MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087241853 · doi:10.1108/15265940810853931

Asian options versus vanilla options: a boundary analysis

2008· article· en· W2087241853 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Risk Finance · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsian optionExotic optionValuation of optionsDividendEconomicsDividend yieldFinancial economicsStock (firearms)Put optionInterest rateStrike priceBinomial options pricing modelBlack–Scholes modelVolatility (finance)Non-qualified stock optionOption valueOriginalityEconometricsRestricted stockMicroeconomicsDividend policyMonetary economicsFinanceStock market

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of the paper is to correct a commonly mistaken notion that an Asian option is always cheaper than its plain vanilla European counterpart in a general setting. Design/methodology/approach The paper shows that by letting volatility go to zero, the lower bounds of Asian options and vanilla options are derived. Those bounds are then compared. Findings The paper finds that the notion can be violated for call options when the dividend yield of the underlying stock is higher than the interest rate, as well as for put options when the dividend yield of the underlying stock is lower than the interest rate. Research limitations/implications The approach used in this paper, boundary analysis, can be applied to other exotic options. Practical implications The results in the paper may affect decisions on trading Asian options. Originality/value The paper will be of value to those interested in using/pricing/hedging Asian options.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it