Skip to main content
Log in

A counter-example to an option pricing formula under transaction costs

  • Published:
Finance and Stochastics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the paper by Melnikov and Petrachenko (Finance Stoch. 9: 141–149, 2005), a procedure is put forward for pricing and replicating an arbitrary European contingent claim in the binomial model with bid-ask spreads. We present a counter-example to show that the option pricing formula stated in that paper can in fact lead to arbitrage. This is related to the fact that under transaction costs a superreplicating strategy may be less expensive to set up than a strictly replicating one.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bensaid B., Lesne J., Pagès H., Scheinkman J. (1992): Derivative asset pricing with transaction costs. Math. Financ. 2, 63–86

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Boyle P., Vorst T. (1992): Option replication in discrete time with transaction costs. J. Financ. 47, 271–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dermody J.C., Rockafellar R.T. (1991): Cash stream valuation in the face of transaction costs and taxes. Math. Financ. 1, 31–54

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Kociński M. (2004): Hedging of the European option in discrete time under proportional transaction costs. Math. Methods Oper. Res. 59, 315–328

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Koehl P.-F., Pham H., Touzi N. (1999): Hedging in discrete time under transaction costs and continuous-time limit. J. Appl. Probab. 36, 163–178

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Melnikov A.V., Petrachenko Y.G. (2005): On option pricing in binomial market with transaction costs. Financ. Stoch. 9, 141–149

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Palmer K. (2001): A note on the Boyle-Vorst discrete-time option pricing model with transaction costs. Math. Financ. 11, 357–363

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Palmer, K.: Replicating and super-replicating portfolios in the Boyle-Vorst discrete-time option pricing model with transaction costs. Working paper, University of Melbourne (2001)

  9. Rutkowski M. (1998): Optimality of replication in the CRR model with transaction costs. Appl. Math. (Warsaw) 25, 29–53

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Stettner Ł (1997): Option pricing in the CRR model with proportional transaction costs: a cone transformation approach. Appl. Math. (Warsaw) 24, 475–514

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Stettner Ł. (2000): Option pricing in discrete-time incomplete market models. Math. Financ. 10, 305–321

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Tokarz, K.: European and American option pricing under proportional transaction costs. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Hull (2004)

  13. Tokarz, K., Zastawniak, T.: American contingent claims under small proportional transaction costs. Preprint, 2005, http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~tz506/ZastawniakTokarz2005.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tomasz Zastawniak.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Roux, A., Zastawniak, T. A counter-example to an option pricing formula under transaction costs. Finance Stoch 10, 575–578 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00780-006-0016-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00780-006-0016-2

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)

JEL Classification

Navigation