Message-ID: <14056754.1075852415277.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: zimin.lu@enron.com
To: john.griffith@enron.com
Subject: Re: Barrier opt
Cc: stinson.gibner@enron.com, john.arnold@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: stinson.gibner@enron.com, john.arnold@enron.com
X-From: Zimin Lu <Zimin Lu/HOU/ECT@ECT>
X-To: John Griffith <John Griffith/Corp/Enron@ENRON>
X-cc: Stinson Gibner <Stinson Gibner/HOU/ECT@ECT>, John Arnold <John Arnold/HOU/ECT@ECT>
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \JGRIFFIT (Non-Privileged)\Griffith, John\Research
X-Origin: GRIFFITH-J
X-FileName: JGRIFFIT (Non-Privileged).pst



John,


For a down and out put, I put the following as an approximation for our understanding purpose.

a down and out put with barrier B < strike K
is overestimated by

A put at struck at K - a put struck at B - (K-B)*digital put strike at B.

I ploted the barrier put (blue line)  versus the approximation (red line) as function of the 
barrier.  

The true barrier option has zero payoff whenever there is a touch down the barrier
during the lifetime of the option.  Therefore it goes to zero much faster than
above approximation when B -> K.

See the spreadsheet for more details.

Zimin


 


 



<Embedded StdOleLink>