Unit 8, lesson 64

Fourier transform pricing

How a characteristic function gives call prices through the Fourier transform of a damped call and its inversion, why the damping parameter must lie in the moment strip, and where truncation error and aliasing come from.

  • Video 64
  • PDE, regression and Fourier methods

Calibrating a model with jumps or stochastic volatility needs call prices at many strikes, and in such models the density of the log price often has no closed form while its characteristic function does. A call price can still be computed from that function, but only after the payoff is damped, and only when the stock has enough finite moments. This lesson derives the Fourier transform of the damped call from the payoff, states the moment condition that makes it valid, inverts it to a price, and separates the errors that come from cutting off and sampling the frequency integral.

Key terms

Characteristic function

Definition Let X=ln⁡STX = \ln S_T be the log of the terminal price under a pricing measure Q\mathbb{Q}. Its characteristic function is

φ(u)=EQ[eiuX],u∈R.\varphi(u) = \mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}}\bigl[e^{iuX}\bigr], \quad u \in \mathbb{R}.

In this lesson φ\varphi denotes this function, not the normal density, which does not appear. It exists for every real uu because ∣eiuX∣=1\lvert e^{iuX} \rvert = 1, it is uniformly continuous, and

φ(0)=1,∣φ(u)∣≤1,φ(−u)=φ(u)‾.\begin{gathered} \varphi(0) = 1, \qquad \lvert \varphi(u) \rvert \le 1, \\[0.4em] \varphi(-u) = \overline{\varphi(u)}. \end{gathered}

It determines the distribution of XX. If ∫R∣φ(u)∣ du<∞\int_{\mathbb{R}} \lvert \varphi(u) \rvert\, du < \infty, then XX has a bounded continuous density, given by

p(x)=12π∫Re−iux φ(u) du.p(x) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{\mathbb{R}} e^{-iux}\, \varphi(u)\, du.

This condition is sufficient, not necessary, and without it XX need not have a density at all. Pricing with complex arguments of φ\varphi needs more, namely finite moments of STS_T, which the next card describes.

In plain words The characteristic function records the whole distribution as an average of points on the unit circle, one average for each frequency uu. Many models of the stock give it in closed form even when the density has no simple formula, and that is why prices are computed from it.

Example In the constructed Black-Scholes benchmark of this lesson S0=100S_0 = 100, r=q=0r = q = 0, σ=0.2\sigma = 0.2 and T=1T = 1. Under Q\mathbb{Q} the log price is normal with mean m=ln⁡S0+(r−q−σ2/2)T=ln⁡100−0.02≈4.585170m = \ln S_0 + (r - q - \sigma^2/2)T = \ln 100 - 0.02 \approx 4.585170 and variance s2=σ2T=0.04s^2 = \sigma^2 T = 0.04, so

φ(u)=exp⁡(ium−12s2u2).\varphi(u) = \exp\bigl(ium - \tfrac12 s^2 u^2\bigr).

Its modulus e−0.02u2e^{-0.02u^2} has integral 2π/0.04≈12.533141\sqrt{2\pi/0.04} \approx 12.533141, and the inversion formula at x=mx = m returns the peak 1/(0.22π)≈1.9947111/(0.2\sqrt{2\pi}) \approx 1.994711 of the normal density. A stock that ends at one of two fixed prices behaves differently. The modulus of its characteristic function oscillates without decaying, so it is not integrable and there is no density, yet call prices on that stock are finite and the method of the next cards still applies.

Moment strip

Definition For the terminal price ST>0S_T > 0 under Q\mathbb{Q} let

I={p∈R:EQ[ST p]<∞}.I = \bigl\{p \in \mathbb{R} : \mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}}[S_T^{\,p}] < \infty\bigr\}.

By Hölder’s inequality II is an interval. It contains 00, and it contains 11 when EQ[ST]<∞\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}}[S_T] < \infty, which holds when the discounted price is a Q\mathbb{Q}-martingale. For complex uu one has ∣eiuX∣=e−(Im⁡u)X=ST−Im⁡u\lvert e^{iuX} \rvert = e^{-(\operatorname{Im} u)X} = S_T^{-\operatorname{Im} u}, so the expectation φ(u)=EQ[eiuX]\varphi(u) = \mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}}[e^{iuX}] converges absolutely exactly on the horizontal strip of complex uu with −Im⁡u∈I-\operatorname{Im} u \in I, and it is analytic in the interior of that strip. The interval II, or this strip, is called the moment strip. The Fourier transform of the damped call in the next card evaluates φ\varphi at u=v−i(α+1)u = v - i(\alpha + 1), where −Im⁡u=α+1-\operatorname{Im} u = \alpha + 1, so it needs α+1∈I\alpha + 1 \in I. In GBM the interval is all of R\mathbb{R}, because

EQ[ST p]=S0 p ep(r−q)T+12p(p−1)σ2T\begin{aligned} &\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}}[S_T^{\,p}] \\[0.4em] &= S_0^{\,p}\, e^{p(r - q)T + \frac12 p(p - 1)\sigma^2 T} \end{aligned}

for every real pp. With jumps or stochastic volatility II can be bounded, and in models such as Heston its upper end depends on the parameters and on the maturity, an analysis that is model specific and not covered here. A closed-form expression for φ\varphi often continues analytically beyond the strip, where it no longer equals the expectation.

In plain words Giving the frequency an imaginary part multiplies the rotating factor by a power of the stock price, so the expectation exists only if that power of the stock has a finite mean. Heavy right tails make high powers infinite, and the moment strip records which powers are safe.

Example For the benchmark, damping with α=1.5\alpha = 1.5 needs EQ[ST2.5]=1002.5e0.075≈107788.415\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}}[S_T^{2.5}] = 100^{2.5} e^{0.075} \approx 107788.415, which is finite. For contrast, take a constructed model with ln⁡ST=m+Y\ln S_T = m + Y, where under Q\mathbb{Q} the variable YY has the Laplace density λ2e−λ∣y∣\tfrac{\lambda}{2} e^{-\lambda \lvert y \rvert} with λ>1\lambda > 1. Then

EQ[epY]=λ2λ2−p2\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}}\bigl[e^{pY}\bigr] = \frac{\lambda^2}{\lambda^2 - p^2}

for ∣p∣<λ\lvert p \rvert < \lambda, and the expectation is infinite otherwise, so I=(−λ,λ)I = (-\lambda, \lambda) and the admissible damping parameters are 0<α<λ−10 < \alpha < \lambda - 1. The closed form λ2/(λ2+u2)\lambda^2/(\lambda^2 + u^2) of the characteristic function of YY has poles at u=±iλu = \pm i\lambda, on the edges of the strip, and it stays finite beyond them although the expectation does not.

Damping parameter

Definition Let k=ln⁡Kk = \ln K be the log strike and C(K)=e−rT EQ[(ST−K)+]C(K) = e^{-rT}\,\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}}[(S_T - K)^{+}] the time 0 price of a European call, with a constant rate rr and any dividend yield already contained in the law of STS_T. The undamped price is not integrable in kk, because C(K)→e−rTEQ[ST]>0C(K) \to e^{-rT}\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}}[S_T] > 0 as K→0K \to 0. A damping parameter α>0\alpha > 0 defines the damped call c(k)=eαkC(ek)c(k) = e^{\alpha k} C(e^k) and its Fourier transform, for real vv,

c^(v)=∫Reivk c(k) dk.\widehat{c}(v) = \int_{\mathbb{R}} e^{ivk}\, c(k)\, dk .

If EQ[STα+1]<∞\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}}[S_T^{\alpha + 1}] < \infty, then

c^(v)=e−rT φ(v−i(α+1))(α+iv)(α+1+iv),\widehat{c}(v) = \frac{e^{-rT}\, \varphi\bigl(v - i(\alpha + 1)\bigr)}{(\alpha + iv)(\alpha + 1 + iv)},

and the denominator equals α2+α−v2+i(2α+1)v\alpha^2 + \alpha - v^2 + i(2\alpha + 1)v. To derive it, fix a value xx of XX. The payoff (ex−ek)+(e^x - e^k)^{+} vanishes for k≥xk \ge x, so

∫−∞xe(α+iv)k (ex−ek) dk=e(α+1+iv)x(1α+iv−1α+1+iv)=e(α+1+iv)x(α+iv)(α+1+iv),\begin{aligned} &\int_{-\infty}^{x} e^{(\alpha + iv)k}\,(e^x - e^k)\, dk \\[0.4em] &= e^{(\alpha + 1 + iv)x} \Bigl(\tfrac{1}{\alpha + iv} - \tfrac{1}{\alpha + 1 + iv}\Bigr) \\[0.4em] &= \frac{e^{(\alpha + 1 + iv)x}}{(\alpha + iv)(\alpha + 1 + iv)}, \end{aligned}

where the terms at −∞-\infty vanish because α>0\alpha > 0. Taking EQ\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}} and using EQ[e(α+1+iv)X]=φ(v−i(α+1))\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}}[e^{(\alpha + 1 + iv)X}] = \varphi(v - i(\alpha + 1)) gives the formula. Exchanging the expectation and the integral is justified by Fubini’s theorem, because the absolute value of the integrand has integral

∫Reαk(ex−ek)+ dk=e(α+1)xα(α+1),\begin{aligned} &\int_{\mathbb{R}} e^{\alpha k} (e^x - e^k)^{+}\, dk \\[0.4em] &= \frac{e^{(\alpha + 1)x}}{\alpha(\alpha + 1)}, \end{aligned}

which at x=Xx = X is STα+1/(α(α+1))S_T^{\alpha + 1}/(\alpha(\alpha + 1)), with finite expectation by assumption. The same computation shows that cc is integrable, with ∫c(k) dk=c^(0)=e−rT EQ[STα+1]/(α(α+1))\int c(k)\,dk = \widehat{c}(0) = e^{-rT}\,\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}}[S_T^{\alpha + 1}]/(\alpha(\alpha + 1)).

In plain words The call price tends to a positive constant as the strike falls to 0, so its integral over all log strikes diverges. Multiplying by eαke^{\alpha k} pushes the low-strike side to zero, and the cost of this is the requirement that the stock have a finite moment of order α+1\alpha + 1.

Example For the benchmark with α=1.5\alpha = 1.5, the value at zero frequency is c^(0)=107788.415/3.75≈28743.577\widehat{c}(0) = 107788.415/3.75 \approx 28743.577, the integral of cc over all log strikes. Two values that catch convention errors in an implementation are φ(0)=1\varphi(0) = 1 and φ(−i)=EQ[ST]=S0e(r−q)T\varphi(-i) = \mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}}[S_T] = S_0 e^{(r - q)T}, here 100. Evaluating φ\varphi at v+i(α+1)v + i(\alpha + 1) instead of v−i(α+1)v - i(\alpha + 1) brings in the moment of order −(α+1)-(\alpha + 1) in place of α+1\alpha + 1, and with the grid of the next card the inversion then returns about 2.7×10−102.7 \times 10^{-10} for an at-the-money call worth about 7.965567.

Fourier inversion

Definition With the convention f^(v)=∫Reivkf(k) dk\widehat{f}(v) = \int_{\mathbb{R}} e^{ivk} f(k)\,dk, the Fourier inversion theorem states that if ff and f^\widehat{f} are both integrable, then

f(k)=12π∫Re−ivk f^(v) dvf(k) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{\mathbb{R}} e^{-ivk}\, \widehat{f}(v)\, dv

at every kk where ff is continuous. It applies to the damped call when α>0\alpha > 0 and EQ[STα+1]<∞\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}}[S_T^{\alpha + 1}] < \infty. The function cc is integrable by the previous card and continuous because ∣C(K1)−C(K2)∣≤e−rT∣K1−K2∣\lvert C(K_1) - C(K_2) \rvert \le e^{-rT} \lvert K_1 - K_2 \rvert. Its Fourier transform is integrable because ∣φ(v−i(α+1))∣≤EQ[STα+1]\lvert \varphi(v - i(\alpha + 1)) \rvert \le \mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}}[S_T^{\alpha + 1}] and the denominator has modulus at least max⁡(α(α+1),v2)\max\bigl(\alpha(\alpha + 1), v^2\bigr). Since cc is real, c^(−v)=c^(v)‾\widehat{c}(-v) = \overline{\widehat{c}(v)}, the two half-lines combine, and for every strike K>0K > 0 with k=ln⁡Kk = \ln K

C(K)=e−αkπ∫0∞Re⁡(e−ivk c^(v)) dv.\begin{aligned} &C(K) \\[0.4em] &= \frac{e^{-\alpha k}}{\pi} \int_0^{\infty} \operatorname{Re}\bigl(e^{-ivk}\, \widehat{c}(v)\bigr)\, dv. \end{aligned}

Every admissible α\alpha gives the same price, and the choice changes only how well the integral behaves numerically.

In plain words Once the damped call has an integrable Fourier transform, inverting it gives back the damped call, and dividing by eαke^{\alpha k} gives the price. Only the positive frequencies are needed, because the Fourier transform of a real function takes conjugate values at opposite frequencies.

Example For the benchmark at K=100K = 100 and α=1.5\alpha = 1.5, the trapezoid rule on [0,102.4][0, 102.4] with step Δv=0.025\Delta v = 0.025, which is 4096 intervals, returns 7.965567455. The Black-Scholes formula with d1=0.1d_1 = 0.1 and d2=−0.1d_2 = -0.1 gives C=100(Φ(0.1)−Φ(−0.1))≈7.965567455C = 100\bigl(\Phi(0.1) - \Phi(-0.1)\bigr) \approx 7.965567455, and the two agree to about 10−1410^{-14}. The agreement confirms the signs and the damping convention at this strike and on this grid.

Fast Fourier transform

Definition The discrete Fourier transform of complex numbers a0,…,aN−1a_0, \dots, a_{N-1} is

Am=∑j=0N−1e−2πijm/N aj,m=0,…,N−1.\begin{gathered} A_m = \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} e^{-2\pi i jm/N}\, a_j, \\[0.4em] m = 0, \dots, N - 1. \end{gathered}

Evaluated term by term, the NN sums take about N2N^2 operations. A fast Fourier transform, or FFT, is an algorithm that computes all of them, exactly up to rounding, in a number of operations proportional to Nlog⁡NN \log N, for example when NN is a power of 2. To use it for the inversion integral, sample frequencies vj=j Δvv_j = j\,\Delta v and log strikes km=k0+m Δkk_m = k_0 + m\,\Delta k with

Δk Δv=2πN.\Delta k\, \Delta v = \frac{2\pi}{N}.

Then e−ivjkm=e−ijΔvk0 e−2πijm/Ne^{-iv_j k_m} = e^{-ij\Delta v k_0}\, e^{-2\pi i jm/N}, so with quadrature weights wjw_j the approximations

C(ekm)≈e−αkmπ×Re⁡∑j=0N−1e−ivjkm c^(vj) wj Δv\begin{aligned} &C(e^{k_m}) \approx \frac{e^{-\alpha k_m}}{\pi} \\[0.4em] &\quad \times \operatorname{Re} \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} e^{-iv_j k_m}\, \widehat{c}(v_j)\, w_j\, \Delta v \end{aligned}

are e−αkm/πe^{-\alpha k_m}/\pi times the real parts of the discrete Fourier transform of aj=e−ijΔvk0 c^(vj) wj Δva_j = e^{-ij\Delta v k_0}\, \widehat{c}(v_j)\, w_j\, \Delta v, and one FFT returns all NN prices. It is a fast way to evaluate the sum and nothing more. It removes neither the error of cutting the integral off at NΔvN\Delta v nor the error of sampling it with step Δv\Delta v. For a fixed NN, a finer frequency step forces a coarser strike step, and the strike grid spans a log strike window of width NΔk=2π/ΔvN\Delta k = 2\pi/\Delta v. Implementation choices such as Simpson weights and the placement of the strike grid are beyond this lesson.

In plain words The FFT is a fast way to evaluate a whole grid of Fourier sums. It pays for its speed with a rigid grid, on which the frequency step and the strike step are tied together.

Example With N=4096N = 4096 and Δv=0.025\Delta v = 0.025, as in the benchmark quadrature, the matching log strike step is

Δk=2π4096⋅0.025≈0.061359,\begin{aligned} \Delta k &= \frac{2\pi}{4096 \cdot 0.025} \\[0.4em] &\approx 0.061359, \end{aligned}

so neighboring strikes differ by the factor e0.061359≈1.063281e^{0.061359} \approx 1.063281, about 6.3 percent, inside a log strike window of width 2π/0.025≈251.3272\pi/0.025 \approx 251.327. That is very coarse in strike and far wider than any useful strike range, so an FFT grid for strikes near the money would use a coarser frequency step, as in the first question below. The benchmark price itself came from direct quadrature at one strike.

Truncation error and aliasing

Definition A computed price replaces the integral over [0,∞)[0, \infty) by a finite sum with step Δv\Delta v up to a cutoff VV, and each replacement has its own error. The truncation error is the omitted tail

εtrunc=e−αkπ∫V∞Re⁡(e−ivk c^(v)) dv,\begin{aligned} &\varepsilon_{\mathrm{trunc}} \\[0.4em] &= \frac{e^{-\alpha k}}{\pi} \int_V^{\infty} \operatorname{Re}\bigl(e^{-ivk}\, \widehat{c}(v)\bigr)\, dv, \end{aligned}

and the bounds of the inversion card give the simple estimate

∣εtrunc∣≤e−αk−rT EQ[STα+1]πV,\lvert \varepsilon_{\mathrm{trunc}} \rvert \le \frac{e^{-\alpha k - rT}\, \mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}}[S_T^{\alpha + 1}]}{\pi V},

which ignores any decay of φ\varphi and is often far from sharp. Aliasing is the error of sampling the frequencies. Let L=2π/ΔvL = 2\pi/\Delta v. When the shifted copies c(k+nL)c(k + nL) for n∈Zn \in \mathbb{Z} have a uniformly convergent sum, the Poisson summation formula, together with the absolute summability of the samples of c^\widehat{c} that follows from the bounds of the inversion card, shows that the trapezoid approximation of the price, summed over all of [0,∞)[0, \infty) with half weight at 00, equals e−αk∑n∈Zc(k+nL)e^{-\alpha k} \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} c(k + nL). So the sampled price is C(K)C(K) plus the images

∑n≠0eαnL C(KenL),\sum_{n \ne 0} e^{\alpha n L}\, C\bigl(K e^{nL}\bigr),

which are prices at strikes a factor enLe^{nL} away, wrapped back onto KK. On an FFT grid the period LL equals the width of the strike window. The images with n<0n < 0 are deep in-the-money calls, each about e−α∣n∣L(S0e−qT−Ke−∣n∣L−rT)e^{-\alpha \lvert n \rvert L} \bigl(S_0 e^{-qT} - K e^{-\lvert n \rvert L - rT}\bigr), so a small α\alpha or a coarse step makes them large. The images with n>0n > 0 carry the factor eαnLe^{\alpha n L} and depend on how fast call prices fall at high strikes. Rounding adds a third error far from the money, where a tiny price comes out of an integrand of much larger size. Agreement at one strike is a check at that strike only, and varying the cutoff, the step and the strike window separately shows which error dominates.

In plain words Cutting the integral off loses the high frequencies, and sampling it on a grid makes the computed damped price repeat in log strike with period 2π/Δv2\pi/\Delta v, so prices at faraway strikes leak in. A larger cutoff and a finer step fix different errors, and a faster algorithm fixes neither.

Example In the benchmark, with step 0.001, cutting off at V=10V = 10 gives 7.986597, an error of about 0.021030, while V=20V = 20 and V=30V = 30 leave errors of about −9.0×10−6-9.0 \times 10^{-6} and −3.8×10−10-3.8 \times 10^{-10}. The simple bound at V=10V = 10 is about 3.431, far above the actual error, because it ignores the factor e−0.02v2e^{-0.02v^2} in ∣c^(v)∣\lvert \widehat{c}(v) \rvert. For aliasing keep α=1.5\alpha = 1.5 and V=400V = 400 but take Δv=1\Delta v = 1, so that L=2πL = 2\pi. The trapezoid sum returns 7.973623, an error of about 0.008056. The n=−1n = -1 image is e−3πe^{-3\pi} times the price of a call with strike 100e−2π≈0.187100e^{-2\pi} \approx 0.187, which is about 99.813, so it contributes

8.070×10−5⋅99.813≈0.008055,\begin{aligned} &8.070 \times 10^{-5} \cdot 99.813 \\[0.4em] &\approx 0.008055, \end{aligned}

and the other images add less than 10−610^{-6}. With the benchmark step Δv=0.025\Delta v = 0.025 the period is about 251.3 and the images are far below rounding. Rounding shows at far strikes instead. On the benchmark grid the call with strike 400, worth about 1.15×10−111.15 \times 10^{-11}, comes out with an absolute error of only about 10−1610^{-16} but a relative error of about 10−510^{-5}, because its damped price is about 3×10−123 \times 10^{-12} times the value c^(0)\widehat{c}(0) of the integrand at zero frequency.

Check yourself

  1. A pricing grid for the benchmark uses N=4096N = 4096 points with frequency step Δv=0.25\Delta v = 0.25 and α=1.5\alpha = 1.5, with the log strikes centered at ln⁡100\ln 100. Find the log strike step, the frequency cutoff, the range of strikes covered, the spacing of neighboring strikes near 100, and the size of the leading aliasing image.
Show the answer

The grid relation gives Δk=2π/(4096⋅0.25)=2π/1024≈0.006136\Delta k = 2\pi/(4096 \cdot 0.25) = 2\pi/1024 \approx 0.006136, and the frequencies run up to NΔv=1024N\Delta v = 1024. The window has width 2π/0.25≈25.1332\pi/0.25 \approx 25.133, so centered at ln⁡100\ln 100 it covers strikes from about 100e−12.566≈0.00035100e^{-12.566} \approx 0.00035 to about 100e12.566≈2.9×107100e^{12.566} \approx 2.9 \times 10^{7}. Near the strike 100, neighboring strikes differ by the factor e0.006136≈1.006155e^{0.006136} \approx 1.006155, about 0.615 in currency units. The period is L≈25.133L \approx 25.133, so the n=−1n = -1 image is about

100 e−1.5⋅25.133≈4×10−15,100\, e^{-1.5 \cdot 25.133} \approx 4 \times 10^{-15},

below rounding for a price near 8. On this grid the FFT reproduces the benchmark price 7.965567 at the strike 100 to rounding.

  1. In the benchmark with Δv=1\Delta v = 1 and cutoff 400, a colleague lowers the damping to α=0.5\alpha = 0.5 because the integrand becomes smaller, and the trapezoid sum now returns about 12.474067 instead of 7.965567. Explain the error of about 4.5085 and how to remove it.
Show the answer

The period is L=2πL = 2\pi, and the images with n<0n < 0 are now damped only by e−0.5⋅2π∣n∣=e−π∣n∣e^{-0.5 \cdot 2\pi \lvert n \rvert} = e^{-\pi \lvert n \rvert}. They are deep in-the-money calls worth almost exactly 100−100e−2π∣n∣100 - 100e^{-2\pi \lvert n \rvert}, so together they contribute

∑n≥1e−πn(100−100e−2πn)=100e−π1−e−π−100e−3π1−e−3π≈4.5166−0.0081=4.5085,\begin{aligned} &\sum_{n \ge 1} e^{-\pi n}\bigl(100 - 100e^{-2\pi n}\bigr) \\[0.4em] &= \frac{100e^{-\pi}}{1 - e^{-\pi}} - \frac{100e^{-3\pi}}{1 - e^{-3\pi}} \\[0.4em] &\approx 4.5166 - 0.0081 = 4.5085, \end{aligned}

which accounts for the whole error, since the images with n>0n > 0 are calls with strikes above 50,000 and are negligible. Lowering α\alpha made aliasing worse. With α=1.5\alpha = 1.5 and the same step the error is about 0.008056, and with α=0.5\alpha = 0.5 and step 0.5 it is about 0.187093. Removing it needs a smaller step, a larger α\alpha inside the moment strip, or both, and the result should be checked against a benchmark at several strikes.

  1. The Laplace model of the moment strip card with λ=2.2\lambda = 2.2, S0=K=100S_0 = K = 100 and r=q=0r = q = 0 is priced with α=1.5\alpha = 1.5 by evaluating the closed form φ(u)=eiumλ2/(λ2+u2)\varphi(u) = e^{ium}\lambda^2/(\lambda^2 + u^2) at u=v−2.5iu = v - 2.5i, where m=ln⁡100+ln⁡(1−1/λ2)m = \ln 100 + \ln(1 - 1/\lambda^2) makes EQ[ST]=100\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}}[S_T] = 100. The inversion integral returns 0 up to rounding. What went wrong, and which damping parameters are admissible?
Show the answer

The method needs EQ[STα+1]<∞\mathbb{E}^{\mathbb{Q}}[S_T^{\alpha + 1}] < \infty, and here α+1=2.5\alpha + 1 = 2.5 lies outside the moment strip (−2.2,2.2)(-2.2, 2.2), so that moment is infinite. The heavy right tail makes C(K)C(K) proportional to K1−λK^{1 - \lambda} for K≥em≈79.338843K \ge e^m \approx 79.338843, so c(k)c(k) grows like e(α+1−λ)k=e0.3ke^{(\alpha + 1 - \lambda)k} = e^{0.3k}, is not integrable and has no Fourier transform. The closed form is finite beyond its pole at u=−2.2iu = -2.2i, but there it is not an expectation, and moving the line of integration across the pole changes the integral by a residue term. The output, 0 at the strike 100 and about −1.15-1.15 at the strike 60, is not a call price. Admissible parameters satisfy 0<α<λ−1=1.20 < \alpha < \lambda - 1 = 1.2. With α=1\alpha = 1 the inversion returns 25.041345, which matches the direct integral of the payoff against the Laplace density. With z=ln⁡K−m≈0.231442z = \ln K - m \approx 0.231442, that integral is

C(100)=emλ e−(λ−1)z2(λ−1)−K2 e−λz≈25.041345.\begin{aligned} C(100) &= \frac{e^{m} \lambda\, e^{-(\lambda - 1)z}}{2(\lambda - 1)} \\[0.4em] &\quad - \tfrac{K}{2}\, e^{-\lambda z} \approx 25.041345 . \end{aligned}

How this lesson connects

It also uses complex numbers.