Hubbry Logo
Barrier optionBarrier optionMain
Open search
Barrier option
Community hub
Barrier option
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Barrier option
Barrier option
Barrier option
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A barrier option is an option whose payoff is conditional upon the underlying asset's price breaching a barrier level during the option's lifetime.

Types

[edit]

Barrier options are path-dependent exotics that are similar in some ways to ordinary options. You can call or put in American, Bermudan, or European exercise style. But they become activated (or extinguished) only if the underlying breaches a predetermined level (the barrier).

"In" options only become active in the event that a predetermined knock-in barrier price is breached:

  1. If the barrier price is far from being breached, the knock-in option will be worth slightly more than zero.
  2. If the barrier price is close to being breached, the knock-in option will be worth slightly less than the corresponding vanilla option.
  3. If the barrier price has been breached, the knock-in option will trade at the exact same value as the corresponding vanilla option.

"Out" options start their lives active and become null and void in the event that a certain knock-out barrier price is breached:

  1. If the barrier price is far from being breached, the knock-out option will be slightly less than the corresponding vanilla option.
  2. If the barrier price is close to being breached, the knock-out option will be worth slightly more than zero.
  3. If the barrier price has been breached, the knock-out option will trade at the exact value of zero.

Some variants of "Out" options compensate the owner for the knock-out by paying a cash fraction of the premium at the time of the breach.

The four main types of barrier options are:

  • Up-and-out: spot price starts below the barrier level and has to move up for the option to be knocked out.
  • Down-and-out: spot price starts above the barrier level and has to move down for the option to become null and void.
  • Up-and-in: spot price starts below the barrier level and has to move up for the option to become activated.
  • Down-and-in: spot price starts above the barrier level and has to move down for the option to become activated.

For example, a European call option may be written on an underlying with spot price of $100 and a knockout barrier of $120. This option behaves in every way like a vanilla European call, except if the spot price ever moves above $120, the option "knocks out" and the contract is null and void. Note that the option does not reactivate if the spot price falls below $120 again.

By in-out parity, we mean that the combination of one "in" and one "out" barrier option with the same strikes and expirations yields the price of the corresponding vanilla option: . Note that before the knock-in/out event, both options have positive value, and hence both are strictly valued below the corresponding vanilla option. After the knock-in/out event, the knock-out option is worthless and the knock-in option's value coincides with that of the corresponding vanilla option. At maturity, exactly one of the two will pay off identically to the corresponding vanilla option, which of the two that depends on whether the knock-in/out event has occurred before maturity.

Barrier events

[edit]

A barrier event occurs when the underlying crosses the barrier level. While it seems straightforward to define a barrier event as "underlying trades at or above a given level," in reality it's not so simple. What if the underlying only trades at the level for a single trade? How big would that trade have to be? Would it have to be on an exchange or could it be between private parties? When barrier options were first introduced to options markets, many banks had legal trouble resulting from a mismatched understanding with their counterparties regarding exactly what constituted a barrier event.

Variations

[edit]

Barrier options are sometimes accompanied by a rebate, which is a payoff to the option holder in case of a barrier event. Rebates can either be paid at the time of the event or at expiration.

  • A discrete barrier is one for which the barrier event is considered at discrete times, rather than the normal continuous barrier case.
  • A Parisian option is a barrier option where the barrier condition applies only once the price of the underlying instrument has spent at least a given period of time on the wrong side of the barrier.
  • A turbo warrant is a barrier option namely a knock out call that is initially in the money and with the barrier at the same level as the strike.

Barrier options can have either American, Bermudan or European exercise style.

Valuation

[edit]

The valuation of barrier options can be tricky, because unlike other simpler options they are path-dependent – that is, the value of the option at any time depends not just on the underlying at that point, but also on the path taken by the underlying (since, if it has crossed the barrier, a barrier event has occurred). Although the classical Black–Scholes approach does not directly apply, several more complex methods can be used:

  • The simplest way to value barrier options is to use a static replicating portfolio of vanilla options (which can be valued with Black–Scholes), chosen so as to mimic the value of the barrier at expiry and at selected discrete points in time along the barrier. This approach was pioneered by Peter Carr and gives closed form prices and replication strategies for all types of barrier options, but usually only by assuming that the Black-Scholes model is correct. This method is therefore inappropriate when there is a volatility smile. For a more general but similar approach that uses numerical methods, see Derman's "Static Options Replication."[1]
  • Another approach is to study the law of the maximum (or minimum) of the underlying. This approach gives explicit (closed form) prices to barrier options.
  • Yet another method is the partial differential equation (PDE) approach. The PDE satisfied by an out barrier options is the same one satisfied by a vanilla option under Black and Scholes assumptions, with extra boundary conditions demanding that the option become worthless when the underlying touches the barrier.
  • When an exact formula is difficult to obtain, barrier options can be priced with the Monte Carlo option model. However, computing the Greeks (sensitivities) using this approach is numerically unstable.
  • A faster approach is to use Finite difference methods for option pricing to diffuse the PDE backwards from the boundary condition (which is the terminal payoff at expiry, plus the condition that the value along the barrier is always 0 at any time). Both explicit finite-differencing methods and the Crank–Nicolson scheme have their advantages.
  • A simple approach of binomial tree option pricing also applies.

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Barrier option

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A barrier option is an exotic financial derivative whose payoff is path-dependent and contingent on whether the price of the underlying asset—such as a , , or —reaches or exceeds a predetermined barrier level at any point during the option's lifetime. Unlike standard options, which depend solely on the asset's price at expiration, barrier options activate or deactivate based on this barrier condition, making them cheaper alternatives for hedging or while introducing additional tied to price paths. Barrier options are classified into two primary categories: knock-in and knock-out. Knock-in options, such as up-and-in or down-and-in variants, remain dormant until the underlying asset's price hits the barrier, at which point they become a standard call or ; for instance, an up-and-in call activates only if the asset price rises above the barrier before expiration. Conversely, knock-out options, including up-and-out and down-and-out types, terminate and expire worthless if the barrier is breached; an example is a down-and-out put that deactivates if the asset price falls below the barrier, limiting the writer's exposure in volatile markets. These structures can also include rebates, where a fixed payment is made if the barrier is hit and the option knocks out, providing partial compensation to the holder. The appeal of barrier options lies in their cost efficiency, as premiums are typically lower than those of equivalent options due to the added conditionality, which reduces the probability of payout in certain scenarios. They are particularly popular in and equity markets for tailored , though their complexity demands sophisticated pricing models, often involving simulations or closed-form solutions under assumptions like Black-Scholes dynamics adjusted for barriers. Despite these benefits, the path-dependent nature heightens the risk of the option becoming worthless unexpectedly, underscoring the need for careful barrier placement relative to expected volatility.

Introduction

Definition and Characteristics

Barrier options are a class of exotic financial that are path-dependent, meaning their payoff structure is contingent on the of the underlying asset's rather than solely on its value at expiration. Specifically, the option's activation or termination depends on whether the of the underlying asset—such as a , , or —reaches or breaches a predefined barrier level at any point during the option's life. This barrier is a fixed threshold set at inception, and the option may either become active (in the case of knock-in features) or expire worthless (in the case of knock-out features) upon hitting the barrier, thereby introducing a conditional element to the standard option payoff. Key characteristics of barrier options include their typical European exercise style, where the holder can only exercise at maturity, though variations with American or Bermudan styles exist in certain markets. The barrier itself can be designated as an "up" barrier, positioned above the current market of the underlying asset, or a "down" barrier, set below it, allowing for tailored risk exposure based on expected price movements. Unlike options, barrier options require continuous or discrete monitoring of the asset's price path to determine if the barrier condition is met, which adds complexity to their valuation and hedging but often results in lower premiums due to the added contingency. Essential prerequisites include the underlying asset's spot price, a for potential exercise, and a specified maturity date, building on the foundational of standard options. Barrier options were first theoretically valued in the early 1970s, with Robert C. Merton's 1973 work using partial differential equations to price a basic down-and-out , laying the groundwork for path-dependent . However, they gained widespread popularity in the among institutional investors for their cost efficiency relative to options, enabling cheaper hedging of extreme price movements. Early academic contributions in this era include , Deniz Ergener, and Iraj Kani's 1995 paper, which introduced enhanced numerical methods for pricing barrier options on lattices and explored replication strategies using portfolios of standard options.

Comparison to Vanilla Options

Vanilla options, also known as plain-vanilla options, provide a payoff determined solely by the relationship between the underlying asset's at maturity and the , irrespective of the price path taken during the option's life; for a , this payoff is max⁡(ST−K,0)\max(S_T - K, 0), where STS_T is the asset price at expiration TT and KK is the strike. In contrast, barrier options introduce path dependency, where the payoff is contingent on whether the underlying asset's reaches a predefined barrier level at any point before maturity, potentially activating or deactivating the option and altering its value compared to the unconditional structure of vanilla options. This added conditionality typically results in lower premiums for barrier options relative to equivalent vanilla options, as the probability of the barrier event reduces the expected payoff, offering higher leverage to buyers but introducing the risk of premature expiration and total loss of premium if the barrier is breached. The primary advantages of barrier options over options lie in their cost efficiency, allowing hedgers and speculators to achieve similar directional exposure at a reduced upfront premium, which can enhance returns in scenarios where the market is expected to remain within a certain range without triggering the barrier. For instance, in range-bound market views, a knock-out barrier option can provide protection against moderate adverse moves while capping costs, making it suitable for strategies anticipating low volatility or confined price action. However, these benefits come with notable disadvantages: unlike options, which retain value until maturity regardless of interim price movements, barrier options can expire worthless upon hitting the barrier, eliminating downside protection entirely and exposing holders to complete premium forfeiture. Additionally, barrier options exhibit heightened sensitivity to and monitoring frequency compared to options, as small changes in volatility can significantly impact the probability of barrier breach, and discrete monitoring can introduce pricing discrepancies. A fundamental conceptual relation highlighting the interplay between barrier and options is the in-out parity, which states that the value of a standard European equals the sum of the values of a corresponding knock-in call and knock-out call with the same strike and maturity, reflecting how the path-dependent contingencies of barrier options decompose the unconditional payoff of the option. This parity underscores the exotic nature of barrier options while illustrating their economic equivalence to options under certain conditions, without altering the overall expected payoff structure when barriers are symmetrically considered.

Types of Barrier Options

Knock-Out Options

Knock-out options are barrier options that deactivate and expire worthless if the price of the underlying asset reaches or crosses a specified barrier level at any time before the option's maturity date. Unlike standard options, which remain active regardless of price paths, knock-out options provide the holder with the payoff of the underlying option only if the barrier is never breached; otherwise, the payoff is zero. This structure introduces path dependency, making knock-out options generally less expensive than their counterparts due to the risk of early termination. Knock-out options are classified into two primary subtypes based on the barrier's position relative to the initial asset price: up-and-out and down-and-out. An up-and-out option features a barrier set above the price and knocks out if the price rises to or exceeds this level, typically used in scenarios where the holder anticipates limited upside movement. Conversely, a down-and-out option has a barrier below the initial price and becomes worthless if the price falls to or below it, appealing to investors expecting the asset to stay within a certain range without significant declines. These subtypes can apply to calls or puts, resulting in four basic combinations: up-and-out call, up-and-out put, down-and-out call, and down-and-out put. The payoff structure of knock-out options is visually represented in diagrams that highlight the conditional nature of the payout. For an up-and-out call, the diagram shows a standard call payoff profile—rising linearly above the strike price at maturity—for paths where the asset price remains below the upper barrier throughout the option's life, forming a "hockey-stick" shape truncated at the barrier level. Paths breaching the barrier result in a flat line at zero payoff, emphasizing the knock-out event's impact. Similarly, for a down-and-out call, the survival region below the barrier but above the strike yields the vanilla call payoff, while any downward breach leads to immediate nullification, depicted as a horizontal zero line across the knock-out zone. These graphical representations underscore the option's binary outcome tied to barrier avoidance. A practical example illustrates the mechanics: consider an purchasing a down-and-out European on a trading at $100, with a of $105 and a barrier at $95, maturing in one year. If the stock price never drops to $95 or below during the period, the option pays the standard call payoff, max(ST−105,0),whereS_T - 105, 0), where S_T$ is the terminal price. However, should the price touch $95 at any point, the option knocks out and delivers zero, regardless of subsequent recovery. This setup might suit a bullish confident in the stock's stability above the barrier, trading lower premium for the knock-out . Knock-out options maintain a conceptual parity with knock-in options, such that the value of a option equals the combined value of its corresponding knock-out and knock-in counterparts, assuming no rebates. This relationship highlights their complementary roles in barrier option frameworks.

Knock-In Options

Knock-in barrier options are exotic that remain inactive until the price of the underlying asset reaches or exceeds a specified barrier level during the option's lifetime. Once the barrier is breached, the option activates and functions identically to a corresponding option, delivering its standard payoff at expiration. If the barrier is never hit by maturity, the option expires worthless, providing no payout. This path-dependent structure distinguishes knock-in options from options, which offer payoffs irrespective of the asset's price path. The primary subtypes of knock-in options are classified by the direction of the barrier relative to the initial asset . Up-and-in options activate when the asset price rises above an upper barrier (typically set above the current price), while down-and-in options activate upon a decline below a lower barrier (set below the current price). These can be combined with either call or put payoffs; for example, an up-and-in call becomes a standard if the upside barrier is crossed, paying the positive difference between the asset price and strike at expiration. Similarly, a down-and-in put activates on a downside breach and pays the positive difference between the strike and asset price, enabling targeted exposure to specific directional moves. A practical payoff example is an up-and-in on a trading at $100 with a strike of $95 and an upper barrier at $110. The option stays dormant unless the rises to $110 or higher during its term; if activated, it then provides the vanilla put payoff at expiration, rewarding scenarios where the price spikes upward (triggering activation) before potentially reversing downward. This structure suits bets on volatility, where the initial upside move is expected but followed by a correction. Knock-in options complement knock-out options through the in-out parity relation, where the combined payoffs of a knock-in and its corresponding knock-out option replicate exactly the payoff of a option with the same terms (assuming no rebates). This parity holds because one of the pair will always activate while the other deactivates upon barrier breach, ensuring full coverage of the scenario. In trading, knock-in options are favored for their lower premiums relative to options, making them cost-effective for investors anticipating extreme price movements or heightened volatility that will breach the barrier. This reduced cost reflects the conditional activation, appealing in strategies like hedging long positions against tail risks or speculating on breakouts in or equity markets.

Barrier Monitoring

Barrier Events

A barrier event in a barrier option is triggered when the price of the underlying asset equals or crosses a predetermined barrier level during the option's life, activating or deactivating the depending on its type. This event is determined by observing the spot price or against the barrier, often using specified data sources such as closing prices or intraday quotes. For knock-out options, the event results in immediate termination of the option, making it worthless regardless of subsequent price movements. In contrast, for knock-in options, the event instantly activates the option, converting it into a standard option with its associated payoff at maturity. Real-world implementation of barrier events presents challenges, particularly in over-the-counter (OTC) markets where definitions can differ from exchange-traded products. One key issue is the effect of size, where large orders may "walk through" the barrier—gradually crossing it across multiple smaller transactions without any single exactly hitting the level—potentially leading to in event . To mitigate this, industry best practices require barrier determinations to rely on verifiable, commercially sized transactions (typically at least $3 million in liquid currency pairs) executed during standard market hours, excluding off-market or affiliate deals unless explicitly agreed. Additionally, the barrier determination agent—often the dealer or non-aggressor party—must act in using commercially reasonable methods, prioritizing electronic broker data for transparency. Legal and contractual aspects of barrier events are standardized primarily through the (ISDA) frameworks, which provide clear definitions for observation and notification. Under the 1998 ISDA FX and Currency Option Definitions, as amended by the 2005 Barrier Option Supplement and supplemented by the May 2022 Barrier Event Supplement, the barrier event is assessed on a designated determination date using a specified rate source, with the agent notifying parties promptly upon occurrence. These standards address potential disputes by outlining fallback procedures for unavailable data and requiring confirmations to detail barrier mechanics, ensuring enforceability in OTC transactions. Historical issues in the early , including disputes over barrier breaches and practices such as "barrier hunting" or "reversing" to manipulate event triggers in markets, highlighted the need for uniform monitoring protocols. These controversies, often involving differing interpretations of price data and trade validity, led to the Foreign Exchange Committee's development of best practices in 2000, endorsed after industry surveys to promote fair and consistent event determination across participants.

Monitoring Frequency

Barrier options are monitored either continuously or discretely, with the choice significantly influencing the option's behavior and valuation. Continuous monitoring assumes the barrier level is checked constantly throughout the option's life, enabling instantaneous detection of a barrier event if the underlying asset price reaches or crosses the barrier. This approach is primarily theoretical and forms the basis for many analytical models, such as those developed by Merton in , which provide closed-form solutions under the Black-Scholes framework. In practice, discrete monitoring is far more common, where the barrier is evaluated only at predefined intervals, such as daily closes, hourly marks, or other fixed times specified in the contract. This method aligns with the operational realities of exchanges and over-the-counter (OTC) markets, where continuous is often infeasible due to regulatory, , and computational constraints; for instance, most barrier options traded in OTC markets use daily monitoring to mitigate risks like in less liquid assets. The monitoring frequency has a direct impact on the probability of a barrier event occurring, thereby affecting . Discrete monitoring generally lowers the likelihood of a knock-out compared to continuous monitoring, as it misses intra-interval breaches, resulting in higher premiums for knock-out options (e.g., up to 25% differences observed even with daily checks). This discrepancy necessitates adjustments in models, such as continuity corrections, to approximate discrete effects using continuous formulas. Examples of monitoring practices vary by asset class. For equity options, end-of-day closing prices are typically used for discrete checks, reflecting the structured trading hours of stock exchanges and simplifying settlement processes. In contrast, forex barrier options often employ continuous or high-frequency (tick-by-tick) monitoring due to the 24-hour liquidity of currency markets, making it the standard in FX derivatives trading. Historically, early barrier option models from the focused on continuous monitoring for its mathematical tractability, but by the , the prevalence of discrete monitoring in real-world contracts—driven by the need for computationally feasible in practical settings—led to the development of specialized numerical methods and corrections, as seen in works by Rubinstein and Reiner (1991) and Broadie, Glasserman, and Kou (1997).

Variations

Rebate Features

In barrier options, a rebate refers to a pre-specified made to the option holder contingent on the occurrence of a barrier event, such as when the underlying asset price reaches the barrier level. This feature is commonly incorporated to provide compensation in scenarios where the primary option payoff is altered or nullified by the barrier condition. Rebates can take two primary forms: fixed rebates, which deliver a constant predetermined amount regardless of the timing of the barrier event, and position-dependent rebates, where the amount is scaled based on factors like the time remaining until expiration—for instance, proportional to (T - t), with T as maturity and t as the hit time. Fixed rebates offer simplicity and predictability, while position-dependent variants adjust the payout to reflect the or duration of exposure, potentially making the option more appealing in volatile markets. These rebates can be applied to knock-out options as a consolation payment upon barrier breach, mitigating the holder's loss when the option terminates prematurely, or to knock-in options as a compensation payment if the barrier is not hit, offsetting the risk of non-activation by providing a payout when the option expires worthless. For example, in an up-and-out with a barrier at 110% of the initial spot price, a $5 fixed rebate might be paid immediately if the underlying price knocks out early, providing partial recovery of the premium. The primary purpose of rebate features is to reduce the risk of for the option buyer in barrier-contingent scenarios, thereby slightly enhancing the overall value of the contract compared to a standard barrier option without such provisions; this adjustment reflects the added certainty for investors facing path-dependent payoffs.

Partial and Step Barriers

Partial barrier options are a variation of standard barrier options in which the monitoring of the underlying asset price for barrier breaches occurs only during a specified of the option's lifetime, rather than continuously from to maturity. This partial monitoring period can be the initial phase, the final phase, or an intermediate window, allowing for more flexible by focusing surveillance on times of anticipated volatility. For instance, the barrier might be active only during the first half of the option's life to against early price movements while ignoring later fluctuations. Such structures were analyzed in detail by Heynen and Kat, who derived closed-form formulas for partial asset-or-nothing and cash-or-nothing barrier options, highlighting how the length and position of the monitoring interval significantly influence the option's value. Step barrier options extend this flexibility by incorporating barriers that change levels at discrete points , forming a piecewise constant function rather than a fixed threshold throughout the option's duration. The barrier can step up (ratchet higher for knock-out protection) or down (loosen for greater tolerance), or the corridor between upper and lower barriers can widen or narrow across predefined intervals, enabling investors to adapt to evolving market conditions or risk appetites. For example, in a two-step double knock-out option, the lower barrier might rise from 70 to 75 and the upper fall from 130 to 125 after a quarter of the maturity, effectively tightening the range and reducing the option's cost by approximately 45% compared to a constant-barrier equivalent for out-of-the-money positions. This stepped design addresses limitations of static barriers, as proposed in early models like step options, which modify knock-in and knock-out for improved hedging. Other notable extensions include Parisian barrier options, which require the underlying asset to remain beyond the barrier for a sustained duration—known as an "excursion" window—before triggering a knock-in or knock-out event, mitigating the impact of transient breaches. Similarly, turbo warrants represent highly leveraged down-and-out barrier options, often featuring a knock-out barrier with a rebate calculated based on post-breach price movements over a short period, such as the lowest price in the ensuing three hours, and continuous adjustments to the intrinsic value through daily financing resets. These advanced barrier structures, including partial and step variants, gained popularity in the for their ability to customize risk profiles in structured products and exotic derivatives trading.

Valuation

Analytical Methods

Analytical methods for pricing barrier options under the Black-Scholes model employ closed-form expressions derived using the to incorporate the barrier-hitting condition. These solutions assume the underlying asset follows with constant risk-neutral drift μ=r−d\mu = r - d, constant volatility σ>0\sigma > 0, constant rr, and constant d≥0d \geq 0, with continuous barrier monitoring and no jumps in the price process. The , adapted from theory to , determines the probability of barrier violation by mirroring paths that cross the barrier over the barrier level HH, enabling computation of the risk-neutral expectation of the discounted payoff conditional on no barrier hit (for knock-out) or on barrier hit (for knock-in). This yields explicit s in terms of the cumulative standard N(⋅)N(\cdot), mirroring the structure of the vanilla Black-Scholes . A fundamental parity relation states that the price of a European call equals the sum of the up-and-in call and up-and-out call prices (with the same strike KK and upper barrier H>max⁡(S0,K)H > \max(S_0, K)), and analogously for puts or down barriers. To derive this, condition the vanilla payoff expectation on the event of barrier crossing: the knock-out receives the payoff only if no crossing occurs, while the knock-in receives it only if crossing occurs, and these events partition the , recovering the unconditional vanilla expectation. Using this parity, explicit pricing focuses on one type, such as the up-and-out call, given by the call minus the up-and-in call. The up-and-in call incorporates reflected terms to account for paths hitting HH, involving powers such as (HS)2(μ+σ2/2)/σ2\left( \frac{H}{S} \right)^{2(\mu + \sigma^2/2)/\sigma^2} applied to adjusted Black-Scholes terms with modified arguments in the cumulative normal distributions. Similar expressions hold for other barrier types by or adjusted reflections (e.g., down-and-out uses a lower barrier reflection). These were first comprehensively derived by Reiner and Rubinstein. These analytical solutions fail under discrete monitoring, where barrier-hit probabilities are lower than continuous case approximations suggest, or with , requiring numerical methods instead.

Numerical Methods

Numerical methods are essential for pricing barrier options in scenarios where analytical solutions are unavailable or impractical, such as under , jumps, or complex barrier structures. These techniques approximate the option value by solving the underlying pricing (PDE) or simulating asset price paths, incorporating barrier conditions to determine activation or deactivation events. Monte Carlo simulation generates numerous random paths for the underlying asset price using the , checking whether each path crosses the barrier to compute the discounted payoff only for valid paths. For continuous monitoring, the simulation must approximate the accurately, often requiring fine time discretization or corrections to reduce bias. Variance reduction techniques, such as using correlated options, improve efficiency by subtracting the difference between simulated and known values, achieving convergence with fewer paths. Finite difference methods discretize the Black-Scholes PDE on a grid, applying barrier boundary conditions—such as setting the option value to zero for knock-out or the rebate for knock-in—at the barrier level to solve backward in time via explicit, implicit, or Crank-Nicolson schemes. This approach handles irregular boundaries effectively by adapting the grid near the barrier, ensuring stability and accuracy for European-style barriers. For American features, early exercise can be incorporated at each time step. Binomial and trees model the asset price evolution in discrete time steps, recombining nodes to approximate the continuous lognormal process, with barrier adjustments applied by truncating paths or setting node values to zero/rebate upon hitting the barrier level. trees offer smoother convergence for barriers due to additional middle branches, reducing oscillations compared to binomial lattices, especially for down-and-out options near the strike. These methods extend to complexities like discrete monitoring by evaluating barriers only at specified dates, avoiding overestimation of knock-out probabilities in simulations. Under models such as , integrates the coupled SDEs for price and variance, while finite differences solve the two-dimensional PDE with correlation terms. Jump-diffusion models, like those with Poisson arrivals, are typically handled via by incorporating random jump sizes in path generation. For illustration, simulation can be applied to non-standard structures like partial barrier options, where the barrier is active only over a portion of the option's life, demonstrating the method's flexibility.

References

  1. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/barrieroption.asp
  2. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/derivatives/barrier-option/
  3. https://economics.princeton.edu/published-papers/optimal-static-dynamic-hedges-for-barrier-options/
  4. https://methods.stat.kit.edu/download/BarrierOptions-IJTAF.pdf
  5. https://people.stern.nyu.edu/sfiglews/documents/DAMM4a.pdf
  6. http://www.columbia.edu/~sk75/sinica.pdf
  7. https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/howison/barriers.pdf
  8. https://www.quantonline.co.za/documents/Barrier_Options1.pdf
  9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377042719302948
  10. http://finance.martinsewell.com/option-pricing/Merton1973.pdf
  11. https://emanuelderman.com/enhanced-numerical-methods-for-options-with-barriers-financial-analysts-jou/
  12. https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/42649/37623382-MIT.pdf?sequence=2
  13. https://www.5paisa.com/stock-market-guide/derivatives-trading-basics/what-are-barrier-options
  14. https://personal.ntu.edu.sg/nprivault/MA5182/barrier-options.pdf
  15. https://www.math.hkust.edu.hk/~maykwok/courses/MATH6380/Topic1.pdf
  16. http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~jryanwang/courses/Financial%20Computation%20or%20Financial%20Engineering%20%28graduate%20level%29/FE_Ch08%20Barrier%20Option.pdf
  17. https://www.mathfinance.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/ForeignExchangeDerivatives.pdf
  18. http://www.columbia.edu/~sk75/mfBGK.pdf
  19. https://digital.wpi.edu/downloads/9593tv255?locale=it
  20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259274569_Fast_pricing_of_Barrier_options
  21. https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/microsites/fxc/files/2005/fxc051206a.pdf
  22. https://www.newyorkfed.org/fxc/fxann000217.html
  23. https://www.isda.org/book/supplements-to-the-1998-fx-and-currency-option-definitions/
  24. https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/microsites/fxc/files/2008/May2008.pdf
  25. http://www.columbia.edu/~sk75/HORM15008.pdf
  26. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rebatebarrieroption.asp
  27. https://www.ivey.uwo.ca/faculty/ssapp/teaching/derivatives/dru/v1n20.htm
  28. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6081
  29. https://hal.science/hal-00924266/file/Step_Double_Barrier_Options_TGuillaume.pdf
  30. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9965.00063
  31. https://www.maths.univ-evry.fr/pages_perso/jeanblanc/pubs/parisian_option.pdf
  32. https://user.it.uu.se/~perl/seminar_abstracts/sem_spring06/persson.pdf
  33. https://business.columbia.edu/sites/default/files-efs/pubfiles/3979/broadie_recent_advances.pdf
  34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247884192_Enhanced_Numerical_Methods_for_Options_with_Barriers
  35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377042713000824
  36. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1265669
  37. https://epubs.siam.org/doi/10.1137/15100504X
  38. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366821852_Fast_Barrier_Option_Pricing_by_the_COS_BEM_Method_in_Heston_Model
  39. https://eudl.eu/pdf/10.4108/eai.28-10-2022.2328413
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.