Valuing American Options by Simulation:

A Simple Least-Squares Approach

Francis A. Longstaff
UCLA

Eduardo S. Schwartz
UCLA

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

This article presents a simple yet powerful new approach for approximating the value of
American options by simulation. The key to this approach is the use of least squares to
estimate the conditional expected payoff to the optionholder from continuation. This
makes this approach readily applicable in path-dependent and multifactor situations
where traditional finite difference techniques cannot be used. We illustrate this tech-
nique with several realistic examples including valuing an option when the underlying
asset follows a jump-diffusion process and valuing an American swaption in a 20-factor
string model of the term structure.

One of the most important problems in option pricing theory is the valuation
and optimal exercise of derivatives with American-style exercise features.
These types of derivatives are found in all major financial markets includ-
ing the equity, commodity, foreign exchange, insurance, energy, sovereign,
agency, municipal, mortgage, credit, real estate, convertible, swap, and emerg-
ing markets. Despite recent advances, however, the valuation and optimal
exercise of American options remains one of the most challenging problems
in derivatives finance, particularly when more than one factor affects the
value of the option. This is primarily because finite difference and binomial
techniques become impractical in situations where there are multiple factors.1

We are grateful for the comments of Yaser Abu-Mostafa, Giovanni Barone-Adesi, Marco Avellaneda, Peter
Bossaerts, Peter Carr, Peter DeCrem, Craig Fithian, Bjorn Flesaker, James Gammill, Gordon Gemmill, Robert
Geske, Eric Ghysels, Ravit Efraty Mandell, Soetojo Tanudjaja, John Thornley, Bruce Tuckman, Pedro Santa-
Clara, Pratap Sondhi, Ross Valkanov, and seminar participants at Bear Stearns, the University of British
Columbia, the California Institute of Technology, Chase Manhattan Bank, Citibank, the Courant Institute at
New York University, Credit Suisse First Boston, Daiwa Securities, Fuji Bank, Goldman Sachs, Greenwich
Capital, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, the Norinchukin Bank, Nikko Securities, the Math Week Risk Magazine
Conferences in London and New York, Salomon Smith Barney in London and New York, Simplex Capital,
the Sumitomo Bank, UCLA, the 1998 Danish Finance Association meetings, and the 1999 Western Finance
Association meetings. We are particularly grateful for the comments of the editor Ravi Jagannathan and of an
anonymous referee who made extensive and insightful suggestions for improving the article. All errors are our
responsibility. Address correspondence to Francis A. Longstaff, The Anderson School at UCLA, Box 951481,
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1481, or e-mail: [Link]@[Link].
1
For example, this explains why virtually all Wall Street firms value and exercise American swaptions using a
simple single-factor model despite clear evidence that the term structure is driven by multiple factors.

The Review of Financial Studies Spring 2001 Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 113–147
© 2001 The Society for Financial Studies
 The Review of Financial Studies / v 14 n 1 2001

In this article, we present a simple, yet powerful new approach to approx-

imating the value of American options by simulation. By its nature, simu-
lation is a promising alternative to traditional finite difference and binomial
techniques and has many advantages as a framework for valuing, risk man-
aging, and optimally exercising American options. For example, simulation
is readily applied when the value of the option depends on multiple factors.
Simulation can also be used to value derivatives with both path-dependent
and American-exercise features. Simulation allows state variables to follow
general stochastic processes such as jump diffusions, as in Merton (1976)
and Cox and Ross (1976), non-Markovian processes, as in Heath, Jarrow,
and Morton (1992), and even general semimartingales, as in Harrison and
Pliska (1981).2 From a practical perspective, simulation is well suited to par-

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

allel computing, which allows significant gains in computational speed and
efficiency. Finally, simulation techniques are simple, transparent, and flexible.
To understand the intuition behind this approach, recall that at any exer-
cise time, the holder of an American option optimally compares the payoff
from immediate exercise with the expected payoff from continuation, and
then exercises if the immediate payoff is higher. Thus the optimal exercise
strategy is fundamentally determined by the conditional expectation of the
payoff from continuing to keep the option alive. The key insight underlying
our approach is that this conditional expectation can be estimated from the
cross-sectional information in the simulation by using least squares. Specifi-
cally, we regress the ex post realized payoffs from continuation on functions
of the values of the state variables. The fitted value from this regression pro-
vides a direct estimate of the conditional expectation function. By estimating
the conditional expectation function for each exercise date, we obtain a com-
plete specification of the optimal exercise strategy along each path. With this
specification, American options can then be valued accurately by simulation.
We refer to this technique as the least squares Monte Carlo (LSM) approach.
This approach is easy to implement since nothing more than simple least
squares is required. To illustrate this, we present a series of increasingly com-
plex but realistic examples. In the first, we value an American put option in a
single-factor setting. In the second, we value an exotic American–Bermuda–
Asian option. This option is path dependent and has multifactor features.
In the third, we value a cancelable index amortizing swap where the term
structure is driven by several factors. This standard fixed-income derivative
product has almost pathological path-dependent properties. In each case, the
simulation algorithm gives values that are indistinguishable from those given
by more computationally intensive finite difference techniques. In the fourth
example, we value American options on an asset which follows a jump-
diffusion process. This option cannot be valued using standard finite differ-
ence techniques. To illustrate the full generality of this approach, the fifth

2
Semimartingales are essentially the broadest class of processes for which stochastic integrals can be defined
and standard option pricing theory applied.

114
 Valuing American Options by Simulation

example values a deferred American swaption in a 20-factor string model

where each point on the interest-rate curve is a separate factor. We also show
how the algorithm can be used in a risk-management context by computing
the sensitivity of swaption values to each point along the curve.
A number of other recent articles also address the pricing of American
options by simulation. In an important early contribution to this literature,
Bossaerts (1989) solves for the exercise strategy that maximizes the simu-
lated value of the option. Other important examples of this literature include
Tilley (1993), Barraquand and Martineau (1995), Averbukh (1997), Broadie
and Glasserman (1997a,b,c), Broadie, Glasserman, and Jain (1997), Raymar
and Zwecher (1997), Broadie et al. (1998), Carr (1998), Ibanez and Zapatero

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

(1998), and Garcia (1999). These articles use various stratification or param-
eterization techniques to approximate the transitional density function or the
early exercise boundary. This article takes a fundamentally different approach
by focusing directly on the conditional expectation function.
Several recent articles that use an approach similar to ours include
Carriere (1996) and Tsitsiklis and Van Roy (1999). Our work, however, dif-
fers in a number of ways. For example, neither of these articles take the
approach to the level of practical implementation we do in this article. Fur-
thermore, we include in the regression only paths for which the option is
in the money. This significantly increases the efficiency of the algorithm and
decreases the computational time. In addition, we demonstrate the application
of the methodology to complex derivatives with many underlying factors and
evaluate the accuracy of the algorithm by comparing our solutions to finite
difference approximations.3
The remainder of this article is organized as follows. Section 1 presents a
simple numerical example of the simulation approach. Section 2 describes the
underlying theoretical framework. Sections 3–7 provide specific examples of
the application of this approach. Section 8 discusses a number of numerical
and implementation issues. Section 9 summarizes the results and contains
concluding remarks.

1. A Numerical Example
At the final exercise date, the optimal exercise strategy for an American
option is to exercise the option if it is in the money. Prior to the final date,
however, the optimal strategy is to compare the immediate exercise value
with the expected cash flows from continuing, and then exercise if immediate
exercise is more valuable. Thus, the key to optimally exercising an American
option is identifying the conditional expected value of continuation. In this
approach, we use the cross-sectional information in the simulated paths to

3
Another related article is Keane and Wolpin (1994), which uses regression in a simulation context to solve
discrete choice dynamic programming problems.

115
The Review of Financial Studies / v 14 n 1 2001

identify the conditional expectation function. This is done by regressing the

subsequent realized cash flows from continuation on a set of basis functions
of the values of the relevant state variables. The fitted value of this regression
is an efficient unbiased estimate of the conditional expectation function and
allows us to accurately estimate the optimal stopping rule for the option.
Perhaps the best way to convey the intuition of the LSM approach is
through a simple numerical example. Consider an American put option on a
share of non-dividend-paying stock. The put option is exercisable at a strike
price of 1.10 at times 1, 2, and 3, where time three is the final expiration
date of the option. The riskless rate is 6%. For simplicity, we illustrate the
algorithm using only eight sample paths for the price of the stock. These

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

sample paths are generated under the risk-neutral measure and are shown in
the following matrix.

Stock price paths

Path t =0 t =1 t =2 t =3
1 1.00 1.09 1.08 1.34
2 1.00 1.16 1.26 1.54
3 1.00 1.22 1.07 1.03
4 1.00 .93 .97 .92
5 1.00 1.11 1.56 1.52
6 1.00 .76 .77 .90
7 1.00 .92 .84 1.01
8 1.00 .88 1.22 1.34

Our objective is to solve for the stopping rule that maximizes the value of
the option at each point along each path. Since the algorithm is recursive,
however, we first need to compute a number of intermediate matrices. Con-
ditional on not exercising the option before the final expiration date at time
3, the cash flows realized by the optionholder from following the optimal
strategy at time 3 are given below.

Cash-flow matrix at time 3

Path t = 1 t = 2 t = 3
1 — — .00
2 — — .00
3 — — .07
4 — — .18
5 — — .00
6 — — .20
7 — — .09
8 — — .00

These cash flows are identical to the cash flows that would be received if the
option were European rather than American.

116
Valuing American Options by Simulation

If the put is in the money at time 2, the optionholder must then decide
whether to exercise the option immediately or continue the option’s life until
the final expiration date at time 3. From the stock-price matrix, there are only
five paths for which the option is in the money at time 2. Let X denote the
stock prices at time 2 for these five paths and Y denote the corresponding
discounted cash flows received at time 3 if the put is not exercised at time
2. We use only in-the-money paths since it allows us to better estimate the
conditional expectation function in the region where exercise is relevant and
significantly improves the efficiency of the algorithm. The vectors X and Y
are given by the nondashed entries below.

Regression at time 2

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

Path Y X
1 .00 × .94176 1.08
2 — —
3 .07 × .94176 1.07
4 .18 × .94176 .97
5 — —
6 .20 × .94176 .77
7 .09 × .94176 .84
8 — —

To estimate the expected cash flow from continuing the option’s life con-
ditional on the stock price at time 2, we regress Y on a constant, X, and X 2 .
This specification is one of the simplest possible; more general specifica-
tions are considered later in the article. The resulting conditional expectation
function is E[ Y | X ] = −1.070 + 2.983X − 1.813X 2 .
With this conditional expectation function, we now compare the value of
immediate exercise at time 2, given in the first column below, with the value
from continuation, given in the second column below.

Optimal early exercise decision at time 2

Path Exercise Continuation
1 .02 .0369
2 — —
3 .03 .0461
4 .13 .1176
5 — —
6 .33 .1520
7 .26 .1565
8 — —

The value of immediate exercise equals the intrinsic value 1.10 − X for the
in-the-money paths, while the value from continuation is given by substitut-
ing X into the conditional expectation function. This comparison implies that

117
The Review of Financial Studies / v 14 n 1 2001

it is optimal to exercise the option at time 2 for the fourth, sixth, and sev-
enth paths. This leads to the following matrix, which shows the cash flows
received by the optionholder conditional on not exercising prior to time 2.

Cash-flow matrix at time 2

Path t = 1 t = 2 t = 3
1 — .00 .00
2 — .00 .00
3 — .00 .07
4 — .13 .00
5 — .00 .00

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

6 — .33 .00
7 — .26 .00
8 — .00 .00

Observe that when the option is exercised at time 2, the cash flow in the final
column becomes zero. This is because once the option is exercised there are
no further cash flows since the option can only be exercised once.
Proceeding recursively, we next examine whether the option should be
exercised at time 1. From the stock price matrix, there are again five paths
where the option is in the money at time 1. For these paths, we again define
Y as the discounted value of subsequent option cash flows. Note that in
defining Y , we use actual realized cash flows along each path; we do not
use the conditional expected value of Y estimated at time 2 in defining Y
at time 1. As is discussed later, discounting back the conditional expected
value rather than actual cash flows can lead to an upward bias in the value
of the option.
Since the option can only be exercised once, future cash flows occur at
either time 2 or time 3, but not both. Cash flows received at time 2 are
discounted back one period to time 1, and any cash flows received at time 3
are discounted back two periods to time 1. Similarly X represents the stock
prices at time 1 for the paths where the option is in the money. The vectors
X and Y are given by the nondashed elements in the following matrix.

Regression at time 1
Path Y X
1 .00 × .94176 1.09
2 — —
3 — —
4 .13 × .94176 .93
5 — —
6 .33 × .94176 .76
7 .26 × .94176 .92
8 .00 × .94176 .88

118
Valuing American Options by Simulation

The conditional expectation function at time 1 is estimated by again

regressing Y on a constant, X and X 2 . The estimated conditional expec-
tation function is E[ Y | X ] = 2.038 − 3.335X + 1.356X 2 . Substituting the
values of X into this regression gives the estimated conditional expectation
function. These estimated continuation values and immediate exercise values
at time 1 are given in the first and second columns below. Comparing the
two columns shows that exercise at time 1 is optimal for the fourth, sixth,
seventh, and eighth paths.

Optimal early exercise decision at time 1

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

Path Exercise Continuation
1 .01 .0139
2 — —
3 — —
4 .17 .1092
5 — —
6 .34 .2866
7 .18 .1175
8 .22 .1533

Having identified the exercise strategy at times 1, 2, and 3, the stopping

rule can now be represented by the following matrix, where the ones denote
exercise dates at which the option is exercised.

Stopping rule
Path t =1 t =2 t =3
1 0 0 0
2 0 0 0
3 0 0 1
4 1 0 0
5 0 0 0
6 1 0 0
7 1 0 0
8 1 0 0

With this specification of the stopping rule, it is now straightforward

to determine the cash flows realized by following this stopping rule. This
is done by simply exercising the option at the exercise dates where there
is a one in the above matrix. This leads to the following option cash

119
 The Review of Financial Studies / v 14 n 1 2001

flow matrix.
Option cash flow matrix
Path t = 1 t = 2 t = 3
1 .00 .00 .00
2 .00 .00 .00
3 .00 .00 .07
4 .17 .00 .00
5 .00 .00 .00
6 .34 .00 .00
7 .18 .00 .00
8 .22 .00 .00

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

Having identified the cash flows generated by the American put at each
date along each path, the option can now be valued by discounting each cash
flow in the option cash flow matrix back to time zero, and averaging over all
paths. Applying this procedure results in a value of .1144 for the American
put. This is roughly twice the value of .0564 for the European put obtained
by discounting back the cash flows at time 3 from the first cash flow matrix.
Although very stylized, this example illustrates how least squares can use
the cross-sectional information in the simulated paths to estimate the condi-
tional expectation function. In turn, the conditional expectation function is
used to identify the exercise decision that maximizes the value of the option
at each date along each path. As shown by this example, the LSM approach
is easily implemented since nothing more than simple regression is involved.

2. The Valuation Algorithm

In this section we describe the general LSM algorithm. The valuation frame-
work underlying the LSM algorithm is based on the general derivative pric-
ing paradigm of Black and Scholes (1973), Merton (1973), Harrison and
Kreps (1979), Harrison and Pliska (1981), Cox, Ingersoll, and Ross (1985),
Heath, Jarrow, and Morton (1992), and others. We also present several con-
vergence results for the algorithm.

2.1 The valuation framework

We assume an underlying complete probability space (, F, P ) and finite
time horizon [0, T ], where the state space  is the set of all possible real-
izations of the stochastic economy between time 0 and T and has typical
element ω representing a sample path, F is the sigma field of distinguish-
able events at time T , and P is a probability measure defined on the elements
of F. We define F = {Ft ; t ∈ [0, T ]} to be the augmented filtration gener-
ated by the relevant price processes for the securities in the economy, and
assume that FT = F. Consistent with the no-arbitrage paradigm, we assume
the existence of an equivalent martingale measure Q for this economy.
We are interested in valuing American-style derivative securities with ran-
dom cash flows which may occur during [0, T ]. We restrict our attention to

120
 Valuing American Options by Simulation

derivatives with payoffs that are elements of the space of square-integrable or

finite-variance functions L2 (, F, Q). Standard results such as
Bensoussan (1984) and Karatzas (1988) imply that the value of an American
option can be represented by the Snell envelope; the value of an American
option equals the maximized value of the discounted cash flows from
the option, where the maximum is taken over all stopping times with respect
to the filtration F . We introduce the notation C(ω, s; t, T ) to denote the path
of cash flows generated by the option, conditional on the option not being
exercised at or prior to time t and on the optionholder following the optimal
stopping strategy for all s, t < s ≤ T . This function is analogous to the
intermediate cash-flow matrices used in the previous section.

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

The objective of the LSM algorithm is to provide a pathwise approxima-
tion to the optimal stopping rule that maximizes the value of the American
option. To convey the intuition behind the LSM algorithm, we focus the
discussion on the case where the American option can only be exercised at
the K discrete times 0 < t1 ≤ t2 ≤ t3 ≤ · · · ≤ tK = T , and consider the
optimal stopping policy at each exercise date. In practice, of course, many
American options are continuously exercisable; the LSM algorithm can be
used to approximate the value of these options by taking K to be sufficiently
large.
At the final expiration date of the option, the investor exercises the option
if it is in the money, or allows it to expire if it is out of the money. At
exercise time tk prior to the final expiration date, however, the optionholder
must choose whether to exercise immediately or to continue the life of the
option and revisit the exercise decision at the next exercise time. The value of
the option is maximized pathwise, and hence unconditionally, if the investor
exercises as soon as the immediate exercise value is greater than or equal to
the value of continuation.4
At time tk , the cash flow from immediate exercise is known to the investor,
and the value of immediate exercise simply equals this cash flow. The cash
flows from continuation, of course, are not known at time tk . No-arbitrage
valuation theory, however, implies that the value of continuation, or equiva-
lently, the value of the option assuming that it cannot be exercised until after
tk , is given by taking the expectation of the remaining discounted cash flows
C(ω, s; tk , T ) with respect to the risk-neutral pricing measure Q. Specifically,
at time tk , the value of continuation F (ω; tk ) can be expressed as

   

K tj
F (ω; tk ) = EQ exp − r(ω, s)ds C(ω, tj ; tk , T ) | Ftk , (1)
j =k+1 tk

4
For a discussion of optimal exercise policies for American options, see Duffie (1996) or Lamberton and
Lapeyre (1996). Bossaerts (1989) directly uses this maximization property in developing simulation estimates
of American option prices by parameterizing the stopping rule and then solving for the parameters that
maximize the value of the option.

121
 The Review of Financial Studies / v 14 n 1 2001

where r(ω, t) is the (possibly stochastic) riskless discount rate, and the expec-
tation is taken conditional on the information set Ftk at time tk . With this
representation, the problem of optimal exercise reduces to comparing the
immediate exercise value with this conditional expectation, and then exercis-
ing as soon as the immediate exercise value is positive and greater than or
equal to the conditional expectation.

2.2 The LSM algorithm

The LSM approach uses least squares to approximate the conditional expec-
tation function at tK−1 , tK−2 , . . . , t1 . We work backwards since the path
of cash flows C(ω, s; t, T ) generated by the option is defined recursively;
C(ω, s; tk , T ) can differ from C(ω, s; tk+1 , T ) since it may be optimal to stop

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

at time tk+1 , thereby changing all subsequent cash flows along a realized path
ω. Specifically, at time tK−1 , we assume that the unknown functional form
of F (ω; tK−1 ) in Equation (1) can be represented as a linear combination of
a countable set of FtK−1 -measurable basis functions.
This assumption can be formally justified, for example, when the condi-
tional expectation is an element of the L2 space of square-integrable func-
tions relative to some measure. Since L2 is a Hilbert space, it has a countable
orthonormal basis and the conditional expectation can be represented as a lin-
ear function of the elements of the basis.5 As an example, assume that X is
the value of the asset underlying the option and that X follows a Markov
process.6 One possible choice of basis functions is the set of (weighted)
Laguerre polynomials:

L0 (X) = exp(−X/2), (2)

L1 (X) = exp(−X/2) (1 − X), (3)
L2 (X) = exp(−X/2) (1 − 2X + X 2 /2), (4)
X n
e d
Ln (X) = exp(−X/2) (X n e−X ). (5)
n! dX n
With this specification, F (ω; tK−1 ) can be represented as

∞
F (ω; tK−1 ) = aj Lj (X), (6)
j =0

where the aj coefficients are constants. Other types of basis functions include
the Hermite, Legendre, Chebyshev, Gegenbauer, and Jacobi polynomials.7

5
For a discussion of Hilbert space theory and Hilbert space representations of square-integrable functions, see
Royden (1968).
6
For Markovian problems, only current values of the state variables are necessary. For non-Markovian prob-
lems, both current and past realizations of the state variables can be included in the basis functions and the
regressions.
7
These functions are described in Chapter 22 of Abramowitz and Stegun (1970).

122
 Valuing American Options by Simulation

Numerical tests indicate that Fourier or trigonometric series and even simple
powers of the state variables also give accurate results.
To implement the LSM approach, we approximate F (ω; tK−1 ) using the
first M < ∞ basis functions, and denote this approximation FM (ω; tK−1 ).
Once this subset of basis functions has been specified, FM (ω; tK−1 ) is esti-
mated by projecting or regressing the discounted values of C(ω, s; tK−1 , T )
onto the basis functions for the paths where the option is in the money at
time tK−1 . We use only in-the-money paths in the estimation since the exer-
cise decision is only relevant when the option is in the money. By focusing
on the in-the-money paths, we limit the region over which the conditional
expectation must be estimated, and far fewer basis functions are needed to

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

obtain an accurate approximation to the conditional expectation function.8
Since the values of the basis functions are independently and identically
distributed across paths, weak assumptions about the existence of moments
allow us to use Theorem 3.5 of White (1984) to show that the fitted value
of this regression FM (ω; tK−1 ) converges in mean square and in probability
to FM (ω; tK−1 ) as the number N of (in-the-money) paths in the simulation
goes to infinity. Furthermore, Theorem 1.2.1 of Amemiya (1985) implies that
M (ω; tK−1 ) is the best linear unbiased estimator of FM (ω; tK−1 ) based on a
F
mean-squared metric.
Once the conditional expectation function at time tK−1 is estimated, we can
determine whether early exercise at time tK−1 is optimal for an in-the-money
path ω by comparing the immediate exercise value with F M (ω; tK−1 ), and
repeating for each in-the-money path. Once the exercise decision is identi-
fied, the option cash flow paths C(ω, s; tK−2 , T ) can then be approximated.
The recursion proceeds by rolling back to time tK−2 and repeating the proce-
dure until the exercise decisions at each exercise time along each path have
been determined. The American option is then valued by starting at time
zero, moving forward along each path until the first stopping time occurs,
discounting the resulting cash flow from exercise back to time zero, and then
taking the average over all paths ω.
When there are two state variables X and Y , the set of basis functions
should include terms in X and in Y , as well as cross-products of these
terms. Similarly for higher-dimensional problems. Intuitively this seems to
suggest that the number of basis functions needed grows exponentially with
the dimensionality of the problem. In actuality, however, there may be rea-
sons why the number of basis functions necessary to obtain a desired level
of convergence might grow at a slower rate. As an example, Judd (1998)

8
We conducted a variety of numerical experiments which indicated that if all paths are used, more than two
or three times as many basis functions may be needed to obtain the same level of accuracy as obtained by
the estimator based on in-the-money paths. Intuitively this makes sense since we are interested in estimating
the expectation conditional on the current state and the event that the option is in the money. By using all
paths, and hence, not conditioning on the event that the option is in the money, we obtain estimates of the
conditional expectation function which have larger standard errors than those obtained by using all of the
conditioning information.

123
The Review of Financial Studies / v 14 n 1 2001

shows that by using sets of complete polynomials, kth degree convergence

is obtained asymptotically using a number of terms that grows only poly-
nomially with the dimension of the problem. Similar results are also well
known in the neural-network literature; as examples, see Barron (1993) and
Refenes, Burgess, and Bentz (1997). In the numerical results given later in
the article, we find that the number of basis functions needed to obtain con-
vergence appears to grow much more slowly than exponentially. Our expe-
rience suggests that the number of basis functions necessary to approximate
the conditional expectation function may be very manageable even for high-
dimensional problems.

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

2.3 Convergence results
The LSM algorithm provides a simple and elegant way of approximating
the optimal early exercise strategy for an American-style option. While the
ultimate test of the algorithm is how well it performs using a realistic number
of paths and basis functions, it is also useful to examine what can be said
about the theoretical convergence of the algorithm to the true value V (X) of
the American option.
The first convergence result addresses the bias of the LSM algorithm and
is applicable even when the American option is continuously exercisable.

Proposition 1. For any finite choice of M, K, and vector θ ∈ R M×(K−1) rep-

resenting the coefficients for the M basis functions at each of the K −1 early
exercise dates, let LSM(ω; M, K) denote the discounted cash flow resulting
from following the LSM rule of exercising when the immediate exercise value
M (ωi ; tk ) as defined by θ . Then the
is positive and greater than or equal to F
following inequality holds almost surely,

1 N
V (X) ≥ lim LSM(ωi ; M, K).
N →∞ N
i=1

Proof. See the appendix.

The intuition for this result is easily understood. The LSM algorithm
results in a stopping rule for an American-style option. The value of an
American-style option, however, is based on the stopping rule that maxi-
mizes the value of the option; all other stopping rules, including the stopping
rule implied by the LSM algorithm, result in values less than or equal to that
implied by the optimal stopping rule.
This result is particularly useful since it provides an objective criterion for
convergence. For example, this criterion provides guidance in determining
the number of basis functions needed to obtain an accurate approximation;
simply increase M until the value implied by the LSM algorithm no longer

124
 Valuing American Options by Simulation

increases. This useful and important property is not shared by algorithms that
simply discount back functions based on the estimated continuation value.9
By its nature, providing a general convergence result for the LSM algo-
rithm is difficult since we need to consider limits as the number of discretiza-
tion points K, the number of basis functions M, and the number of paths N
go to infinity. In addition, we need to consider the effects of propagating the
estimating stopping rule backwards through time from tK−1 to t1 . In the case
where the American option can only be exercised at K = 2 discrete points
in time, however, convergence of the algorithm is more easily demonstrated.
As an example, consider the following proposition.
Proposition 2. Assume that the value of an American option depends on

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

a single state variable X with support on (0, ∞) which follows a Markov
process. Assume further that the option can only be exercised at times t1
and t2 , and that the conditional expectation function F (ω; t1 ) is absolutely
continuous and
∞
e−X F 2 (ω; t1 )dX < ∞,
0
 ∞
e−X FX2 (ω; t1 )dX < ∞.
0

Then for any # > 0, there exists an M < ∞ such that


1 N
lim Pr | V (X) − LSM(ωi ; M, K) |> # = 0.
N →∞ N i=1

Proof. See the appendix.

Intuitively this result means that by selecting M large enough and letting
N → ∞, the LSM algorithm results in a value for the American option
within # of the true value. Thus the LSM algorithm converges to any desired
degree of accuracy since # is arbitrary. The key to this result is that the con-
vergence of FM (ω; t1 ) to F (ω; t1 ) is uniform on (0, ∞) when the indicated
integrability conditions are met. This bounds the maximum error in estimat-
ing the conditional expectation, which in turn, bounds the maximum pricing
error. An important implication of this result is that the number of basis
functions needed to obtain a desired level of accuracy need not go to infinity
as N → ∞. While this proposition is limited to one-dimensional settings,
we conjecture that similar results can be obtained for higher-dimensional
problems by finding conditions under which uniform convergence occurs.

9
For example, if the American option were valued by taking the maximum of the immediate exercise value
and the estimated continuation value, and discounting this value back, the resulting American option value
could be severely upward biased. This bias arises since the maximum operator is convex; measurement error
in the estimated continuation value results in the maximum operator being upward biased. We are indebted
to Peter Bossaerts for making this point.

125
 The Review of Financial Studies / v 14 n 1 2001

3. Valuing American Put Options

Earlier we used a stylized example to illustrate how this approach could be
applied to the valuation of American put options. In this section we present
an in-depth example of the application of the LSM algorithm to American
put options
Assume that we are interested in pricing an American-style put option
on a share of stock, where the risk-neutral stock price process follows the
stochastic differential equation

dS = rSdt + σ sdZ, (7)

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

and where r and σ are constants, Z is a standard Brownian motion, and the
stock does not pay dividends. Furthermore, assume that the option is excer-
cisable 50 times per year at a strike price of K up to and including the final
expiration date T of the option. This type of discrete American-style exercise
feature is also sometimes termed a Bermuda exercise feature. As the set of
basis functions, we use a constant and the first three Laguerre polynomi-
als as given in Equations (2)–(4). Thus we regress discounted realized cash
flows on a constant and three nonlinear functions of the stock price. Since
we use linear regression to estimate the conditional expectation function, it
is straightforward to add additional basis functions as explanatory variables
in the regression if needed. Using more than three basis functions, however,
does not change the numerical results; three basis functions are sufficient to
obtain effective convergence of the algorithm in this example.
To illustrate the results, Table 1 reports the values of the early exercise
option implied by both the finite difference and LSM techniques. The value
of the early exercise option is the difference between the American and
European put values. The European put value is given by the Black–Scholes
formula. In this article we focus primarily on the early exercise value since it
is the most difficult component of an American options’s value to determine;
the European component of an American option’s value is much easier to
identify.
The finite difference results reported in Table 1 are obtained from an
implicit finite difference scheme with 40,000 time steps per year and 1,000
steps for the stock price. The partial differential equation satisfied by the put
price P (S, t) is

(σ 2 S 2 /2)PSS + rSPS − rP + PT = 0, (8)

subject to the expiration condition P (S, T ) = max(0, K − ST ). The implicit

finite difference results were also compared with the results from an explicit
finite difference algorithm; the two finite difference techniques resulted in
values that were generally within one cent of each other. The LSM estimates

126
 Valuing American Options by Simulation

Table 1

Finite Closed Early Closed Early Difference in

difference form exercise Simulated form exercise early exercise
S σ T American European Value American (s.e.) European value value
36 .20 1 4.478 3.844 .634 4.472 (.010) 3.844 .628 .006
36 .20 2 4.840 3.763 1.077 4.821 (.012) 3.763 1.058 .019
36 .40 1 7.101 6.711 .390 7.091 (.020) 6.711 .380 .010
36 .40 2 8.508 7.700 .808 8.488 (.024) 7.700 .788 .020
38 .20 1 3.250 2.852 .398 3.244 (.009) 2.852 .392 .006
38 .20 2 3.745 2.991 .754 3.735 (.011) 2.991 .744 .010
38 .40 1 6.148 5.834 .314 6.139 (.019) 5.834 .305 .009
38 .40 2 7.670 6.979 .691 7.669 (.022) 6.979 .690 .001
40 .20 1 2.314 2.066 .248 2.313 (.009) 2.066 .247 .001

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

40 .20 2 2.885 2.356 .529 2.879 (.010) 2.356 .523 .006
40 .40 1 5.312 5.060 .252 5.308 (.018) 5.060 .248 .004
40 .40 2 6.920 6.326 .594 6.921 (.022) 6.326 .595 −.001
42 .20 1 1.617 1.465 .152 1.617 (.007) 1.465 .152 .000
42 .20 2 2.212 1.841 .371 2.206 (.010) 1.841 .365 .006
42 .40 1 4.582 4.379 .203 4.588 (.017) 4.379 .209 −.006
42 .40 2 6.248 5.736 .512 6.243 (.021) 5.736 .507 .005
44 .20 1 1.110 1.017 .093 1.118 (.007) 1.017 .101 −.008
44 .20 2 1.690 1.429 .261 1.675 (.009) 1.429 .246 .015
44 .40 1 3.948 3.783 .165 3.957 (.017) 3.783 .174 −.009
44 .40 2 5.647 5.202 .445 5.622 (.021) 5.202 .420 .025
Comparison of the finite difference and simulation values for the early exercise option in an American-style put option on
a share of stock, where the option is exercisable 50 times per year. The early exercise value is the difference between the
American and European put values. In this comparison, the strike price of the put is 40, the short-term interest rate is .06, and
the underlying stock price S, the volatility of returns σ , and the number of years until the final expiration of the option T
are as indicated. The European option values are based on the closed-form Black–Scholes formula. The simulation is based on
100,000 (50,000 plus 50,000 antithetic) paths for the stock-price process. The standard errors of the simulation estimates (s.e.)
are given in parentheses.

are based on 100,000 (50,000 plus 50,000 antithetic) paths using 50 exercise
points per year.
As shown, the differences between the finite difference and LSM algo-
rithms are typically very small. Of the 20 differences shown in Table 1, 16
are less than or equal to one cent in absolute value. The standard errors for
the simulated values range from 0.7 to 2.4 cents, which is well within the
market bid-ask spread for these types of options.10 In addition, the differences
are both positive and negative. These results suggest that the LSM algorithm
is able to approximate closely the finite-difference values.
Broadie ad Glasserman (1997a,b), Raymar and Zwecher (1997), Garcia
(1999), and others suggest an interesting diagnostic test for the convergence
of a simulation algorithm. Essentially the stopping rule is estimated from
one set of paths and then applied to another set of paths. In our context, this
can be implemented by estimating the conditional expectation regressions

10
Exchange traded stock option premiums are typically quoted in sixteenths or eighths of a dollar. The bid-ask
spread for an at-the-money option would generally be some multiple of these fractions.

127
 The Review of Financial Studies / v 14 n 1 2001

from one set of paths and then applying the regression functions to an out-
of-sample set of paths. A successful algorithm should lead to out-of-sample
values that closely approximate the in-sample values for the option.11
The results from these diagnostic tests are shown in Table 2. For selected
sets of parameters from Table 1, we estimate the regressions in sample, value
the option using the in-sample LSM procedure, and then value the option
out of sample using the in-sample regression parameters but different paths.
We repeat this process for five different initial seeds of the random number
generator; the five rows for each example shown in Table 2 correspond to
different initial seeds. As shown, the in-sample and out-of-sample values
are virtually identical. The differences between the in-sample and out-of-

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

sample values are virtually identical. The differences between the in-sample
and out-of-sample values are both positive and negative and only 5% of the
values are larger than two standard errors. This provides strong support for
the accuracy of the algorithm. Given these results, we recommend using the
LSM algorithm in sample in order to minimize computational time.

4. Valuing an American–Bermuda–Asian Option

In this section we apply the LSM algorithm to a more exotic path-dependent
option. In particular, we consider a call option on the average price of a stock
over some horizon, where the call option can be exercised at any time after
some initial lockout period. Thus this option is an Asian option since it is
an option on an average, and has both a Bermuda and American exercise
feature; an American–Bermuda–Asian option.
Define the current valuation date as time 0. We assume that the option has
a final expiration date of T = 2, and that the option can be exercised at any
time after t = .25 by payment of the strike price K. The underlying average
At , .25 ≤ t ≤ T , is the continuous arithmetic average of the underlying
stock price during the period three months prior to the valuation date (a
three-month lookback) to time t. Thus the cash flow from exercising the
option at time t is max(0, At − K). The risk-neutral dynamics for the stock
price are the same as in the previous section.
This option is particularly complex because it not only has an American
exercise feature, but the cash flow from exercise is path dependent since At
depends on the path of the stock price over the averaging window. In general,
these types of problems are very difficult to solve using finite difference tech-
niques. In this case, we can value the option by finite difference techniques by
transforming the problem from a path-dependent one to a Markovian prob-
lem. This is done by introducing the average to date as a second state variable

11
We are grateful to the referee for suggesting this diagnostic test and for providing some results about the
performance of the LSM algorithm.

128
Valuing American Options by Simulation

Table 2

LSM in sample LSM out of sample

S σ T Value (s.e) Value (s.e.) Difference
36 .20 1 4.472 (.010) 4.476 (.010) −.004
4.463 (.010) 4.474 (.010) −.011
4.467 (.010) 4.480 (.010) −.013
4.480 (.010) 4.476 (.010) .004
4.468 (.010) 4.469 (.010) −.001
36 .40 1 7.091 (.020) 7.102 (.020) −.011
7.095 (.020) 7.094 (.020) .001

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

7.087 (.020) 7.087 (.020) .000
7.097 (.020) 7.095 (.020) .002
7.097 (.020) 7.101 (.020) −.004
36 .20 2 4.821 (.012) 4.818 (.012) .003
4.819 (.012) 4.833 (.012) −.014
4.820 (.012) 4.829 (.012) .009
4.827 (.012) 4.825 (.012) .002
4.827 (.012) 4.829 (.012) −.002
36 .40 2 8.488 (.024) 8.487 (.024) .001
8.485 (.024) 8.478 (.024) .007
8.483 (.024) 8.483 (.024) .000
8.495 (.023) 8.498 (.024) −.003
8.493 (.024) 8.491 (.024) .002
Mean −.002
44 .20 1 1.118 (.007) 1.102 (.007) .016
1.108 (.007) 1.114 (.007) −.006
1.115 (.007) 1.099 (.007) .016
1.108 (.007) 1.097 (.007) .011
1.114 (.007) 1.107 (.007) .007
44 .40 1 3.957 (.017) 3.927 (.017) .030
3.941 (.017) 3.976 (.017) −.035
3.953 (.017) 3.924 (.017) .029
3.939 (.017) 3.924 (.017) .015
3.953 (.017) 3.945 (.017) .008
44 .20 2 1.675 (.009) 1.691 (.009) −.016
1.673 (.009) 1.682 (.009) −.009
1.687 (.009) 1.702 (.009) −.015
1.671 (.009) 1.674 (.009) −.003
1.696 (.009) 1.688 (.009) .008
44 .40 2 5.622 (.021) 5.644 (.021) −.022
5.637 (.021) 5.637 (.021) .000
5.628 (.021) 5.652 (.021) −.024
5.615 (.021) 5.632 (.021) −.017
5.649 (.021) 5.628 (.021) .021
Mean .001
Comparison of the in-sample and out-of-sample LSM estimates of the value of an American-style put option on a share of
stock, where the option is exercisable 50 times per year. In this comparison, the strike price of the put is 40, and the short-term
interest rate is .06. The underlying stock price S, the volatility of returns σ , and the number of years until the final expiration
date of the option T are as indicated. The LSM valuations for each of the indicated options are repeated five times with different
initial seeds for the random number generator; the five rows for each of the options are based on a different seed value. The
in-sample and out-of-sample comparisons are each based on 100,000 (50,000 plus 50,000 antithetic) paths of the stock-price
process. The standard errors of the simulation estimates (s.e.) are given in parentheses.

129
The Review of Financial Studies / v 14 n 1 2001

Table 3
Finite difference Simulation
Early Early Difference in
exercise exercise early exercise
A S American European value American (s.e) European (s.e) value value
90 80 .949 .949 .000 .961 (.016) .951 (.016) .010 −.010
90 90 3.267 3.230 .037 3.309 (.030) 3.233 (.030) .076 −.039
90 100 7.889 7.569 .320 7.886 (.046) 7.573 (.046) .313 .007
90 110 14.538 13.775 .763 14.518 (.059) 13.783 (.061) .735 .028
90 120 22.423 21.196 1.227 22.378 (.068) 21.201 (.071) 1.177 .050
100 80 1.108 1.082 .026 1.101 (.017) 1.085 (.017) .016 .010
100 90 3.710 3.567 .143 3.700 (.032) 3.570 (.032) .130 .013
100 100 8.658 8.151 .507 8.669 (.047) 8.156 (.047) .513 −.006
100 110 15.717 14.558 1.159 15.703 (.059) 14.565 (.061) 1.138 .021
100 120 23.811 22.097 1.714 23.775 (.066) 22.101 (.072) 1.674 .040

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

110 80 1.288 1.232 .056 1.265 (.018) 1.235 (.018) .030 .026
110 90 4.136 3.933 .203 4.186 (.033) 3.936 (.033) .250 −.047
110 100 9.821 8.764 1.057 9.830 (.046) 8.768 (.049) 1.062 −.005
110 110 17.399 15.361 2.038 17.362 (.056) 15.368 (.062) 1.994 .044
110 120 25.453 23.009 2.444 25.406 (.064) 23.013 (.073) 2.393 .051
Comparison of the finite difference and simulation values for the early exercise option in an American–Bermuda–Asian option
on a share of stock. The early exercise value is the difference in the value of the American–Bermuda–Asian option and its
European counterpart. In this example, the strike price is 100, the short-term interest rate is .06, the initial average value of
the stock is A, the underlying stock price is S, the volatility of returns is .20, and the final expiration of the option is in two
years. The average stock price is computed over the period beginning three months before the valuation date to the exercise
date. The option is not exercisable until three months after the valuation date. The simulation is based on 50,000 (25,000 plus
25,000 antithetic) paths for the stock-price process with 100 discretization points per year. The standard errors of the simulation
estimates (s.e.) are given in parantheses.

in the problem. Consequently the option price H (S, A, t) is the solution of

the following two-dimensional partial differential equation
1
(σ 2 S 2 /2)HSS + rSHS + (S − A)HA − rH + Ht = 0, (9)
.25 + t
subject to the expiration condition H (S, A, T ) = max(0, AT − K). Note that
the path dependence of the option payoff does not pose any difficulties to
the simulation-based LSM algorithm.
Table 3 compares the numerical results from valuing this option by finite
difference techniques with those obtained by the LSM approach. In this
example, we compute both the value of the American–Bermuda–Asian option
and its European counterpart, and focus primarily on the difference which
represents the value of the early exercise option. The European counterpart
of the American–Bermuda–Asian option is an option on the average stock
price which can only be exercised at the final option maturity date T = 2.
In this example, as well as in later examples in the article, we use the same
paths to price the European option that is used to value the American option.
The finite difference results are obtained using an alternating directions
implicit (ADI) algorithm with 10,000 time steps per year and 200 steps in
both the stock price and the average stock price. The results were checked
against a standard explicit finite difference scheme with a similar number of

130
 Valuing American Options by Simulation

steps for the stock price and the average stock price. The finite difference
algorithms result in values that are typically within three cents per $100
notional. The LSM results are based on 50,000 (25,000 plus 25,000 anti-
thetic) paths and use 100 discretization points per year to approximate the
continuous exercise feature of the option. As basis functions in the regres-
sions, we use a constant, the first two Laguerre polynomials evaluated at the
stock price, the first two Laguerre polynomials evaluated at the average stock
price, and the cross products of these Laguerre polynomials up to third-order
terms. Thus we use a total of eight basis functions in the regressions.12
As shown in Table 3, the finite difference and LSM results are very similar.
The differences in the early exercise values are typically less than two or
three cents per $100 notional value. The differences are again both positive

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

and negative; there is no evidence that the LSM algorithm systematically
undervalues the early exercise option. The differences in the early exercise
values are also small relative to the level of the early exercise value, and
very small relative to the level of the American and European option values.
These differences would likely be well within the bid-ask spread or other
transaction cost bounds.

5. Valuing Cancelable Index Amortizing Swaps

This section uses the LSM approach to value a cancelable index amortiz-
ing swap in a multifactor term structure model. Index amortizing swaps
have been widely used on Wall Street in recent years and are among the
most difficult types of structured interest-rate derivative products to value
and risk manage. The reason for this is that the notional amount of these
swaps declines over time in a complex way. For example, index amortizing
swaps often have notional amounts that amortize on the basis of a nonlinear
function of a constant maturity Treasury (CMT) or constant maturity swap
(CMS) rate. This stochastic amortization property makes these derivatives
highly path dependent. These swaps become even more complex when one
of the counterparties has the right to cancel the swap at any time; a cance-
lable index amortizing swap consists of both an index amortizing swap and
an American-style cancellation option. Index amortizing swaps are widely
used to hedge or mimic the cash flows from mortgages; the amortization
feature of an index amortizing swap is typically patterned after a mortgage
prepayment model.
To simplify the example, we focus on a specific cancelable index amor-
tizing swap with a five-year final maturity. We assume that the counterparty
with the right to cancel receives a fixed coupon c and pays the floating
Libor rate in the swap. We assume that the fixed coupon is received contin-
uously and the floating rate is paid continuously on an actual/actual basis.

12
Numerical tests indicated that adding additional basis functions had little or no effect on the results; using
eight basis functions was sufficient to obtain effective convergence.

131
 The Review of Financial Studies / v 14 n 1 2001

The notional balance on which the fixed and floating cash flows are based
is initially $100, but amortizes continuously on the basis of the 10-year par
swap rate, CMS 10. Let It denote the notional balance of the swap at time t.
The dynamics of It are given by

dI = −f (CMS 10)dt, (10)

where f (u) = .00, u ≥ .07, f (.06) = .10, f (.05) = .50, f (v) = 4.00,
v ≤ .04. When CMS 10 is between .04 and .07, the function f (CMS 10)
is linearly interpolated between the two closest points in this schedule. For
example, if CMS 10 = .0543, f (CMS 10) = .328. Note that f (CMS 10)

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

is a rate; f (CMS 10) = 4.00 implies that the swap is amortizing at a rate
that would completely amortize the swap in three months. The counterparty
with the right to cancel can choose to cancel the swap at any time; can-
celing the swap terminates all future cash flows from the swap to either
party. Since the cash flows accrue and pay on a continuous basis, there is
no lump sum accrued coupon or interest payment made when the swap is
canceled.13
In this example, we assume that the swap term structure is determined by
a simple two-factor Vasicek (1977) type of model.14 In particular, we assume
that the instantaneous Libor rate r equals the sum of two state variables,
r = X + Y . The risk-neutral dynamics of X and Y are assumed to be

dX = (α − βX)dt + σ dZ1 , (11)

dY = (γ − ηY )dt + s dZ2 , (12)

where α, β, σ , γ , η, and s are constants and Z1 and Z2 are independent

Brownian motions. In this framework, the value of a zero-coupon bond
D(X, Y, T ) with maturity T is given by

D(X, Y, T ) = exp −M(X, Y, T ) + V (T )/2 , (13)

13
In practice, index amortizing swaps typically follow the swap market convention of exchanging payments on
a quarterly or semiannual cycle, where the floating payment is determined at the beginning of the cycle and
paid at the end of the cycle. Cancelable index amortizing swaps typically can only be canceled on a coupon
payment date, and only after exchanging any accrued fixed or floating payments.
14
In this example, and in the swaption example in Section 8, we make the standard simplifying assumption that
the swap curve can be modeled as if it were a risk-free term structure. In reality, Libor rates incorporate some
small default-risk component. Since both legs of the swap are discounted using the same curve, however, the
net effect on the value of the swap is typically very small.

132
 Valuing American Options by Simulation

where
 
α α (1 − exp(−βT ))
M(X, Y, T ) = T + X−
β β β
 
γ γ (1 − exp(−ηT ))
+ T + Y−
η η η
2
 
σ 2 1
V (T ) = 2 T − (1 − exp(−βT )) + (1 − exp(−2βT ))
β β 2β
2
 
s 2 1
+ 2 T − (1 − exp(−ηT )) + (1 − exp(−2ηT ))
η η 2η

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

The CMS 10 rate, conditional on the current values of X and Y , is given
by
 
1 − D(X, Y, 10)
CMS 10 = 2 × 20
. (14)
i=1 D(X, Y, i/2)

In this model, the value of the cancelable index amortizing swap depends
on three state variables; the two factors X and Y as well as the current
notional amount I . The swap S(X, Y, I, t) can be valued by finite differ-
ence techniques by solving the following three-dimensional partial differen-
tial equation implied by the dynamics for X, Y , and I .

(σ 2 /2)SXX + (s 2 /2)SY Y + (α − βX)SX + (γ − ηY )SY

− f (CMS 10)SI − (X + Y )S + (c − X − Y )I + St = 0, (15)

subject to the conditions S(X, Y, I, T ) = 0 and S(X, Y, 0, t) = 0. Similarly,

the swap can also be valued by the LSM algorithm by simulating paths of
X and Y and keeping track of the notional balance along each path. The
parameter values used in this example are chosen to approximate a current
term structure and cap volatility curve.15
Table 4 presents the numerical results from the finite difference and LSM
valuation of the cancellation option on the underlying index amortizing swap.
The value of the cancellation option is the difference between the value of
the cancelable index amortizing swap and the underlying noncancelable index
amortizing swap. The table reports the results for a range of different values
of the fixed coupon paid on the swap. The finite difference methodology is
an implementation of a successive overrelaxation technique similar to that
described in Press et al. (1992). The finite difference algorithm uses 50 steps
for X, 40 steps for Y , and 15 steps for I . The LSM algorithm is based on

15
The parameter values used in the example are α = .001, β = .1, γ = .0525, η = 1.00, σ = .006951,
s = .00867. The initial values of X and Y are .002 and .050.

133
 The Review of Financial Studies / v 14 n 1 2001
134
Table 4
Finite difference Simulation
Difference in
Cancellation Cancellation cancellation
Coupon Cancelable Noncancelable option Cancelable (s.e.) Noncancelable (s.e.) option option
.0500 .072 −1.928 2.000 .043 (.003) −1.955 (.033) 1.998 .002
.0510 .118 −1.682 1.800 .087 (.004) −1.715 (.032) 1.802 −.002

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

.0520 .182 −1.435 1.617 .141 (.005) −1.475 (.031) 1.616 .001
.0530 .254 −1.189 1.443 .206 (.005) −1.235 (.030) 1.441 .002
.0540 .342 −.942 1.284 .284 (.006) −.995 (.029) 1.279 .005
.0550 .441 −.696 1.137 .377 (.007) −.755 (.028) 1.132 .005
.0560 .551 −.449 1.000 .480 (.008) −.515 (.027) .995 .005
.0570 .676 −.203 .879 .593 (.009) −.275 (.026) .868 .011
.0580 .811 .044 .767 .720 (.009) −.035 (.025) .755 .012
.0590 .957 .290 .667 .861 (.010) .205 (.024) .656 .011
.0600 1.115 .537 .578 1.011 (.011) .445 (.023) .566 .012
Comparison of the finite difference and simulation values for a cancellation option on an index amortizing swap. The value of the cancellation option is the difference between the values of the cancelable and
noncancelable index amortizing swaps. Coupon denotes the coupon rate for the fixed leg of the swap. Values are given per $100 notional amount. The simulation is based on 5,000 (2,500 plus 2,500 antithetic) paths
with 12 discretization points per year. The standard errors of the simulation estimates (s.e) are given in parentheses.
 Valuing American Options by Simulation

5,000 (2,500 plus 2,500 antithetic in both X and Y ) paths. As basis functions,
we use a constant, the first three powers of the value of the underlying
noncancelable swap, X, X 2 , Y , Y 2 , and XY . This results in a total of nine
basis functions.16
As shown in Table 4, the two valuation approaches produce very simi-
lar numerical results for the value of the cancellation option; the differences
in the value of the cancellation option are uniformly small. In fact, most
of the differences are less than one cent per $100 notional amount. The
bid-ask spread on these complex derivatives is likely at least an order of
magnitude greater than the size of these differences. As before, the differ-
ences are both positive and negative in sign. The numerical values of the

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

cancelable and noncancelable swaps do differ slightly between the finite dif-
ference and LSM techniques. In general, the values implied by the finite
difference algorithm for the cancelable and noncancelable swaps are about
four to seven cents higher than the corresponding values implied by the LSM
approach. This systematic pattern is due to slight differences in the way that
the two techniques discretize the continuous coupon payments and the con-
tinuous amortization feature. These differences produce minor differences in
the levels of the swap values, but have almost no effect on the value of the
cancellation option.

6. Jump-Diffusions and American Option Valuation

In this section, we illustrate how the LSM approach can be applied to value
American options when the underlying asset follows a jump-diffusion pro-
cess. In particular, we revisit the American put option considered in Section 3.
To simplify the illustration, we focus on the basic jump-to-ruin model pre-
sented in Merton (1976). In this model, the stock price follows a geometric
Brownian motion as in Equation (7) until a Poisson event occurs, at which
point the stock price becomes zero. The dynamics for this jump-diffusion
process are given by

dS = (r + λ)Sdt + σ SdZ − Sdq, (16)

where q is an independent Poisson process with intensity λ. When a Poisson

event occurs, the value of q jumps from zero to one, implying dq = 1, and
the stock price jumps downward from S to zero. As in Merton, we assume
that jump risk is nonsystematic and unpriced by the market. This assumption
could easily be relaxed. Similarly, the LSM approach can be readily applied
using much more complex jump-diffusion processes than in this example or
the other examples given in Merton.

16
Again, adding more basis functions has little effect on the value of the option. This provides numerical
evidence that the number of basis functions needed to obtain effective convergence grows at a much slower
rate than exponential as the dimensionality of the problem increases, consistent with Judd (1998).

135
 The Review of Financial Studies / v 14 n 1 2001

Merton (1976) provides a closed-form solution for the value of a European

option on the stock when its price follows the jump-to-ruin process in
Equation (16). He also shows, however, that the price of an American option
is given by a complex mixed differential-difference equation which is difficult
to solve.17
To put the results into perspective, we compare the price and early exer-
cise boundary for the American put option for the cases where there is no
possibility of a jump λ = .00 and when a jump can occur with intensity
λ = .05. Note that when λ > 0, the stock price process has a mass point at
zero, and the distribution of the stock price is no longer conditionally log-
normal. Furthermore, as λ increases, the conditional variance of the future

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

stock price increases. Specifically, the variance of the stock price is

S 2 (0) exp(2r) exp((λ + σ 2 )T ) − 1 . (17)

To make the comparison more meaningful, we adjust the parameters in

the two cases so that the means and variances are equal; the two cases differ
in the shape of their conditional distributions but not in terms of their first
two moments. From Equation (16), the mean of the risk-neutral distribution
for the stock price is S(0) exp(rT ) and is the same across cases because of
the martingale restriction implied by the risk-neutral framework. To equalize
variances, we assume that when λ = 0, σ 2 = .09. Similarly, when λ = .05,
σ 2 = .04. With these parameter values, the two distributions for the stock
price have the same means and variances. We use 26 exercise points per year
in the LSM algorithm and use the same basis functions in these examples as
in Section 3. We focus on the case T = 1.
Applying the LSM algorithm, the American put values are 3.80 for the
λ = .00 case and 3.40 for the λ = .05 case. The European put values are
3.58 for the λ = .00 case and 3.23 for the λ = .05 case. The early exercise
values are .22 and .17, respectively. Thus the values of the options are lower
when there is a possibility of a jump, holding fixed the variance across the
examples. This is intuitive since the diffusion coefficient in the λ = .05
case is only .20, while the diffusion coefficient in the λ = .00 case is .30.
This means that in the absence of a jump, the option is less likely to be
deep in the money in the λ = .05 case. If a jump occurs, of course, then
the option is much more valuable than it would be otherwise. The results
indicate, however, that the windfall gain to the optionholder from a jump
does not offset the effects of the lower diffusion coefficient.
Since the value of the early exercise premium is less in the case where
λ = .05, there is less incentive to keep the option alive. Consequently, it
is not surprising that the optimal early exercise strategy is more aggressive

17
Pham (1995) shows that the price of an American option can also be represented as the solution of a parabolic
integrodifferential free boundary problem when the underlying price process exhibits jumps.

136
 Valuing American Options by Simulation

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

Figure 1
Graph of the early exercise boundary for an American put option
The early exercise boundary is shown as a proportion of the exercise price of the option. The jump graph
shows the early exercise boundary when the underlying stock price follows a jump diffusion. The no-jump
graph shows the early exercise boundary when the underlying stock price follows a pure diffusion process.

in the case where λ = .05 than in the case where λ = .00. To see this,
Figure 1 plots the early exercise boundaries for the two cases. The early
exercise boundaries are obtained by solving for the critical stock price at each
exercise point at which the estimated conditional expectation function equals
the immediate exercise value of the option. As shown, the early exercise
boundary for the case where the stock price can jump is significantly higher
than for the continuous case.

7. Valuing Swaptions in a String Model

To illustrate its generality, we apply the LSM approach to a deferred American
swaption in a 20-factor string model. Swaptions are one of the most impor-
tant and widely used derivatives in fixed-income markets. We focus on a
basic swaption where the optionholder has the right to enter into a swap in
which the optionholder receives fixed coupons and pays floating coupons on
a semiannual cycle. The floating coupon paid at the end of the semiannual
cycle is tied to the six-month rate determined at the beginning of the semi-
annual cycle; the floating leg sets in advance and pays in arrears. Both legs
of the swap are paid on an actual/actual basis. The swaption can only be

137
The Review of Financial Studies / v 14 n 1 2001

exercised on semiannual coupon payment dates and only after exchanging

the coupons due on the payment date. As is typical, the swaption cannot be
exercised until after a specific lockout period.
To provide a specific example, we focus on a 10 NC 1 swaption. This
notation indicates the underlying swap has a final maturity of 10 years. The
NC 1 (noncall 1) feature indicates that the swaption cannot be exercised
until one year has elapsed; the swaption cannot be exercised until the second
semiannual coupon payment date. Since there are 20 semiannual coupon
payment dates during the life of the underlying 10-year swap, there are 18
possible exercise dates for the swaption; the swaption cannot be exercised
at the first coupon payment date, and the swaption has no value at the final

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

coupon payment date.
String models of the term structure have recently received a significant
amount of attention in fixed-income markets. In these models, each point
along the term structure is a separate random variable, where the term struc-
ture is defined either as a discount function or spot curve as in Ho and
Lee (1986), a forward curve as in Heath, Jarrow, and Morton (1992), or as
a par curve as in Longstaff, Santa-Clara, and Schwartz (1999). Important
examples of string models include the recent articles by Goldstein (1997),
Santa-Clara and Sornette (2001), Longstaff, Santa-Clara, and Schwartz (1999,
2000).
Since the underlying swap makes coupon payments at 20 different points
in time, its value is sensitive to 20 different points along the curve. We
implement a simple string model by assuming that each of these 20 points
represents a separate but correlated factor, and model the joint dynamics of
these 20 factors. Specifically, let D(t, T ) denote the value at time t of a zero-
coupon bond with final maturity date T , where t ≤ T . Since the expected
rate of return on all securities must equal the riskless rate in the no-arbitrage
equivalent martingale-measure framework, we can represent the no-arbitrage
dynamics of the zero-coupon bond price by the following.

dD(t, T ) = r(t)D(t, T )dt + σ (T − t)D(t, T )dZT , (18)

where r(t) is the riskless rate, σ (T − t) is a time-homogeneous volatility

function, and ZT is a standard Brownian motion specific to the zero-coupon
bond with final maturity date T .
To operationalize this string model, we assume that the 20 factors are the
20 zero-coupon bond prices with maturities corresponding to the 20 coupon
payment dates; specifically, D(t, .5), D(t, 1.0), D(t, 1.5), . . . , D(t, 10.0).
We assume that the volatility function σ (T −t) is piecewise constant; σ (T −t)
is constant over .5(N − 1) < T − t ≤ .5N , N = 1, 2, . . . , 20. For simplic-
ity, we set σ (T − t) = 0 for values of T − t < .5. The remaining 19
values of σ (T − t) are selected to approximate a cap volatility curve. Sim-
ilarly, we assume that r(t) is piecewise constant over six-month intervals;

138
 Valuing American Options by Simulation

we set r(t) equal to the six-month rate defined by −2 ln(D(t, t + 1/2)). This
discretization results in little loss of accuracy and guarantees that the price
of a zero-coupon bond converges to one at its maturity date.18
The dynamics of the term structure are simulated by first solving the
stochastic differential equation in Equation (18),

D(t + 1/2, T ) = D(t, T ) exp r(t)/2 − σ 2 (T − t)/4

+ σ (T − t) ZT (t + 1/2) − ZT (t) . (19)

With this closed-form expression, the evolution of the term structure can be
simulated over six-month periods. The only remaining issue is the correlation

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

structure of the fundamental Brownian motions ZT . To model the correlation
matrix in a parsimonious way, we assume that the correlation between Zi and
Zj , i, j ≤ T is given by the function ρij = exp(−κ | i − j |), where κ = .02.
This results in correlations among spot rates similar to those observed empir-
ically. Alternatively, spot-rate correlations could be estimated using historical
data and then directly incorporated into the simulation.
The simulation consists of paths where at each coupon date, the entire vec-
tor of zero-coupon bond prices is specified. From these zero-coupon bonds,
the value of the underlying swap at that coupon date is easily computed by
discounting the remaining fixed coupon payments; recall that the floating leg
of the swap can be assumed to be worth par on coupon payment dates. Given
the value of the swap, the basis functions are chosen to be a constant, the
first three powers of the value of the underlying swap, and all unmatured
discount bond prices with final maturity dates up to and including the final
maturity date of the swap. Thus there are up to 22 basis functions in the
regression. This specification results in values very similar to those obtained
by using additional basis functions.
Table 5 reports the estimated values of the deferred American swaption,
the corresponding European swaption, and the probabilities of early exer-
cise at each coupon payment date for a variety of fixed coupon rates. As
shown, the deferred American exercise feature has significant value; when
the coupon rate is .0575, the deferred American swaption is more than three
times as valuable as its European counterpart. This underscores the fact that
the deferred American and European swaptions are fundamentally different
derivatives despite their superficial similarities.
The coupon rate on the fixed leg of the swap also has a major effect on the
properties of the swaptions. Clearly, the higher the coupon, the more valuable
it is to enter the swap and receive the fixed coupons. For the European swap-
tion, this translates into a higher probability of exercise at the exercise date.

18
The minor discretization error induced by using the six-month rate as a proxy for r(t) can easily be avoided
by using more points along the term structure. For example, we could use daily, monthly, or even quarterly
rates. Alternatively, we could simply develop the model in a discrete rather than continuous framework as is
commonly done in practice.

139
The Review of Financial Studies / v 14 n 1 2001

Table 5
Exercise type European American European American European American
Coupon .0575 .0575 .0605 .0605 .0635 .0635
Value .739 2.577 1.529 3.278 2.711 4.204
Standard error .011 .018 .016 .020 .021 .022
Ex. prob. 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ex. prob. 2 29.77 2.72 49.17 7.17 68.63 17.30
Ex. prob. 3 0.00 5.14 0.00 8.10 0.00 9.19
Ex. prob. 4 0.00 4.13 0.00 5.94 0.00 6.29
Ex. prob. 5 0.00 3.83 0.00 4.85 0.00 5.51
Ex. prob. 6 0.00 2.77 0.00 3.44 0.00 4.17
Ex. prob. 7 0.00 3.46 0.00 4.25 0.00 3.49
Ex. prob. 8 0.00 2.90 0.00 3.21 0.00 3.34
Ex. prob. 9 0.00 3.43 0.00 3.40 0.00 3.45
Ex. prob. 10 0.00 3.13 0.00 3.21 0.00 2.86

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

Ex. prob. 11 0.00 3.35 0.00 3.02 0.00 2.66
Ex. prob. 12 0.00 3.11 0.00 2.63 0.00 2.26
Ex. prob. 13 0.00 3.19 0.00 2.91 0.00 2.61
Ex. prob. 14 0.00 3.20 0.00 2.63 0.00 2.00
Ex. prob. 15 0.00 3.80 0.00 3.22 0.00 2.92
Ex. prob. 16 0.00 3.36 0.00 3.24 0.00 2.58
Ex. prob. 17 0.00 4.39 0.00 4.22 0.00 2.79
Ex. prob. 18 0.00 5.69 0.00 4.65 0.00 3.75
Ex. prob. 19 0.00 8.33 0.00 7.13 0.00 5.45
Ex. prob. 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total prob. 29.77 69.93 49.17 77.22 68.63 82.62
Estimated values and exercise probabilities for a deferred American swaption implied by the 20-factor string model. This
swaption gives the optionholder the right to enter into a swap with a final maturity of 10 years and receive a fixed coupon
and pay the six-month rate semiannually. The swaption is not exercisable until one year from the valuation date. The exercise
probabilities are shown for each of the 20 semiannual coupon payment dates and represent the percentage of paths for which
exercise occurred on that coupon payment date. Values are given per $100 notional amount. The simulation results are based
on 20,000 paths.

In contrast, a higher fixed coupon does not necessarily imply a higher prob-
ability of exercise at a specific coupon date for the deferred American swap-
tion. To see this, note that the probability of exercise at the 19th coupon date
is 8.33% when the coupon is .0575, but is only 5.45% when the coupon is
.0635. The total probability of exercise, however, is monotonic in the coupon
rate. These results illustrate that the term structure of exercise probabilities
for American options can display very complex patterns in a multifactor
framework.
Since each point on the term structure affects the values of the deferred
American and European swaptions, it is also interesting to compare the sen-
sitivities of each swaption to each point on the curve. This is done by varying
each of the six-month forward rates implied by the initial zero-coupon curve
to express the risk exposures in a forward-space metric. As shown in Table 6,
deferred American and European swaptions have major differences in their
sensitivities to movements in the term structure. For example, the European
swaption has the greatest sensitivity to the third forward. In contrast, the
deferred American swaption has its greatest sensitivity to the 20th forward.
These results illustrate the importance of incorporating the multifactor nature
of the term structure in fixed-income derivative risk management.

140
 Valuing American Options by Simulation

Table 6
Forward
rate European American
.0–.5 −.00008 −.00016
.5–1.0 −.00008 −.00016
1.0–1.5 −.00236 −.00048
1.5–2.0 −.00230 −.00077
2.0–2.5 −.00223 −.00089
2.5–3.0 −.00217 −.00117
3.0–3.5 −.00211 −.00134
3.5–4.0 −.00205 −.00142
4.0–4.5 −.00199 −.00151
4.5–5.0 −.00193 −.00156
5.0–5.5 −.00188 −.00148
5.5–6.0 −.00182 −.00143

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

6.0–6.5 −.00177 −.00176
6.5–7.0 −.00172 −.00181
7.0–7.5 −.00167 −.00187
7.5–8.0 −.00162 −.00180
8.0–8.5 −.00157 −.00195
8.5–9.0 −.00153 −.00186
9.0–9.5 −.00148 −.00199
9.5–10.0 −.00144 −.00218
Parallel shift −.03380 −.02759
Sensitivity of swaption values to individual forward rates in the 20-factor string model. These sensitivities are computed by
varying the indicated six-month forward rate while holding the others fixed. The American swaption gives the optionholder the
right to enter into a swap with a final maturity of 10 years and receive a fixed coupon of .0605 and pay the six-month rate
semiannually. The swaption is not exercisable until one year from the valuation date. The European swaption is the counterpart
of the American swaption with the restriction that the option can only be exercised one year from the valuation date. The
sensitivities shown are with respect to a one-basis point move in the forward per $100 notional amount. The simulation results
are based on 20,000 paths.

8. Numerical and Implementation Issues

In this section, we discuss a number of numerical and implementation issues
associated with the LSM algorithm. These are discussed individually below.

8.1 Higher-dimensional problems

The numerical examples in Sections 3–5 benchmark the performance of the
LSM algorithm for several low-dimensional problems which can be solved
by standard finite difference techniques. As an additional benchmark, we
also investigate the performance of the algorithm for a higher dimensional
problem studied by Broadie and Glasserman (1997c), the valuation of an
American options on the maximum of five risky assets.
In their article, Broadie and Glasserman (1997) apply a stochastic mesh
approach to place bounds on the value an American call option on the max-
imum of five assets, where each asset has a return volatility of 20% and
each return is independent of the others. The option has a three-year life and
is exercisable three times per year. The assets each pay a 10% proportional
dividend and the riskless rate is assumed to be 5%. The strike price of the
option is 100, and the initial values of all assets are assumed to be the same
and equal to either 90, 100, or 110. Using their algorithm, they are able to
estimate a 90% confidence band for the value of the option. From Table 6 of

141
The Review of Financial Studies / v 14 n 1 2001

their article, the tightest 90% confidence bands reported are [16.602, 16.710],
[26.101, 26.211], and [36.719, 36.842] for the cases where the initial asset
values are 90, 100, and 110, respectively. Broadie and Glasserman report that
computing these bounds requires slightly more than 20 hours apiece using a
266 MHz Pentium II processor.
We value this American call option using essentially the same simulation
procedure used in Section 3. Specifically, we use 50,000 paths and choose
19 basis functions consisting of a constant, the first five Hermite polynomials
in the maximum of the values of the five assets, the four values and squares
of the values of the second through fifth highest asset prices, the product
of the highest and second highest, second highest and third highest, etc.,

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

and finally, the product of all five asset values. The values of the American
call option given by the LSM algorithm are 16.657, 26.182, and 36.812 for
the cases where the initial asset values are 90, 100, and 110, respectively. In
each of these cases, the LSM value is within the tightest bounds given by the
Broadie and Glasserman algorithm. We note that computing these values by
LSM requires only one to two minutes apiece using a 300 MHz Pentium II
processor.

8.2 Least squares

In this article, we use ordinary least squares to estimate the conditional expec-
tation function. In some cases, however, it may be more efficient to use other
techniques such as weighted least squares, generalized least squares, or even
GMM in estimating the conditional expectation function. For example, if
the process for the state variables has state dependent volatility, the resid-
uals from the regression may be heteroskedastic and these alternative least
squares techniques may have advantages.
In estimating the least squares regressions, it may be noted that the R 2 s
from the regressions are often somewhat low. The reason for this is simply the
volatility of realized cash flows around their conditional expected values. The
R 2 from the regression measures the percentage of the total variation in the
ex post cash flows explained by the variation in the conditional expectation
function; a low R 2 simply means that the volatility of unexpected cash flows
is large relative to the volatility of expected cash flows. Thus low R 2 are
to be expected when unexpected cash flows are highly volatile. In general,
since the LSM algorithm is based on conditional first moments rather than
second moments, the R 2 s from the regression should have little impact on
the quality of the LSM approximation to the American option value.

8.3 Choice of basis functions

Extensive numerical tests indicate that the results from the LSM algorithm
are remarkably robust to the choice of basis functions. For example, we use
the first three Laguerre polynomials as basis functions in the American put
illustration in Section 3. We obtain results that are virtually identical to those

142
Valuing American Options by Simulation

reported in Table 1 when we use S, S 2 , and S 3 as basis functions, when we

use the first three Hermite polynomials as basis functions, or when we use
three trigonometric functions as basis functions. Similarly for all of the other
examples presented in the article. As reported earlier, few basis functions are
needed to closely approximate the conditional expectation function over the
relevant range where early exercise may be optimal.
While the results are robust to the choice of basis functions, it is impor-
tant to be aware of the numerical implications of the choice. For example,
the weighted Laguerre polynomials used in the American put illustration
in Section 3 include an exponential term in the stock price S. In Table 1,
however, the stock price ranges from 36 to 44. Thus, directly applying the

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

weighted Laguerre polynomials to the problem could result in computational
underflows. To avoid this problem, we renormalized the American put exam-
ple by dividing all cash flows and prices by the strike price, and estimating
the conditional expectation function in the renormalized space; the results
reported in Table 1 are based on this renormalization. Note that this is only
for numerical convenience; the option value is unaffected since we discount
back the unnormalized value of the cash flows along each path to obtain its
value. We recommend normalizing appropriately to avoid numerical errors
resulting from scaling problems.
Finally, the choice of basis functions also has implications for the statisti-
cal significance of individual basis functions in the regression. In particular,
some choices of basis functions are highly correlated with each other, result-
ing in estimation difficulties for individual regression coefficients akin to the
multicolinearity problem in econometrics. This difficulty does not affect the
LSM algorithm since the focus is on the fitted value of the regression rather
than on individual coefficients; the fitted value of the regression is unaffected
by the degree of correlation among the explanatory variables. However, if the
choice of basis functions leads to a cross-moment matrix that is nearly singu-
lar, then numerical inaccuracies in some least squares algorithms may affect
the functional form of estimated conditional expectation function. To avoid
these types of numerical problems, the regressions are estimated using the
double-precision DLSBRR algorithm in IMSL which estimates least squares
via an iterative-refinement algorithm. We also cross-checked the results by
estimating the regressions using a variety of alternative procedures such as
Cholesky-decomposition and QR-algorithm least squares techniques.

8.4 Computational speed

An important advantage of simulation techniques is that they lend them-
selves well to parallel computing architecture. For example, we could gen-
erate 5,000 paths using a single CPU, or we could generate 100 paths each
on 50 CPUs. In many large-scale applications, computational speed is far
more important than the cost of hardware; valuation and risk management
by simulation is ideally suited for these applications. Furthermore, for some

143
 The Review of Financial Studies / v 14 n 1 2001

types of large-scale applications such as valuing large portfolios of fixed-

income or mortgage derivatives, the same paths can be used for all options;
significant computational efficiencies are obtained by only having to generate
paths once. From the perspective of the LSM algorithm, the only constraint
on parallel computation is that the regression needs to use the cross-sectional
information in the simulation. Given the speed at which regressions can be
estimated, however, this bottleneck involves little loss of computational effi-
ciency. Furthermore, there are many ways in which regressions could be
estimated using individual CPUs, and then aggregated across CPUs to form
a composite estimate of the conditional expectation function. Finally, the
use of quasi-Monte-Carlo techniques in conjunction with the LSM algo-
rithm may lead to significant improvements in computational speed and effi-

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

ciency. Important recent examples of the application of quasi-Monte-Carlo
techniques include Morokoff and Caflisch (1994, 1995).

9. Conclusion
This article presents a simple new technique for approximating the value
of American-style options by simulation. This approach is intuitive, accurate,
easy to apply, and computationally efficient. We illustrate this technique using
a number of realistic examples, including the valuation of an American put
when the underlying stock price follows a jump-diffusion as well as the
valuation of a deferred American swaption in a 20-factor string model of the
term structure.
As a framework for valuing and risk managing derivatives, simulation
has many important advantages. With the ability to value American options,
the applicability of simulation techniques becomes much broader and more
promising, particularly in markets with multiple factors. Furthermore, simu-
lation techniques make it much easier to implement advanced models such
as Heath, Jarrow, and Morton (1992) or Santa-Clara and Sornette (1997) in
practice.

Appendix
Proof of Proposition 1. By definition, the value of the underlying asset Xtk is Ftk -measurable.
Similarly, the immediate exercise value of the option is Ftk -measurable. By construction,
FM (ω; tk ) is a linear function of Ftk -measurable functions of XtK , and is therefore Ftk -measurable.
Hence the event that the immediate exercise value is greater than zero and greater than or
equal to FM (ω; tk ) is in Ftk , and therefore, the LSM rule to exercise when this event occurs
defines a stopping time. Denote the present value of following this stopping rule by Eθ . Since
V (X) is the supremum of the present values obtained over the set of all stopping times,
V (X) ≥ Eθ . Since the functional form of FM (ω; tk ) is the same across all paths, the discounted
cash flows LSM(ωi ; M, K) are independently and identically distributed, and the strong law of
large numbers [Billingsley (1979; Theorem 6.1)] implies that


1 N
Pr lim LSM(ωi ; M, K) = Eθ = 1.
N→∞ N
i=1

144
Valuing American Options by Simulation

This result, combined with the inequality V (X) ≥ Eθ , implies the result.

Proof of Proposition 2. At time t2 , the LSM stopping strategy is the same as the optimal
strategy; the option is exercised if it is in the money. Under the given assumptions, the condi-
tional expectation function F (ω; t1 ) is a function only of Xt1 . If F (ω; t1 ) satisfies the indicated
conditions, then Theorem IV.9.1 of Sansone (1959) implies that the convergence of FM (ω; t1 )
to F (ω; t1 ) is uniform in M on the set (0, ∞), where the first M Laguerre polynomials are
used as the set of basis functions. This implies that for a given #, there exists an M such
that supXt | F (ω; t1 ) − FM (ω; t1 ) |< #/2. From the integrability conditions and Theorem 3.5
1
of White (1984), the fitted value of the LSM regression F M (ω; t1 ) converges in probability to
FM (ω; t1 ) as N → ∞,

M (ω; t1 ) |> #/2 = 0.

lim Pr | FM (ω; t1 ) − F
N→∞

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

Thus, for any #, there is an M such that

M (ω; t1 ) |> # = 0.
lim Pr | F (ω; t1 ) − F
N→∞

To complete the proof, we partition  into five sets: 1) the set of paths where the option
is exercised at time t1 under both the optimal and the LSM strategy, 2) the set of paths where
the option is not exercised at time t1 under either the optimal or LSM strategies, 3) the set
of paths where the option is exercised at time t1 under the LSM strategy but not under the
optimal strategy, 4) the set of paths where the option is exercised at time t1 under the optimal
strategy, but not under the LSM strategy, and 5) a zero-probability set of paths for which
the difference between F (ω; t1 ) and F M (ω; t1 ) is greater than # as N → ∞. Now consider
a portfolio consisting of a long position in an option exercised using the LSM strategy, an
investment of # in a money market account, and a short position in an option exercised using
the optimal strategy. For paths in set 3), at time t1 , use the funds from the money market account
and the option exercise to purchase a European option with final maturity date t2 . For paths in
set 4), at time t1 , use the funds from the money market account and from shorting a European
option with final maturity date t2 to fund the cash outflow from the option exercise. It is easily
shown that this strategy results in cash flows that are greater than or equal to zero for each path
in sets 1), 2), 3), and 4). Since the pathwise cash flows are nonnegative, averages over paths
are nonnegative, and the result follows from a standard no-arbitrage argument, the definition of
V (X), and the law of large numbers.

References
Abramowitz, M., and I. A. Stegun, 1970, Handbook of Mathematical Functions, Dover Publications, New York.

Amemiya, T., 1985, Advanced Econometrics, Basil Blackwell, London, UK.

Averbukh, V., 1997, “Pricing American Options Using Monte Carlo Simulation,” Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell
University.

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

Barron, A., 1993, “Universal Approximation Bounds for Superpositions of a Sigmoidal Function,” IEEE
Transactions, Information Theory, 39, 930–945.

Bensoussan, A., 1984, “On the Theory of Option Pricing,” Acta Applicandae Mathematicae, 2, 139–158.

Billingsley, P., 1979, Probability and Measure, Wiley, New York.

145
The Review of Financial Studies / v 14 n 1 2001

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

Bossaerts, P., 1989, “Simulation Estimators of Optimal Early Exercise,” working paper, Carnegie-Mellon
University.

Broadie, M., J. Detemple, E. Ghysels, and O. Torres, 1998, “American Options with Stochastic Dividends and
Volatility: A Nonparametric Investigation,” working paper, Columbia University.

Broadie, M., and P. Glasserman, 1997a, “Monte Carlo Methods for Pricing High-Dimensional American
Options: An Overview,” working paper, Columbia University.

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

Broadie, M., and P. Glasserman, 1997c, “A Stochastic Mesh Method for Pricing High-Dimensional American

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

Options,” working paper, Columbia University.

Broadie, M., P. Glasserman, and G. Jain, 1997, “Enhanced Monte Carlo Estimates for American Option
Prices,” Journal of Derivatives, 5, 25–44.

Carriere, J., 1996, “Valuation of Early-Exercise Price of Options Using Simulations and Nonparametric
Regression,” Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 19, 19–30.

Carr, P., 1998, “Randomization and the American Put,” Review of Financial Studies, 11, 597–626.

Cox, J., J. E. Ingersoll, and S. A. Ross, 1985, “An Intertemporal General Equilibrium Model of Asset Prices,”
Econometrica, 53, 363–384.

Cox, J., and S. A. Ross, 1976, “The Valuation of Options for Alternative Stochastic Processes,” Journal of
Financial Economics, 3, 145–166.

Duffie, D., 1996, Dynamic Asset Pricing Theory, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.

Garcia, D., 1999, “A Monte Carlo Method for Pricing American Options,” working paper, University of
California, Berkeley.

Goldstein, R., 1997, “The Term Structure of Interest Rates as a Random Field,” working paper, Ohio State
University.

Harrison, J. M., and D. M. Kreps, 1979, “Martingales and Arbitrage in Multiperiod Securities Markets,”
Journal of Economic Theory, 20, 381–408.

Harrison, J. M., and S. R. Pliska, 1981, “Martingales and Stochastic Integrals in the Theory of Continuous
Trading,” Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 11, 261–271.

Heath, D., R. Jarrow, and A. Morton, 1992, “Bond Pricing and the Term Structure of Interest Rates,” Econo-
metrica, 60, 77–106.

Ho, T., and S. Lee, 1986, “Term Structure Movements and Pricing Interest Rate Contingent Claims,” Journal
of Finance, 41, 1011–1029.

Ibanez, A., and F. Zapatero, 1998, “Monte Carlo Valuation of American Options through Computation of the
Optimal Exercise Frontier,” working paper, University of Southern California.

Keane, M., and K. Wolpin, 1994, “The Solution and Estimation of Discrete Choice Dynamic Programming
Models by Simulation: Monte Carlo Evidence,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 76, 648–672.

Judd, K., 1998, Numerical Methods in Economics, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Karatzas, I, 1988, “On the Pricing of American Options,” Applied Mathematics and Optimization, 17, 37–60.

Lamberton, D., and B. Lapeyre, 1996, Stochastic Calculus Applied to Finance, Chapman & Hall, London,
UK.

146
Valuing American Options by Simulation

Longstaff, F., P. Santa-Clara, and E. Schwartz, 1999, “Throwing Away a Billion Dollars: The Cost of Subop-
timal Exercise Strategies in the Swaptions Market,” working paper, University of California, Los Angeles.

Longstaff, F., P. Santa-Clara, and E. Schwartz, 2000, “The Relative Valuation of Interest-Rate Caps and
Swaptions: Theory and Empirical Evidence,” working paper, University of California, Los Angeles.

Merton, R. C., 1973, “The Theory of Rational Option Pricing,” Bell Journal of Economics and Management
Science, 4, 141–183.

Merton, R. C., 1976, “Option Pricing When Underlying Stock Returns Are Discontinuous,” Journal of Finan-
cial Economics, 3, 125–144.

Morokoff, W. J., and R. E. Caflisch, 1994, “Quasi-Random Sequences and Their Discrepancies,” SIAM Journal
of Computing, 15, 1251–1279.

Morokoff, W. J., and R. E. Caflisch, 1995, “Quasi-Monte Carlo Integration,” Journal of Computational

Downloaded from [Link] by IIM Ahmedabad user on 12 December 2025

Physics, 122, 218–230.

Pham, H., 1995, “Optimal Stopping, Free Boundary and American Option in a Jump Diffusion Model,”
working paper, Universite Paris IX Dauphine.

Press, W. H., S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, and B. P. Flannery, 1992, Numerical Recipes in Fortran, 2nd
ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Raymar, S., and M. Zwecher, 1997, “A Monte Carlo Valuation of American Call Options on the Maximum
of Several Stocks,” Journal of Derivatives, 5, 7–23.

Refenes, A., A. Burgess, and Y. Bentz, 1997, “Neural Networks in Financial Engineering: A Study in Method-
ology,” IEEE Transactions, Neural Networks, 8, 1222–1267.

Royden, H. L., 1968, Real Analysis, MacMillan, New York.

Sansone, G., 1959, Orthogonal Functions, Interscience Publishers, New York.

Santa-Clara, P., and D. Sornette, 2001, “The Dynamics of the Forward Interest Rate Curve with Stochastic
String Shocks,” The Review of Financial Studies, 14, 149–185.

Tilley, J. A., 1993, “Valuing American Options in a Path Simulation Model,” Transactions of the Society of
Actuaries, 45, 83–104.

Tsitsiklis, J., and B. Van Roy, 1999, “Optimal Stopping of Markov Processes: Hilbert Space Theory, Approxi-
mation Algorithms, and an Application to Pricing High-Dimensional Financial Derivatives,” IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, 44, 1840–1851.

Vasicek, O., 1977, “An Equilibrium Characterization of the Term Structure,” Journal of Financial Economics,
5, 177–188.

White, H., 1984, Asymptotic Theory for Econometricians, Academic Press, New York.

147