420
Views
11
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
SECTION B

Efficient pricing and hedging under the double Heston stochastic volatility jump-diffusion model

Pages 2551-2574 | Received 07 Jan 2015, Accepted 30 Jul 2015, Published online: 04 Sep 2015
 

Abstract

The performances of jump-risk mitigation under a double Heston stochastic volatility jump-diffusion (dbHJ) model are examined. The quadratic exponential (QE) scheme is used to simulate the P-measure price paths supposed to follow the dbHJ model, whereas a Fourier-COS-expansion-based scheme (i.e. the COS formula, see [F. Fang and C.W. Oosterlee, A novel pricing method for European based on Fourier-cosine series expansions, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 31 (2008), pp. 826–848] is employed to price options and to calculate Greeks. Numerical results from extensive dynamic hedging experiments suggest that, when facing a P-measure market with stiff volatility skews and non-trivial jumps, the dbHJ model is better than the plain (double) Heston and Black–Scholes models, and slightly outperforms the Heston stochastic volatility jump-diffusion (HJ) model and the Merton model in mitigating the jump risk of an option. This conclusion holds independent of the model specification of P-measure market.

2010 AMS Subject Classifications:

Acknowledgments

The corresponding author is grateful to Prof. Cornelis W. Oosterlee, and two anonymous referees for insightful and detailed comments that have substantially improved the paper. All errors remain my own.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Here, I delibrately omit the over-lengthy formulas of c4 that may cover several pages. However, in computational exercise, c4 is needed. According to Fang and Oosterlee [Citation12], including the fourth-order cumulant is sufficient for Equation (Equation21) to obtain a good integration interval for the COS method.

2. The reason for asset's dbHJ model assumption is that this model, with two stochastic volatility processes and a jump feature, is better than its reduced versions in capturing the empirical phenomena (such as skewness, fat tails, and excess kurtosis of return distribution) in financial market.

3. It makes only small difference between the hedging results for 105 simulation paths and 104 paths. But with more paths, the hedging performance is better.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, China under Grant [No.2014A030313514].

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.