This paper extends the forward Monte-Carlo methods, which have been developed for the basic types of American options, to the valuation of American barrier options. The main advantage of these methods is that they do not require backward induction, the most time-consuming and memory-intensive step in the simulation approach to American options pricing. For these methods to work, we need to define the so-called pseudo critical prices which are used to determine whether early exercise should happen. In this study, we define a new and more flexible version of the pseudo critical prices which can be conveniently extended to all fourteen types of American barrier options. These pseudo critical prices are shown to satisfy the criteria of a sufficient indicator which guarantees the effectiveness of the proposed methods. A series of numerical experiments are provided to compare the performance between the forward and backward Monte-Carlo methods and demonstrate the computational advantages of the forward methods.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The authors acknowledge the support from the National Science Council of Taiwan under the grant number NSC 100-2410-H-011-006.
Areal, N., Rodrigues, A., & Armada, M. R. (2008). On improving the least squares Monte Carlo option valuation method. Review of Derivatives Research, 11, 119–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barone-Adesi, G., & Whaley, R. (1987). Efficient analytic approximation of American option values. Journal of Finance, 42, 301–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barraquant, J., & Martineau, D. (1995). Numerical valuation of high dimensional multivariate American securities. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 30, 383–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, P., Broadie, M., & Glasserman, P. (1997). Monte Carlo methods for security pricing. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 21, 1267–1321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadie, M., & Glasserman, P. (1997). Pricing American-style securities using simulation. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 21, 1323–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadie, M., Glasserman, P., & Kou, S. (1997). A continuity correction for discrete barrier options. Mathematical Finance, 7, 325–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadie, M., Glasserman, P., & Kou, S. (1999). Connecting discrete and continuous path-dependent options. Finance and Stochastics, 3, 55–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, G., Kang, J., Kim, H.-S., & Kim, I. J. (2007). An efficient approximation method for American exotic options. Journal of Futures Markets, 27, 29–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, M., & Kwok, Y. K. (2004). Knock-in American options. Journal of Futures Markets, 24, 172–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duan, J. C., & Simonato, J. G. (1998). Empirical martingale simulation for asset prices. Management Science, 44, 1218–1233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gao, B., Huang, J., & Subrahmanyam, M. (2000). The valuation of American barrier options using the decomposition techniques. Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control, 24, 1783–1827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glasserman, P. (2004). Monte Carlo methods in financial engineering. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Haug, E. G. (2001). Closed form valuation of American barrier options. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance, 4, 355–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haug, E. G. (2006). The complete guide to option pricing formulas (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Kou, S. G. (2003). On pricing of discrete barrier options. Statistica Sinica, 13, 955–964.Google Scholar
Longstaff, F. A., & Schwartz, E. S. (2001). Valuing American options by simulation: A simple least-squares approach. Review of Financial Studies, 14, 113–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miao, D. W.-C., & Lee, Y.-H. (2013). A forward Monte Carlo method for American options pricing. Journal of Futures Markets, 33, 369–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchken,. (1995). On pricing barrier options. Journal of Derivatives, Winter1995, 19–28.Google Scholar
Tilley, J. A. (1993). Regression methods for pricing complex American-style options. Transactions of the Society of Actuaries, 45, 249–266.Google Scholar