Skip to main content
Log in

Assessing the Least Squares Monte-Carlo Approach to American Option Valuation

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

Abstract

A detailed analysis of the Least Squares Monte-Carlo (LSM) approach to American option valuation suggested in Longstaff and Schwartz (2001) is performed. We compare the specification of the cross-sectional regressions with Laguerre polynomials used in Longstaff and Schwartz (2001) with alternative specifications and show that some of these have numerically better properties. Furthermore, each of these specifications leads to a trade-off between the time used to calculate a price and the precision of that price. Comparing the method-specific trade-offs reveals that a modified specification using ordinary monomials is preferred over the specification based on Laguerre polynomials. Next, we generalize the pricing problem by considering options on multiple assets and we show that the LSM method can be implemented easily for dimensions as high as ten or more. Furthermore, we show that the LSM method is computationally more efficient than existing numerical methods. In particular, when the number of assets is high, say five, Finite Difference methods are infeasible, and we show that our modified LSM method is superior to the Binomial Model.

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

  • Amin, K.I. (1991). “On the Computation of Continuous Time Option Prices Using Discrete Approximations,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 26, 477-495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barraquand, J. (1995). “Numerical Valuation of High Dimensional Multivariate European Securities,” Management Science 41(12), 1882-1891.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barraquand, J. and D. Martineau. (1995). “Numerical Valuation of High Dimensional Multivariate American Securities,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 30, 383-405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, F. and M. Scholes. (1973). “The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities,” Journal of Political Economy 81, 637-654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, P.P. (1977). “Options: A Monte Carlo Approach,” Journal of Financial Economics 4, 323-338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, P.P. (1988). “A Lattice Framework for Option Pricing with Two State Variables,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 23, 1-12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, P.P., M. Broadie, and P. Glasserman. (1997). “Monte Carlo Methods for Security Pricing,” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 21, 1267-1321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, P.P., J. Evnine, and S. Gibbs. (1989). “Numerical Evaluation of Multivariate Contingent Claims,” Review of Financial Studies 2, 241-250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, P.P. and Y.K. Tse. (1990). “An Algorithm for Computing Values of Options on the Maximum or Minimum of Several Assets,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 25, 215-227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broadie, M. and J. Detemple. (1996). “American Option Valuation: New Bounds, Approximations, and a Comparison of Existing Methods,” Review of Financial Studies 9, 1211-1250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broadie, M. and P. Glasserman. (1997). “Pricing American-Style Securities Using Simulation,” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 21, 1323-1352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J., A. Lo, and C. MacKinlay. (1996). The Econometrics of Financial Markets. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, P. (1998). “Randomization and the American Put,” Review of Financial Studies 11, 597-626.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carriere, J.F. (1996). “Valuation of the Early-Exercise Price for Options Using Simulations and Nonparametric Regression,” Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 19, 19-30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, J., S. Ross, and M. Rubinstein. (1979). “Option Pricing: A Simplified Approach,” Journal of Financial Economics 7, 229-264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doornik, J.A. (2001). Ox: An Object-Oriented Matrix Language, 4th ed. London: Timberlake Consultants Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, J.C. (1997). Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, H. (1987). “Options on the Maximum or the Minimum of Several Assets,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 22, 277-283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judd, K.L. (1998). Numerical Methods in Economics. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloeden, P.E., E. Platen, and H. Schurz. (1994). Numerical Solutions of SDE Through Computer Experiments. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longstaff, F.A. and E.S. Schwartz. (2001). “Valuing American Options by Simulation: A Simple Least-Squares Approach,” Review of Financial Studies 14, 113-147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Press, W.H., S.A. Teukolsky, W.T. Vetterling, and B.P. Flannery. (1997). Numerical Recipies in C: The Art of Scientific Computing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royden, H.L. (1988). Real Analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilley, J.A. (1993). “Valuing American Options in a Path Simulation Model,” Transactions, Society of Actuaries, Schaumburg 45, 499-520.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stentoft, L. Assessing the Least Squares Monte-Carlo Approach to American Option Valuation. Review of Derivatives Research 7, 129–168 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:REDR.0000031176.24759.e6

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:REDR.0000031176.24759.e6

Navigation