## Abstract

Pricing American contracts requires, due to the early exercise feature of such contracts, the solution of optimal stopping problems for the price process. Similar to the pricing of European contracts, the solutions of these problems have a deterministic characterization. Unlike in the European case, the pricing function of an American option does not satisfy a partial differential equation, but a partial differential inequality, or to be more precise, a system of inequalities. We consider the discretization of this inequality both by the finite difference and the finite element method where the latter is approximating the solutions of variational inequalities. The discretization in both cases leads to a sequence of linear complementarity problems (LCPs). These LCPs are then solved iteratively by the PSOR algorithm. Thus, from an algorithmic point of view, the pricing of an American option differs from the pricing of a European option only as in the latter we have to solve linear systems, whereas in the former we need to solve linear complementarity problems.

## Keywords

Variational Inequality Option Price Linear Complementarity Problem American Option European Contract## References

- 1.Y. Achdou and O. Pironneau.
*Computational methods for option pricing*, volume**30**of*Frontiers in Applied Mathematics*. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, 2005. zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 11.G. Barone-Adesi. The saga of the American put.
*J. Bank. Finance*,**29**(11):2909–2918, 2005. CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 12.G. Barone-Adesi and R.E. Whaley. Efficient analytic approximation of American option values.
*J. Finance*,**42**(2):301–320, 1987. CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 15.A. Bensoussan and J.-L. Lions.
*Applications of variational inequalities in stochastic control*, volume**12**of*Studies in Mathematics and Its Applications*. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982. zbMATHGoogle Scholar - 25.M.J. Brennan and E.S. Schwartz. The valuation of American put options.
*J. Finance*,**32**(2):449–462, 1977. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 33.P. Carr. Randomization and the American put.
*Rev. Finance*,**11**(3):597–626, 1998. MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 47.C.W. Cryer. The solution of a quadratic programming problem using systematic overrelaxation.
*SIAM J. Control*,**9**:385–392, 1971. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 70.R. Geske and H.E. Johnson. The American put option valued analytically.
*J. Finance*,**39**(5):1511–1524, 1984. CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 77.C. Hager and B. Wohlmuth. Semismooth Newton methods for variational problems with inequality constraints.
*GAMM-Mitt.*,**33**:8–24, 2010. MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 84.M. Hintermüller, K. Ito, and K. Kunisch. The primal–dual active set strategy as a semismooth Newton method.
*SIAM J. Optim.*,**13**:865–888, 2003. zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 87.M. Holtz and A. Kunoth. B-spline based monotone multigrid methods with an application to the pricing of American options. In P. Wesseling, C.W. Oosterlee, and P. Hemker, editors,
*Multigrid, multilevel and multiscale methods, Proc. EMG*, 2005. Google Scholar - 92.K. Ito and K. Kunisch. Semi-smooth Newton methods for variational inequalities of the first kind.
*M2AN Math. Model. Numer. Anal.*,**37**:41–62, 2003. MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 98.P. Jaillet, D. Lamberton, and B. Lapeyre. Variational inequalities and the pricing of American options.
*Acta Appl. Math.*,**21**(3):263–289, 1990. MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 121.A.-M. Matache, P.-A. Nitsche, and Ch. Schwab. Wavelet Galerkin pricing of American options on Lévy driven assets.
*Quant. Finance*,**5**(4):403–424, 2005. MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 126.K.-S. Moon, R.H. Nochetto, T. von Petersdorff, and C.-S. Zhang. A posteriori error analysis for parabolic variational inequalities.
*M2AN Math. Model. Numer. Anal.*,**41**(3):485–511, 2007. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar