Partial Hedging for Options Based on Extreme Values and Passage Times

  • Hatem Ben Ameur
  • Michèle Breton
  • Pierre L’Ecuyer
Part of the Advances in Computational Management Science book series (AICM, volume 4)


A hedger of a contingent claim may decide to partially replicate on some states of nature and not on the others: A partial hedge initially costs less than a perfect hedge. However, a partial hedge may lead to a default position. It is of interest in that context to estimate the gain and the default risk. Some partial hedging strategies based on the final primitive asset price, its maximum over the trading period, and the time to maximum, are analyzed. Closed-form solutions are derived in the Black and Scholes [4] model and efficient Monte Carlo estimates are computed using a stochastic volatility model. The results show how the gain and the default risk inversely change depending on the hedging event.


Call Option Default Risk Contingent Claim Stochastic Volatility Model Initial Wealth 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    A.N. Avramidis and J.R. Wilson, 1993, A Splitting Scheme for Control Variates, Operations Research Letters, 14, 187–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    A.N. Avramidis and J.R. Wilson, 1996, Integrated Variance Reduction Strategies for Simulation, Operations Research, 44, 327–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    D.R. Beaglehole, P.H. Dybvig, and G. Zhou, 1997, Going to Extremes: Correcting Simulation Bias in Exotic Option Valuation, Financial Analysts Journal, 62–68.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    F. Black and M. Scholes, 1973, The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities, Journal of Political Economy, 81, 637–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    P.P. Boyle, M. Broadie, and P. Glasserman, 1997, Monte Carlo Methods for Security Pricing, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 21, 1267–1321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    P. Bratley, B.L. Fox, and L.E. Schrage, 1987, A Guide to Simulation, Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    L. Clewlow and A. Carverhill, 1994, On the Simulation of Contingent Claims, The Journal of Derivatives, Winter, 66–74.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    A. Conze and Viswanathan, 1991, Path Dependent Options: The Case of Lookback Options, The Journal of Finance, XLVI, 1893–1906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    J. Cvitanic, H. Pham, and N. Touzi, 1997, Super-Replication in Stochastic Volatility Models under Portfolio Constraints, Working Paper, Columbia University, CREST, Université Marne-la-Vallée, and Université Paris Dauphine.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    J. Detemple and C.J. Osakwe, 1997, The Valuation of Volatility Options, Working Paper, McGill University.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    D. Duffie and P. Glynn, 1995, Efficient Monte Carlo Simulation of Security Prices, The Annals of Applied Probability, 5, 897–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    H. Föllmer, 1995, Talk at the Isaac Newton Institute for the Mathematical Sciences, Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    M.B. Goldman, H.B. Sosin, and M.A. Gatto, 1979, Path Dependent Options: “Buy at the Low, Sell at the High”, The Journal of Finance, XXXIV, 1111–1127.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    J.M. Harrison and D.M. Kreps, 1979, Martingales and Arbitrage in Multiperiod Securities Markets, Journal of Economic Theory, 20, 381–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    J.M. Harrison and S. Pliska, 1981, Martingales and Stochastic Integrals in the Theory of Continuous Trading, Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 11, 215–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    J. Hull and A. White, 1987, The Pricing of Options on Assets with Stochastic Volatilities, The Journal of Finance, XLII, 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    H. Johnson and D. Shanno, 1987, Option Pricing when the Variance is Changing, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 22, 143–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    I. Karatzas, 1996, Lectures on the Mathematics of Finance, Centre de Recherches Mathématiques, Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    I. Karatzas and S.E. Shreve, 1991, Brownian Motion and Stochastic Calculus, Second Edition, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    S.S. Lavenberg and P.D. Welch, 1981, A Perspective on the Use of Control Variables to Increase the Efficiency of Monte Carlo Simulations, Management Science, 27, 322–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    P. L’Ecuyer, 1994, Efficient Improvement via Variance Reduction, Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, IEEE Press, 122–132.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    B.L. Nelson, 1990, Control Variate Remedies, Operations Research, 38, 974–992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    L.O. Scott, 1987, Option Pricing when the Variance Changes Randomly: Theory, Estimation, and an Application, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 22, 419–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    J.B. Wiggins, 1987, Option Values under Stochastic Volatility, Theory and Empirical Estimates, Journal of Financial Economics, 19, 351–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hatem Ben Ameur
  • Michèle Breton
  • Pierre L’Ecuyer

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations