Skip to main content
Log in

A model-free approach to multivariate option pricing

  • Published:
Review of Derivatives Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We propose a novel model-free approach to extract a joint multivariate distribution, which is consistent with options written on individual stocks as well as on various available indices. To do so, we first use the market prices of traded options to infer the risk-neutral marginal distributions for the stocks and the linear combinations given by the indices and then apply a new combinatorial algorithm to find a compatible joint distribution. Armed with the joint distribution, we can price general path-independent multivariate options.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The Rearrangement Algorithm was introduced by Puccetti and Rüschendorf (2012) and Embrechts et al. (2013) as a practical tool for assessing the impact of model uncertainty on Value-at-Risk estimates for portfolios.

  2. Examples of RND estimation techniques can be found in Jackwerth and Rubinstein (1996), Aït-Sahalia and Lo (2000), and Bondarenko (2003). See also Figlewski (2018) for the review of the pros and cons of the methods proposed in the literature.

  3. For example, it is well-known that a portfolio of individual options is always more expensive than an option on the portfolio, where the strikes are chosen appropriately. If this property is violated for some portfolio, then an arbitrage opportunity will exist.

  4. When \(F_{{\alpha }}\) is available for any possible choice of \(\alpha \in {\mathbb {R}}^d\), then the characteristic function of \((X_1,X_2,\ldots ,X_d)\) is also known, from which the unique joint distribution function can be obtained (Lévy 1926; Cramér 1946). When there is only a limited number of linear combinations with known distributions, then many compatible joint distributions will typically exist, but it is no longer clear a priori how to find them.

  5. Bernard et al. (2018) considers the special case when there is only one distributional constraint and provides an extensive numerical study to demonstrate the strength of the BRA method and its convergence. However, even for this special case, the formal convergence results are not yet available. Haus (2015) has shown that even the simplest rearrangement problem, in which the only constraint is that the distribution of the sum is constant, is NP-complete and therefore cannot be solved by an algorithm that has polynomial complexity.

  6. (Bernard and McLeish 2016; Bernard et al. 2017), and Boudt et al. (2018).

  7. For very large applications, say, \(d=500\) stocks in the S&P 500 index, one still has an option to use the Constrained RA (CRA) instead of Constrained BRA. Although less accurate than CBRA, CRA is much faster. CRA cycles through \((d+K)\) singleton blocks, as opposed to all admissible blocks in \({\mathcal {B}}\) in CBRA. The next subsection provides further discussion of complexity.

  8. Clearly, the marginal distribution for a single variable \(X_{j}\) may be viewed as a special case of a linear constraint.

  9. In the context of inference of marginal RNDs from observed option prices, the principle of maximum entropy has been explored in Rubinstein (1994) and in Jackwerth and Rubinstein (1996) and has been employed in Stutzer (1996).

  10. We are grateful to the anonymous referee for pointing out this interesting alternative formulation. The connection between OT and CBRA is rather fascinating and it opens exciting possibilities for future research. Perhaps the extensive machinery developed for OT can also help in analyzing CBRA.

  11. In our experiments, we have successfully implemented the CBRA approach for \(d=30\) stocks in the DJIA. This case would be completely hopeless for the OT approach.

  12. We program CBRA algorithm in Matlab and run it in parallel using 60 cores. The running time is approximately 1 minute and on average the algorithm converges to a solution after about 8500 iterations.

  13. More precisely, our arbitrage strategy involves trading in so-called simple variance swaps, see Martin (2017).

References

  • Aït-Sahalia, Y., & Lo, A. W. (2000). Nonparametric risk management and implied risk aversion. Journal of Econometrics, 94(1), 9–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avellaneda, M., & Boyer-Olson, D. (2002). Reconstruction of volatility: pricing index options by the steepest descent approximation. In Courant Institute-NYU working paper.

  • Bakshi, G., & Madan, D. (2000). Spanning and derivative security valuation. Journal of Financial Economics, 55(2), 205–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballotta, L., & Bonfiglioli, E. (2016). Multivariate asset models using Lévy processes and applications. The European Journal of Finance, 22(13), 1320–1350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banz, R. W., & Miller, M. H. (1978). Prices for state-contingent claims: Some estimates and applications. Journal of Business, 51(4), 653–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, C., Bondarenko, O., & Vanduffel, S. (2018). Rearrangement algorithm and maximum entropy. Annals of Operations Research, 261(1–2), 107–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, C., & McLeish, D. (2016). Algorithms for finding copulas minimizing convex functions of sums. Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research, 33(5), 1650040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, C., Rüschendorf, L., & Vanduffel, S. (2017). Value-at-risk bounds with variance constraints. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 84(3), 1539–6975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bondarenko, O. (2003). Estimation of risk-neutral densities using positive convolution approximation. Journal of Econometrics, 116(1), 85–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bondarenko, O., & Bernard, C. (2020). Option-implied dependence and correlation risk premium. Working paper. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3618705.

  • Boudt, K., Jakobsons, E., & Vanduffel, S. (2018). Block rearranging elements within matrix columns to minimize the variability of the row sums. 4OR, 16(1), 31–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breeden, D. T., & Litzenberger, R. H. (1978). Prices of state-contingent claims implicit in option prices. Journal of Business, 51(4), 621–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X., Deelstra, G., Dhaene, J., & Vanmaele, M. (2008). Static super-replicating strategies for a class of exotic options. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 42(3), 1067–1085.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cont, R., & Deguest, R. (2013). Equity correlations implied by index options: Estimation and model uncertainty analysis. Mathematical Finance, 23(3), 496–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramér, H. (1946). Mathematical methods of statistics (PMS-9) (Vol. 9). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • De March, H. (2018). Entropic approximation for multi-dimensional martingale optimal transport, arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.11104.

  • Embrechts, P., Puccetti, G., & Rüschendorf, L. (2013). Model uncertainty and VaR aggregation. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(8), 2750–2764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Figlewski, S. (2018). Risk-neutral densities: A review. Annual Review of Financial Economics, 10, 329–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaffke, N., & Rüschendorf, L. (1981). On a class of extremal problems in statistics. Optimization, 12(1), 123–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galichon, A. (2018). Optimal transport methods in economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haus, U.-U. (2015). Bounding stochastic dependence, joint mixability of matrices, and multidimensional bottleneck assignment problems. Operations Research Letters, 43(1), 74–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henry-Labordere, P. (2017). Model-free hedging: A martingale optimal transport viewpoint. Amsterdam: CRC Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hobson, D., Laurence, P., & Wang, T.-H. (2005). Static-arbitrage upper bounds for the prices of basket options. Quantitative Finance, 5(4), 329–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeffding, W. (1940). Masstabinvariante korrelationstheorie. Schriften des Mathematischen Instituts und Instituts fur Angewandte Mathematik der Universitat Berlin, 5, 181–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackwerth, J. C., & Rubinstein, M. (1996). Recovering probability distributions from option prices. Journal of Finance, 51(5), 1611–1631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaynes, E. T. (2003). Probability theory: the logic of science. Cambridge University Press.

  • Jourdain, B., & Sbai, M. (2012). Coupling index and stocks. Quantitative Finance, 12(5), 805–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Justel, A., Pea, D., & Zamar, R. (1997). A multivariate Kolmogorov–Smirnov test of goodness of fit. Statistics and Probability Letters, 35(3), 251–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lévy, P. (1926). Calcul des probabilités.

  • Loregian, A., Ballotta, L., Fusai, G., Perez, M. F. (2018). Estimation of multivariate asset models with jumps, forthcoming in Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, pp. 1–60.

  • Martin, I. (2017). What is the expected return on the market? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 132(1), 367–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peyré, G., & Cuturi, M. (2019). Computational optimal transport. Open source book.

  • Puccetti, G., & Rüschendorf, L. (2012). Computation of sharp bounds on the distribution of a function of dependent risks. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 236(7), 1833–1840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puccetti, G., Wang, B., & Wang, R. (2012). Advances in complete mixability. Journal of Applied Probability, 49(2), 430–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. A. (1976). Options and efficiency. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 90(1), 75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubinstein, M. (1994). Implied binomial trees. Journal of Finance, 49(3), 771–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stutzer, M. (1996). A simple nonparametric approach to derivative security valuation. Journal of Finance, 51(5), 1633–1652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, B., & Wang, R. (2011). The complete mixability and convex minimization problems with monotone marginal densities. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 102(10), 1344–1360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, B., & Wang, R. (2016). Joint mixability. Mathematics of Operations Research, 41(3), 808–826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carole Bernard.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The authors gratefully acknowledge funding from the Canadian Derivatives Institute (formerly called IFSID) and the Global Risk Institute (GRI) for the related project“Inferring tail correlations from options prices”.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bernard, C., Bondarenko, O. & Vanduffel, S. A model-free approach to multivariate option pricing. Rev Deriv Res 24, 135–155 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11147-020-09172-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11147-020-09172-2

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

Navigation