Fast Monte Carlo Simulation for Pricing Equity-Linked Securities

  • Hanbyeol Jang
  • Sangkwon Kim
  • Junhee Han
  • Seongjin Lee
  • Jungyup Ban
  • Hyunsoo Han
  • Chaeyoung Lee
  • Darae Jeong
  • Junseok KimEmail author


In this paper, we present a fast Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) algorithm for pricing equity-linked securities (ELS). The ELS is one of the most popular and complex financial derivatives in South Korea. We consider a step-down ELS with a knock-in barrier. This derivative has several intermediate and final automatic redemptions when the underlying asset satisfies certain conditions. If these conditions are not satisfied until the expiry date, then it will be checked whether the stock path hits the knock-in barrier. The payoff is given depending on whether the path hits the knock-in barrier. In the proposed algorithm, we first generate a stock path for redemption dates only. If the generated stock path does not satisfy the early redemption conditions and is not below the knock-in barrier at the redemption dates, then we regenerate a daily path using Brownian bridge. We present numerical algorithms for one-, two-, and three-asset step-down ELS. The computational results demonstrate the efficiency and accuracy of the proposed fast MCS algorithm. The proposed fast MCS approach is more than 20 times faster than the conventional standard MCS.


Monte Carlo simulation Equity-linked securities Option pricing Brownian bridge 



The authors are grateful to the reviewers for their constructive and helpful comments on the revision of this article. The author (D. Jeong) was supported by 2018 Research Grant (PoINT) from Kangwon National University. The corresponding author (J.S. Kim) was supported by the Brain Korea 21 Plus (BK 21) from the Ministry of Education of Korea.


  1. Baldi, P., Caramellino, L., & Iovino, M. G. (1999). Pricing general barrier options: A numerical approach using sharp large deviation. Mathematical Finance, 9(4), 293–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boyle, P. P. (1977). Options: A Monte Carlo approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 4(3), 323–338.Google Scholar
  3. Boyle, P., Broadie, M., & Glasserman, P. (1997). Monte Carlo methods for security pricing. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 21(8), 1267–1321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Deng, G., Mallett, J., & McCann, C. (2011). Modeling autocallable structured products. Journal of Derivatives & Hedge Funds, 17(4), 326–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fabozzi, F. J., Paletta, T., & Tunaru, R. (2017). An improved least squares Monte Carlo valuation method based on heteroscedasticity. European Journal of Operational Research, 263(2), 698–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ghafarian, B., Hanafizadeh, P., & Qahi, A. H. M. (2018). Applying Greek letters to robust option price modeling by binomial-tree. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 503, 632–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Glasserman, P. (2013). Monte Carlo methods in financial engineering (Vol. 53). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Higham, D. J. (2004). Black–Scholes option valuation for scientific computing students. Computing in Science & Engineering, 6, 72–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jeong, D., Yoo, M., & Kim, J. (2018). Finite difference method for the Black–Scholes equation without boundary conditions. Computational Economics, 51(4), 961–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jo, J., & Kim, Y. (2013). Comparison of numerical schemes on multi-dimensional Black–Scholes equations. Bulletin of the Korean Mathematical Society, 50(6), 2035–2051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kalantari, R., & Shahmorad, S. (2019). A stable and convergent finite difference method for fractional Black–Scholes model of American put option pricing. Computational Economics, 53(1), 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Leitao, Á., Grzelak, L. A., & Oosterlee, C. W. (2017). On a one time-step Monte Carlo simulation approach of the SABR model: Application to European options. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 293, 461–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ma, J., Zhou, Z., & Cui, Z. (2017). Hybrid Laplace transform and finite difference methods for pricing American options under complex models. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 74(3), 369–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pemantle, R., & Mathew, P. (1992). On path integrals for the high-dimensional Brownian bridge. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 3, 381–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ruf, J., & Scherer, M. (2011). Pricing corporate bonds in an arbitrary jump-diffusion model based on an improved Brownian-bridge algorithm. Journal of Computational Finance, 14(3), 127–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shiraya, K., & Takahashi, A. (2017). A general control variate method for multi-dimensional SDEs: An application to multi-asset options under local stochastic volatility with jumps models in finance. European Journal of Operational Research, 258(1), 358–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shreve, S. E. (2004). Stochastic calculus for finance II: Continuous-time models. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tsai, I. (2017). The source of global stock market risk: A viewpoint of economic policy uncertainty. Economic Modelling, 60, 122–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Financial EngineeringKorea UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsKorea UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of MathematicsKangwon National UniversityChuncheon-siRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations