2
$\begingroup$

I am currently working on "Stochastic Calculus for finance II, continuous time model" from Shreve. In chapter 7.5 Theo 7.5.1 he derives a pricing PDE with boundary conditions for an Asian call option and i do not understand his derivation of the first boundary condition. So we have \begin{align*} dS_t=rS_tdt+S_tdW_t\\ Y_t=\int_{0}^{t}S_udu\ \end{align*} The boundary condtion is given by \begin{align*} v(t,0,y)=e^{-r(T-t)}\max(\frac{y}{T}-K,0). \end{align*} His derivation: "IF $S_t=0$ and $Y_t=y$ for some variable $t$, then $S_u=0, \ \forall u \in[t,T]$ and so $Y_u$ is constant on $[t,T]$ and therefore $Y_T=y$ and the value of the Asian call option at time t is $e^{-r(T-t)}\max(\frac{y}{T}-K,0)$".

Problem: I do not understand why $S_t=0$ implies $S_u=0, \ \forall u \in[t,T]$.
Thank you very much for your help!

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

Intuitively, once a stock hits value zero the underlying company is bankrupt and the value remains zero (this might not be true in the real world but it's a common assumption). So, once $S_t$ is zero it remains zero. Mathematically, if $S_t = 0$:

$$ \begin{align} dS_t &= rS_tdt+S_tdW_t \\ &= r \times 0 \times dt + 0 \times dW_t \\ &= 0. \end{align} $$

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much! i'm just wondering why the same argumentation for the boundary condition is used in this paper (arxiv.org/abs/2305.02523 , Theorem 14), even though in this case $S_t=(-a_1X_t+\gamma_t)dt+dW_t$. To my understanding, this process can again take on values unequal to zero, so after it was zero $\endgroup$
    – Valentin
    Commented Feb 4 at 14:42
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'd say that's material for a new question and a new answer. $\endgroup$
    – Bob Jansen
    Commented Feb 4 at 15:08

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.