Empirical Performance of Black-Scholes and GARCH Option Pricing Models during Turbulent Times: The Indian Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exchange-traded currency options are a recent innovation in the Indian financial market and their pricing is as yet unexplored. The objective of this research paper is to empirically compare the pricing performance of two well-known option pricing models – the Black-Scholes-Merton Option Pricing Model (BSM) and Duan’s NGARCH option pricing model – for pricing exchange-traded currency options on the US dollar-Indian rupee during a recent turbulent period. The BSM is known to systematically misprice options on the same underlying asset but with different strike prices and maturities resulting in the phenomenon of the ‘volatility smile’. This bias of the BSM results from its assumption of a constant volatility over the option’s life. The NGARCH option pricing model developed by Duan is an attempt to incorporate time-varying volatility in pricing options. It is a deterministic volatility model which has no closed-form solution and therefore requires numerical techniques for evaluation. In this paper we have compared the pricing performance and examined the pricing bias of both models during a recent period of volatility in the Indian foreign exchange market. Contrary to our expectations the pricing performance of the more sophisticated NGARCH pricing model is inferior to that of the relatively simple BSM model. However orthogonality tests demonstrate that the NGARCH model is free of the strike price and maturity biases associated with the BSM. We conclude that the deterministic BSM does a better job of pricing options than the more advanced time-varying volatility model based on GARCH.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".