I am trying to make sense of this example:

enter image description here

I'm not following the second line in red: "If you buy an up-and-in put and sell an up-and-in call, the payoff is the strike price minus the stock price whenever the barrier is hit."

How can the author conclude this immediately?

I arrived at the same answer as the author, using different reasoning:

Let $A$ be the event $\{S(t) = 90 \text{ for some } t \in [0, 0.5]\}.$ Then the payoff of the portfolio is:

$\begin{align*}\text{Payoff(Portfolio)} &= \text{Payoff}(P_{up, in} - C_{up, in} \big| A)*\text{Pr}(A) + \text{Payoff}(P_{up, in} - C_{up, in} \big| A^c)*\text{Pr}(A^c)\\ &= [\max(K - S, 0) - \max(S - K, 0)]*0.6 + 0*0.6.\end{align*}$

Noting that $\max(K - S, 0) - \max(S - K, 0)$ is the payoff of a European Put less a European Call, by the Call-Put Parity, the price of this portfolio must be

$$P_{up, in} - C_{up, in} = 0.6[F_{0, 0.5}^P(K) - F_{0, 0.5}^P(S)] = 0.6*[75e^{-0.10*0.5} - (80 - 2.5e^{-0.10*0.2})] = 0.6(-6.2073),$$ and so

$$P_{up, in} = 4.18 + 0.6(-6.2073) = 0.4556,$$

as desired.

So my question is, how the author skip all of the intermediate steps and conclude what's in red, i.e., $\text{Payoff(Portfolio)} = 75 - S(0.5)$?


Assume you are long an up-and-in put and short and up-and-in call of the same maturity, strike and barrier. When $S_t = B$ for $t \in [0, T]$, then both barrier options knock-in and turn into vanilla options. You are now long a put and short a call with the same maturity and strike. From put/call parity, you know that

\begin{equation} S_t + C_t = K e^{-r (T - t)} + P_t \end{equation}


\begin{equation} P_t - C_t = K e^{-r (T - t)} - S_t \end{equation}

as claimed.


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.