I was just wondering if someone could verify whether these are the two boundary conditions for a Call Spread Black-Scholes PDE.

The first one I have is:

$max(S_{T} - K_{1}, 0) - max(S_{T}-K_{2},0)$

While the second boundary condition I have is:

$S_{t} - K_{1}e^{-r(T-t)} + K_{2}e^{-r(T-t)} - S_{t} = (K_{2}-K_{1})e^{-r(T-t)}$

Is this correct? Thanks in advance

EDIT: Rather than create a new question, I thought I should ask it here: Should a call spread at time $t_{0}$ always take on a symmetric shape? I have the graph of a call spread PDE at time $t_{0}$ for spot values between 0 to 20, with zero interest rate, and with strikes $K_{1} = 9$, $K_{2} = 11$Call Spread. Does the shape of this call spread look okay, or does it have to be perfectly symmetrical? Thanks!

  • $\begingroup$ Are you looking for a condition imposed on the time domain (absence or arbitrage means the option value at maturity = its payoff) or for a condition on the spatial domain (which is merely an artefact required by the numerical method and in which case zer0 convexity (ie gamma = 0) should work assuming your spot mesh is sufficiently wide. Dirichlet type conditions as in MJ73550'S answer work as well.)? $\endgroup$ – Quantuple May 19 '16 at 7:42

Time $T$ boundary condition is correct $u(T,x)=(x-K_1)^+-(x-K_2)^+$.

Time $x\to 0$ boundary condition is known and is equal to $0$.

Time $x\to\infty$ boundary condition is also known and is correct $\lim_{x\to\infty}u(t,x)=(K_2-K_1)e^{-r(T-t)}.$

You need to be precise if you want your boundary be "absorbing" or "reflecting".

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for that, I just wanted to confirm I had the right idea. My call spread doesn't appear to be completely symmetrical when $t_{0}$ so I though one of the boundary conditions may have been off... $\endgroup$ – ThePlowKing May 20 '16 at 12:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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