. (2006). Constructive algebra and systems theory (1st ed.). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar
  16. Hanzon, B., & Peeters, R. L. M. (2000). Balanced parametrizations of stable siso all-pass systems in discrete time. Mathematics of Control, Signals, and Systems (MCSS), 13(3), 240–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. He, H. (1990). Convergence from discrete- to continuous-time contingent claims prices. The Review of Financial Studies, 3(4), 523–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hilliard, J. E. (2014). Robust binomial lattices for univariate and multivariate applications: Choosing probabilities to match local densities. Quantitative Finance, 14(1), 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ho, T. S., Stapleton, R. C., & Subrahmanyam, M. G. (1995). Multivariate binomial approximations for asset prices with nonstationary variance and covariance characteristics. The Review of Financial Studies, 8(4), 1125–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson, H. (1987). Options on the maximum or the mimimum of several assets. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 22(3), 277–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kamrad, B., & Ritchken, P. (1991). Multinomial approximating models for options with k state variables. Management Science, 37(12), 1640–1652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Margrabe, W. (1978). The value of an option to exchange one asset for another. The Journal of Finance, 33(1), 177–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Samuelson, P. A. (1965). Proof that properly anticipated prices fluctuate randomly. Industrial Management Review, 6(2), 41–50.Google Scholar
  24. Shreve, S. E. (2004a). Stochastic calculus for finance I: The binomial asset pricing model. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Shreve, S. E. (2004b). Stochastic calculus for finance II: Continuous-time models. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Stulz, R. M. (1982). Options on the mimimum or the maximum of two risky assets: Analysis and applications. Journal of Financial Economics, 10, 161–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stochastics DepartmentCWIAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Faculty of Exact SciencesVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of MathematicsUniversity College CorkCorkIreland

Personalised recommendations