Let $D(K)$ pay $(S - K)^2$ if $S > K$, zero otherwise. Show that if $D(K)$ is differentiable function of $K$ then the third derivative w.r.t $K$ is non-negative.

From what the hint in the book, we construct a portfolio and proceed by proving convexity and take the third derivative. I am a bit thrown off by that, I thought we could just take the third derivative of $D(K)$ and simply check to see if it is non-negative.


1 Answer 1


The idea is pretty much the same as the one used in the Breeden-Litzenberger result. You'll find many questions related to this here already, see e.g.: Prove that the butterfly condition is always greater than zero.

The current value of the derivative is the discounted expected value.

\begin{equation} D_0 = e^{-r T} \int_K^\infty (x - K)^2 f(x) \mathrm{d}x, \end{equation}

where $f$ is the risk-neutral probability density function of $S_T$. If you now carefully differentiate three times w.r.t. $K$ using the Leibniz rule, you get

\begin{eqnarray} \frac{\partial D_0}{\partial K} & = & -2 e^{-r T} \int_K^\infty (x - K) f(x) \mathrm{d}x,\\ \frac{\partial^2 D_0}{\partial K^2} & = & 2 e^{-r T} \int_K^\infty f(x) \mathrm{d}x\\ \frac{\partial^3 D_0}{\partial K^3} & = & -2 e^{-r T} f(K). \end{eqnarray}

Here, $f(K)$ has to be non-negative to be a valid probability density function and we thus conclude that the third derivative has to be non-positive. Note that this is either a typo in your question or the book.

Another way to obtain this result is to consider the finite difference approximation

\begin{equation} \frac{\partial^3 D_0}{\partial K^3} \approx \frac{1}{\Delta^3} \left( -\frac{1}{2} D_0(K - 2\Delta) + D_0(K - \Delta) - D_0(K + \Delta) + \frac{1}{2} D_0(K + 2 \Delta) \right) \end{equation}

for some step size $\Delta$. The terminal payoff of the portfolio $\Pi$ consisting of the option positions in the numerator is

\begin{eqnarray} \Pi_T \left( S_T \right) & = & -\frac{1}{2} \left( S_T - K + 2 \Delta \right)^2 \mathrm{1} \left\{ S_T > K - 2 \Delta \right\} + \left( S_T - K + \Delta \right)^2 \mathrm{1} \left\{ S_T > K - \Delta \right\}\\ & & - \left( S_T - K - \Delta \right)^2 \mathrm{1} \left\{ S_T > K + \Delta \right\} + \frac{1}{2} \left( S_T - K - 2 \Delta \right)^2 \mathrm{1} \left\{ S_T > K + 2 \Delta \right\}. \end{eqnarray}

We first observe that for any $x \geq 0$, we have

\begin{equation} \Pi_T(K + x) = \Pi_T(K - x). \end{equation}

We can thus restrict ourselves to analyzing the payoff for $S_T \leq K$ in the different intervals.

  1. For $S_T \leq K - 2 \Delta$, all options expiry out-of-the-money and $\Pi_T = 0$.
  2. For $K - 2 \Delta < S_T \leq K - \Delta$, only the short position in the strike $K - 2 \Delta$ is in-the-money and our payoff is strictly negative. At $S_T = K - \Delta$ it is $\Pi_T = -\Delta^2 / 2$.
  3. For $K - \Delta < S_T \leq K$, also the long position in the strike $K - \Delta$ is in-the-money. However, our overall payoff becomes even more negative. At $S_T = K$ it is $\Pi_T = -\Delta^2$.

Using the symmetry around $S_T = K$, we find that our payoff is non-positive everywhere. Consequently, the initial portfolio value has to be non-positive as well and we conclude that $\partial^3 D_0 / \partial K^3 \leq 0$.


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.