2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.amc.2014.11.060
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Penalty approach to a nonlinear obstacle problem governing American put option valuation under transaction costs

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
8
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Next, introduce the specific implementation of the penalty method for our pricing model following Wang (2009, 2014). The penalty method has been successfully adopted for solving various nonlinear option pricing model by Lesmana and Wang (2015), or Chernogorova et al (2018), and others. The optimal time dependent penalty function has been proposed recently by Clevenhaus et al (2020).…”
Section: Penalty Methods For Solving Hjb Equationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Next, introduce the specific implementation of the penalty method for our pricing model following Wang (2009, 2014). The penalty method has been successfully adopted for solving various nonlinear option pricing model by Lesmana and Wang (2015), or Chernogorova et al (2018), and others. The optimal time dependent penalty function has been proposed recently by Clevenhaus et al (2020).…”
Section: Penalty Methods For Solving Hjb Equationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We comment that, in practice, Assumption A1 is usually satisfied by a discretized system if an appropriate discretization scheme is used, as we have exampled in [23] using an NCP arising from the discretization of a nonlinear Black-Scholes equation. Using the above assumptions we are able to show the following lemma.…”
Section: The Interior Penalty Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, penalty methods have been used extensively for solving both finite-and finite-dimensional NCPs arising in classic and financial engineering [2,17,28,37,18,35,19,20,43,33,26,5,23,34]. More specifically, a power penalty method is proposed for Problem 1.2 in [36] in which a penalty term is used to penalize the infeasible components of an approximation to the relaxed unconstrained problem.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As mentioned before, A(p) in 3is usually a positive-definite symmetric matrix if an appropriate numerical scheme such as one of those in [22,42,27,23] is used for the discretization of (1). Thus, there exists a positive constant α such that…”
Section: Preliminariesmentioning
confidence: 99%