Hedging errors with Leland's option model in the presence of transaction costs

Nonzero transaction costs invalidate the Black–Scholes [1973. Journal of Political Economy 81, 637–654] arbitrage argument based on continuous trading. Leland [1985. Journal of Finance 40, 1283–1301] developed a hedging strategy which modifies the Black–Scholes hedging strategy with a volatility adjusted by the length of the rebalance interval and the rate of the proportional transaction cost. Kabanov and Safarian [1997. Finance and Stochastics 1, 239–250] calculated the limiting hedging error of the Leland strategy and pointed out that it is nonzero for the approximate pricing of an European call option, in contradiction to Leland's claim. As a further contribution, we first identify the mathematical flaw in the argument of Leland's claim and then quantify the expected percentage of hedging losses in terms of the hedging frequency and the level of the option strike price.     

Asymptotic analysis for optimal investment and consumption with transaction costs

We consider an agent who invests in a stock and a money market and consumes in order to maximize the utility of consumption over an infinite planning horizon in the presence of a proportional transaction cost . The utility function is of the form U(c) = c^1-p/(1-p) for p > 0, . We provide a heuristic and a rigorous derivation of the asymptotic expansion of the value function in powers of , and we also obtain asymptotic results on the boundary of the no-trade region.Received: July 2003, Mathematics Subject Classification (1991): 90A09, 60H30, 60G44JEL Classification: G13Work supported by the National Science Foundation under grants DMS-0103814 and DMS-0139911.     

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

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.     

Efficient analytic approximation of the optimal hedging strategy for a European call option with transaction costs

One of the most successful approaches to option hedging with transaction costs is the utility-based approach, pioneered by Hodges and Neuberger [Rev. Futures Markets, 1989, 8, 222–239]. Judging against the best possible trade-off between the risk and the costs of a hedging strategy, this approach seems to achieve excellent empirical performance. However, this approach has one major drawback that prevents the broad application of this approach in practice: the lack of a closed-form solution. We overcome this drawback by presenting a simple yet efficient analytic approximation of the solution. We provide an empirical testing of our approximation strategy against the asymptotic and some other well-known strategies and find that our strategy outperforms all the others.     

Investment strategies in the long run with proportional transaction costs and a HARA utility function

We consider an agent who invests in a stock and a money market in order to maximize the asymptotic behaviour of expected utility of the portfolio market price in the presence of proportional transaction costs. The assumption that the portfolio market price is a geometric Brownian motion and the restriction to a utility function with hyperbolic absolute risk aversion (HARA) enable us to evaluate interval investment strategies. It is shown that the optimal interval strategy is also optimal among a wide family of strategies and that it is optimal also in a time changed model in the case of logarithmic utility.     

A note on transaction costs and the interpretation of dividend drop‐off ratios

In a recent edition of this Journal, Bartholdy and Brown (1999) presented an analysis of the ex‐dividend share price behaviour of shares listed on the New Zealand Stock Exchange. The authors conclude that their results are consistent with the tax clientele effect (driven by long‐term investors) and that there is little or no support for the short‐term trading hypothesis. Our purpose is to highlight the importance of transaction costs in analyses such as Bartholdy and Brown's. We argue that their results have an alternative interpretation because their analysis excludes the impact of transaction costs. We extend their model to include transaction costs and show that their results are not necessarily inconsistent with the short‐term trading hypothesis. A critical point of our analysis is that, in the presence of transaction costs, the equilibrium drop‐off ratio for dividend strip traders will be less than one, and, in some cases, can be less than the equilibrium drop‐off ratio for long‐term investors.     

Hysteresis bands on returns,holding period and transaction costs

In the presence of transactions costs, no matter how small, arbitrage activity does not necessarily render equal all riskless rates of return. When two such rates follow stochastic processes, it is not optimal immediately to arbitrage out any discrepancy that arises between them. The reason is that immediate arbitrage would induce a definite expenditure of transactions costs whereas, without arbitrage intervention, there exists some, perhaps sufficient, probability that these two interest rates will come back together without any costs having been incurred. Hence, one can surmise that at equilibrium the financial market will permit the coexistence of two riskless rates that are not equal to each other. For analogous reasons, randomly fluctuating expected rates of return on risky assets will be allowed to differ even after correction for risk, leading to important violations of the Capital Asset Pricing Model. The combination of randomness in expected rates of return and proportional transactions costs is a serious blow to existing frictionless pricing models.     

Optimal hedging in an extended binomial market under transaction costs

We develop an approach to optimal hedging of a contingent claim under proportional transaction costs in a discrete time financial market model which extends the binomial market model with transaction costs. Our model relaxes the binomial assumption on the stock price ratios to the case where the stock price ratio distribution has bounded support. Non-self-financing hedging strategies are studied to construct an optimal hedge for an investor who takes a short position in a European contingent claim settled by delivery. We develop the theoretical basis for our optimal hedging approach, extending results obtained in our previous work. Specifically, we derive a no-arbitrage option price interval and establish properties of the non-self-financing strategies and their residuals. Based on the theoretical foundation, we develop a computational algorithm for optimizing an investor relevant criterion over the set of admissible non-self-financing hedging strategies. We demonstrate the applicability of our approach using both simulated data and real market data.     

Transaction costs,liquidity risk,and the CCAPM

In this paper, we make a liquidity adjustment to the consumption-based capital asset pricing model (CCAPM) and show that the liquidity-adjusted CCAPM is a generalized model of Acharya and Pedersen (2005). Using different proxies for transaction costs such as the effective trading costs measure of Hasbrouck (2009) and the bid-ask spread estimates of Corwin and Schultz (2012), we find that the liquidity-adjusted CCAPM explains a larger fraction of the cross-sectional return variations.     

A new computational tool for analysing dynamic hedging under transaction costs

This paper highlights a framework for analysing dynamic hedging strategies under transaction costs. First, self-financing portfolio dynamics under transaction costs are modelled as being portfolio affine. An algorithm for computing the moments of the hedging error on a lattice under portfolio affine dynamics is then presented. In a number of circumstances, this provides an efficient approach to analysing the performance of hedging strategies under transaction costs through moments. As an example, this approach is applied to the hedging of a European call option with a Black–Scholes delta hedge and Leland's adjustment for transaction costs. Results are presented that demonstrate the range of analysis possible within the presented framework.     

On Leland's strategy of option pricing with transactions costs

We compute the limiting hedging error of the Leland strategy for the approximate pricing of the European call option in a market with transactions costs. It is not equal to zero in the case when the level of transactions costs is a constant, in contradiction with the claim in Leland (1985).