The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Faster Valuation of Financial Derivatives
Abstract
High-dimensional integrals are usually solved with Monte Carlo algorithms although theory suggests that low-discrepancy algorithms are sometimes superior. We report on numerical testing which compares low-discrepancy and Monte Carlo algorithms on the evaluation of financial derivatives. The testing is performed on a Collateralized Mortgage Obligation (CMO) which is formulated as the computation of ten integrals of dimension up to 360. We tested two low-discrepancy algorithms (Sobol and Halton) and two randomized algorithms (classical Monte Carlo and Monte Carlo combined with antithetic variables). We conclude that for this CMO the Sobol algorithm is always superior to the other algorithms. We believe that it will be advantageous to use the Sobol algorithm for many other types of financial derivatives. Our conclusion regarding the superiority of the Sobol algorithm also holds when a rather small number of sample points are used, an important case in practice. We have built a software system called FINDER for computing high-dimensional integrals. FINDER runs on a heterogeneous network of workstations under PVM 3.2 (Parallel Virtual Machine). Since workstations are ubiquitous, this is a cost-effect way to do large computations fast. The measured speedup is at least .9N for $N$ workstations, $N$ less than or equal to 25. The software can also be used to compute high-dimensional integrals on a single workstation. A routine for generating Sobol points may be found, for example, in Numerical Recipes in C by Press et al. However, we incorporated major improvements in FINDER and we stress that the results reported in this paper were obtained using FINDER. One of the improvements was developing the table of primitive polynomials and initial direction numbers for dimensions up to 360.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Monte Carlo methods for security pricing
Boyle, P., Broadie, M., & Glasserman, P. (1997) · Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control · doi:10.1016/s0165-1889(97)00028-6 · Cited by 854
High-dimensional integration: The quasi-Monte Carlo way
Dick, J., Kuo, F. Y., & Sloan, I. H. (2013) · Acta Numerica · doi:10.1017/s0962492913000044 · Cited by 615
Pricing American Options: A Duality Approach
Haugh, M. B., & Kogan, L. (2004) · Operations Research · doi:10.1287/opre.1030.0070 · Cited by 452
An introduction to numerical methods for stochastic differential equations
Platen, E. (1999) · Acta Numerica · doi:10.1017/s0962492900002920 · Cited by 273
Effectively Unbiased FID and Inception Score and Where to Find Them
Chong, M. J., & Forsyth, D. (2020) · 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr42600.2020.00611 · Cited by 242
Metadata
- Authors
- Paskov, S. H., & Traub, J. F.
- Venue
- The Journal of Portfolio Management
- Publisher
- With Intelligence LLC
- Published
- 1995-10-31
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 113-123
- ISSN
- 0095-4918 (ISSN-L)
- 2168-8656
- OpenAlex
- W2146261346
- Cited by
- 368
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Faster Valuation of Financial Derivatives. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3905/jpm.1995.409541
- The paper
- Paskov, S. H., & Traub, J. F. (1995). Faster Valuation of Financial Derivatives. The Journal of Portfolio Management. https://doi.org/10.3905/jpm.1995.409541
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.