Modeling Autocallable Structured Products∗

Geng Deng† Joshua Mallett‡ Craig McCann§¶

August 16, 2011

Abstract
Since first introduced in 2003, the number of autocallable structured products
in the U.S. has increased exponentially. The autocall feature causes the product
to be redeemed if the reference asset’s value rises above a pre-specified call price.
Because an autocallable structured product matures immediately if it is called, the
autocall feature reduces the product’s duration and expected maturity.
In this paper, we present a flexible Partial Differential Equation (PDE) frame-
work to model autocallable structured products. Our framework allows for products
with either discrete or continuous call dates. We value the autocallable structured
products with discrete call dates using the finite difference method, and the products
with continuous call dates using a closed-form solution. In addition, we estimate the
probabilities of an autocallable structured-product being called on each call date.
We demonstrate our models by valuing a popular autocallable product and quantify
the cost to the investor of adding this feature to a structured product.

Keywords: structured products; PDE; autocallable; callable

1 Introduction
Autocallable structured products1,2 have become increasingly common in recent years.
The first autocallable structured product on record in the U.S. was issued by BNP Paribas
on August 15, 2003. Figure 1(a) and Figure 1(b) plot the number and aggregate face value
of autocallable structured products issued between 2003 and 2010. As the figures indicate,
the number of issues increased sharply in 2007 and has continued to grow through 2010 at
∗
⃝Securities
c Litigation and Consulting Group, Inc
†
Securities Litigation and Consulting Group, Inc., 703-890-0741 or [email protected]
‡
Securities and Exchange Commission, 202-551-5876 or [email protected].
§
Securities Litigation and Consulting Group, Inc., 703-246-9381 or [email protected].
¶
The Securities and Exchange Commission, as a matter of policy, disclaims responsibility for any
private publication or statement by any of its employees. The views expressed herein are those of the
author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission or of the author’s colleagues upon the
staff of the Commission.

Electronic
Electroniccopy
copyavailable
availableat:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=1981308
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1981308
a 40% annual growth rate. In just the first six months of 2010 there have been more than
2,500 autocallable products issued. The aggregate face value of newly issued autocallable
structured products follows the same pattern, with a surge in 2007 and continued growth
since then.

Figure 1: Number and Total Issue Size of Autocallable Structured Products, January 2003 - June 2010.

(a) Number of Autocallables Issued (b) Aggregate Autocallable Issue Size

One reason for the rapid expansion of autocallable structured products is the ease with
which the call feature can be attached to existing types of structured products.3−6 The
call feature causes the structured product to be redeemed if the reference asset’s price
reaches or exceeds a predefined level (the call price) on a call date.
In this paper we describe the call feature, explain how to value it, and show an example
of the valuation methodology. We use this example to discuss the cost this feature can
add to a structure product. We value autocallable structured products using a general
Partial Differential Equation (PDE) approach. We set up the PDE using the Black-Scholes
equation and add boundary conditions representing the product’s features, including the
autocall feature.7,8
We divide the autocallable structured products into two categories: products that
have discrete call dates (“discrete autocallables”) and products that have continuous call
dates (“continuous autocallables”). Figure 2(a) and Figure 2(b) demonstrate graphically
the difference between discrete and continuous autocallables. Both figures plot the same
underlying stock price over time. The continuous autocallable structured product is called
immediately upon crossing the call price C, while the discrete autocallable must wait
until tc3 before it is called. If the underlying stock price had dropped back below C
on tc3 , the discrete autocallable structured product would not have been called. Thus,
holding all else equal, a continuous autocallable structured product is more likely to be
called than a discrete one. Although we only consider constant call price in the paper,
the methodologies are expandable to exponentially increasing call prices. Closed-form
solutions are also available. The extension is analogous to valuing a barrier option with
an exponentially varying barrier.9,10

Electronic
Electroniccopy
copyavailable
availableat:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=1981308
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1981308
 Figure 2: An Autocall Event

(a) Discrete Callable (b) Continuous Callable

An autocallable structured product is fundamentally similar to a reverse-convertible11

that pays a high coupon in exchange for exposing the investor to the downside risk of
the reference security. Although autocallable structured products tend to be issued for
longer terms than reverse-convertibles, autocallable structured products can have shorter
effective durations due to the embedded call feature. See Arzac,12 Chemmanur et al,13 and
Chemmanur et al 14 for a discussion of why investment banks issue mandatory convertibles
and why investors purchase them.
For example, a common autocallable structured product would have the following
payoffs: If the reference asset’s price is above the call price on one of the call dates, it is
called, and pays a pre-specified fixed-rate return. If the reference asset’s price is below
the call price on every call date, the product is never called. In such a case, the investors
receive the product’s face value at maturity, if the final price of the reference asset is
a above a predetermined threshold. If the final price is below the threshold, investors
receive the same negative percentage return as the reference asset.
The paper proceeds as follows: In Section 2, we explain our valuation framework.
Section 2.2 discusses autocallable structured products with discrete call dates, and Sec-
tion 2.3 presents autocallable structured products with continuous call dates. Section 3
implements our valuation framework for an example structured product. We conclude
in Section 4. In the appendix we explain the main features of popular autocallable
structured-products.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1981308

2 Autocallable Structured Product Valuation Mod-
els
There are three main characteristics of the call feature that will affect the value of the
structured product: the timing of the call dates, the probability of being called on each
call date, and the determination of the payoff at maturity. In this section we set up the
valuation of autocallable structured products as a Partial Differential Equation (PDE)
problem. The PDE problem is general enough to be used on both discrete and continuous
autocalls.

2.1 Modeling Autocallable Structured Products Using PDE

Our valuation model follows the Black-Scholes framework with risk-neutral assumptions.
The reference asset’s price is a generalized Brownian motion

dSt = (r − q)St dt + σSt dWt , (1)

where r is the risk-free rate, q is the dividend yield, and σ is the volatility of the price
process. (Throughout this paper, we assume r, q, and σ are constant and continuously
compounded over the product’s term [0, T ]. For simplicity, we omit the subscript t from
St .) If we assume the price of the structured product V (S, t) is a function of time t ∈ [0, T ]
and the reference asset’s price S ∈ [0, ∞). The Black-Scholes formula implies that a
structured product’s dynamic value can be expressed as the following PDE:

∂V 1 ∂ 2V ∂V
+ σ 2 S 2 2 + (r − q)S − (r + CDS)V
¯ = 0, (2)
∂t 2 ∂S ∂S
where CDS ¯ is the credit default swap (CDS) spread of the issuer. (Structured products
are unsecured debt securities, and hence lose value if the issuer defaults. It is therefore
essential to include the issuer’s credit risk CDS¯ in the PDE to calculate the structured
6,15
product’s present value. )
Many different structured product features can be modeled as variations on Equa-
tion (2). For example, when the structured product is not called, the payoff at maturity
f (ST ) is typically a function of the value of the reference asset at maturity:

V (ST , T ) = f (ST ).

For simplicity and without loss of generality, we assume the initial principal of a structured
product is equal to the reference asset’s initial value S0 . Embedded call and put options
and the autocall feature can all be modeled as boundary conditions.6 The autocall feature’s
boundary condition is
V (C, t) = Pt , for t ∈ TC , (3)
where C is the time-independent call price, Pt is the final payoff if the note is called,
and TC is a set of discrete or continuous call dates. Once the autocall is triggered, the

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1981308

structured product matures immediately and the final payout is Pt . Called structured
products typically pay out a fixed rate of return. Therefore, the payoff follows

Pt = HeBt ,

where B is the rate of return, and H is a constant.

2.2 Valuing Autocallable Structured Products with Discrete Call

Dates
Most discrete autocallables do not have a closed-form solution. Instead, the PDE is solved
and the products are valued via numerical methods such as the finite-difference method.16
For discrete autocallable structured products, the boundary conditions of the PDE
are the equations
V (C, t) = Pt for all t ∈ TC ,
V (0, t) = f (0)e−(r+CDS)(T −t) .
¯

The first condition requires that the product’s value never exceeds the autocall payout
on a call date. The second condition guarantees that if the reference asset’s price hits 0
it will remain 0. For tractability, we define it using a general function f (0) = 0. This
boundary condition is necessary as it guarantees that the structured product cannot ever
be called if the reference asset becomes worthless.
The first step in solving the PDE is to simplify the complex notation and transform the
equation into a standard heat equation. Using a ‘dimensionless’ change of variables similar
to Wilmott et al 8 and Hui,17 we transform the variables {S, t, V (S, t)} into {x, τ, u(x, τ )}
as follows
2τ
V (S, t) = Ceαx+βτ u(x, τ ) + f (0) e−(r+CDS)(T −t) ,
¯
S = Cex , t=T− ,
σ2
where the constants are
2(r − q) 1 ¯
2(r + CDS)
k1 = , α = − (k1 − 1), β = −α2 − .
σ2 2 σ2
After the change of variables, the Black-Scholes equation is reduced to a heat equation
∂u ∂ 2u
= , for − ∞ < x < 0, τ > 0, (4)
∂τ ∂x2
the boundary conditions become
2τ
u (0, τ ) = C −1 e−βτ (Pt − f (0)e−(r+CDS) σ2 )
¯ 2τ
u(−∞, τ ) = 0, for T − ∈ TC
σ2
and the initial condition becomes (the change of variables converts the final condition into
an initial condition)

u(x, 0) = C −1 e−αx (f (Cex ) − f (0)) , for − ∞ < x < 0.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1981308

To further simplify notation we denote
h1 (τ ) = C −1 e−βτ (Pt − f (0)e−(r−CDS) σ2 ) and h2 (x) = C −1 e−αx (f (Cex ) − f (0)) ,
¯ 2τ

reducing the boundary conditions and initial condition to

2τ
u(−∞, τ ) = 0, u(0, τ ) = h1 (τ ) for T − ∈ TC , u(x, 0) = h2 (x). (5)
σ2
The finite difference method allows to discretize the domain of the function u(x, τ ),
2
which is a plane (x, τ ) ∈ (−∞, 0] × [0, T 2σ ]. We discretize the plane into an N × M grid,
where the size of each grid block is δx × δτ . Because x has no lower bound, we can assign
x an arbitrarily large minimum value of −N δx. The bounds on τ require that δτ satisfy
T σ2
M δτ = .
2
Generally speaking, the accuracy of the valuation increases as δx and δτ get smaller. δτ
is typically set to correspond to one trading day, such that δt = 2δτ
σ2
= 1/250 of a year.
There are three finite difference methods: the explicit finite difference method, the
implicit finite difference method, and the Crank-Nicolson method. The methods differ in
2
how they approximate the derivatives ∂u τ
and ∂x2u . In this example, we use the explicit
finite difference method, which approximates the derivatives as
∂u um+1 − um
∼ n n
,
τ δτ
umn+1 − 2un + un−1
m m
∂2u
∼ .
x2 (δx)2
Solving Equation (4) with the conditions in Equation (5) is equivalent to solving
um+1 − um um − 2um m
n + un−1
n n
= n+1 , 0 < n < N, 0<m<M
δτ (δx)2
with the conditions
u0n = h2 (−n δx), 0 ≤ n ≤ N,
um
0 = 0, 0 < m < M,
um
N = h1 (m δτ ), for T − 2(m δτ )/σ 2 ∈ TC .
The formula updating mδτ to (m + 1)δτ is therefore
δτ ( m )
um+1
n = um
n + u n+1 − 2u m
n + u m
n−1 , 0 < n < N, 0 < m < M.
(δx)2
The solution is derived iteratively from m = 0 → M , which corresponds to t = T → 0.
For the convergence and stability of the explicit finite difference method, we require that
δτ
≤ 12 . Once all of the uM n , for n = 1, 2, . . . , N are derived, we can approximate
(2
(δx)
2
) ( 2
)
u x, T 2σ for every x. By reversing the change of variables, we can use u x, T 2σ to
finally solve the original function V (S, t) at t = 0.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1981308

An alternative probability approach to valuing discrete autocallables
Another way to estimate the value of a discrete autocallable structured product is by
calculating the probability of the autocall being exercised on each call date, and then use
the probability at each date to value the structured product. Let pi , i = 1, . . . , n be the
probability of the call∑being exercised at time tci . The probability of the call never being
exercised is then 1 − ni=1 pi , where each pi is conditional on the call not being exercised
at any previous call date (tc1 , . . . , tci−1 ). Recall that the conditional distribution of Stci |Stci−1
follows a lognormal distribution
1 2 c
√c
Stci = Stci−1 e(r−q− 2 σ )∆ti +σ∆ ti Wi ,

where ∆tci is the time between call dates ∆tci = tci − tci−1 and Wi , i = 1, . . . , n are i.i.d.
√
standard normal variables. To simplify notation, we use Xi = (r −q − 12 σ 2 )∆tci +σ∆ tci Wi
to represent the continuously compounded return from tci−1 to tci . This means the ending
stock price ST can be written as
∑n 1 2 c
√c
ST = S0 e i=1 (r−q− 2 σ )∆ti +σ∆ ti Wi
∑n
= S0 e i=1 Xi .

Because of the price’s Markov property, the Xi ’s are pairwise independent. Furthermore,
if ∆tci is a constant, the Xi ’s are i.i.d. normal variables. The probability of the call being
exercised at time tci can now be written as
( )
pi = P rob Stcj < C, j = 1, 2, . . . , i − 1, and Stci ≥ C
( j ( ) ( ))
∑ C ∑i
C
= P rob Xk < log , j = 1, 2, . . . , i − 1, and Xk ≥ log
S0 S0
∫k=1 ∫ k=1

= ··· g(x1 , . . . , xn )dx1 dx2 · · · dxn ,

∑
j ( )
C
xk <log S0
,j=1,2,...,i−1,
k=1
∑
i ( )
xk ≥log C
S0
k=1

where g(x1 , . . . , xn ) is the joint probability density function (PDF) of X1 , . . . , Xn . Because

the Xi ’s are independent, the joint PDF can be expressed as the product of each Xi ’s
individual PDF.
We can now estimate the product’s present value as the discounted expected cash

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1981308

flows, where the cash flow probabilities are the pi we just calculated.
∑
n
e−(r+CDS)ti pi Ptci +
¯ c
V (S0 , 0) =
i=1
∫ ∫
−(r+CDS)T
¯
e ··· f (ST )g(x1 , . . . , xn )dx1 · · · dxn
∑
j ( )
C
xk <log S0
,j=1,2,...,n
k=1

∑
n
e−(r+CDS)ti pi Ptci +
¯ c
=
i=1
∫ ∫ ∑n
−(r+CDS)T
¯
e ··· f (S0 e i=1 xi
)g(x1 , . . . , xn )dx1 · · · dxn (6)
∑
j ( )
C
xk <log S0
,j=1,2,...,n
k=1

If the structured product’s payoff at maturity is constant f (ST ) = PT , the equation can
be further reduced to
( )
∑
n ∑
n
e−(r+CDS)ti pi Ptci + e−(r+CDS)T 1 −
¯ c ¯
V (S0 , 0) = pi P T . (7)
i=1 i=1

2.3 Valuing Autocallable Structured Products with Continuous

Call Dates
For a continuous autocallable structured product, the boundary conditions of the PDE
are continuous equations

V (0, t) = f (0)e−(r+CDS)(T −t) .

¯
V (C, t) = Pt ,

We apply the change of variables and simplifications from Section 2.2, yielding the
heat equation
∂u ∂ 2u
= , for − ∞ < x < 0, τ > 0, (8)
∂τ ∂x2
with the boundary conditions

u(−∞, τ ) = 0, u (0, τ ) = h1 (τ ) for τ > 0

and the initial condition

u(x, 0) = h2 (x) for − ∞ < x < 0.

The next step is to convert the two boundary conditions so that they are both
zero boundaries (homogenous boundaries). To do this we introduce the transformation

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1981308

v(x, τ ) = u(x, τ ) − y(x, τ ), where y(x, τ ) = ex h1 (τ ). Using this transformation, the Black-
Scholes equation becomes
∂v ∂2v
= + ex (h1 (τ ) − h′1 (τ )), for − ∞ < x < 0, τ > 0. (9)
∂τ ∂x2
The new, homogenous boundary conditions are

v(−∞, τ ) = 0, v(0, τ ) = 0, for τ > 0

and the new initial condition is

v(x, 0) = h2 (x) − ex h1 (0), for − ∞ < x < 0.

The transformed continuous autocall PDE problem is thus a standard inhomogeneous

PDE problem with homogeneous boundary conditions. By further simplifying notation,
the PDE problem can be solved using methods in Evans.18 Specifically, let h3 (x) = h2 (x)−
ex h1 (0) and h4 (x, τ ) = ex (h1 (τ ) − h′1 (τ )). The PDE problem is then the following general
form
∂v ∂2v
= + h4 (x, τ ), for − ∞ < x < 0, τ > 0,
∂τ ∂x2
v(−∞, τ ) = 0, v(0, τ ) = 0, and v(x, 0) = h3 (x).

The solution to this PDE is

∫ 0 ( )
1 −(x−s)2 /4τ −(x+s)2 /4τ
v(x, τ ) = √ h3 (s) e −e ds +
2 πτ −∞
∫ τ∫ 0
h (s, r) ( −(x−s)2 /4(τ −r) )
− e−(x+s) /4(τ −r) dsdr.
2
√4 e (10)
0 −∞ 2 π(τ − r)

Once v(x, τ ) is solved, we can now solve our transformation u(x, τ ) = v(x, τ ) + ex h1 (x).
Once this function is solved we can fold back and find the value of V (S, t).

3 Example of an Autocallable Structured Product

As an example of our valuation methodology we describe a simple autocallable structured
product. (This example is similar in its features to one of the more popular brands,
the “Autocallable Optimization Securities with Contingent Protection”. More than $1.4
billion in face value of these products were issued in 2009. See the Appendix for more
details of the different brands of autocallable structured products and their main features.)
If the reference asset has a cumulative positive return on any autocall date, the structured
product is called and investors will receive a positive, pre-specified yield. If the product
is not called, at maturity the payoff will be:
{
I = S0 , S > L;
V (S, T ) = f (S) = (11)
S, otherwise,

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1981308

where I is the structured product’s face value, S0 is the reference asset’s initial value, S
is the reference asset’s final value, and L is the threshold price.
If the structured product is not called, investors will receive a 0% or a negative.
Figure 3 illustrates the autocallable structured product’s payoff at maturity if it is not
called.

Figure 3: Maturity Payoff if the Autocallable Structured Product is Not Called.

To demonstrate the application of our models, we value three stylized types of auto-
callable structured products. The first example, our benchmark case, does not have an
autocall feature, but has a constant coupon payment. The payoff structure resembles a
plain vanilla reverse convertible structured product. The second type has an autocall fea-
ture with monthly call dates, and the third type has an autocall feature with continuous
call dates.
For all three examples we assume that the reference asset’s initial stock price S0 and
the face value of the note I are both $100, the call price is $102, the risk-free rate r is
5%, the volatility σ of the reference asset is 20%, the dividend yield q of the reference
asset is 1%, the issuer’s CDS spread CDS ¯ is 1%, the contract length T is one year, and
the threshold L is $80. If the reference asset’s price is over the call price on an call date
(i.e., St ≥ C = 102), the product will be called and will pay a 9.2% annualized return
(i.e., Pt = HeBt = 100e0.092t ). (This case is our benchmark case, hence we use a 9.2%
coupon rate that makes this example first type non-autocallable note a par value note,
i.e., principal = $100.) Many autocallable products have a call price identical to the price
of the stock (C = S0 ), however, our assumption C > S0 is without loss of generality. (In
a continuous case, if the call price were identical to the stock price the product would
likely be immediately called at issuance, defeating the point of such a call provision.)

Case 1: Benchmark - Not Autocallable

In this case, the valuation of autocallable structured product is relatively straightfor-

10

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1981308

ward. Because the reference asset’s final price follows a lognormal distribution
1 2 )T +σ
√
ST = S0 e(r−q− 2 σ TW
,

the value of the structured product is the discounted expected cash flow
(∫ ∞ )
−(r+CDS)T
¯
V (S0 , 0) = e f (ST )g(ST )dST + S0 T B .
0

where g() is the PDF of ST . We set the product’s issue date value to be $100.00 per
$100.00 face value by our choice of parameters. As many have shown (see for example
Henderson and Pearson5 ) reverse convertible structured products tend to be overpriced,
that is, that they are issued on average at a price that exceeds the present value of
their expected future cash-flows. We use this as a benchmark example and hence set it
artificially to be priced at face value.

Case 2: Autocallable at Discrete Call Dates

Generally, autocallable structured products have discrete autocall dates. We assume
that the product in this example is callable monthly.
We first implement the explicit finite difference method to calculate the product value.
2
We set the range of x to be [-5, 0] and the range of τ to be [0, T 2σ ]. The resulting n × m
grid has 1000 × 500 = 500, 000 blocks. Following Equation (6), the value of the product
is $98.39 per $100.00 face value. We also calculate the monthly probabilities of the call
being exercised pi , and show the results in Table 1.

Table 1: The Probability of the Product Being Called on each Monthly Call Date, Con-
ditional on Not Being Called at an Earlier Date.

Month i 1 2 3 4 5 6
pi 0.3767 0.1435 0.0781 0.0506 0.0361 0.0275
Month i 7 8 9 10 11 12
pi 0.0218 0.0178 0.0149 0.0127 0.0110 0.0096

Case 3: Continuously Autocallable

If the call dates are continuous, we can follow the steps in Section 2.3 to get the closed-
form solution.
After the first phase of change of variables, we get a homogeneous heat equation

∂u ∂ 2u
= , for − ∞ < x < 0, τ > 0,
∂τ ∂x2
u(−∞, τ ) = 0, u (0, τ ) = C −1 e−βτ Pt , u(x, 0) = C −1 e−αx f (Cex ),

11

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1981308

Using our notation, h1 (τ ) = C −1 e−βτ Pt and h2 (x) = C −1 e−αx f (Cex ). Applying the
second phase of change of variables to make the boundary conditions equal zero. Let
y(x, τ ) = ex h1 (τ ) = C −1 ex−βτ Pt and a new function v(x, τ ) = u(x, τ ) + y(x, τ ), then the
PDE changes to an inhomogeneous equation

∂v ∂ 2v 2B
= 2
+ C −1 ex−βτ Pt (1 + β + 2 ), for − ∞ < x < 0, τ > 0,
∂τ ∂x σ
H x+BT
v(−∞, τ ) = 0, v (0, τ ) = 0, v(x, 0) = C −1 e−αx f (Cex ) − e .
C
Here h3 (x) = C −1 e−αx f (Cex ) − H
C
ex+BT and h4 (x, τ ) = C −1 ex−βτ Pt (1 + β + 2B
σ2
). Applying
Equation (10), the solution is
[ ( ) ( )]
S0 α2 τ −αx −x + 2ατ x
v(x, τ ) = e N √ − N D1 − √ −
C 2τ 2τ
[ ( ) ( )]
S0 α2 τ +αx x + 2ατ x
e N √ − N D1 + √ +
C 2τ 2τ
( ) ( )
x D2 −(1−α)x x
e D2 +(1−α)x
N D3 − √ −e N D3 + √ −
2τ 2τ
( ) ( )
H BT +x+τ −x − 2τ H BT −x+τ x − 2τ
e N √ + e N √ +
C 2τ C 2τ
∫ τ ( ) ( )
H 2B x H D4 −x x
(1 + β + 2 ) e D4 +x
N D5 − √ − e N D5 + √ dr,
C σ 0 2(τ − r) C 2(τ − r)

where the parameters are

log(L/C) + 2ατ
D1 = √ ,
2τ
D2 = τ (α − 1)2 ,
log(L/C) + 2τ (α − 1)
D3 = √ ,
2τ
2B
D4 = BT − (β + 2 + τ − r),
√ σ
D5 = − 2(τ − r).

The value of the of the product is V (S, t) valued at (S0 , 0), where the form is

V (S, t) = Ceαx+βτ (v(x, τ ) + y(x, τ )).

The value V (S, 0) is $99.54.

Comparing the three cases

We can now compare the values in the three different cases: $100.00, $98.39, and $99.54

12

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1981308

respectively. Investments with the autocall feature are worth less than their non-callable
benchmark. The reason for it is fairly intuitive. A non-callable investment essentially
guarantees a coupon payment until maturity. With an autocall feature, the coupon may
be paid for a shorter period or may not be paid at all. Since both investments share the
same downside risk, adding the call feature (without adjusting the price or the coupon)
lowers the value of the investment.
In this example, the continuously autocallable structured product is more valuable
than the discrete autocallable structured product. Although this is not necessarily always
true. Once the coupon payment of a plain vanilla reverse convertible is replaced with an
autocallable feature, the investment has a higher value if it is called and the longer it
takes to get called. A discrete autocallable feature is less likely to be called, but holding
all else equal, may be called later if it is called. Hence, it is more likely for a continuous
feature to be more valuable than a discrete one but this does not have to be always the
case.

Real-life example
We calculate the product value of a real “Autocallable Optimization Securities with
Contingent Protection” note issued by UBS. (The CUSIP for the product is 90267C136.
See the product’s pricing supplement at http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1114446/0001393401
424b2.htm) The note is linked to the stock of Bank of America. It was issued on March
26, 2010 and had a maturity of one year. The reference asset’s price on the issue date
was S0 = $17.90. The dividend yield q and implied volatility of the underlying stock σ
were 0.2235% and 35.21% respectively. UBS’s one year CDS spread was 0.4531%. On
the issue date, the one year continuously compounded risk-free rate was 0.4951%. The
call price C equaled the initial price S0 . If the note were called, investor would receive a
return of 16.1%, and if it were not called, the contingent protection level was L = 0.7S0 .
Applying our methods, we get a product value of $97.73 per $100.00 invested.

4 Conclusion
An autocallable structured product is called by the issuers if the reference asset’s price
exceeds the call price on a call date. The feature has been embedded in many different
types of structured products, including Absolute Return Barrier Notes and Optimization
Securities with Contingent Protection.
We provide a general partial differential equation framework to model autocallable
structured products. We solve the PDE for autocallable structured products with discrete
call dates, for which there is typically not a closed-form solution, by using the finite
difference method. For continuous autocallables, we derive the closed-form solution. We
illustrate our modeling approaches with an example. We then quantify the incremental
cost of adding an autocall feature to a plain-vanilla reverse-convertible. We also show
the difference between the value of an autocall feature with continuous call dates and one
with discrete call dates.

13

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1981308

References
[1] Fries, C. and Joshi, M. (2008) Conditional analytic Monte-Carlo pric-
ing scheme of auto-callable products. Working paper. Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1125725.
[2] Georgieva, A. (2005) The use of structured products: applications, benefits and
limitations for the institutional investor. Working paper.

[3] Baule, R., Entrop, O., and Wilkens, M. (2008) Credit risk and bank margins in struc-
tured financial products: Evidence from the German secondary market for discount
certificates. Journal of Futures Markets, 28(4): 376–397.

[4] Bergstresser, D. B. (2008) The retail market for structured notes: Issurance patterns
and performance, 1995 - 2008. Working Paper.

[5] Henderson, B. and Pearson, N. (2010) The dark side of financial innovation: A case
study of the pricing of a retail financial product. The Journal of Financial Economics,
100(2): 227–247.

[6] Deng, G., Mallett, J., and McCann, C. (2010) On the valuations of structured prod-
ucts. SLCG working paper.

[7] Black, F. and Schole, M. (1973) The pricing of options and corporate libiblities.
Journal of Political Economy, 81(3): 637–654.

[8] Wilmott, P., Dewynne, J., and Howison, S. (1994) Option Pricing: Mathematical
Models and Computation. Oxford Financial Press.

[9] Kunitomo, N. and Ikeda, M. (1992) Pricing options with curved boundaries. Mathe-
matical Finance, 2(4): 275–298.

[10] Li, A. (1999) The pricing of double barrier options and their variations. Advances in
Futures and Options Research, 10: 17–41.

[11] Hernández, R., Lee, W. Y., and Liu, P. (2007) An economic analysis of reverse
exchangeable securities: An option-pricing approach. Working Paper, University of
Arkansas.

[12] Arzac, E. R. (1997) PERCS, DECS, and other mandatory convertibles. Journal of
Applied Corporate Finance, 10(1): 54–63.
[13] Chemmanur, T. J., Nandy, D., and Yan, A. (2006) Why issue mandatory convert-
ibles? Theory and empirical evidence. Working paper.

[14] Chemmanur, T. J. and Simonyan, K. (2010) What drives the issuance of putable con-
vertibles: Risk-shifting, asymmetric information, or taxes? Financial Management,
39(3): 1027–1068.

14

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1981308

[15] Hull, J. (2011) Options, Futures and Other Derivatives. Prentice-Hall, eighth edn.

[16] Zvan, R., Vetzal, K. R., and Frosyth, P. A. (2000) PDE methods for pricing barrier
options. Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control , 24(11): 1563–1590.

[17] Hui, C. H. (1996) One-touch double barrier binary option values. Applied Financial
Economics, 6: 343–346.

[18] Evans, L. C. (2010) Partial Differential Equations: Second Edition. AMS.

[19] Deng, G., Guedj, I., Mallett, J., and McCann, C. (2011) The anatomy of absolute
return barrier note. SLCG working paper.

15

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1981308

A Appendix - Descriptions of Select Existing Auto-
callable Structured Products
A.1 Autocallable Optimization Securities with Contingent Pro-
tection
Autocallable Optimization Securities with Contingent Protection, have been issued by
several investment banks, including Royal Bank of Canada, UBS, JPMorgan, and HSBC.

Payout if the Product is Called

Autocallable Optimization Securities with Contingent Protection generally have monthly
or quarterly call dates, with the final call date being at the product’s maturity. In gen-
eral, the product is called if the reference asset has a positive cumulative return on the
call date. When the product is called, investors receive the product’s face value plus a
pre-specified annual yield.

Payout if the Product is not Called

The payout if not called varies by issuance between yielding a 0% return, or a negative
return tied to the stock return of the reference asset.
Most products compare the reference asset’s final price to a threshold. If the final
price is at or above the threshold, investors receive the product’s face value at maturity.
If the final price is below the threshold, investors receive the same negative percentage
return as the reference asset.
Some products compare the reference asset’s lowest price during the product’s life to a
threshold. If the lowest price is at or above the threshold, investors receive the product’s
face value at maturity. If the lowest price is below the threshold, investors receive the
same negative percentage return as the reference asset.

A.2 Autocallable Absolute Return Barrier Notes (Autocallable

ARBNs)
Autocallable ARBNs, are continuously callable structured products, issued by Lehman
Brothers and UBS. A non-autocallable ARBN is analyzed in depth in Deng et al.19

Payout if the Product is Called

An autocallable ARBN generally has continuous call dates. The product is called
whenever the reference asset’s price crosses either an upper or a lower barrier, advancing
the return of the structured product’s face value.

Payout if the Product is not Called

The note is not called if the reference asset’s price stays within the barriers. At matu-

16

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1981308

rity, the note pays investors the absolute return of the reference asset, which is a return
bounded by the size of the barriers.

A.3 (Semi-) Annual Review Notes with Contingent Principal

Protection
Semi-Annual and Annual Review Notes with Contingent Principal Protection, have been
issued by several investment banks, including JPMorgan, Credit Suisse, and HSBC.

Payout if the Product is Called

Review Notes with Contingent Principal Protection have discrete call dates. The fre-
quency of the call dates varies, with Annual Review Notes having annual call dates and
Semi-Annual Review Notes having semi-annual call dates. In both cases, the final call
date is generally at the product’s maturity.
In general, the product is called if the reference asset has a positive cumulative return
on a call date. However, some products exercise the autocall if the reference asset’s
cumulative return is positive or not too negative (e.g., -10%). Regardless of the autocall
trigger, exercising the autocall entitles investors to receive the product’s face value plus
a pre-specified annual yield.

Payout if the Product is not Called

If the product is not called, the payoff at maturity is guaranteed to be no more than the
face value of the product. All of the Review Notes we examined have one of three kinds of
loss buffers, which we refer to as standard buffers, contingent buffers, and fading buffers.
Regardless of the buffer style, investors receive the product’s face value at maturity as
long as the reference asset’s cumulative return is above the buffer (e.g., -20%). If the
reference asset’s return is below the buffer, investors will lose money.
Review Notes with standard buffers expose investors to any loss in the reference asset
beyond the buffer. Thus, a -20% standard buffer will offset a -23% return on the reference
asset so the investor only loses 3%.
Review Notes with contingent buffers expose investors to all of the reference asset’s
losses if the loss is greater than the buffer. For example, if the product has a -20% buffer
and the reference asset has a -23% return, investors will receive a -23% return. However,
those same investors would receive a 0% return if the reference asset had a -19% return.
Review Notes with fading buffers provide a standard buffer that diminishes as the
reference asset’s return gets worse. Figure 4 graphs the relationship between the protection
offered by a fading buffer and the reference asset’s return. The graph shows that the
investor begins with a -20% buffer, but the buffer becomes smaller as the reference asset’s
return becomes more negative. In the extreme, a 0% buffer corresponding to a reference
asset return of -100%. Thus, an reference asset return of -23% would equate to a -23.75%
loss for the investor.

17

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1981308

 Figure 4: Standard Buffers, Contingent Buffers, and Fading Buffer

A.4 Autocallable Reverse Convertible Notes

Autocallable Reverse Convertible Notes (issued by Eksportfinans and HSBC) and Auto-
callable Reverse Exchangeable Notes (issued by JPMorgan) both make coupon payments.

Payout if the Product is Called

Autocallable Reverse Convertible Notes generally have a single, discrete call date early
in the life of the product. If the product’s reference asset has a positive cumulative return
on the call date, the product is called and investors receive any accrued coupon payments
and the face value of the note.
Autocallable Reverse Exchangeable Notes are similar, but tend to have multiple dis-
crete call dates or continuous call dates after an initial non-callable period.

Payout if the Product is not Called

If the product is not called, the payout at maturity is similar to a non-autocallable
Reverse Exchangeable Note or a Reverse Convertible Note. If the reference asset’s price
ever crosses a barrier set below its initial price, investors receive the coupon payments
plus the product’s face value reduced by the lesser of a 0% return or the reference asset’s
percentage return at maturity. If the reference asset’s price never crosses the barrier,
investors receive the coupon payments plus the face value of the product.
Some products compare the reference asset’s final value, rather than its lowest value,
to the barrier return. If the reference asset’s final value is below the barrier, the investor

18

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1981308

is exposed to the reference asset’s losses. Otherwise, the product returns its face value.
Either way, investors receive the coupons.

A.5 Strategic Accelerated Redemption Securities

Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, and Eksportfinans have all issued Strategic Accelerated
Redemption Securities.

Payout if the Product is Called

These autocallable structured products have discrete call dates, with the final call
date being at the product’s maturity. The product is called if the reference asset has
a non-negative return on the call date. When the product is called, investors receive a
pre-specified yield on their investment.

Payout if the Product is not Called

If the product is not called, the payout at maturity is similar to a Reverse Exchangeable
Note, except that Strategic Accelerated Redemption Securities do not pay coupons. If the
reference asset’s ending value is not below a threshold, investors receive the face value of
the product. If the ending value of the reference asset is below the threshold, investors lose
a multiple of the reference asset’s negative return. Although the multiple can theoretically
be less than 1 or greater than 1, all of the products we saw had a multiple of 1.
Some products do not have a threshold. Instead, investors are guaranteed to lose a
multiple of the reference asset’s negative return if the product is not called.

A.6 Bear Market Strategic Accelerated Redemption Securities

Bank of America and the Norwegian credit institution Eksportfinans have also issued Bear
Market Strategic Accelerated Redemption Securities. These structured products are the
same as regular Strategic Accelerated Redemption Securities, except that investors lose
money if the reference asset’s return is too high and earn a pre-specified yield if the
reference asset loses value.

A.7 Premium Mandatory Callable Equity-Linked Securities (PAC-

ERS)
PACERS, issued by Citigroup, pay coupons and have a set of discrete call periods. Each
period is a set of two or three continuous call dates. If the reference asset’s value on any
call date is equal to or greater than its initial value, the product is called and investors
receive a pre-specified yield in addition to the accrued coupons.
If the product is not called, the payout is similar to that of an Autocallable Re-
verse Convertible Note. Specifically, investors receive the same percentage return as the

19

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1981308

reference asset if the reference asset’s ending value is below a threshold (e.g., -25%). Oth-
erwise, investors receive the face value of the note. Regardless of the reference asset’s
value, investors receive the coupons if the product is not called.
Also similar to Autocallable Reverse Convertible Notes, some PACERS compare the
reference asset’s lowest value, rather than the final value, to the threshold to determine
whether investors receive the face value of the PACERS or the same return as the reference
asset.

20

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1981308