A Practical Implementation of the
Heath–Jarrow–Morton Framework
Proyecto fin de carrera
Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería (ICAI)
Universidad Pontificia Comillas
Madrid
Autor: Juan Monge Liaño
Directores: François Friggit, Maria Teresa Martínez
Colaboradores: Luis Martí, Anh Tuan NGO
Madrid, junio de 2007
6
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
7
A Practical Implementation of the
Heath–Jarrow–Morton Framework
1. IntroductionEquation Chapter (Next) Section 1 5
1.1 Exotic Options 6
1.2 History 7
1.3 Models 8
1.4 HJM 9
1.5 Document Structure. 10
1.6 Special Acknowledgements 14
1.7 Project Aims 14
2. Stochastic Calculus 16
2.1 Introduction 16
2.2 Markov Process 17
2.3 Martingale 18
2.4 Brownian Motion 21
2.5 Stochastic Differential Equation 22
2.6 Risk Neutral Probability 23
2.7 Solving Stochastic Differential Equations 24
2.8 Ito’s Lemma 24
2.9 Stochastic Integral 27
2.10 Girsanov’s Theorem 27
2.11 Martingale Representation Theorem 30
2.12 Major Stochastic Differential Equations 32
3. Historical ModelsEquation Chapter (Next) Section 1 36
3.1 The Black Scholes Model 36
3.2 Beyond Black 42
8
3.3 Lognormal Classic Black 45
3.4 Normal Black 46
3.5 Black Shifted 47
3.6 Local Volatility  Dupire’s Model 48
3.7 Stochastic Volatility 59
3.8 SABR 60
4. Interest Rate Models Equation Chapter (Next) Section 1 62
4.1 Rendleman and Bartter model 63
4.2 HoLee model 63
4.3 Black Derman Toy model 64
4.4 Vasicek Model 64
4.5 Cox Ingersoll and Ross model 64
4.6 Black Karasinski model 65
4.7 Hull White Model 65
4.8 Conclusions 67
5. Interest Rate ProductsEquation Chapter (Next) Section 1 68
5.1 Discount Factors 68
5.2 Zerocoupon bond 70
5.3 Interest Rate Compounding 70
5.4 Present Value PV 71
5.5 Internal Rate of Return IRR 72
5.6 Bond Yield (to Maturity) YTM 72
5.7 Coupon Rate 73
5.8 Interest Rates 75
5.9 Forward Rates 78
5.10 Instantaneous forward rate 79
6. More Complex Derivative ProductsEquation Chapter (Next) Section 1 81
6.1 Calls and Puts 81
6.2 Forward 86
6.3 Future 87
6.4 FRA 89
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
9
6.5 FRA Forward 90
6.6 Caplet 92
6.7 Cap 94
6.8 Swap 97
6.9 Swaption 100
7. HJMEquation Chapter (Next) Section 1 104
7.1 Introduction 104
7.2 Model Origins 105
7.3 The HJM Development 106
7.4 The rt in the HJM Approach 109
8. Santander HJMEquation Chapter (Next) Section 1 112
8.1 How to choose the γ? 113
8.2 One Factor 114
8.3 Model Implementation 117
8.4 Controlled correlation 126
8.5 Tangible Parameter Explanation 128
9. Numerical MethodsEquation Chapter (Next) Section 1 134
9.1 Discretisation 135
9.2 MonteCarlo 136
9.3 Tree Diagrams 140
9.4 PDE Solvers 145
10. CalibrationEquation Chapter (Next) Section 1 149
10.1 Algorithm 150
10.2 Calibration in Detail 153
10.3 Best Fit or not Best Fit? 157
10.4 Newton Raphson 164
10.5 Iteration Algorithm 169
11. Graphical UnderstandingEquation Chapter (Next) Section 1 170
11.1 Dynamics of the curve 174
10
11.2 HJM Problematics 175
11.3 Attempted Solutions 179
11.4 3D Surface Algorithm 181
12. HJM 3 StrikesEquation Chapter (Next) Section 1 183
12.1 Exponential 183
12.2 Mean Reversion 185
12.3 Square Root Volatility 187
12.4 Pilipovic 188
12.5 Logarithmic 189
12.6 Taylor expansion 190
12.7 Graphical Note 191
12.8 Results 191
13. Analytic approximation Equation Chapter (Next) Section 1 195
13.1 Formula Development 196
13.2 Step 1 198
13.3 Second Method 203
13.4 Step 2 205
13.5 Swaption Valuation 206
13.6 Approximation Conclusion 207
13.7 Alternative point of Calculation 208
13.8 Two Factors 209
13.9 Use of ‘No Split’ 217
14. Analytic Approximation ResultsEquation Chapter (Next) Section 1 219
14.1 1 Factor Model 219
14.2 Analytic Approximation Jacobian 227
14.3 2 Factor Analytic Approximation 230
14.4 Final Considerations on the Analytic approximation 232
14.5 Conclusions and Further Developments 233
14.6 Analytic approximation Peculiarities 233
15. Calibration Set Interpolation MatrixEquation Chapter (Next) Section 1 240
15.1 Initial Data 240
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
11
15.2 Former approach analysis 240
15.3 2 Strikes 241
15.4 Graphical representation 244
16. Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes 249
16.1 Introduction. Equation Chapter (Next) Section 1 249
16.2 Stripping Caplet Volatility Methods 251
16.3 Previous Santander Approach for 6 month caplets 252
16.4 Linear Cap Interpolation 254
16.5 Quadratic Cap Interpolation 257
16.6 Cubic Spline Interpolation 257
16.7 Natural splines 261
16.8 Parabolic Run out Spline 262
16.9 Cubic Run out Spline 263
16.10 Constrained Cubic Splines 263
16.11 Functional Interpolation 265
16.12 Constant Caplet Volatilities. 266
16.13 Piecewise Linear Caplet Volatility Method 267
16.14 Piecewise Quadratic 269
16.15 The Algorithm 271
16.16 About the problem of extracting 6M Caplets from Market data. 272
17. SABREquation Chapter (Next) Section 1 277
17.1 Detailed SABR 279
17.2 Dynamics of the SABR: understanding the parameters 281
18. Result AnalysisEquation Chapter (Next) Section 1 288
18.2 SABR Results 292
18.3 3D Analysis 296
18.4 Algorithm 307
18.5 Future Developments 309
19. Summary and ConclusionsEquation Chapter (Next) Section 1 314
12
20. References 320
Figure index
Fig. 2.1. Stochastic Volatility Dynamics 17
Fig. 2.2. Linear Stochastic Differential Equation dynamics 33
Fig. 2.3. Geometric Stochastic Differential Equation dynamics 33
Fig. 2.4. Square Root Stochastic Differential Equation dynamics 34
Fig. 3.1. Only the present call value is relevant to compute its future price. Any
intermediate timeperiods are irrelevant 42
Fig. 3.2. Term Structure of Vanilla Options 43
Fig. 3.3. Flat lognormal Black Volatilities 45
Fig. 3.4. Normal and lognormal Black Scholes model comparison a) price vs strike b)
black volatility vs strike 46
Fig. 3.5. Alpha skew modelling 47
Fig. 3.6. Market data smile 48
Fig. 3.7. Smiles at different maturities 53
Fig. 3.8. Implied volatility σB(K,f) if forward price decreases from f0 to f (solid line) 55
Fig. 3.9. Implied volatility σB(K,f) if forward price increases from f0 to f (solid line). 55
Fig. 3.10. Future asset volatility scenarios for different an asset 56
Fig. 3.11. Future volatility scenarios for different strikes of a same underlying asset 56
Fig. 5.1. Future value of money 69
Fig. 5.2. Discount factor 69
Fig. 5.3. Bond curve dynamics 73
Fig. 5.4. Bond curve for different maturities 74
Fig. 5.5. Relating discount rates 76
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
13
Fig. 6.1. Investor’s profit from buying a European call option: Option price= 5$; Strike
K= 60$ 82
Fig. 6.2.Vendor’s profit from selling a European call option: Option price= 5$; Strike =
60$ 83
Fig. 6.3. Investor’s profit from buying a European put option: Option price= 7$; Strike
= 90$ 84
Fig. 6.4. Profit from writing a European put option: Option price= 7$; Strike = 90$ 85
Fig. 6.5. Forward contract: future expected value versus real future value 86
Fig. 6.6. Future contract: future expected value versus real future value 88
Fig. 6.7. FRA payoffs 90
Fig. 6.8. FRA future’s payoffs 90
Fig. 6.9. Caplet payoffs 93
Fig. 6.10. Cap payoffs 95
Fig. 6.11. Swap payoffs 98
Fig. 8.1. Example of lack of correlation between variables belonging to a unique
Brownian motion 120
Fig. 8.2. HJM dynamics for a lognormal model: flat 122
Fig. 8.3. HJM dynamics for a normal model: skew 122
Fig. 8.4. HJM dynamics for alpha parameters greater than 1 124
Fig. 8.5. for a correlation=1 amongst interest rates. 127
Fig. 8.6. Allowing for decorrelation among different interest rates 127
Fig. 8.7. Typical vanilla dynamics for different maturities 129
Fig. 8.8. Smile to skew deformation with maturity 130
Fig. 8.9. Sigma parameter global volatility level 131
Fig. 8.10. Alpha parameter skew 132
14
Fig. 8.11. Stochastic Volatility: smile creation 133
Fig. 9.1. Call future scenarios generation 136
Fig. 9.2. Normally distributed variable generation from random numbers in the (0,1)
interval 137
Fig. 9.3. Binomial tree 141
Fig. 9.4. Trinomial tree 141
Fig. 9.5. Non recombining binomial tree 142
Fig. 9.6. Binomial tree probabilities 143
Fig. 9.7. Recombining binomial tree 144
Fig. 9.8. Recombining trinomial tree 144
Fig. 9.9. PDE mesh and boundary conditions 147
Fig. 9.10. First PDE algorithm steps 148
Fig. 10.1. Calibration Process: Vanilla Products 150
Fig. 10.2. Calibration Process: Exotic Pricing 152
Fig. 10.3. Analogy cancellable swap and inverse swap 152
Fig. 10.4. Decomposition of an exotic into time periods 154
Fig. 10.5. Decomposition of an exotic into vanillas fixing at T and with different
maturities 155
Fig. 10.6. Schematic calibration matrix representation 156
Fig. 10.7. Initial Variation before first Fixing 156
Fig. 10.8. First Row Interpolated Data 157
Fig. 10.9. Inexact fit: minimum square method 158
Fig. 10.10. Exact fit 162
Fig. 10.11. Anomaly in exact fit 163
Fig. 10.12. Anomaly in minimum square method 163
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
15
Fig. 10.13. Newton Raphson Iterations 164
Fig. 10.14. Newton Raphson Iterations with a constant Jacobian 166
Fig. 10.15. Calibration Jacobian 167
Fig. 10.16. Jacobian calculation Iterations 168
Fig. 10.17. Detailed Calibration Algorithm: Jacobian computation 169
Fig. 11.1. HJM model: sigma vs price dynamics with different alpha parameters 171
Fig. 11.2. HJM model: alpha vs price dynamics with different sigma parameters 172
Fig. 11.3. HJM MonteCarlo model price surface 172
Fig.11.4. HJM MonteCarlo two dimensional solution 173
Fig. 11.5. HJM MonteCarlo two dimensional solution intersection for two vanilla
products 173
Fig. 11.6. Model implications on taking a) very close strikes b)distant strikes 174
Fig. 11.7. Solution dynamics with a) variation in market price b) variations in strike 175
Fig. 11.8. Convergence of the algorithm 176
Fig. 11.9. Solution Duplicity 177
Fig. 11.10. No HJM MonteCarlo solution intersection 178
Fig. 11.11. HJM MonteCarlo surface does not descend sufficiently so as to create a
solution curve 179
Fig. 11.12. Graphic surface generation algorithm 182
Fig. 14.1. Analytic approximation at high strikes 220
Fig. 14.2. Analytic approximation at distant strikes 221
Fig. 14.3. Analytic approximation acting as a tangent ‘at the money’ 222
Fig. 14.4. Analytic approximation presents difficulties in adjusting to the curve at
distant strikes 223
Fig. 14.5. Analytic approximation corrected in sigma at high strikes 225
16
Fig. 14.6. Analytic approximation corrected in sigma for low strikes 225
Fig. 14.7. Analytic approximation with a varying sigma correction 226
Fig. 14.8. HJM MonteCarlo slopes and solution curve 228
Fig. 14.9. Analytic approximation slopes and solution curve 229
Fig. 14.10. Closeup on HJM MonteCarlo’s slopes and solution curve 229
Fig. 14.11. Closeup on analytic approximation’s slopes and solution curve 230
Fig. 14.12. HJM MonteCarlo versus analytic approximation solving solution
duplicities 234
Fig. 14.13. HJM MonteCarlo presents no solution curve intersection 235
Fig. 14.14. Analytic approximation solving a case with no HJM MonteCarlo solution
intersection 235
Fig. 14.15. HJM MonteCarlo first vanilla presenting a solution curve 236
Fig. 14.16. HJM MonteCarlo second vanilla does not descend sufficiently 237
Fig. 14.17. Analytic approximation presents a solution for the first vanilla 238
Fig. 14.18. Analytic approximation also presents a solution for the second troublesome
vanilla 238
Fig. 14.19. HJM MonteCarlo versus analytic approximation for a two dimensional
view of the previous cases 239
Fig. 15.1. Strike Interpolation 241
Fig. 15.2. Strike Interpolation 242
Fig. 15.3. Vertical extrapolation no longer flat 244
Fig. 15.4. Surface Deformation in Horizontal Extrapolation 245
Fig. 15.5. Swaption Vertical Extrapolation stays the same 245
Fig. 15.6. New Circular Solution Intersection 246
Fig. 16.1. Market Cap Quotes 249
Fig. 16.2. Cap decomposition into other caps and capforwards 252
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
17
Fig. 16.3. Capforward decomposition into two unknown caplets 253
Fig. 16.4. Each cap is made up of a number of caplets of unknown volatility 254
Fig. 16.5. 2 Cap Interpolation 254
Fig. 16.6. Forward caps related to the caplets 267
Fig. 16.7. Optimisation algorithm for interpolation in maturities 271
Fig. 16.8. Cap market quotes: flat cap difference under 2 year barrier 272
Fig. 16.9. Creation of the 6 month caplets from 3 month Cap market quotes: flat cap
difference under 2 year barrier 273
Fig. 16.10. Decomposition of a six menthe caplet into two 3 month caplets 273
Fig. 17.1. Caplet current market behaviour 278
Fig. 17.2. beta = 0 skew imposition, rho smile imposition 281
Fig. 17.3. beta flat imposition =1, rho smile imposition 282
Fig. 17.4. Undistinguishable smile difference on calibrating with different beta
parameters β = 0 and β =1 284
Fig. 17.5. Constructing the caplet ‘at the money’ volatilities 286
Fig. 18.1. Cap flat market quotes versus interpolated flat market quotes 288
Fig. 18.2. Caplet interpolated volatilities using linear and quadratic approaches 289
Fig. 18.3. Cap interpolated volatilities using linear and cubic spline approaches 290
Fig. 18.4. Cap interpolation between natural and constrained cubic splines 290
Fig. 18.5. Caplet interpolated volatilities using linear and linear cap approaches 291
Fig. 18.6. Caplet interpolated volatilities using linear approaches 292
Fig. 18.7. Caplet interpolated volatilities using cubic spline, and an optimisation
algorithm using quadratic approaches 292
Fig. 18.8.  SABR shot maturity caplet smile 293
Fig. 18.9.  SABR long maturity caplet smile 293
18
Fig. 18.10.  SABR very short 6 month maturity  sharp smile 294
Fig. 18.11. SABR short maturity caplet smile inexact correction: very irregular smile294
Fig. 18.12. Difference in general smile and ‘at the money’ level 295
Fig. 18.13. Smile correction towards ‘at the money level’ 296
Fig. 18.14. Initial linear interpolated caplet volatility surface 297
Fig. 18.15. Cubic Spline caplet volatility surface 297
Fig. 18.16. SABR smooth interpolated smile surface with cubic spline 297
Fig. 18.17. Irregular Smile for both linear interpolation and cubic spline, whereas
SABR presents a much smoother outline 298
Fig. 18.18. Smile bump ‘at the money level’ in linear cap interpolation; maturity of 1,5
years 299
Fig. 18.19. Caplet 3M to 6M smile for a maturity of 1,5 years 300
Fig. 18.20. Comparisons in cubic and 3M to 6M adjustments 301
Fig. 18.21. SABR strike adjustment 302
Fig. 18.22. SABR at the money strike adjustment, β = 1 302
Fig. 18.23. SABR β = 0, normal skew; maturity 1 year 304
Fig. 18.24. SABR comparisons between long and short maturities, varying the β and
the weights 305
Fig. 18.25. Weighted SABR, β = 1, Maturity 8Y 306
Fig. 18.26. Caplet volatility surface construction algorithm 308
Fig. 18.27. Cap market quotes 309
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
19
Table index
Table 4.1 Normal or lognormal models with a mean reversion 66
Table 5.1 Construction of forward rates from bonds 78
Table 6.1 Swap payoff term structure 97
Table 10.1. Exotic product risk decomposition 153
Table 10.2 Ideal Vanilla calibration matrix: all data available 155
Table 10.3 Vanilla calibration matrix: market quoted data 156
Table 12.1. Mean Reversion Stochastic Volatility Summary 192
Table 12.2. Mean Reversion Stochastic Volatility Summary 193
Table 12.3. Square Root Stochastic Volatility Summary – 10 and 20 packs 193
Table 12.4. Logarithmic Stochastic Volatility Summary 193
Table 14.1. Approximation increases calibration speed by a factor of 5 232
Table 14.2. Approximation increases calibration speed by a factor of 8 233
Table 15.1 Horizontal interpolation, vertical extrapolation 242
Table 15.2 Summary table of the differences between vertical, horizontal
extrapolation, split and no split 243
Table 15.3 Results obtained through vertical extrapolation 247
Table 15.4 Results obtained through horizontal extrapolation 248
Table 16.1. Cap market quotes: flat cap difference under 2 year barrier 272
Table 17.1. Shows the different dates and strikes with which to model products with
similar needs to the HJM 277
20
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
5
1. Introduction
During the past two decades, derivatives have become increasingly important in
the world of finance. A derivative can be defined as a financial instrument whose
value depends on (derives from) the values of other, more basic underlying variables.
Very often the variables underlying derivatives are the prices of traded assets.
Some major developments have occurred in the theoretical understanding of how
derivative asset prices are determined, and how these prices change over time. Three
major steps in the theoretical revolution led to the use of advanced mathematical
methods.
• The arbitrage theorem, sometimes called the ‘Fundamental Theorem of Finance’
gives the formal conditions under which ‘arbitrage’ profits can or cannot exist.
This major development permitted the calculation of the arbitragefree price of
any ‘new’ derivative product
• The BlackScholes model (1973) used the method of arbitragefree pricing. The
ideas are the basis of most discussions in mathematical finance. The paper they
published was also influential because of technical steps introduced in obtaining a
closedform formula for option prices
• The equivalent martingale measures dramatically simplified and generalised the
original approach of Black and Scholes.
With the above tools, a general method could be used to price any derivative
product. Hence arbitragefree prices under more realistic conditions could be
obtained.
But how close are the market prices of options really to those predicted by Black
Scholes? Do traders genuinely use Black Scholes when determining a price for an
option? Are the probability distributions of asset prices really lognormal? What
further developments have been carried out since 1973?
Chapter 1 Introduction
6
In fact, traders do still use the Black Scholes Model, but not exactly in the way
that Black and Scholes originally intended. This is because they allow the volatility
used for the pricing of an option to depend on its strike price and its time to maturity.
As a result, a plot of the implied volatility as a function of its strike price gives rise to
what is known as a volatility smile. This suggests that traders do not make the same
assumption as Black and Scholes. Instead, they assume that the probability
distribution of a derivative price has a heavier left tail and a less heavy right tail than
the lognormal distribution.
Often, traders also use a volatility term structure. The implied volatility of an
option then depends on its life. When volatility smiles and volatility term structures
are combined, they produce a volatility surface. This defines implied volatility as a
function of both strike price and time to maturity.
1.1 Exotic Options
Derivatives covered at the beginning of the 1980’s were what we note as plain
vanilla products. These have standard, well defined properties and trade actively.
Their prices or implied volatilities are quoted by exchanges or by brokers on a regular
basis. One of the exciting aspects of the over the counter derivatives market is the
number of nonstandard (or exotic) products that have been created by financial
engineers. Although they are usually a relatively small part of its portfolio, these
exotic products are important to a bank because they are generally much more
profitable than plain vanilla products.
These exotic products are options with rules governing the payoffs that are more
complicated than standard options. Types of exotic options can typically include
packages, nonstandard American options, forward start options, chooser options,
barrier options, binary options, lookback options, Asian options,….
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
7
1.2 History
Models using stochastic differential equations for the modelling of stock markets
arise from the search of a function capable of reproducing the historical behaviour of
the prices. This is, a function that presents the same spiky irregular form as market
stock quotes, and thus reflects the randomness of the dynamics. The behaviour itself is
said to be fractal because any rescaling of the temporal axis always yields the same
irregular price form.
The origins of much of financial mathematics traces back to a dissertation
published in 1900 by Louis Bachelier. In it he proposed to model the movement of
stock prices with a diffusion process, or what was later to be called a Weiner, or
Brownian Motion process. However, he assumed that the stock prices were Gaussian
rather than lognormal as in the Black Scholes Model. It was not until five years later,
in Einstein’s seminal paper outlining the theory of Brownian Motion that the concepts
of Brownian motion and differentials were finally formalised.
For most of the century, the mathematical and financial branches of Bachilier’s
work evolved independently of each other. On the mathematical side, influenced by
Bacheliers work, Kiyoshi Ito went on to develop stochastic calculus, which would later
become and essential tool of modern finance.
On the financial side, Bachelier’s work was largely lost for more than half a
century. It wasn’t until 1965 that an American called Paul Samualson resurrected
Bachelier’s work and extended his ideas to include an exponential (or geometric) form
rather than the arithmetic Brownian Motion.
After this it wasn’t long until the links between the two separate branches of
work (both stemming from Bachelier) were reunited when Black, Scholes and Merton
wrote down their famous equation for the price of a European Call and Put option in
1969, work for which the surviving members received the Nobel Prize for economics
in 1997.
Chapter 1 Introduction
8
1.3 Models
Models based on the original BlackScholes assumptions and the numerical
procedures they require are relatively straightforward. However, when tackling exotic
options, there is no simple way of calculating the volatility that should be input from
the volatility smile applicable to plain vanilla options.
Further, a simplistic approach such as that by Black Scholes models assumes that
the individual spot rates move independently to one another in a random fashion.
This is perhaps acceptable abstractly, but is not in accord with the observation that
rates for adjacent maturities tend to move together.
A number of alternative new models have since been introduced to attempt to
solve this problematic. The parameters of these models can be chosen so that they are
approximately consistent with the volatility smile observed in the market.
These models, that have come to be known as the ‘traditional models’ for pricing
interest rate options, such as the Hull White model, the Vasicek Model, the Cox
Ingersoll and Ross model or the Black Karasinski model to name but a few. Their
main difference with respect to previous models is the incorporation of a description
of how interest rates change through time. For this reason, they involve the building
of a term structure, typically based on the short term interest rate r. These models are
very robust and can be used in conjunction with any set of initial zero rates. The main
advantage of these methods lies in the possibility of specifying
t
r as a solution to a
Stochastic Differential Equation (SDE). This allows, through Markov theory, to work
with the associated Partial Differential Equation (PDE) and to subsequently derive a
rather simple formula for bond prices. This makes them widely suited for valuing
instruments such as caps, European bond options and European swap options.
However, they have some limitations. They need a complicated diffusion model to
realistically reconstruct the volatility observed in forward rates. In addition, despite
being able to provide a perfect fit to volatilities observed in the market today, there is
no way of controlling their future volatilities.
Furthermore, they all lead to the same drawback when solving interest rate
products: the fact that they use only one explanatory variable (the short interest rate
t
r ) to construct a model for the entire market. The use of a single
t
r proves
insufficient to realistically model the market curve, which appears to be dependent on
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
9
all the rates and their different time intervals. It constrains the model to move
randomly up and down, with all the rates moving together by the same amount
according to the random motions in the unique short rate r. Consequently, these
models cannot be used for valuing interest rate derivatives such as Americanstyle
swap options, callable bonds, and structures notes, as they introduce arbitrage
possibilities.
1.4 HJM
The most straightforward solution to the above problem should include the use of
more explanatory variables: long and medium term rates. This is, we could perhaps
consider a model in which we would use one representative short term rate, a middle
term rate, and finally a long term interest rate. The Heath Jarrow Morton framework
arises as the most complete application of the suggested approach. It chooses to
include the entire forward rate curve as a theoretically infinite dimensional state
variable. Unlike other models, this model can match the volatility structure observed
today in the market, as well as at all future times.
The LIBOR market model also provides an approach that gives the user complete
freedom in choosing the volatility term structure. We will not cover the study of this
model in the present text, but only state here the advantages that it presents over the
HJM model.
Firstly, it is developed in terms of the forward rates that determine the pricing of
caps rather than in terms of instantaneous forward rates. Secondly, it is relatively easy
to calibrate to the price of caps or European sap options.
Both HJM and LIBOR market models have the serious disadvantage that they
cannot be represented as recombining trees. In practice, this means that they must be
implemented using MonteCarlo Simulations.
Chapter 1 Introduction
10
1.5 Document Structure.
The project is divided into two parts. The first is essentially an introduction to
mathematical engineering methods in finance. The second focuses on a much more
practical implementation of a concrete model, the HJM, and discusses in depth certain
problematics that can surface within this framework.
The text approaches the mathematics behind continuoustime finance informally.
Such an approach may be found imprecise by a technical reader. We simply hope that
the informal treatment provides enough intuition about some of these difficult
concepts to compensate for this shortcoming.
The text is directed towards a reader with minimal background in finance, but
who is willing to embark in the adventure of getting acquainted with this unknown
domain. A strong background in calculus or stochastic processes is not needed, as the
concepts are built from scratch within the text. However, previous knowledge in these
fields will certainly be helpful, and it is necessary that the reader be comfortable with
the use of mathematics as a method of deduction and problem solving. Hence, the text
is designed for individuals who have a technical background roughly equivalent to a
bachelor’s degree in engineering, mathematics or science. The language of financial
markets is largely mathematical, and some aspects of the subject can only be
expressed in mathematical terms. It is hoped that practitioners in financial markets, as
well as beginning graduate students will find the text useful.
Chapter 2 introduces the mathematics of derivative assets assuming that time
passes continuously. Consequent to this assumption, information is also revealed
continuously, and decision makers may face instantaneous changes in random news.
Hence technical tools for pricing derivative products require ways of handling
random variables over infinitesimal time intervals. The mathematics necessary for
dealing with such random variables is known as Stochastic calculus.
Chapter 3 and 4 discuss classical approaches in the modelling of the term
structure of interest rates. Learning the differences between the assumptions, the basic
philosophies, and the practical implementations that one can adopt in each case is an
important step for understanding the valuation of interestsensitive instruments.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
11
Further, it enables us to understand the limitations behind these models, and why the
HJM framework could be used as a good alternative.
Chapters 5 and 6 deal with the basic building blocs of financial derivatives:
bonds, interest rates, options and futures. These are truly the foundations necessary
for modelling the term structure of interest rates. With these, we proceed to introduce
the more complicated classes of derivatives such as swaps or swaptions. We conclude
by showing how these complicated products can be decomposed into a number of
simpler derivatives. This decomposition results extremely practical.
The purpose of the second part of the text is principally to provide an
introduction to one way in which the HJM framework can be implemented. It sets out
in Chapter 7 by providing a broad vision of the framework itself before discussing the
more technical aspects. The text focuses on the practical implementation of the
framework developed in the Banco Santander. We analyse the assumptions,
hypotheses, and development of the framework through Chapter 8, becoming more
and more involved in practical discussions, until diverting to solve the specific
problematics that the model faced. In this part of the text, we have attempted to
introduce each problematic situation firstly under a broad theoretical scope.
Following, we proceed to explain the practical implementation which we decided on,
and the results which they yielded. We will often suggest alternatives for the different
methods that we implement, or offer ideas to face further developments that could
stem from our studies.
We continue in Chapter 9 and 10 with the practical implementation of the HJM.
Chapter 9 is a very brief introduction to the various numerical techniques that are
available for resolving stochastic differential equations: specifically, MonteCarlo
integrals, Tree Diagrams, and Partial Differential Equations Solvers. We deem it
necessary to acquire an understanding of the calibration procedure itself, and how we
obtain the precise parameters that the model requires for the pricing of more complex
exotic products. For this reason, Chapter 10 attempts to provide a broad discussion of
how the parameters are extracted from simple vanilla products. We discuss in detail
the advantages of the Newton Raphson root solver in our approach. A very
interesting discussion is also presented facing two contrary lines of thought: the use of
Chapter 1 Introduction
12
exact calibration methods versus the use of over determined systems that centre on a
error minimisation.
Chapter 11 discusses a mathematical tool that proves extremely useful for
visually analysing the HJM iterative process before it converges towards its final
parameter values. It is also in this section where we begin to encounter certain
calibration flaws in the model that we will need to tackle in future chapters.
Chapter 12 the first genuinely experimental chapter. It discusses the need for a
three parameter HJM model, and continues to analyse a set of possible formulations
that the third parameter, i.e. the volatility of volatilities, could present. The chapter
concludes with an analysis of specific calibrations performed with the three strike
model, and examines the possible causes of the failure to calibrate for long maturities.
In particular it points directly at a possible flaw in the caplet – swaption calibrations.
The analytic approximation of Caplet and Swaption prices is a huge achievement
that is presented in Chapter 13. As its name indicates, it is an approximate
formulation of the HJM model that enables us to reduce calibration computation times
drastically. The exhaustive mathematics of the approximation are studied in the
present chapter. We then proceed in Chapter 14 to analyse the specific results attained
through the various alternatives. We conclude the chapter by selecting the most
advantageous alternatives, and implementing them at the trader’s desk.
Chapter 15 is a first attempt to solve the calibrations problems that the HJM was
facing. It analyses the process by which the vanilla products for any specific
calibration are selected, and more specifically, it studies how the ‘missing’ data is
completed in the corresponding calibration matrices. We reach back briefly to Chapter
11 to analyse this problem by using the mathematical tool developed here. We end
realising that the selection of our interpolation and extrapolation methods can have a
drastic impact in the model solution surface itself.
Chapter 16 picks up the loose ends left behind in Chapter 12 and tackles the
caplet problematics as a cause for the failure in the 3 strikes HJM. Obtaining caplet
quotes from market cap data proves incomplete, and the need for consistent
interpolation techniques to extract the necessary values can be far from simple. We
provide a broad description for the main interpolation and optimisation algorithms
available, but show how even so, we are incapable of doing away with certain
irregularities in the caplet volatility surface. As a direct result of this, we continue to
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
13
the introduction of the SABR in Chapter 17. This is a stochastic volatility model that
centres on smoothening out the smile obtained by the previous interpolation
techniques. The model is discussed in depth, presenting its parameters and dynamic
characteristics.
Chapter 18 is the down to earth study of the results obtained in the previous two
chapters. It compares the exact interpolation methods with the inexact optimisations
and SABR algorithm, showing how the latter succeed in achieving a smoother
characteristic at the expense of losing precision.
Chapter 1 Introduction
14
1.6 Special Acknowledgements
Several people provided comments and helped during the process of revising the
document. I thank François Friggit for his invaluable discussions on mathematical
finance and models. I thank him also for being such a great director, for his endless
fantastic humour and support. I thank Maria Teresa Martínez for her advice, her
mathematical introductory text, and her help working out many technicalities in this
project. I would also like to thank Luis Martí in particular for having a word of help in
practically everything I did. I cannot imagine what I would have done without him. I
congratulate him for his work and thank him immensely for his friendship. Having
had the possibility to work together with Anh Tuan NGO in the creation of the
analytic approximation has proved a marvellous experience. I thank him for his help,
patience and friendship. I would finally like to thank all the other quant team
members of the Banco Santander that have made my stage during the current year so
formidable. The team is truly marvellous. I thank in particular Álvaro Serrano, Miguel
Pardo, Souahil, Cristina, Lamine, Álvaro Baillo, Pedro Franco, Jorge, Alberto, Carlos,
Manuel, and the rest of the team.
1.7 Project Aims
We briefly outline the aims with which we initiated the current project.
Setting out with the realisation that we cannot successfully approach the HJM
model without a consistent background in mathematical finance, the first part of the
project was directed towards building up this knowledge. Immediately after this, we
directly proceeded to a practical analysis of the implemented model with a direct
exposure to the relevant problematics. The project was thus, aimed at:
• An introduction to pricing derivative models
• The study of existing theoretical models: Black Scholes, Hull White, Heath Jarrow
Morton amongst others.
• The analysis of the internal Banco Santander HJM approach.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
15
• Development of an understanding of the various programming techniques in use:
· Microsoft Visual Studio.net 2003: programming framework in C++; complier,
linker and assembler
· Python IL interface
· Murex: valuation platform for credit, equity and interest rate products
· Internal tools created and programmed by the BSCH quant team
· Visual Basic
• Acquaintance with the Hull White framework already implemented and running
in the Banco Santander, as a simplified model serving as prior knowledge to the
Heath Jarrow Morton framework.
• Detailed comprehension of the Heath Jarrow Morton framework: Identification of
specific market examples where the HJM calibration does not compute:
examination of the cases. Analysis of the market data related to the above cases
verification of whether the failure to compute is due to anomalies in the market.
• Graphical representation and analysis of the correlation between the price and
each of the volatility parameters. Comprehension of the minima obtained in the
Price versus Alpha graphical representations. Isolation and examination of
specific examples.
• Resolution of the impossibility to correctly model real market situations in which
the true price lies below the minimum value of our model. The following two
preliminary approaches will be considered:
· Adjustment of the dependence between HJM volatility and the parameters.
· Modification of the parameters themselves: selection of an appropriate
statistical distribution other than the lognormal or normal distributions.
• Development and implementation of an analytic approximate formula so as to
reduce the time involved in the calibration process.
• Analysis and resolution of the existing HJM problems: possible caplet matrix
stripping problem. Possible failure in interpolation techniques.
Chapter 2 Stochastic Calculus
16
2. Stochastic Calculus Equation Chapter 2 Section 1
2.1 Introduction
Stochastic calculus handles random variables over infinitesimal time intervals,
in continuous time. In it, we can no longer apply Riemann integrals, and these are
instead replaced by Ito Integrals.
A stochastic process is a random function, i.e. a function of the form f(t, w) that is
therefore time dependent and that is defined by the variable W which represents a
source of randomness.
In deterministic or classical calculus, the future value of any function f(t) is
always known by simply calculating
0
0
t
t
f f df = +
∫
The above requires ft to be differentiable. If f is stochastic as in the case of
Brownian motion, it is not differentiable almost anywhere. Moreover, we do not know
the value of ft for any future instant of time. We only know the probability density
that our function will follow. We can simply write:
0
0 0
( ) ( )
t t
t s
f f s ds s dW α β = + +
∫ ∫
The above function is composed by two main processes. A term representing the
random motion or dispersion, that is stochastic; and a mean diffusion term that may
Standard
Brownian Motion
known
today
Slope
Mean
diffusion
Random motion
(stochastic)
dispersion
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
17
be constant over time, increasing or decreasing. Moreover, it can in turn either be
deterministic or stochastic depending on whether the slope term α is also stochastic.
Fig. 2.1. Stochastic Volatility Dynamics
We are in this way left with what is known as an Ornstein Uhlenbeck Process:
( ) ( )
t
df t dt t dW α β = + (2.1)
where the first term is known as the drift, and the second as the diffusion.
Before proceeding any further with the Ornstein Uhlenbeck Process or any other
more elaborate setting, we must first grasp a set of important concepts that we will
now proceed to introduce.
2.2 Markov Process
In a non mathematical approach, a Markov Process is one in which the future
probability that a variable X attains a specific value depends only on the latest
observation
t
F
~
available at present. All other previous (or historical) information sets
1 1
~
,...,
~
F F
t −
are considered irrelevant for the given probability calculation.
mean
noise
Chapter 2 Stochastic Calculus
18
Mathematically, a Markov Process is therefore a discrete time process
{X1,X2,…,Xt,…} with a joint probability distribution function F(x1,x2,…,xt) that verifies
( ) ( )
t s S t s S
P X a F P X a X
+ +
≤ = ≤
%
(2.2)
And where
T
F
~
is the information set on which we construct the probability
2.3 Martingale
We will say that an asset St is a martingale if its future expected value, (calculated
at time t over an information set F
~
), is equal to its current value. A martingale is
always defined with respect to a probability P. This is:
[ ]
P
t t U t
E S S
+
= (2.3)
2.3.1 Martingale Properties
Martingales possess a number of very interesting properties that we will come
across time and time again. The main properties that martingales verify are:
1. The random variable St is completely defined given the information at time t,
t
F
~
2. Unconditional finite forecasts [ ] ∞ <
+U t
P
t
S E almost everywhere
3. Future variations are completely unpredictable, meaning there are no trends
[ ] [ ] [ ] 0
P P P
t t U t t t U t t t t
E S S E S E S S S
+ +
− = − = − = (2.4)
4. A continuous square integrable martingale is a martingale with a finite second
order moment
2 P
t t
E S < ∞
almost everywhere (2.5)
Stochastic processes can behave as:
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
19
• Martingales: if the trajectory has no trends or periodicities
• Submartingale: for processes that increase on average. They verify:
[ ]
P
t t U t
E S S
+
≥ almost everywhere (2.6)
• Supermartingale: for processes that decrease on average. They verify:
[ ]
P
t t U t
E S S
+
≤ almost everywhere (2.7)
In general, assets are therefore submartingales because they are not completely
unpredictable but instead, are expected to increase over time. It is important to notice
that they can be converted to martingales using risk neutral probability if there is
absence of arbitrage.
There are two main methods of converting non martingales to martingales:
2.3.2 Doob Meyer Decomposition:
involves adding or subtracting the expected trend from the martingale, thus
leaving only the random component.
For example, in the case of right continuous time submartingales St, we can split
St into the sum of a unique right continuous martingale Mt and an increasing process
At, that is measurable with respect to
t
F
~
.
St = Mt + At. (2.8)
In general we will normalize our martingales so that their first order moment is
equal to 0. In most cases, our martingales will also have continuous trajectories. For
such martingales that in addition are square integrable – see (2.5) , we can define their
quadratic variation process as the unique increasing process given by the DoobMeyer
decomposition of the positive submartingale {M
2
}. In other words, it is the unique
increasing process <M>t such that {M
2
 < M>t} is a martingale, normalized by <M>0 =
0. In particular, E(M
2
t ) = E(<M>t).
Chapter 2 Stochastic Calculus
20
Quadratic Variation Process:
1
2
0
1
lim
i i
n
t t
t
i
M M M
−
∏→
=
= −
∑
(2.9)
1
sup limit in probability
i i i
t t
−
∏ = −
2.3.3 First Approach to Girsanov’s Theorem
The transformation of a probability distribution using Girsanov’s Theorem
involves simply changing the probability space in which we operate, P P
~
→ so as to
convert non – martingales to martingales.
[ ] [ ]
P P
t t U t t t U t
E S S E S S
+ +
> → =
%
(2.10)
Continuous martingales have a further set of specific properties:
1. As we increase the partitioning of the interval [0,T] the St’s get closer.
Therefore ( ) 0
1
→ > −
−
ε
i i
t t
S S P
2. They must have nonzero variance 1 0
1
2
1
= 
¹

\

> −
∑
=
−
n
i
t t
i i
S S P . The quadratic
variation therefore converges to a positive well defined random variable.
3.
1
1
1
i i
n
t t
i
V S S
−
=
= − →∞
∑
(2.11)
4. All variations of greater order than V
2
tend to 0, and so contain no useful
information. Thus the martingale is completely defined by its first two moments.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
21
2.4 Brownian Motion
Also known as a Wiener Process, is a continuous process St whose increments ∆St
are normally distributed, i.e. they are Gaussian.
2.4.1 Characteristics:
1. W0 = 0
2. Continuous square integrable function in time
3. Independent increments dW:
Time
t U V
Thus (WU – Wt) is independent of (WV – WU) and independent of (Wt –W0) = Wt.
This implies that any model based on a Brownian motion parameter will be
independent of all that has occurred in the past. Only future events are of any
concern.
4. dWt
2
= dt
5. Follows a Normal probability distribution, under the probability space Ω
( )~ (0, )
U T
W W N U T − − (2.12)
( )
2 1
2
1
2
x T U
T U
A
P W W A e dx
T U π
− −
− ∈ =
−
∫
(2.13)
The mean or expectancy of any given increment in the Brownian variable is
µ=E(WU  WT) = 0
The variance is the time interval itself Variance
= U  T =
U
T
dt
∫
This is easily deduced following the subsequent logic.
Chapter 2 Stochastic Calculus
22
( ) ( ) ( )
U T U T
T U T T U T
W W W W
E W E W E W W
>
= + −
= + −
(2.14)
Where we have initially defined 0 ) ( = −
T U
W W E and where we know
T T
W W E = ) ( as it is calculated for the present instant of time at which all data is
known. Therefore:
( )
T U T
E W W U T = > (2.15)
Which is what we previously introduced as a Markov Process  a variable whose
future expectation is exactly equal to its current value. A Brownian motion is therefore
always a martingale.
2.5 Stochastic Differential Equation
We will start by analysing the simplest stochastic differential equation possible.
Recall that we have already encountered it under the name of an Ornstein Uhlenbeck
process:
( ) ( )
t
df t dt t dW α β = + (2.16)
Where α(t) is known as the drift term, and σ(t) as the diffusion. It is the diffusion
term, through the Brownian motion, that introduces the randomness in this dynamics.
We will start by taking both α(t) and σ(t) as being deterministic, as this is the
simplest scenario that we can possibly imagine. In such a case, the solution to the
integral form of the stochastic differential equation is relatively straightforward
·
∫
t
ds s
0
) ( α has a classic, deterministic solution, or at its worst, can be solved
numerically through a Riemann integral, as
( )
1 1
1
lim ( , )
n
k k k
n
k
S k t t α
− −
→∞
=
−
∑
(2.17)
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
23
•
∫
t
s
dW s
0
) ( β is probabilistic, follows a Normal (Gaussian) distribution which we
can represent as having a zero mean and whose variance is easily calculated, thus
leaving


¹

\

∫
t
ds s N
0
2
) ( , 0 ~ β
Where we have seen that dW
2
= dt
2.6 Risk Neutral Probability
The difficulty when dealing with real probability is the fact that each investor
has a different inherent risk profile. This means that each will have a different
willingness to invest.
Imagine that we have a number of investors and each one of them faces the
following situation:
Each investor starts off with 100,000$. He stands a 10% chance that if he
invests, his returns will be of 1M $, whereas he faces a 90% chance that his return will
be 0 $.
As each investor has a different risk profile, they will each price the product
differently or in other words, they will each be willing to pay a different price with
respect to the 100,000 $ stated to enter this ‘roulette’ game. The reader himself may be
willing to enter the game at a price of only 10,000 $ whereas another more risk averse
may find 90,000 $ a more suitable price for the game. Thus we realize that it is too
arbitrary to associate a price to a product if we rely on real probability.
The risk neutral probability arises as one in which the risk profile is
homogeneous. This is, that all assets present the same instantaneous yield throughout
time, and are all infinitely liquid. They must therefore all present the same rt.
Chapter 2 Stochastic Calculus
24
Under the risk neutral probability, any tradable asset follows the dynamics
( )
P
t t
dS r Sdt t dW σ = + (2.18)
Where σ is known as the volatility process associated to the asset S.
Here rt is the instantaneous rate defined in the discount factor section. It is time
dependent, but independent of the underlying asset S. We can see clearly in the above
formula that dS is a stochastic process, as it depends on dWt
P
.
In this risk neutral probability space, if we were to select another asset S2, then it
too would present the same instantaneous yield rt, despite the fact that it would
probably follow a different random process, dW2
P
2.7 Solving Stochastic Differential Equations
In multiple occasions, we must resort to a change in variable so as to simplify the
more complex stochastic differential equations, attempting to transform them back
into the ideal Ornstein Uhlenbeck formulation seen before (2.1). For this reason we use
two principal methods: Ito’s Lemma and the Girsanov Theorem.
2.8 Ito’s Lemma
Is the stochastic version of the chain rule in classical calculus. We must firstly
realize that whereas partial derivatives are valid for stochastic calculus, (just as they
are for classical calculus), total derivatives and the chain rule itself are no longer
applicable. That is, considering f(t, St):
Partial derivatives: valid
t
t
S t
dS
S
f
f
t
f
f
∂
∂
=
∂
∂
=
Total derivatives: not valid
t
t
dS
S
f
dt
t
f
df
∂
∂
+
∂
∂
=
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
25
Chain rule: not valid
dt
dS
S
f
t
f
t
t
∂
∂
+
∂
∂
=
dt
df
Let S = S(t, dWt) where dWt is a Brownian process. Let us recall the stochastic
differential equation:
t t t t
dS dt dW α σ = + (2.19)
If we perform a Taylor expansion on the function f(t, S) with respect to the two
variables S and t, then
2 2 2
2 2
1 2 2
1 1
( ) ( )
2 2
t t t t t
t t t t t
t t t
f f f f f
f f dt dS dt dS dtdS R
t S t S S t
−
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
= + + + + + +
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
(2.20)
Replacing with our diffusion equation, we obtain
( )
( ) ( )
2
2
2
2 2
2
2
1
2
1
2
t t t
t t t
t
t t
t t t t
t t
f f f
df dt dt dW dt
t S t
f f
dt dW dt dt dW R
S S t
α σ
α σ α σ
∂ ∂ ∂
= + + + +
∂ ∂ ∂
∂ ∂
+ + + +
∂ ∂ ∂
(2.21)
In general, with Taylor expansions we decide to at least maintain the first order
terms, both in S as in t. However, we must be particularly careful with this
simplification:
• Our variable t is deterministic, meaning that as with classic Taylor expansions, we
can ignore powers that are greater or equal than the second order. St however is a
random process as it depends on dW, where we must recall that dW
2
= dt. This is
equivalent to a first order term in t and thus cannot be ignored. Therefore, from
(2.20) and (2.21) we retain all the first order elements, that are
2
2
1
2
f f f
df dt dS dt
t S S
∂ ∂ ∂
= + +
∂ ∂ ∂
(2.22)
Chapter 2 Stochastic Calculus
26
The first two terms correspond to a classical differentiation. The last term is
known as Ito’s term, where we have already replaced dW
2
by dt. We can now replace
in (2.22) the diffusion dS of the initial function (2.19), obtaining:
2
2
2
2
1
( )
2
1
2
t
t
f f f
df dt dt dW dt
t S S
f f f f
dt dW
t S S S
α σ
α σ
∂ ∂ ∂
= + + +
∂ ∂ ∂
  ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
= + + +

∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
\ ¹
(2.23)
Ito’s Lemma is mainly used when applying a change in variable to differential
equations. It takes a function f(t, S), that depends on both time and the stochastic
function S and then writes the diffusion of the new variable f(t, S) in terms of S and the
old function’s diffusion dynamics.
Ito’s formula can be used to evaluate Integrals. The general procedure is the
following:
· To guess a form for f(Wt, t)
· Then apply Ito’s Lemma to obtain the standard differential equation
· Integrate both sides of the equation.
· Rearrange the resulting equation.
We proceed to provide a simple practical example: Suppose that we would like
to solve
∫
t
s s
dW W
0
. Then
2
2
2
( , )
2
t
W
d WdW
W
f t W
 
=

\ ¹
=
1
0
2
df WdW dt = + +
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
27
integrating and then rearranging
1
2
WdW df dt = −
∫ ∫ ∫
1
2
WdW f t = −
∫
Substituting f again we obtain
2
1
2 2
W
WdW t = −
∫
2.9 Stochastic Integral
Is nothing more than the integrated form of Ito’s equation (2.22).
2
2
0 0 0
1
2
t t t
t
f f f f
df dt dW
t S S S
α σ
  ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
= + + +

∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
\ ¹
∫ ∫ ∫
(2.24)
Which rearranged solves the stochastic integral in terms of deterministic,
temporal terms.
2
0 2
0 0
1
( , ) ( , )
2
t t
t t
f f f f
dW f S t f S t dt
S t S S
σ α
  ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
= − − + +

∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
\ ¹
∫ ∫
(2.25)
2.10 Girsanov’s Theorem
Girsanov’s Theorem is generally used when we seek to change the probability
space in which we work. Thus, if we have a Brownian variable under the probability
measure P and want to transform it to the probability measure Q, we then simply
perform:
( , )
P Q
dW dW P Q dt λ = + (2.26)
Chapter 2 Stochastic Calculus
28
The result is particularly useful when seeking to change the drift term in an
equation. However, it cannot simplify the diffusion term.
( )
( )
( , )
P Q
Q
df dt dW dt dW P Q dt
dt dW
α β α β λ
α βλ β
= + = + + =
= + +
(2.27)
2.10.1 Radon Nikodym Derivative:
States that P d Z dP
t
~
) ( ξ = . This implies that the two are equivalent
probability measures if and only if it is possible to go back and forth between the two
measures, thus
1
( ) ( )
t t
dP Z dP dP Z dP ξ ξ
−
= ↔ =
% %
(2.28)
This also implies that
( ) 0 ( ) 0 P dZ P dZ > ↔ >
%
(2.29)
The two can only exist if P assigns a 0 probability at the same time as P
~
Thus with this new knowledge about the Radon Nikodym derivative we can
revise what we had said about Girsanov’s Theorem. We can now say:
Girsanov’s Theorem states that given a Wiener process Wt, we can always
multiply this process by a probability distribution ) (
t
Z ξ to convert it to a different
Wiener process
t
W
~
. The two Brownians will be related by
t t t
dW dW S dt = −
%
(2.30)
and their probability measures by
( ) ( ) ( )
t t t
dP W W dP W ξ =
% %
(2.31)
Notice that ) (
t
Z ξ is a martingale with [ ] 1 ) ( =
t
Z E ξ , and the product
) (
t t
Z S ξ ⋅ is now also a martingale.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
29
Notice also that both
t
W
~
and Wt are Brownian motions, meaning that they have 0
mean. However, they are related by the expression dt S dW W d
t t t
− =
~
. How can this
be possible? The answer lies in the fact that
t
W
~
has 0 mean under its probability
measure P
~
, and Wt under its respective measure P. Therefore, they do not
simultaneously present 0 means with respect to one common probability measure.
We define the random process ) (
t
Z ξ as the stochastic exponential of St with
respect to W:
[ ]
2
0
1
2
( ) 0,
t t
u u u o
S dW S du
t
Z e t T ξ
−
∫ ∫
= ∈ (2.32)
(Notice that 1 ) (
0 0
= Z ξ ), then
There are several conditions that must always hold true:
• St must be known exactly, given the information set
t
F
~
.
• St must not vary much: [ ] ∞ <
∫
t
o
u du S
e E
2
But these conditions do not yet assure us that St is a martingale. A condition that
is sufficient for condition ( )
t t
Z ξ to satisfy the hypothesis of Girsanov’s theorem is to
assume
2
1
2
t
u o
S du
E e
∫
< ∞
(2.33)
With this, ( )
t t
Z ξ is a martingale if S is deterministic.
Chapter 2 Stochastic Calculus
30
2.10.2 Novikov condition:
The above conditions imply that ) (
t
Z ξ is a square integrable martingale with
respect to the probability P.
Proof
We proceed now to provide a demonstration for the deterministic scenario. For a
more generic approach, see [Karatzas 1988].
Given
( )
2
0
0
2 2
0
1
2
1 1
2 2
( )
t
t
u
u u
t t
S
u u o S
u u
S du
S dW
t S S
S du S du
S dW
E S F e E e F
e e e
− ∫
∫
− ∫ ∫
∫
=
=
% %
(2.34)
If the last term is finite, then
2
0
1
2
S
t
u o
u u
S du
S dW
S
e e S
−
∫
∫
= = (2.35)
2.11 Martingale Representation Theorem
Recall that from the Doob Meyer Decomposition, we were able to convert any
asset price St into a martingale by simply separating it into a right continuous
martingale component Mt and an increasing process At that was measurable under the
information set
t
F
~
. This was
St = Mt + At.
Let us consider now that we have
0 1 1
1
k i i i
k
t t t t t
i
M M H Z Z
− −
=
= + −
∑
(2.36)
or equivalently, its integral form
0
0
t
t u u
M M H dZ = +
∫
(2.37)
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
31
•
1 − i
t
H is any random variable adapted to
1
~
− i
t
F . Each
1 − i
t
H is constant because they
are each entirely know at time t.
•
1 −
−
i i
t t
Z Z is any martingale with respect to
t
F
~
and P. They are unknown and have
unpredictable increments.
Given the above conditions, then
k
t
M is also a martingale with respect to
t
F
~
.
Proof:
If we calculate the expectation of the above (2.36), then
0 0 0 0 1 1 1
1
k i i i i
k
t t t t t t t t t
i
E M E M E E H Z Z
− − −
=
= + − =
∑
(2.38)
0
t
M is known at time t0, meaning that its expectation is its own value. The same is
true for
1 − i
t
H when we apply the expectation operator on it for time ti1. It too can
therefore exit the operator.
0 0 1 1 1
1
i i i i
k
t t t t t t
i
M E H E Z Z
− − −
=
= + ⋅ −
∑
(2.39)
Now from the martingale properties (2.4) we know that [ ] 0
1 1
= −
− − i i i
t t t
Z Z E . We
are therefore left with
[ ]
0 0
t t t
M M E
k
= (2.40)
which according to the definition of a martingale (2.3) , implies that
k
t
M is itself a
martingale.
We can therefore rewrite the DoobMeyer martingale decomposition as:
( )
0
T T
t t t s s s
t t
S M A M H M dZ ds α
 
= + = + +

\ ¹
∫ ∫
(2.41)
This formulation is what is known as the martingale representation theorem.
Chapter 2 Stochastic Calculus
32
The martingale component Mt represents the degree of deviation about a given
trend, and is composed by H, a function adapted to Ms (that is in turn adapted to
s
F
~
),
Zs that is already a martingale given
s
F
~
and P, and a constant component M0.
The trend At is obtained by the interaction of αt, which is a known, measurable
process given
s
F
~
2.12 Major Stochastic Differential Equations
We shall now proceed to give a brief outline of the major existing stochastic
differential equations. Many of the more complex developments can be grouped or
transformed into these more simple formulations.
2.12.1 Linear constant coefficients
Parameters: µ drift, σ diffusion
This model has the following well know stochastic differential equation
P
t t
dS dt dW µ σ = + (2.42)
Whose solution is
t t
S t W µ σ = + (2.43)
It is entirely defined by the measures
mean: [ ] dt dS E
t
µ =
( ) dt dS Variance
t
2
σ =
σ is called the normal volatility of the process
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
33
S
0
Fig. 2.2. Linear Stochastic Differential Equation dynamics
The variable St fluctuates around a straight line, whose slope is µdt
The fluctuations do not increase over time, and have no systematic jumps. The
variations are therefore entirely random.
2.12.2 Geometric Brownian Motion
It is the basis of the Black Scholes model, which as we shall see, has the following
stochastic differential equation:
P
t t t t
dS S dt S dW µ σ = + (2.44)
2
1
2
0
t
t W
t
S S e
µ σ σ
 
− +

\ ¹
= (2.45)
σ is called the volatility of the process
( ) 1
2 2
− = t
t
S dS Variance σ
St has an exponential growth rate µ
Its random fluctuations variance i.e. its variance increases with time
The ratio of the change has constant parameters
P
t
t
t
dW dt
S
dS
σ µ + =
Fig. 2.3. Geometric Stochastic Differential Equation dynamics
S0
µdt
Chapter 2 Stochastic Calculus
34
2.12.3 Square Root
This is the same as the Black Scholes model only changing the variance to a
square root form as its name implies
P
t t t t
dS S dt S dW µ σ = + (2.46)
( )
1
2
−
=
t t
S dS Variance σ
St has an exponential growth rate µ
Its random fluctuations are much smaller than in the Black Scholes model.
S
0
Fig. 2.4. Square Root Stochastic Differential Equation dynamics
2.12.4 Mean Reverting Process:
( )
( )
P
t t t t
P
t t t t
dS S dt S dW
dS S dt S dW
λ µ σ
λ µ σ
= − +
= − +
(2.47)
As St falls below the mean µ, the term (µ St) becomes positive and so tends to
make dSt more positive still, attempting to ‘revert’ the dynamics towards its mean
trend. σ is still called the volatility of the process.
The speed of this reversion is defined by the parameter λ
The Ornstein Uhlenbeck as seen in (2.1) is therefore a particular case of this mean
reverting process
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
35
2.12.5 Stochastic Volatility
Consists in using a volatility parameter that is in itself, time dependant and
random.
( )
0
P
t t t t t
P
t t t t
dS S dt S dW
d dt dZ
µ σ
σ λ σ σ βσ
= +
= − +
(2.48)
If ( , )
t t
t S σ σ = is deterministic then we have a local volatility model.
The particularity of the above model lies in the fact that the volatility depends on
a different Brownian motion Z. Thus a new source of stochasticity is introduced into
the model that is different from that which we previously had: W, which before was
used to exclusively determine the underlying.
In the above, we have created a dynamics where the volatility has a mean
reverting process. Any other diffusion equation could also be considered, with the
simple addition of a stochastic volatility in the last term.
Chapter 3 Historical Models
36
3. Historical Models
We will now proceed to present the historical development of the major models
that have been used in the world of finance. We will follow a simplistic approach,
stating the principal characteristics of each and discussing their flaws. Our aim here is
to show the logical development of ideas from one model to the next. This is to say, to
show how each model builds on the previous and attempts to solve its intrinsic
problems. We hope that with this ‘timetravel’ the reader will be able to finally arrive
at the current date in which this project was written, and to recognise our project’s
developments as an intuitive ‘next step’ to what had previously been done.
3.1 The Black Scholes Model
Was developed in the early 1970’s by Fisher Black, Myron Scholes and Robert
Merton. It soon became a major breakthrough in the pricing of stock options. The
model has since had a huge influence on the way that traders price and hedge options.
It has also been pivotal to the growth and success of financial engineering in the 1980’s
and 1990’s. In 1997 the importance of the model was recognised when Robert Merton
and Myron Scholes were awarded the Nobel Prize for economics. Fisher Black had
sadly died in 1995. Undoubtedly, he would have otherwise also been a recipient of the
prize.
The equation was developed under the assumption that the price fluctuations of
the underlying security of an option can be described by an Ito process. Let the price S
of an underlying security be governed by a geometric Brownian motion process over a
time interval [0, T]. Then the price may be described as
( )
P
t t t
dS rS dt t dW β = + (3.1)
where W is a standard Brownian motion (or a Wiener Process). r is the risk
neutral rate of a risk free asset (a bond) over [0,T]. The value of the bond satisfies the
well known dynamics dB = rBdt. It is the theory behind the rate r that truly won
Black, Scholes and Merton the Nobel Prize.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
37
We also impose that β(t) = St σ. Thus, we have
P
t t t t
dS rS dt S dW σ = + (3.2)
We cannot solve the above dynamics directly because the diffusion term is not
deterministic  St is stochastic, despite the fact that σ is constant and deterministic in a
first simplistic approach.
As previously shown, in stochastic calculus we seek to transform our expression
into an Ornstein Uhlenbeck expression. Thus we seek
P t
t
t
dS
rdt dW
S
σ = + (3.3)
3.1.1 Solving the PDE
The easiest setting to tackle is therefore that in which r is deterministic and σ is
constant. Then applying Ito’s Lemma, we have
2
2
1
2
t
t t
g g g
dg dt dS dt
t S S
∂ ∂ ∂
= + +
∂ ∂ ∂
(3.4)
where
( , )
t
t t
t
dS
g S t dLnS
S
= = (3.5)
0 =
∂
∂
t
g
t t
S S
g 1
=
∂
∂
2 2
2
1
t t
S S
g
− =
∂
∂
2 2
2
1 1 1
0
2
t t t
t t
dLnS dt dS S dt
S S
σ
  −
= + +

\ ¹
(3.6)
Substituting dS we now have
2
1 1
( )
2
P
t t t
t
dLnS rSdt S dW dt
S
σ σ = + − (3.7)
Chapter 3 Historical Models
38
2
0
2
0
T
P
t T
T
r dt W
t
S S e
σ
σ − +
∫
= (3.8)
Having obtained a solution to the diffusion of the asset dSt, we can now price a
Call of strike K and yield r. But before, we must realize the following:
As a direct consequence of the expression
( )
P
t t t
dS rS dt t dW β = + (3.9)
we know that the expectation of any such tradable assets is
U
s
T
r ds
P
t t U
S E S e
− ∫
=
(3.10)
Proof
2
2
( ) ( )
2
P
t t
t t
t t
dLnS rdt dW dt
S S
β β
= + − (3.11)
2
2
( ) ( )
2
U U U
P
t
T T T t t
t t
rdt dW dt
S S
U T
S S e
β β
+ − ∫ ∫ ∫
= (3.12)
2
2
( ) ( )
2
U U
U
P
t
T T t t T
t t
dW dt
rdt
S S
U T
S e S e
β β
− ∫ ∫ − ∫
= (3.13)
Taking expectations
2
2
( ) ( )
2
U U
U
P
t
T T t t T
t t
dW dt
rdt
S S P P
t U T t T
E S e S E e S
β β
− ∫ ∫ −
∫
= =
(3.14)
Gaussian variance
As it is a martingale, its mean is 1
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
39
3.1.2 Pricing a Call by Black Scholes
1
Let us consider now the pricing of a Call Option. A Call gives the buyer of the
option the right, but not the obligation, to buy an agreed quantity of a particular
commodity or financial instrument (the underlying instrument) from the seller of the
option at a certain time (the expiration date) and for a certain price (the strike price).
The seller (or "writer") is obligated to sell the commodity or financial instrument
should the buyer so decide. The buyer pays a fee (called a premium) for this right. It
may be useful for the reader to jump momentarily to Chapter 6.1 at this point for a
detailed description of a Call option.
Suppose that we are holding a call option and that at time T the price of the
underlying asset is ST < K. In this case, we would not be interested in buying the asset
at price K. Thus we would not exercise the option, and our profit from this contract
would be 0. On the other hand, if ST > K, we would be ready to buy the asset at the
lower price K from the unfortunate underwriter of our call option, and then go on to
the market to sell the share of our underlying, so as to make a profit of ST  K.
Thus, at time T, the expected benefit obtained from the call option would be
0
0 0
( )
T
t
r dt
P
T
C E e S K
−
∫
+
= −
(3.15)
Where (ST – K)
+
= max [ST – K, 0].
Note that exponentials are always greater than zero, so the positive sign can come
out from the expectation operator
0 0
0 0
T T
t t
r dt r dt
P
T
C E e S Ke
+
− − ∫ ∫
= −
(3.16)
Let us note the function
1
Note that we could have also derived Black’s formula by using the equivalent
martingale measure P
~
Chapter 3 Historical Models
40
{ }
1
1
0
t
t
S K
t
S K
S K
>
→ > ¦
´
→ <
¹
Then
0 0
0 0 { } { }
1 1
T T
t t
t t
r dt r dt
P
T S K S K
C E e S Ke
− −
∫ ∫
> >
= ⋅ − ⋅
(3.17)
Now considering the second term in the above, the exponential (deterministic) is
independent of St so can be extracted from the expectation since its value is well
known.
0 0 0
0 0
0 { } 0 { } { }
1 1 1 ( )
( ) ( )
T T T
t t t
t t t
T T
t t
r dt r dt r dt
P P
S K S K S K t
r dt r dt
t t
K
E Ke Ke E Ke dP S
Ke dP S Ke prob S K
∞
− − −
∫ ∫ ∫
> > >
−∞
∞
− −
∫ ∫
⋅ = =
= = >
∫
∫
(3.18)
Analysing the first term, we see that we are left with:
[ ]
∫
∞
∫ −
>
∫ −
>
∫ −
⋅ = ⋅ =
⋅
K
t t
dt r
K S t
P
dt r
K S
dt r
t
P
S dP S e S E e e S E
T
t
t
T
t
t
T
t
) ( 1 1
0 0 0
} { 0 } { 0
(3.19)
Let us substitute St with the formula that we derived previously in (3.8):
P
T
T
t
W
T
dt r
t
e S S
σ
σ
∫ + −
=
0
2
2
0
We then have
∫ ∫
∞
∫ + − ∫ −
∞
∫ −
⋅ = ⋅
K
t
W
T
dt r dt r
K
t t
dt r
S dP e S e S dP S e
P
T
T
t
T
t
T
t
) ( ) (
0
2
0 0
2
0
σ
σ
(3.20)
now notice
0 0
T T
t t
r dt r dt
t t
S K S e Ke
− − ∫ ∫
> ↔ > (3.21)
once again substituting St
2
0
2
2
0 0
0 2
T
P
t
T
T
T r dt
W
P
T t
T
S e Ke LnS W LnK r dt
σ
σ
σ
σ
−
∫ − +
> ↔ − + > −
∫
(3.22)
The property of Brownians seen in Chapter 2.4 lies in the fact that they can be
split into a normal and temporal component, thus if
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
41
T U W
P
T
= and N(0,1) ~ U then
2
0
0
T
T
dt r
S
K
Ln
U K S
T
t
t
σ
σ
+
∫
−
> ↔ >
(3.23)
We shall call
2
0
0
0
T
T
dt r
S
K
Ln
d
T
t
σ
σ
+
∫
−
=
(3.24)
Evidently therefore, U > d0. At this point therefore we now have both the first and
second terms in the expression (3.17). We can substitute them into the equation to find
the call’s price discounted to present, assuming a deterministic rate r
2
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
0 0 0
( )
2
0 0
2
0 0
( )
0 0 0
0 1 2
( )
2
( )
2
( )
2
( ( ) ) ( )
( ) ( )
T
t
T
t
T
t
T
t
T
t
U
T
r dt
U T
d
U T
r dt
d
X
r dt
d T
r dt
r dt
e
C S e dU Ke prob U d
e
S dU Ke N d
e
S dX Ke N d
S N T d Ke N d
S N d Ke N d
σ
σ
σ
σ
π
π
π
σ
−
∞
−∫ − +
−
−
∞
−∫
−
∞
− ∫
−
−∫
−∫
= ⋅ − ⋅ >
= ⋅ − ⋅ −
= ⋅ − ⋅ −
= − − ⋅ −
= − ⋅
∫
∫
∫
(3.25)
It is important to notice that the price of the Call depends only on
• its price today (t0)
• the distribution of probability of ST at its maturity T
• the discount factors
Therefore, all that occurs in between these two dates is irrelevant to us.
Chapter 3 Historical Models
42
Tiempo
K
T
S0
t0
(STK)
T
ST
irrelevant
Fig. 3.1. Only the present call value is relevant to compute its future price. Any
intermediate timeperiods are irrelevant
3.2 Beyond Black
The Black Scholes model presents several difficulties that it cannot surmount. As
we have seen, in theory it has a single volatility σ for every K and maturity T.
This however, is not what is perceived by the traders in the markets. If we were to
set up a matrix of prices for K vs T for a given underlying asset, and perform the
inverse transformation of the Black Scholes formula so as to find their corresponding
σ, we would discover that their σ is not unique, and instead varies with K and T.
Therefore, the two main problems presented by the Black Scholes’ model are:
• Smile: for any given maturity T, there are different Black implied volatilities σBlack
for different strikes K.
• Term Structure: for any given strike K, there are different Black implied
volatilities σBlack for different maturities T.
Time
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
43
Fig. 3.2. Term Structure of Vanilla Options
The lack of a unique volatility as assumed by Black does not mean that the Black
Scholes model is useless to our case. As stated initially, the model has triggered an
enormous amount of research and revolutionised the practice of finance. Further, we
have learnt in the above development that we can successfully use the Black Scholes
model as a ‘translator’ between option prices and their σBlack. Both have parallel
dynamics, thus, any movement in prices will result in a similar movement in the
asset’s σBlack.. We will explore the advantage of this property in the following
discussion.
3.2.1 Term Structure
For a given strike K, we may have the following structure:
0 σ
1
T1
of Variance = σ1
2
T1
and for a different product:
σ
2
0
T2
of Variance = σ2
2
T2
As stated previously, Black’s implied volatility is not unique, therefore σ ≠ σ1 ≠ σ2
σ
Strike
Short maturity
(smile)
Long maturity (skew)
B
l
a
c
k
I
m
p
l
i
e
d
V
o
l
a
t
i
l
i
t
y
σ
Chapter 3 Historical Models
44
3.2.2 Time Dependent Black
We can solve this inconvenience by modelling σ as the mean value of the variance
that is accumulated between 0 and T2. This is simply obtained by replacing in the
original equation
2
0
( )
T
T t dt σ σ →
∫
(3.26)
Thus we have a deterministic σ(t) yielding:
P
t t t t
dW S t dt rS dS ) ( σ + = (3.27)
which is known as ‘Time Dependent Black’.
We now have a unique σ(t) so can write
0 σ
1
T1
∫
=
1
0
2
1
) (
T
dt t Var σ
σ
2
0
T2
12 1
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
1
1 2
) ( ) ( ) ( Var Var dt t dt t dt t Var
T
T
T T
+ = + = =
∫ ∫ ∫
σ σ σ
3.2.3 Smile
We cannot use a similar change as in the previous case and convert our equation
to
P
t t t t
dW S K dt rS dS ) ( σ + = . This is because we do not know the strike K at which
the asset will be sold in the market.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
45
3.3 Lognormal Classic Black
We have so far seen that we can write the diffusion of the Black Scholes model as:
P
t t t t
dW S dt rS dS σ + = (3.28)
The second term is not normal as it includes a Brownian (which is normal), but
also the term
t
S which itself follows a stochastic diffusion. We can rewrite the above
as
P
t
t
t
dW rdt
S
dS
σ + = (3.29)
We call it a lognormal model because subsequently, the term
t
t
S
dS
is transformed
through Ito into
t
dLnS . Therefore it is the log of St that is now normal, as its diffusion
term depends only on the Brownian parameter and a constant sigma.
As the diffusion is constant in the lognormal model, when is represented in a
strike vs σBlack graph, we obtain a flat curve:
σ
Black
Strike K
Lognormal
(flat)
Fig. 3.3. Flat lognormal Black Volatilities
Chapter 3 Historical Models
46
3.4 Normal Black
We could attempt to transform the probability distribution that our equation
follows to a different form. Thus by taking:
P
t t t
dW dt rS dS σ + = (3.30)
the second term now consists in a constant volatility attached to a Gaussian
Brownian motion. This diffusion term is already normal without having to transform
it to a lognormal version. The above is commonly rewritten as:
0
P
t t t
dS rS dt S dW σ = + (3.31)
where we have included a constant term S0 so that the magnitude of the volatility
is comparable to that in the classic Black Scholes model.
The previous formulation can be transformed to its lognormal version so as to
compare its dynamics with the classic lognormal Black Scholes model:
0 P t
t t
t t
dS S
r dt dW
S S
σ = + (3.32)
Lognormal
Normal
Strike K
Call Price
Normal
(Skew)
Strike K
Lognormal
(Flat)
σ
Black
ATM
Fig. 3.4. Normal and lognormal Black Scholes model comparison a) price vs strike
b) black volatility vs strike
The comparison between the two models must be made under the classic σBlack.
As seen above, if we were to compare the two normal and lognormal models in terms
of their Call prices, we would find it difficult to perceive any difference. Thus we
realise the utility of using the σBlack: The σBlack allows us to compare and clearly
a) b)
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
47
distinguish models that are otherwise undistinguishable under their price measures.
This matches up with our previous section’s discussion in which we questioned the
utility of calculating σBlack if we knew that the Black Scholes model could not correctly
model varying local volatilities.
The main problem with the normal Black model is the fact that it imposes a slope
that doesn’t always coincide with that which is observed in real markets. Thus a
logical continuation to the model is proposed.
3.5 Black Shifted
P
t t t t
dW S S dt rS dS ) ) 1 ( (
0
α α σ − + + = (3.33)
This model allows for a variety of slopes ranging between the skewed normal and
the flat lognormal version. The parameter α acts as the weight associated to each of
the models. Market data shows that the general level of volatility is imposed at the
money ATM, and is basically independent of the α parameter.
Normal
(Skew) α=0
Strike K
Lognormal
(Flat) α=1
σ
Black
ATM
Fig. 3.5. Alpha skew modelling
The interpretation of this new model is best made when analysed from the classic
lognormal σBlack perspective:
Chapter 3 Historical Models
48
P
t
t t
t
dW
S
S
rdt
S
dS


¹

\

− + + =
0
) 1 ( α α σ (3.34)
Just as we had expected, we see that by varying the alpha parameter we are
capable of adjusting our model to any true market slope.
3.6 Local Volatility  Dupire’s Model
P
t t
t
t
dW S t rdt
S
dS
) , ( σ + = (3.35)
Recall that in Black’s model there is a oneto one relationship between the price of
a European option and the volatility parameter σBlack. This was seen clearly in Fig. 3.3
where the lognormal Black model was a flat straight line, constant at all strikes K.
Consequently, option prices are often quoted by stating the implied volatility σBlack: the
unique value of the volatility which yields the option’s money price when used in
Black’s model. In theory, the volatility σBlack in Black’s model is a constant but as we
have already stated, in practice, options with different strikes K require different
volatilities σBlack to match their market prices. For example for a unique maturity,
market data may present this form:
Fig. 3.6. Market data smile
Acts as the volatility ~σ*(St)dWt
P
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
49
Handling these market skews and smiles correctly is critical to fixed income and
foreign exchange desks, since these desks usually have large exposures across a wide
range of strikes. Yet the inherent contradiction of using different volatilities for
different options makes it difficult to successfully manage these risks using Black’s
model.
The development of local volatility models by Dupire and Derman Kani was a
major advance in handling smiles and skews. Local volatility models are self
consistent, arbitragefree, and can be calibrated to precisely match observed market
smiles and skews. Currently these models are the most popular way of managing
smile and skew risk. However, as we shall discover the dynamic behaviour of smiles
and skews predicted by local volatility models is exactly opposite to the behaviour
observed in the marketplace: when the price of the underlying asset decreases, local
volatility models predict that the smile shifts to higher prices; when the price
increases, these models predict that the smile shifts to lower prices. In reality, asset
prices and market smiles move in the same direction.
This contradiction between the model and the marketplace tends to destabilize
the delta and vega hedges derived from local volatility models, and often these
hedges perform worse than the naive BlackScholes’ hedges.
3.6.1 Detailed Comparison
We will now advance to derive a more detailed comparison between the
traditional Black model and the Dupire model.
Consider a European call option on an asset A with exercise date tex, settlement
date tset , and strike K. If the holder exercises the option on tex, then on the settlement
date tset he receives the underlying asset A and pays the strike K. To derive the value
of the option, define
ˆ
( ) F t to be the forward price of the asset for a forward contract
that matures on the settlement date tset, and define
ˆ
(0) f F = to be today’s forward
Chapter 3 Historical Models
50
price. Also let B(t) be the discount factor for date t; that is, let B(t) be the value today of
1 u.c. to be delivered on date t. Martingale pricing theory asserts that under the “usual
conditions,” there is a measure, known as the forward measure, under which the
value of a European option can be written as the expected value of the payoff. The
value of a call options is
( ) 0
ˆ
( ) ( )
P
call set ex
V B t E F t K F
+
= −
%
(3.36)
and the value of the corresponding European put is
( ) 0
ˆ
( ) ( )
P
put set ex
V B t E K F t F
+
= −
%
(3.37)
( ) ( )
put call set
V V B t K f = + − (3.38)
(Refer to the Discount Factor section in Chapter 5.1 to learn that a future payoff
can be discounted to its present value by continuous compounding, which can be
equivalently expressed as a bond maturing at the future date).
Here the expectation E is over the forward measure, and
0
F
%
can be interpreted
as “given all information available at t = 0.” Martingale pricing theory also shows that
the forward price
ˆ
( ) F t is a Martingale under this measure, so the Martingale
representation theorem shows that
ˆ
( ) F t obeys
ˆ ˆ
( ) ( ,*) (0) dF t C t dW F f = = (3.39)
for some coefficient C (t, * ), where dW is a Brownian motion in this measure.
The coefficient C (t,* ) may be deterministic or random, and may depend on any
information that can be resolved by time t.
This is as far as the fundamental theory of arbitrage free pricing goes. In
particular, one cannot determine the coefficient C(t,*) on purely theoretical grounds.
Instead one must postulate a mathematical model for C (t, * ).
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
51
European swaptions fit within an identical framework. (Refer to a swpation
description in Chapter 6.9). Consider a European swaption with exercise date tex and
fixed rate (strike) K. Let
ˆ
( )
s
R t be the swaption’s forward swap rate as seen at date t,
and let
0
ˆ
(0)
s
R R = be the forward swap rate as seen today. The value of a payer
swaption is
1
0
0
ˆ
( ; ) ( ( ) )
n
pay i s ex
i
V mB t T E R t K F
−
+
=
= ⋅ −
∑
%
(3.40)
and the value of a receiver swaption is
1
0
0
ˆ
( ; ) ( ( ))
n
rec i s ex
i
V mB t T E K R t F
−
+
=
= ⋅ −
∑
%
(3.41)
[ ]
1
0
( ; ) (0)
n
rec pay i
i
V V mB t T K R
−
=
= + ⋅ −
∑
(3.42)
Here the level
1
0
( ; )
n
i
i
mB t T
−
=
∑
is today’s value of the annuity, which is a known
quantity, and E is the expectation. The PV01 of the forward swap, like the discount
factor rate
ˆ
( )
s
R t is a Martingale in this measure, so once again
0
ˆ ˆ
( ) ( ,*) (0)
s s
dR t C t dW R R = = (3.43)
where dW is Brownian motion. As before, the coefficient C(t,*) may be
deterministic or random, and cannot be determined from fundamental theory. Apart
from notation, this is identical to the framework provided by the previous equations
for European calls and puts. Caplets and floorlets can also be included in this picture,
since they are just one period payer and receiver swaptions.
3.6.2 Black’s model and implied volatilities.
To go any further requires postulating a model for the coefficient C(t,*). We saw
in previous sections that Black postulated that the coefficient C(t,*) is
ˆ
( )
B
F t σ where
Chapter 3 Historical Models
52
the volatility σB is a constant. The forward price
ˆ
( ) F t is then a geometric Brownian
motion:
ˆ ˆ ˆ
( ) ( ) (0)
B
dF t F t dW F f σ = = (3.44)
Evaluating the expected values in equations (3.36) and (3.37) under this model
then yields through Black’s formula,
( )
( )
1 2
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
call set
put call set
V B t f N d K N d
V V B t K f
= ⋅ − ⋅
= + −
(3.45)
where
2
1,2
( )
log
2
B ex
T
B ex
t f
K
d
t
σ
σ
⋅  
±

\ ¹
=
⋅
(3.46)
for the price of European calls and puts, as is wellknown. All parameters in
Black’s formula are easily observed, except for the volatility σBlack .
An option’s implied volatility is the value of σBlack that needs to be used in Black’s
formula so that this formula matches the market price of the option. Since the call (and
put) prices in equations (3.45) are increasing functions of σBlack, the volatility σBlack
implied by the market price of an option is unique. Indeed, in many markets it is
standard practice to quote prices in terms of the implied volatility σBlack implied the
option’s dollar price is then recovered by substituting the agreed upon σBlack into
Black’s formula.
The derivation of Black’s formula presumes that the volatility σBlack is a constant
for each underlying asset A. However, the implied volatility needed to match market
prices nearly always varies with both the strike K and the timetoexercise tex .
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
53
Fig. 3.7. Smiles at different maturities
Changing the volatility σBlack means that a different model is being used for the
underlying asset for each K and tex.
3.6.3 Local volatility models.
In an insightful work, Dupire essentially argued that Black was too bold in setting
the coefficient C (t,*) to
ˆ
( )
B
F t σ . Instead one should only assume that C is Markovian:
ˆ
( , ) C C t F = . Rewriting
ˆ
( , ) C t F as
ˆ ˆ
( , )
loc
t F F σ then yields the “local volatility
model,” where the forward price of the asset is
ˆ ˆ ˆ
( , ) (0)
loc
dF t F dW F f σ = = (3.47)
in the forward measure. Dupire argued that instead of theorizing about the
unknown local volatility function
ˆ
( , )
loc
t F σ , one should obtain it directly from the
marketplace by “calibrating” the local volatility model to market prices of liquid
European options.
Chapter 3 Historical Models
54
3.6.4 Calibration
In calibration, one starts with a given local volatility function
ˆ
( , )
loc
t F σ , and
evaluates
( ) 0
ˆ
( ) ( )
P
call set ex
V B t E F t K F
+
= −
%
(3.48)
( ) ( )
put set
V B t f K = + − (3.49)
To obtain the theoretical prices of the options; one then varies the local volatility
function
ˆ
( , )
loc
t F σ until these theoretical prices match the actual market prices of the
option for each strike K and exercise date tex. In practice liquid markets usually exist
only for options with specific exercise dates
1 2 3
, , ,....
ex ex ex
t t t for example, for 1m, 2m,
3m, 6m, and 12m from today. Commonly the local volatilities
ˆ
( , )
loc
t F σ are taken to
be piecewise constant in time:
1 1
1
ˆ ˆ
( , ) ( )
ˆ ˆ
( , ) ( ) 2, 3,...
ˆ ˆ
( , ) ( )
loc loc ex
j j j
loc loc ex ex
J J
loc loc ex
t F F for t t
t F F for t t t j J
t F F for t t
σ σ
σ σ
σ σ
−
= <
= < < =
= >
One first calibrates
1
ˆ
( , )
loc
t F σ to reproduce the option prices at
1
ex
t for all strikes
K, then calibrates
2
ˆ
( , )
loc
t F σ to reproduce the option prices at
2
ex
t , for all K, and so
forth.
(This calibration process can be greatly simplified by solving to obtain the prices
of European options under the local volatility model (3.47) to (3.49), and from these
prices we obtain explicit algebraic formulas for the implied volatility of the local
volatility models.)
Once
ˆ
( , )
loc
t F σ has been obtained by calibration, the local volatility model is a
single, selfconsistent model which correctly reproduces the market prices of calls
(and puts) for all strikes K and exercise dates tex without “adjustment.” Prices of exotic
options can now be calculated from this model without ambiguity. This model yields
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
55
consistent delta and vega risks for all options, so these risks can be consolidated across
strikes. Finally, perturbing f and recalculating the option prices enables one to
determine how the implied volatilities change with changes in the underlying asset
price. Thus, the local volatility model provides a method of pricing and hedging
options in the presence of market smiles and skews. It is perhaps the most popular
method of managing exotic equity and foreign exchange options.
Unfortunately, the local volatility model predicts the wrong dynamics of the
implied volatility curve, which leads to inaccurate and often unstable hedges. Local
volatility models predict that the market smile/skew moves in the opposite direction
with respect to the price of the underlying asset. This is opposite to typical market
behaviour, in which smiles and skews move in the same direction as the underlying.
Fig. 3.8. Implied volatility σB(K,f) if forward price decreases from f0 to f (solid line)
Fig. 3.9. Implied volatility σB(K,f) if forward price increases from f0 to f (solid line).
Chapter 3 Historical Models
56
Time
t t +dt
Let us explain in a little more detail this calculation for the future projection of
local volatilities. Given that we know the σ(t, St) up until the present time instant t,
how do we construct the model up to time t + dt?
At t we know the price of the asset St. We can also calculate for it a set of possible
future scenarios, each with their respective probabilities of occurring. Thus we have
the corresponding probability distribution at time t + dt for all the values that the local
volatility could possibly take.
t +dt t
Fig. 3.10. Future asset volatility scenarios for different an asset
By analysing for a given asset the continuum of market prices for every strike at
time t, and projecting their scenarios into the future, it is possible to discover for each
price the corresponding probability distribution at time t + dt. Thus, on obtaining the
probability distribution, we can then simply invert the Black Scholes formula so as to
obtain each σBlack for each of the product’s strikes.
Fig. 3.11. Future volatility scenarios for different strikes of a same underlying
asset
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
57
Each strike has a particular σBlack at a given date T, just as is shown by the market
quoted data. The same procedure can be repeated at every desired maturity T,
therefore also obtaining a σBlack for a continuum of times. Any other desired σBlack can
simply be calculated by interpolating between two known σBlack derived from the
market data. Note that the method used here for interpolation will have a great
impact on the final value and smile of the various σBlack.
Proof:
Let us set out by writing the expression for a Call through a typical stochastic
diffusion equation i.e. composed by a risk neutral drift and a stochastic component
yields:
dt S t
S
C
dS
S
C
dt
t
C
CdW S t rCdt dC
t
Ito P
t t t
) , (
2
1
) , (
2
2
2
σ σ
∂
∂
+
∂
∂
+
∂
∂
→ + =
(3.50)
from before, we also know that
P
t t t t
dW S t dt rS dS ) , ( σ + = Thus replacing we
obtain
P
t t t
dW S t
S
C
dt S t
S
C
rS
S
C
t
C
) , ( ) , (
2
1
2
2
2
σ σ
∂
∂
+
∂
∂
+
∂
∂
+
∂
∂
(3.51)
we can apply here the fact that the Call Price = (S – K)
t
Therefore, for a known fixed price as is our case, if the underlying asset S
increases, the strike must consequently decrease. This implies the following
relationship between the given variables
K
C
S
C
∂
∂
− =
∂
∂
,
2
2
2
2
K
C
S
C
∂
∂
− =
∂
∂
(3.52)
Similarly
T
C
t
C
∂
∂
− =
∂
∂
(3.53)
Ignoring the Brownian term in dW we obtain
Chapter 3 Historical Models
58
dt S t
K
C
rS
K
C
T
C
dC
t
∂
∂
−
∂
∂
−
∂
∂
− = ) , (
2
1
2
2
2
σ (3.54)
All of which is known from the market data with respect to every strike and
maturity, as stated before. The integral form of the above can therefore easily be
calculated obtaining a value for ) , (
2
t
S t σ at each (K,T).
Thus, given a continuum of market prices with respect to the strike K and the
maturity T, it is possible to construct a unique solution for σ(t,St). The model known as
Local Volatility because it associates a local σ to each pair (K,T).
3.6.5 Problems
The model correctly simulates the market smile at any strike and for any maturity
T starting from the present date t0. However, it also presents a set of intrinsic
problems:
1. The computation is much slower as the algorithm advances by infinite time
intervals dt which can consist in periods of time composed by days or weeks. We saw
that the Black Scholes model could jump directly from the data in time t0 to the
probability distribution at maturity T (say 1, 10 or 30 years in the future) without the
need for any intermediate steps.
2. Experience has demonstrated that although the model is extremely accurate for
evaluating products that start today and end at time T, it is not accurate for forward
products that start at a future time U and end at T. The dynamics of the products
obtained through the Dupire model results in an almost flat σBlack vs K curve, whereas
market data show a smile.
3. The Dupire model implies that the volatility at a given time depends only on
the underlying ST whereas experience has demonstrated that this dependence is not
really constant. This implies the need of a further parameter to introduce another
stochastic source into our expression
The above concerns have taken the quant world to step back from the Dupire
model when analysing future products and this has meant the need to return to the
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
59
models that we were previously discussing, i.e. the normal and lognormal Black
Scholes models, or the Black shifted, although with very subtle modifications.
3.7 Stochastic Volatility
P
t
t
t
VdW rdt
S
dS
+ = (3.55)
P
t t t
dZ g dt f dV + = (3.56)
In this model we assume that the volatility itself follows a stochastic process.
Notice that the Brownian motion driving the volatility process is different from the
asset’s Wiener process. This is the approach followed to introduce a new variable of
stochasticity different from dW, as discussed previously. Both Brownian motions may
be correlated
P
t
P
t t
dZ dW dt , = ρ (3.57)
Note also that ft represents the drift term of the volatility V, whereas gt represents
the volatility of the volatility, otherwise referred to as Vol of Vol.
The advantage of this new model is the fact that before, all the stochasticity
derived from S, and in turn, from W. Now in turn, we have two sources if
stochasticity, W and Z, where, if correlated with a ρ= 1, give way to the previously
discussed normal and lognormal models.
This approach has given way to the models know as:
• Heston 1994
• SABR 1999
Current lines of thought suggest that the path to follow include a combination of
local volatility versus stochastic volatility.
Chapter 3 Historical Models
60
3.7.1 Black shifted with Stochastic Volatility
2002 – 2003
P
t
P
t t t t t
gdZ fdt dV
dW S S V dt rS dS
+ =
− + + = ) ) 1 ( ( α α
(3.58)
3.7.2 Local volatility versus simple Stochastic Volatility
P
t
P
t t t t t
dZ g dt V V dV
dW S t VS dt rS dS
0 0
) (
) , (
+ − =
+ =
λ
σ
(3.59)
where the stochastic volatility includes a mean revision term, and where the
Volatility of Volatilities is a constant.
3.8 SABR
Most markets experience both relatively quiescent and relatively chaotic periods.
This suggests that volatility is not constant, but is itself a random function of time.
Respecting the preceding discussion, the unknown coefficient V (t,*) is chosen to be
ˆ
S
β
α , where the “volatility” α is itself a stochastic process. Choosing the simplest
reasonable process for α now yields the “stochastic – α β ρ model,” which has become
known as the SABR model. In this model, the forward price and volatility are
1
2
ˆ ˆ ˆ
(0)
(0)
dF F dW F f
d dW
β
α
α να α α
= =
= =
(3.60)
under the forward measure, the two processes are correlated
1 2
dW dW dt ρ = (3.61)
The SABR model has the virtue of being the simplest stochastic volatility model
which is homogenous in
ˆ
F and α. We find that the SABR model can be used to
accurately fit the implied volatility curves observed in the marketplace for any single
exercise date tex. More importantly, it predicts the correct dynamics of the implied
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
61
volatility curves. This makes the SABR model an effective means to manage the smile
risk in markets where each asset only has a single exercise date; these markets include
the swaption and caplet/floorlet markets.
The SABR model may or may not fit the observed volatility surface of an asset
which has European options at several different exercise dates; such markets include
foreign exchange options and most equity options. Fitting volatility surfaces requires
the dynamic SABR model or other stochastic volatility models.
In the SABR there are two special cases: If we analyse (3.60) in a little more depth,
we notice that for β = 1, we obtain our previous stochastic log normal Black model.
For β = 0 in turn we obtain the stochastic Black normal model. For a deeper
understanding, refer to the SABR study in the Caplet Stripping Section 17.
Finally, it is worthwhile noting that the SABR model predicts that whenever the
forward price f changes, the implied volatility curve shifts in the same direction and
by the same amount as the price f. This predicted dynamics of the smile matches
market experience, and so is a great advance over the Dupire model which was
inconsistent at this point.
Chapter 4 Interest Rate Models
62
4. Interest Rate Models
As seen, Black can be used for simple vanilla options such as Caps, European
Swaptions,... The BlackScholes model is commonly used for the pricing of equity
assets where the model takes on a deterministic rate r. The model replicates the
evolution of its underlying asset through the use of a drift and a diffusion parameter.
However a difficulty arises when interest rate models are constructed using this
technique as the interest rate curve r is non deterministic and so can lead to arbitrage
solutions.
If we were to apply the Black Scholes formulation to forward interest rates, we
would obtain a lognormal model with a constant volatility σ. Under the risk neutral
forward probability, we would have
P
t
dW U T t F dt U T t dF ) , , ( 0 ) , , ( σ + =
which results extremely simple. Applying Girsanov’s Theorem and inverting the
forward rates in a local volatility approach, we would need a different underlying
each time, because each forward rate has a different black volatility. This is a
characteristic that Black’s model does not support. Black requires a unique volatility.
A solution to the problem that we haven’t discussed could be to consider the
different forward rates as a basket of different products in equity each being
lognormal with their associated volatility. Thus we would obtain a matrix of
correlations between them.
This approach gives way to arbitrage opportunities, creating a forward curve that
always increases with time. According to market data, the former does not always
occur thus the need for specific interest rate models.
Hence, in previous approaches, interest rate models avoid assigning a short rate
by specifying it at every time and state. Although this is a good and practical method,
an alternative is to specify the short rate as a process defined by an Ito equation. This
allows to work in continuous time.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
63
In this approach we specify that the instantaneous short rate r satisfies an
equation of the type
( , ) ( , ) dr r t dt r t dW µ σ = + (4.1)
where W(t) is a standardised Wiener process in the riskneutral world. Given an
initial condition r(0), the equation defines a stochastic process r(t)
Many such models have been proposed as being good approximations to actual
interest rate processes. We list a few of the best known short rate models:
4.1 Rendleman and Bartter model
dr mrdt rdW σ = + (4.2)
This model copies the standard geometric Brownian motion model used for stock
dynamics. It leads to lognormal distributions of future short rates. It is now, however,
rarely advocated as a realistic model of the short rate process
4.2 HoLee model
( ) dr t dt dW θ σ = + (4.3)
This is the continuoustime limit of the HoLee model. The function ( ) t θ is
chosen so that the resulting forward rate curve matches the current term structure. A
potential difficulty with the model is that r(t)may be negative for some t
Chapter 4 Interest Rate Models
64
4.3 Black Derman Toy model
( ) dLnr t dt dW θ σ = + (4.4)
This is virtually identical to the HoLee model, except that the underlying
variable is Ln r rather than r. Using Ito’s Lemma, it can be transformed to the
equivalent form
2
1
( )
2
dr t rdt rdW θ σ σ
= + +
(4.5)
4.4 Vasicek Model
( ) dr a b r dt dW σ = − + (4.6)
The model has the feature of mean reversion in that it tends to be pulled to the
value b. Again, it is possible for r(t) to be negative, but this is less likely than in other
models because of the mean reversion effect. Indeed, if there were no stochastic term
(that is if 0 σ = ), then r would decrease if it were above b and it would increase if it
were below b. This feature of mean reversion is considered to be quite important by
many researchers and practitioners since it is felt that interest rates have a natural
‘home’ of about 5% and that if rates differ widely from this home value there is a
strong tendency to move back to it.
4.5 Cox Ingersoll and Ross model
( ) dr a b r dt rdW σ = − + (4.7)
In this model not only does the drift have a mean reversion, but the stochastic
term is multiplied by r , implying that the variance of the process increases as the
rate r itself decreases.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
65
4.6 Black Karasinski model
( ) dLnr aLnr dt dW θ σ = − + (4.8)
This is the Black Derman Toy model with mean reversion
4.7 Hull White Model
( )
P
t t t t
dr a r dt dW θ σ = − + (4.9)
Where θ, σ and ‘a’ are deterministic.
r is a normal (Gaussian) variable with a mean reversion term. This mean revision
within the drift parameter allows for a more static evolution of the interest rates, a
property that is historically consistent
Notice that the above equation can be solved analytically.
However, there are two main problems connected to this model:
• The first is the fact that the model is normal by definition, thus always yields a
positive probability for values of r < 0. This is not such a great concern if the
product we try to model depends on high interest rates.
• Secondly, the model gives a correlation of practically 1 between the different long
and short term interest rates. This means that any movement we try to reproduce
in our interest rate curve will result in an equal translation across the entire curve.
Thus the flexibility required to bend the curve at different points, as occurs in
reality is unavailable here. A possible solution would be to take a short term
interest rate into consideration in our model, and at the same time a long term
interest rate. This however requires taking two Brownian motions that are not
correlated.
Chapter 4 Interest Rate Models
66
4.7.1 BK
To solve the normality of the problem, a lognormal Hull White model can be
proposed, which follows a diffusion equation of the form:
P
t t t t
dW dt Lnr a dLnr σ θ + − = ) ( (4.10)
and where θ, σ and a are deterministic. The above is known as the BK model. This
equation however has no analytical solution, meaning it must be solved through
mathematical approximations such as tree diagrams or PDE solvers (MonteCarlo is
not applicable). This results in more difficult and time consuming calibrations.
4.7.2 BDT
is a solution that greatly simplifies the calculations. In it, we take the previous
equation for BK, (4.10)
imposing
) (
) ( '
t
t
a
t
σ
σ
± =
'( )
·
( )
P
t t t
t
dLnr Lnr dt dW
t
σ
θ σ
σ
 
= ± +

\ ¹
(4.11)
However, the previously stated problem that was characterised by uniform
translations in the interest rate curve is still recurrent with this form, i.e. there is still a
unique interest rate that must be selected to define an entire curve.
A summary of the models following similar approaches are:
Table 4.1 Normal or lognormal models with a mean reversion
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
67
4.8 Conclusions
All of these models are referred to as ‘single factor models’ because they each
depend on a single Wiener process W. There are other models that are ‘multifactor’
which depend on two or more underlying Wiener processes.
All the single factor models lead to the same drawback: the fact that they use only
one explanatory variable (the short interest rate
t
r ) to construct a model for the entire
market. The main advantage of these methods lies in the possibility of specifying
t
r as
a solution to a Stochastic Differential Equation (SDE). This allows, through Markov
theory, to work with the associated Partial Differential Equation (PDE) and to
subsequently derive a rather simple formula for bond prices. The disadvantage: the
need for a complicated diffusion model to realistically reconstruct the volatility
observed in forward rates. In addition, the use of a single
t
r proves insufficient to
model the market curve, which appears to be dependent on all the rates and their
different time intervals.
The most straightforward solution should include the use of more explanatory
variables: long and medium term rates. This is, we could perhaps consider a model in
which we would use one representative short term rate, a middle term rate, and
finally a long term interest rate. The Heath Jarrow Morton framework arises as the
most complete application of the suggested approach. It chooses to include the entire
forward rate curve as a theoretically infinite dimensional state variable. This model
will be described in Chapter 7.
Chapter 5 Interest Rate Products
68
5. Interest Rate Products
Interest rate derivatives are instruments whose payoffs are dependent in some
way on the level of interest rates. In 1973, the market for calls over stocks begins. By
the 1980’s, public debt explodes causing a huge increase in the number of Swaps being
traded. By the end of the 1980’s there already appears a market for options over
swaps, thus a whole range of new products Swaptions, FRA’s, Caps, Caplets,... –
were developed to meet the particular needs of end users. These begin trading based
particularly on the LIBOR and EURIBOR rates: London Interbanking Offer Rate and
the European equivalent.
Interest rate derivatives are more difficult to value than equity and foreign
exchange derivatives due to four main reasons:
1. The behaviour of an individual interest rate is more complicated than that of a
stock price or exchange rate.
2. The product valuation generally requires the development of a model to
describe the behaviour of the entire zerocoupon yield curve
3. The volatilities of different points on the yield curve are different
4. Interest rates are used for discounting as well as for defining the payoff
obtained from the derivative.
5.1 Discount Factors
The money account, bank account or moneymarket account process is the
process that describes the values of a (local) riskless investment, where the profit is
continuously compounded at the risk free rate existent in the market at every
moment.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
69
Let B(t) be the value of a bank account at time t ≥ 0. Let us assume that the bank
account evolves according to the following differential equation:
dt t B r t dB
t
) ( ) (
* *
= (5.1)
1 ) , (
*
= t t B because we assume that today we invest one unit of currency, u.c.
This value is not yet stochastic because today, we know the exact value of the bank
account.
Thus, integrating we obtain
∫
=
T
t
s
ds r
e T t B ) , (
*
, where rt is a positive (usually
stochastic) function of time. The above gives us the return at a future time T obtained
from the bank when we invest 1 unit of currency (u.c.) on day t.
∫
T
t
s
ds r
e
t
Fig. 5.1. Future value of money
As the opposite backward operation is more common, we define
*
1
( , )
( , )
T
s
t
r ds
B t T e
B t T
∫
= = (5.2)
The inverse operation is the discount of money from a future date T to present t,
at the bank’s riskless rate. This is defined therefore as '( , )
T
s
t
r ds
B t T e
−
∫
= and is known
as the stochastic discount factor. It is used to bring prices from the future to the present.
∫
−
T
t
s
ds r
e
T t
Fig. 5.2. Discount factor
T
Chapter 5 Interest Rate Products
70
5.2 Zerocoupon bond
The zero coupon bond at time t with maturity T > t, denoted by B(t,T) is the value
of a contract that starts at time t and guarantees the payment of 1 u.c. at maturity T.
It’s price is the future unit of currency, discounted to present. As we do not know
what the future discount rate will be, we can only calculate the bond’s expected price.
( , )
T
s
t
r ds
P
t
B t T E e
−
∫
=
(5.3)
This is simply the extension of a martingale measure
=
∫
−
T
ds r
P
t
S e E S
T
t
s
where
according to our definition of a zero coupon bond, we set ST = 1 u.c. Remember that
all martingales have the above property a martingale is any tradable asset that under
risk neutral probability, follows a diffusion of the form
P
t t t t
dW S t dt rS dS ) ( σ + = (5.4)
Where Wt
P
is a Brownian motion, rt the instantaneous risk free rate and S0 a
constant.
5.3 Interest Rate Compounding
Refers to the profit that one makes by loaning money to a bank at a given time t,
and receiving it back at time T increased by a factor rt. The factor rt is the interest rate,
and represents how much you win to compensate for the fact that you have been
unable to access or invest your money during the period [t, T].
We proceed to describe the different forms of interest rates through a simple
numerical example.
Imagine that we start off with a sum of S = 100$, and decide to invest it at an
annual interest rate of r = 10% = 0.1
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
71
5.3.1 Annual Compounding:
1001.1 = 110$ thus mathematically ( )
t
r S + 1
5.3.2 Semi annual compounding:
r = 5% every 6 months. The difference respect the previous case is that you can
reinvest the profits every 6 months.
6M 1001.05 = 105$
12M 1051.05 = 110.25$ equivalent to 1001.05
2
annual.
2Y 1001.05
4
= 121.55$
1 1
m mn
over n years t t
r r
S S
m m
   
+ → +
 
\ ¹ \ ¹
(5.5)
5.3.3 Continuous Compounding:
is the limit when the rate r is fixed at every instant of time
lim 1
t
m
r n t
m
r
S Se
m
⋅
→∞
 
+ =

\ ¹
(5.6)
5.4 Present Value PV
Is obtained bringing all future cash flows to present by using predicted or
constant interest rates
∑ ∑
⋅ −
⋅ −
→ 
¹

\

+
n r compound continuous
n m
t
t
Se
m
r
S 1 (5.7)
Chapter 5 Interest Rate Products
72
5.5 Internal Rate of Return IRR
rate IRR that will make the PV = 0.
1 0 0
IRR n
continuous compound IRR n t
r
S Se
m
− ⋅
− ⋅
 
+ = → =

\ ¹
∑ ∑
(5.8)
The higher the IRR, the more desirable the investment will be (provided that it is
larger than the bank’s interest rate r).
The IRR is the main method to evaluate an investment together with its NPV.
5.6 Bond Yield (to Maturity) YTM
Is the internal rate of return IRR at the current price. It is always quoted on an
annual basis. It is the face value paid at maturity, with C/m coupon payments each
time period in between. Thus its PV is the face value brought to present summed to
each coupon also brought to present.
∑
=
=
⋅ ⋅

¹

\

+
+

¹

\

+
=
n k
k
k n
m
IRR
m C
m
IRR
F
PV
1
1 1
(5.9)
If there are n periods of coupons left, then
n n
m
IRR
m C
m C
m
IRR
F
PV
⋅ ⋅

¹

\

+
+ +

¹

\

+
=
1 1
(5.10)
There exists an inverse relationship between interest rates and bond prices. If the
IRR increases, then the PV of the bond price decreases.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
73
5.7 Coupon Rate
It is possible to calculate the most representative points on the present value
curve for any given bond. Imagine that F = 100$, C = 10$ :
· if IRR = 0 then
1
k n
k
PV F C m
=
=
= +
∑
· if Coupon = YTM so price is constant at F
· if IRR ∞ then PV0
Yield
Price
10%
10%
15%
F10%
Fig. 5.3. Bond curve dynamics
5.7.1 Time to Maturity
For each curve we can calculate three characteristic points, as before, analysing
how they are influenced by the maturity
· if IRR = 0 then
∑
=
=
+ =
n k
k
m C F PV
1
thus if you increase the maturity T, more
coupons are paid thus the present value is greater
Chapter 5 Interest Rate Products
74
· if YTM= Coupon then PV = F thus all curves pass through
the same point
· if IRR ∞ PV0
Yield
Price
10%
10Y
30Y
F
3Y
Fig. 5.4. Bond curve for different maturities
As maturity increases, the curve becomes steeper, becoming also more sensitive
to variations in interest rates
5.7.2 Using Bonds to Determine Zero Rates:
Paying no Coupons: using the interest rate compounding formula
Principal = 100$ Time to Maturity: 3M Price: 97,5$
You earn % 56 . 2
5 . 97
5 . 97 100
=
−
every 3M
In 1Y you would earn (Note that you do not reinvest so cannot do
4
0256 . 0 )
2,56%·4 = 10,24% per year
An easier way to see this is by doing
4
1
3
100 5 . 97
⋅ −
=
M
r
e giving r 3M = 10,127%
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
75
Paying Coupons: once the short rate interests have been calculated, we can use
the short term bonds:
Principal = 100 Time to Maturity: 1.5Y Price: 97,5$
Having calculated the zero interest rate curve paying no coupons, we have
3m 10,127%; 6M 10,496%; 1Y 10,536%
• Let us imagine our bond is defined by having
Principal = 100 Time to Maturity: 1.5Y Price: 96$
Annual Coupons paid every 6M = 8$ (thus every 6M we receive 4$)
The price will be all the cash flows discounted to present
6
1.5 1
1.5
1
1.5 1
2
1 2 3
1
10.469
1.5 10.5361
2
1.5
( )
96 4 4 (100 4) 10, 681%
M
Y Y
Y
r
r r
r
Y
price C e C e principal C e
e e e r
− ⋅
− ⋅ − ⋅
− ⋅
− ⋅ − ⋅
= + + +
= + + + → =
(5.11)
5.8 Interest Rates
Most of the interest rates we will deal with are yearlybased rates. In general, the
times that appear are dates whose length we specify as (T;U). This is, we convert the
interval into a yearly basis as
m = m(T, U) = U – T /1 year
the daycount fraction assumed for the product can vary depending on the
reference used. We state here the most common: (act=act, act=365, act=360, etc.).
Further, each currency has a particular calendar to be considered when
calculating the difference UT. The convention that is usually taken is that of counting
national holidays, bank holidays, etc.
The simple forward rate contracted at t for the period [T; U] is
Chapter 5 Interest Rate Products
76
) , (
1
1
) , (
) , (
) , , (
U T m U t B
T t B
U T t L


¹

\

− = (5.12)
This can easily be obtained following the previous discussions we have
considered. That is:
∫
U
t
s
ds r
e
∫
T
t
s
ds r
e
∫
U
T
s
ds L
e
T U t
Fig. 5.5. Relating discount rates
Therefore
∫ ∫ ∫
⋅ =
U
T
s
T
t
s
U
t
s
ds L ds r ds r
e e e . L is clearly the forward rate and therefore the rate
between two future time periods, whereas r is the known rate between today t and a
future time period.
If we do not use continuous compounding but instead use annual compounding
(without reinvestment) the former then becomes
) 1 ( m L e e
T
t
s
U
t
s
ds r ds r
⋅ + ⋅ =
∫ ∫
(5.13)
Not to mistake with 1
U T
s s
t t
m
r ds r ds
L
e e
m
∫ ∫
 
= ⋅ +

\ ¹
that would involve the
reinvestment of the benefits obtained. Recall that the above can be rewritten as
) 1 (
1 1
m L
e e
T
t
s
U
t
s
ds r ds r
⋅ + ⋅ =
∫ − ∫ −
which are the discount factors
) 1 (
) , (
1
) , (
1
Lm
T t B U t B
+ ⋅ = . Solving for L we obtain the simple forward rate:
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
77
) , (
1
1
) , (
) , (
) , , (
U T m U t B
T t B
U T t L


¹

\

− = (5.14)
The EURIBOR (Europe InterBank Offer Rate, for the European zone and fixed in
Frankfurt) and the LIBOR (London InterBank Offer Rate, fixed in London) are simple
forward rates. They are an average of the rates at which certain banks (risk rated
AAA) are willing to borrow money with specified maturities (usually 3M, 6M, 1Y).
The rates L(t,T,U) are unknown (modelled as stochastic) as they fluctuate up until the
true fixing date T*. The Libor rate is usually fixed sometime before the payment
period starts. In the Euro zone, the fixing T* is made two business days (2bd) before T,
and in London, it is made the same day, thus T = T*.
5.8.1 Overnight market rates:
Are forward rates fixed each day for a one day period starting that day, meaning
they have the form O(t; T; U) with t = T, U = t + 1bd. Therefore O(t; t; t + 1bd)
5.8.2 The tomorrownext market rates:
Are forward rates for a one day period, i.e they are fixed on one day and applied
on the following. They are of the form TN(t; T; U) with T = t + 1bd, U = t + 2bd.
Therefore TN(t, t+1bd; t+2bd)
We will now proceed to demonstrate that the market interest rate curve can only
exist if there exists a discount factor curve:
Observe that from the expressions, in the first equation B(t,t) = 1.
) 2 , 1 (
1
1
) 2 , (
) 1 , (
) , , (
) 1 , (
1
1
) 1 , (
1
) , , (
bd t bd t m bd t t B
bd t t B
U T t TN
bd t t m bd t t B
U T t O
+ +


¹

\

−
+
+
=
+


¹

\

−
+
=
(5.15)
For each of the two equations independently, we can recover at time t the values
of the zerocoupon curve B(t; T) for T = t + 1bd, and T=t+2bd given the market rates
Chapter 5 Interest Rate Products
78
for O(t; T; U) and TN(t; T; U). For longer T's, we use Libor rates to obtain the values of
B(t,T) since their usual fixing date is simpler of the form t = T. Thus, from the
different Libor rates we obtain B(t,U) with U = T + 3M, T + 6M, T + 1y, typically. For
longer values of U we need to use swap forward rates.
5.9 Forward Rates
Forward interest rates are those implied by current (continuously compounding)
zero coupon rates.
YEAR Zero Rate per
Year
Forward
Rate
1 10
2 10.5 11
3 10.8 11.4
4 11 11.6
Table 5.1 Construction of forward rates from bonds
) (
0 0
1 2 1
1
2
2
T T r T r T r
f T T
e e S e S
− ⋅ ⋅ ⋅
⋅ = and solving
1 2
1 2
1 2
T T
T r T r
r
T T
f
−
⋅ − ⋅
=
We can therefore calculate the forward rate for the 2Y:
% 11 100 100
1
1
1 10 2 5 . 10 1
= → ⋅ =
⋅
⋅ ⋅
Y f
r
r e e e
Y f
And analogously, we can calculate the forward rate for 4Y as:
% 6 . 11 100 100
4 3
1
4 . 11 11 10 4 11 4 3
= → ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ =
→
⋅
⋅ →
Y Y f
r
r e e e e e
Y Y f
Or % 6 . 11 100 100
4 3
1
3 8 . 10 4 11 4 3
= → ⋅ =
→
⋅
⋅ ⋅ →
Y Y f
r
r e e e
Y Y f
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
79
5.10 Instantaneous forward rate
The instantaneous forward rate is the risk free rate of return which we may have
on an investment over the infinitesimal interval [T; T+dT ] if the contract is made at T.
Thus it is natural to view f(t; T) as an estimate of the future short rate r(T).
Recall, assuming m(t, U) = U  T, that we had

¹

\

−
− −
=


¹

\

− =
T U
T t B U t B
U t B U T m U t B
T t B
U T t L
) , ( ) , (
) , (
1
) , (
1
1
) , (
) , (
) , , ( (5.16)
If we assume U and T to be very close, then
U T U T
1 ( , ) ( , )
lim ( , , ) lim
( , )
1 ( , ) log ( , )
( , )
B t U B t T
L t T U
B t U U T
B t T B t T
B t T T T
→ →
− −  
= =

−
\ ¹
∂ ∂
= − = −
∂ ∂
(5.17)
Because
log ( , ) 1 ( , )
( , )
B t T B t T
T B t T T
∂ ∂
=
∂ ∂
We therefore define the instantaneous forward rate with maturity T
T
T t B
T t F
∂
∂
− =
) , ( log
) , ( (5.18)
We have
∫ −
=
U
T
s
du u t F
e
T t B
U t B
) , (
) , (
) , (
(5.19)
If instead of T we were to take t, where B(t, t) = 1, we would have
∫
−
=
U
t
s
du u t F
e U t B
) , (
) , ( (5.20)
But remember now from (5.3) that we also had the expression from the zero
coupon bond
=
∫
−
U
t
s
ds r
P
e E U t B ) , ( (5.21)
Chapter 5 Interest Rate Products
80
Therefore, by making U tend to t in (5.21), the expectation becomes known at t.
Having done this, we can now directly equate the expressions (5.20) and (5.21),
obtaining
rt = F(t, t) (5.22)
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
81
6. More Complex Derivative Products
The LIBOR is the London InterBank Exchange Rate. We will let L(t,T,U) denote
the forward LIBOR, seen from time t. This is, the Libor rate that will exist in a future t
period, ranging from T to U. Thus the spot LIBOR rate is given as L(T,T,U). This rate
fixes at time T, such that 1$ invested at this rate pays 1+mL(T,T,U) at maturity U. The
maturity U is generally expressed in terms of fractions of years, such that a 3 month
LIBOR will have an m = 0,25.
6.1 Calls and Puts
6.1.1 Call
A European call option (respectively a put option) with strike or exercise price K
and maturity or exercise date T on the underlying asset St, is a contract that gives to its
holder the right, but not the obligation, to buy (respectively to sell) one share of the
asset at the fixed time T. The underwriter of the option has the obligation, if the holder
decides to exercise the option, to sell (buy) the share of the asset. The option can be
exercised exclusively at time T.
The buyer of a call option wants the price of the underlying instrument to rise in
the future so that he can ‘call it’ from the vendor at the cheaper preestablished price
and then go on to sell it in the market at a profit. The seller either expects that the
call’s price will not rise, or is willing to give up some of the upside (profit) from a
price rise in return for (a) the premium (paid immediately) plus (b) retaining the
opportunity to make a gain up to the strike price
A European call option allows the holder to exercise the option (i.e., to buy) only
on the option expiration date. An American call option allows exercise at any time
during the life of the option.
The price is known as the exercise price or strike price. The final date is the
expiration or maturity.
Chapter 6 More Complex Derivative Products
82
Fig. 6.1. Investor’s profit on buying a European call option: Option price= 5$;
Strike K= 60$
In the above, consider an investor who buys a European call option with strike
60$ to buy a given stock whose current price is 58$. The price to purchase this option
is 5$. The option exercises in 5 months.
If in 5 months the stock price is above 60$, say 75$ the option will be exercised
and the investor will buy the stock. He can immediately sell the share for 60$ at the
market, thus gaining 15$ (ignoring the initial 5$ cost to buy the call). If the price of the
stock falls below 60$, the investor will clearly not exercise the call option to buy at 60$.
The call’s payoff is therefore
max( ; 0)
T
Payoff S K = − (6.1)
The above figure shows the investor’s net profit or loss on a call option. It is
important to notice that the investor can lose money even if he does not exercise the
purchase, because he has paid the initial price or prime of 5$.
Notice the subtlety that even if the stock price rises to 62$ which is above the
market price of 60$, the investor is still incurring in a loss. This is because he gains 2$
for selling the stock, but initially lost 5$ by entering the transaction.
Nevertheless, although in the graph the investor is under the horizontal axis and
therefore in a situation of loss, he should still exercise the option. In this way his loss is
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
83
only of 3$. If he does not exercise, his loss are the entire 5$ that he spent to enter the
contract.
The above calculation (6.1) still holds valid as the call’s terminal value. Although
we are not taking the initial price into consideration, we have seen that irrespective of
the initial price, we will always sell if the final price is greater than the strike
Fig. 6.2.Vendor’s profit on selling a European call option: Option price= 5$; Strike
= 60$
From the vendor’s point of view, he will only gain a profit (the price at which the
call was sold) if the option is not exercised. We see his profits in the above graph. As
soon as the stock’s price rises above 60$, he is losing money because he is selling at
60$ an asset that is worth more than 60$ in the market. His payoff is the exact opposite
of the investor’s:
max( ; 0) min( ; 0)
T T
Payoff K S K S = − − = − (6.2)
Note: an option is said to be “at the money” if the strike price of the option equals
the market price of the underlying security.
Chapter 6 More Complex Derivative Products
84
6.1.2 Put
A call option gives the holder the right to buy the underlying asset. A put option
gives the holder the right to sell the underlying asset by a certain date at a certain
price. The vendor of a put option therefore hopes that the asset’s price will decrease so
that he will be able to ‘put it’ to the buyer at the higher preestablished price.
Imagine an investor who buys a European put option with a strike price of 90$.
Imagine the current stock price is of 85$, and that the option price is 7$.
Fig. 6.3. Investor’s profit on buying a European put option: Option price= 7$; Strike =
90$
If the share price drops to 75$, the buyer earns 15$ (ignoring the initial cost)
because he can exercise the option to sell at 90$. If the price instead rises above 90$,
the investor will clearly not exercise the option to sell at 90$, and will instead go
directly to the market where he can sell the stock at its true, higher price. The put’s
payoff is
max( ; 0)
T
Payoff K S = − (6.3)
Conversely, the person who buys the put can only win the prime price paid when
the investor entered the contract, if the stock’s price goes up. If it declines, he will be
forced to buy the stock more expensive than its market quote, so will be losing money.
His payoff is
max( ; 0) min( ; 0)
T T
Payoff K S K S = − − = − (6.4)
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
85
Fig. 6.4. Profit from writing a European put option: Option price= 7$; Strike = 90$
6.1.3 Present value of an option
We already derived in the Black Scholes section (Chapter 3.1.2) a formula to
calculate the present value of a call which at a future date gives the final payoffs that
we have seen above. We simply recall the results that were derived.
( ) ( )
0 1 2
qT rT
Call S e N d Ke N d
− −
= − (6.5)
( ) ( )
2 0 1
rT qT
Put Ke N d S e N d
− −
= − − − (6.6)
0 0
ln
qT
S e S
Ln qT
K K
−
 
= −

\ ¹
(6.7)
2
0
1
2
S
Ln r q T
K
d
T
σ
σ
 
 
+ − +
 
\ ¹
\ ¹
=
(6.8)
2
0
2 1
2
S
Ln r q T
K
d d
T
σ
σ
σ
 
 
+ − −
 
\ ¹
\ ¹
= = − Τ
(6.9)
Chapter 6 More Complex Derivative Products
86
6.2 Forward
A forward contract on a commodity is an agreement between two parts to
purchase or sell a specific amount of an underlying commodity at a defined price, at a
determined future date. It is therefore a security that settles a future price,
irrespectively of any possible future variations in that asset’s price. In a forward
contract, all the payments take place at time T. The buyer is said to be long whereas
the seller is said to be short.
This is best understood with a graphical representation:
S
t
S
T
K=F(t,S
T
)
t T
difference
Fig. 6.5. Forward contract: future expected value versus real future value
St is the asset’s current price. F(t, ST) is today’s expected future price of the asset at
time T, and so is the price K at which the vendor sells his asset today to be delivered
in the future.
ST is the real future price of the asset, and is only known at time T.
In the above example, the vendor sold above the real future price so earns the
difference (K–ST). Obviously the buyer only enters such a contract if he thinks the
asset is going to be more expensive in the future, so he secures a fixed future price K.
6.2.1 Mathematically
A forward contract on an asset ST made at t has the following cash flows:
• The holder of the contract pays at time T a deterministic amount K that was
settled before at t.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
87
• He receives a stochastic (floating) amount F(T,ST) = ST which is the
future value of that underlying asset he has bought. Nothing is paid or
received at t.
The forward price K is determined at time t so that it equals the future expected
price of the asset ST.
[ ]
( )
( )
( ) 0
r T t P
t t T
r T t
t
Forward e E S K
K S e
− −
− −
= − =
=
(6.10)
6.2.2 Call option on a forward
A call option over a forward contract would be the possibility of entering the
forward agreement at a time 0 < t < maturity. One would enter only if he were to
receive a floating amount that were greater than the fixed amount K paid.
( )
( ) 0
r T t P
t t T t
CallForward e E S K F
− − +
= − =
%
(6.11)
6.3 Future
Future contracts are quoted in organised markets, giving them great liquidity and
few transactional costs.
A futures contract on an asset ST made at t with delivery date T is very much like
a forward contract, with some differences:
S
t
S
T
t T
difference
K=F(t,S
T
)
Chapter 6 More Complex Derivative Products
88
Fig. 6.6. Future contract: future expected value versus real future value
• St is the asset’s current price.
• F(t, ST) is today’s expected future price of the asset, and so is the price K at which
the vendor sells his asset to be delivered in the future.
• ST is the real future price of the asset, and is only known at time T.
• F(ti, ST) is the evolution of that expected future value as we advance through time.
The expected future value right at the end must equal the price of the underlying
at that point, thus F(T, T, ST) = ST.
The buyer, instead of paying the difference at the end T, now pays it continually
at every ti as the difference in F with respect to the previous date. If ever this
difference increases (moves upwards in Fig. 6.6), he receives this amount from the
vendor instead of having to pay for it.
In the previous example, the seller sold above the real price, so earns the
difference. In practice, the exchange of the asset at T for its real price at T needn’t be
done. Instead only the cash is exchanged.
6.3.1 Mathematically
Mathematically we can give the following explanation:
In forwards, the price of K at time t was the expected future cost of the asset F(t,
ST). Now with futures, this is substituted by a continuous stochastic payment process
F(t, T, ST) made continuously over the time interval (t,T] in such a way that the
contract value be continually zero. There is no obligation to interchange the claim ST
and the payment F(T,T, ST). The contract is achieved by the following agreement:
During each time interval (ti1; ti), t ≤ t1 ≤ t2 ≤ …≤ T, the holder of the contract pays
) , , ( ) , , (
1 T i T i
S T t F S T t F
−
− . If the payment is negative, he will receive the money
from the counterparty. Therefore
[ ]
) (
1
1
1 1
~
) , , (
t T r
t t T
P
t T
e S F S E S T t F
−
= = (6.12)
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
89
6.3.2 Call option on a future
One can also formulate call options on futures contracts. For instance, consider a
future contract on ST1, with delivery date T1, and a call option on F(T; T1; ST1) with
exercise price K and exercise date T < T1. The payment at T of this option is thus (F(T;
T1; ST1)  K)
+
. From this, we obtain that the price of the call option on the future is
( )
( )
1
1
1 1
( )
1
( ) ( )
( , , )
r T t P
t t T t
r T t r T t P
t t t
CallFuture e E F t T S K F
e E S e K F
+
− −
+
− − −
= − =
= −
%
%
(6.13)
Thus, proceeding as above in the call option case, and by using Black Scholes, we
get
( ) ( )
2 1 1
) (
) ( ) , , (
1
1
d KN d N S T t F e CallFuture
T
t T r
t
− =
− −
(6.14)
with
t T
t T
K
S T t F
d
T
T
T
T
− ⋅
− ⋅
±


¹

\

=
σ
σ
2
) (
) , , (
log
2
1
2 , 1
1
(6.15)
6.4 FRA
A FRA, or future rate agreement, consists in an agreement between two
counterparties, where one of the two parts pays a fixed flow of income (or fixed leg)
against a variable flow of income (or variable leg) which he receives in return.
Let us set the case where we pay a fixed leg in 3 months at a 3% annual interest
rate, fixed today.
In return we receive a 3 month EURIBOR rate fixed at maturity (in T = U = 3M)
Chapter 6 More Complex Derivative Products
90
0
Variableleg
Fixed leg
Fig. 6.7. FRA payoffs
We will therefore be paying 0.03 · 0.25 = 0.75%
By definition this contract has a NPV = 0
6.5 FRA Forward
Consists in an agreement between two counterparties, where one of the two parts
pays a fixed flux of income (or fixed leg) against a variable flux of income (or variable
leg) which he receives in return. The fixed rate is settled at the present date t = 0,
whereas the variable leg is set by the LIBOR value at the fixing date T, over a time
period up until U. The difference between the two rates at T is exchanged at U.
0
Variable leg
Fixed leg
T U
Fig. 6.8. FRA future’s payoffs
Mathematically, the interchange of flows at time U is then
( ) ( )
, Nm K L T U − (6.16)
where N is the nominal and L(T,U) the floating rate. The value of such a contract
discounted to time t, assuming N = 1 for simplicity, is:
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
91
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
,
( , ) ,
U
s
t
T
s
t
r ds
P
t t
r ds
P
t
FRA E e m K L T U F
E B T U e m K L T U F
−
−
∫
= −
∫
= −
%
%
(6.17)
remembering that the LIBOR forward rate L(t,T,U) is defined as
) , (
1
1
) , (
) , (
) , , (
U T m U t B
T t B
U T t L


¹

\

− = (6.18)
then ( ) ( , ) 1 ( , )
T
s
t
r ds
P
t t
FRA E e KmB T U B T U F
−
∫
= − +
%
(6.19)
And because bonds can be expressed as
( , )
T
s
t
r ds
B t T e
−
∫
= (6.20)
we can rewrite the above as
( , ) ( , )
( , ) ( , ) ( , )
T T T
s s s
t t t
T T T U U
s s s s s
t t t T T
r ds r ds r ds
P P P
t t
r ds r ds r ds r ds r ds
P P P
t
FRA KmE e B T U F E e E e B T U
KmE e e F E e E e e F
KmB t U B t T B t U
− − −
− − − − −
∫ ∫ ∫
= − +
∫ ∫ ∫ ∫ ∫
= − +
= − +
%
% %
(6.21)
Let us set as an example a FRA Forward contract 3M x 15M.
We are obliged to pay, at time U = 15M, the rate fixed today.
In return we receive at time U the LIBOR rate L(T,U). This quantity is variable as
we cannot know the value of the LIBOR lasting 1Y and starting in 3M until T = 3M
itself.
In reality, what is exchanged is the difference between the two rates, multiplied
by the notional over which the exchange was agreed.
Chapter 6 More Complex Derivative Products
92
6.6 Caplet
Is the option of entering a FRA contract. This is, the option of entering the
FRA at time T (at a premium), if the variable leg is greater than the fixed leg (and thus
compensates for the premium paid).
Therefore, a caplet with maturity T and strike K will have the following
payoff: at time U the holder of the caplet receives:
+
− = ) ) , , ( ( K U T T L m Caplet
T
(6.22)
Note that the caplet expires at time T, but the payoff is received at the end of the
accrual period, i.e. at time U. The payoff is daycount adjusted. The liabilities of the
holder of this caplet are always bounded above by the strike rate K, and clearly if
interest rates increase, the value of the caplet increases, so that the holder benefits
from rising interest rates.
By the usual arguments, the price of this caplet is given by the discounted risk
adjusted expected payoff. If {P (t, T) : T ≥ t} represents the observed term structure of
zerocoupon bond prices at time t, then the price of the caplet is given by
[ ]
+
− = ) ) , , ( ( ) ; ( K U T T L E U t mB Caplet
t t
(6.23)
In this equation, the only random term is the future spot LIBOR, L(T,T,U). The
price of the caplet therefore depends on the distributional assumptions made on L(T,
T, U ). One of the standard models for this is the Black model. According to this
model, for each maturity T, the riskadjusted relative changes in the forward LIBOR
L(t, T, U ) are normally distributed with a specified constant volatility σT , i.e.
t T
dW
U T T L
U T T dL
σ =
) , , (
) , , (
(6.24)
This implies a lognormal distribution for L(T, T, U ), and under this modelling
assumption the price of the T – maturity caplet is given by
( ) ( ; ) ( , , )
P
t
mB t U E L t T U K ς
+
= −
(6.25)
1 2
( ; ) ( , , ) ( ) ( )
i i
T T
t
mB t U L t T U N d KN d ς = −
(6.26)
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
93
t T
t T
K
U T t L
d
T
T
T
− ⋅
− ⋅
±


¹

\

=
σ
σ
2
) ( ) , , (
log
2 *
2 , 1
(6.27)
∫
∞ −
− =
z
u
du e z N
2
2
1
2
1
) (
π
(6.28)
0
Variable leg
Fixed leg
T U
Exercise Option
Fig. 6.9. Caplet payoffs
6.6.1 Caplet as a Put Option on a ZeroCoupon Bond
A caplet is a call option on an interest rate, and since bond prices are inversely
related to interest rates, it is natural to be able to view a caplet as a put option on a
zero coupon bond. Specifically, the payoff of a caplet at time U is
( ( , , ) )
U
Caplet m L T T U K
+
= − (6.29)
This payoff is received at time T + 1Y/m, where m is the number of payments in a
year. The LIBOR rate prevalent over the accrual period [T, U ] is L(T, T, U ). It follows
that, at time T, the price of the caplet is annually discounted from U to T as was shown
in (5.13) as
+
−
+
= ) ) , , ( (
) , , ( 1
1
K U T T L m
U T T mL
Caplet
T
(6.30)
The price of a zerocoupon bond, on the other hand, is expressed as
) , , ( 1
1
) , ; (
U T T mL
U T t B
+
= (6.31)
from which it follows that
Chapter 6 More Complex Derivative Products
94
+ +


¹

\

−
+
+ =


¹

\

−
− = ) , ; (
) 1 (
1
) 1 ( 1
) , , (
1 1
) , ; ( U T t B
mK
mK K
U T T mL m
U T t mB Caplet
T
(6.32)
This is just 1 + mK units of a put option on the T + 1Y/m – maturity zerocoupon
bond with strike (1 + mK) − 1 . Thus a caplet is a put option on a zerocoupon bond. A
cap, therefore, is a basket of put options on zerocoupon bonds of various maturities.
6.7 Cap
Is a sum of Caplets. This is, the option at every fixing Ti of entering that specific
Caplet from Ti to Ui = Ti+1. Each Caplet has an equal duration of time 1year/m up until
its corresponding Ui. More specifically, it is a collection (or strip) of caplets, each of
which is a call option on the LIBOR level at a specified date in the future.
To construct a standard cap on the 1year/m – maturity LIBOR with strike K and
maturity U, we proceed as follows. Suppose we are currently at time t. Starting with
U, we proceed backwards in steps of length 1year/m. Let n be the number of
complete periods of length 1year/m between t and U. Thus, we get a set of times
T0 = t + δ
T1 = T1 + 1Y/m
T2 = T2 + 1Y/m = T0 + 2·1Y/m
Tn = U = T0 + n·1Y/m
We now construct the portfolio of n caplets, struck at K, with maturities T0, T1,…,
Tn1, called the fixing dates or caplet maturity dates. The payment dates are thus T1,
T2,…, Tn. The cap is then just equal to the sum of the prices of the strip of caplets. We
will now calculate this strip:
If ζi(t) denotes the price at time t of a caplet with maturity date Ti (and payment
date Ui = Ti+1), then the price of the cap is
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
95
[ ]
∑ ∑
−
=
+
−
=
− = =
1
0
1
0
) ) , , ( ( ) ; ( ) ( ) , (
n
i
i i t
n
i
i
K U T T L E U t mB t T t ς ς (6.33)
Applying Black Scholes
[ ]
∑ ∑
−
=
+
−
=
− = =
1
0
2 1
1
0
) ( ) ( ) , , ( ) ; ( ) ( ) , (
n
i
T T
i i
n
i
i
i i
d KN d N U T T L U t mB t T t ς ς (6.34)
The only quantity that cannot be directly observed in this pricing formula is the
set of forward rate volatilities, σTi for each caplet. Thus
) ,...., , , , ( ) , (
1
1 0
−
=
Tn T T
T t T t σ σ σ ς ς
As a given set of forward rate volatilities produces a unique price, if we can find a
single number σ such that
) ,...., , , , ( ) , (
1
1 0
−
=
Tn T T
T t T t σ σ σ ς ς = ) ,...., , , , ( σ σ σ ς T t
then this σ is called the implied or Black volatility for the U – maturity cap.
The market’s observed prices of caps of various maturities are inverted
numerically to obtain a term structure of Black volatilities, and these implied
volatilities are then quoted on the market itself.
0
Variable leg
Fixed leg
T1 U
Exercise Option
T4 T3 T2 T5
Fig. 6.10. Cap payoffs
Chapter 6 More Complex Derivative Products
96
6.7.1 A Floor.
is a strip of floorlets, each of which is a put option on the LIBOR level at a given
future date. The pricing and hedging of floors is exactly complementary to the
treatment of caps. The price of a floor with similar a structure to the plain vanilla cap
discussed before is given by:
[ ]
∑ ∑
−
=
−
=
− − − = =
1
0
1 2
1
0
) ( ) , , ( ) ( ) ; ( ) ( ) , (
n
i
T
i i
T
n
i
i
i i
d N U T T L d KN U t mB t T t φ φ (6.35)
Just as a caplet is a put option on a pure discount bond, similarly a floorlet is a
call option on such a bond. The hedging instruments for floors are the same as for
caps, except that positions are reversed since the holder of a floor benefits from falling
interest rates. The owner of a floor is always long in the market and long in vega, i.e.
benefits from rising volatility. The value of a floor also increases with maturity, as the
number of put options increases.
6.7.2 PutCall Parity
Consider a caplet ζ and a floorlet Ф, each maturing at time T, with the same strike
rate K. Let us construct a portfolio
̟ = ζ − Ф
The payoff from this portfolio, received at the end of the accrual period, is
( ) ( ) [ ] ( ) [ ] K U T T L m U T T L K K U T T L m
i i i i i i T
− = − − − =
+ +
) , , ( ) , , ( ) , , ( π
(6.36)
This is just a cash flow from a payers swap. Thus we have the following version
of the putcall parity appropriate for caps and floors:
Cap – Floor = Payer Swap
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
97
6.8 Swap
Consists in an agreement between two counterparties made at t = 0, where one of
the two parts pays a fixed coupon rate K on every fixing (or fixed leg) and in return,
receives a variable floating rate (or variable leg) defined over LIBOR rates. It is thus an
exchange of a series of payments at regular intervals for a specified period of time.
The payments are based on a notional underlying principal. There is only one option
to enter or not the agreement.
The fixed rate K is settled at the present date t = 0, whereas the variable leg is set
by the LIBOR value at each fixing date Ti, lasting a time period until Ui  thus L(Ti, Ui).
The difference between the two rates is exchanged at Ui, after being multiplied by a
notional. Note that every maturity has Ui = Ti+1
The lifetime of the swap is called its tenor. An investor is said to hold a payer
swap if he pays the fixed leg and receives the floating; an investor is said to hold a
receiver swap if the reverse is true. The timetable for payments can be represented
schematically as follows (assuming a unit notional).
Time Fixed Coupon Floating Coupon Cashflow
T0
0 0 0
T1
mK
mL(T0,T0,U) m(KL(T0,T0,U))
: : : :
Tn
mK
mL(Tn1,Tn1,U) m(KL(Tn1,Tn1,U))
Table 6.1 Swap payoff term structure
Consider the position of the holder of a payer swap. The value of the payer swap
at time t < T0 (the first LIBOR fixing date) is given by
[ ]
∑
−
=
+
− =
1
0
1
) ) , , ( ( ) ; ( ) , (
n
i
i i i n
K U T T L T t mB T t V (6.37)
where K is the fixed coupon rate. To give this swap zero initial value, we can set
Chapter 6 More Complex Derivative Products
98
∑
∑
−
=
−
=
= =
1
0
1
0
0
) ; (
) , , ( ) ; (
) , , (
n
i
i
n
i
i i i
n
T t B
U T T L T t B
T T t R K (6.38)
This rate R(t, T0, Tn) which gives a zero value to a swap starting at time T0 and
expiring after n payments at Tn, is called the forward par swap rate for a swap with
tenor Tn − T0. The spot starting par swap rate, or just the swap rate, is the fixed coupon
rate that gives zero initial value to a swap starting at the present time. This is denoted
by R(t, t, T) for a swap with tenor T − t.
0
Variable leg
Fixed leg
T1 U T4 T3 T2 T5
Fig. 6.11. Swap payoffs
6.8.1 Swap –another approach
A swap with notional N and time schedule τ = (T0; T1; T2,…,Tn) is a contract that
interchanges payments of two legs:
The fixed leg pays at times T1; T2,…,Tn a fixed annual rate
NmiK, With i = 1,… ,n mi = m(Ti1; Ti)
The floating leg pays at times U1,…, Um that are most probably different from Ti,
although U0 = T0, Um = Tn. The payments are based on the Libor forward rates,
resetting at Ti. That is, seen from time t ≤ T0,
N mi
L(t; Ui; Ui+1) with i = 1,…,n mi = m(Ui1; Ui)
The basis or day count convention for the floating leg is usually act/360, and for
the fixed leg there are many usual choices. There are different classes of swaps,
according to what is done with the fixed leg. If it is paid, we call it a payer swap, and a
receiver swap if the fixed leg is received. Let us think, for example, of a payer swap.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
99
According to
=
∫
−
T
ds r
P
t
S e E S
T
t
s
the value of the payer swap will be the conditional
expectation of the discounted payoff of the product. Thus, the value (at t) of our payer
swap is then the value of the fixed leg minus the value of the floating leg, that is
i l
f f s
t t t
V V V = − (6.39)
For simplicity, let us assume N = 1. For the fixed leg, by the linearity of the
conditional expectation and the definition of B(t; T), its value is
1 1
( , )
T
i
s
i t
n n
r ds
f P
t i t i i
i i
V E e Km F B t T Km
− ∫
= =
 

= =

\ ¹
∑ ∑
%
(6.40)
To value the floating leg, let us assume that there are no differences in the time
schedules Ti and Ui as was mentioned previously. Therefore, its value is
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
, ,
,
1
1
,
,
1
,
,
, 1
,
, ,
T
i
s
l t
T
i
s
t
T
i
s
t
n
r ds
f P
t i i i t
i
n
r ds
i P
i t
i i i
n
r ds
i P
t
i i
n
i
i
i i
i i
i
V E e m L t T T F
B t T
m E e F
B t T m
B t T
E e F
B t T
B t T
B t T
B t T
B t T B t T
−
∫
−
=
−
∫
−
=
− ∫
−
=
−
=
−
 

=

\ ¹
 
= −


\ ¹
 
 

= −



\ ¹
\ ¹
 
= −


\ ¹
= −
∑
∑
∑
∑
%
%
%
( ) ( )
0
1
, ,
n
n
B t T B t T
=
= −
∑
(6.41)
With different time schedules, the formula results less concise. Nevertheless, it is
often said that a floating leg that is valued as was done previously is valued “at par”.
Thus, the value of the payer swap is
( ) ( ) ( )
0
1
, , ,
l
n
f
t i i n
i
V K B t T m B t T B t T
=
= − +
∑
(6.42)
Chapter 6 More Complex Derivative Products
100
The market swap rate associated to a swap with a time schedule of τ = (T0; T1;
T2,…,Tn) and a daycount convention m, is the rate of the fixed leg that makes the
contract fair (price 0) at time t: thus, such that the fixed leg and the variable leg have
the same price. Solving for K = Sτ,m and V
S
t = 0 we obtain
( )
( )
0
1
( , ) ,
( )
,
n
m n
i i
i
B t T B t T
S t
B t T m
τ ,
=
−
=
∑
(6.43)
Of course, we can therefore rewrite the initial formula in terms of Sτ,m as
( ) ( ) ( )
1
, ( ) ,
n
s
t m i i
i
V K K S t B t T m
τ
τ
,
=
= −
∑
(6.44)
Observe that by using the values of the curve already obtained from the forward
cash rates and using these market swap rates, (which are market data), we can obtain
the values of the zerocoupon bond B(t,T) for values of T = 3M, 6M, 1y, etc. For values
of the curve with T’s that are not exactly these values, we use interpolation (usually
log linear interpolation, since heuristically B(0; T) ~ e
rT
, where the unknown is r).
Such a recursive method to obtain information is often called a bootstrapping method.
6.9 Swaption
A swaption is the option of entering a Swap contract at a future time T. There are
two types:
A Payer swaption allows its holder to exercise into a payer swap at maturity U,
thus agreeing to pay a fixed quantity and receive floating cash flows for a specified
period of time, called the swap tenor.
A receiver swaption allows to exercise into a receiver swap, paying floating and
receiving fixed rate payments for a specified time.
At maturity, the holder of a swaption can exercise into swaps having several
possible tenors. For this reason, swaptions must specify not just the expiry time T of
the option, but also the tenor T
*
of the swap resulting from exercise. Thus swaption
prices, volatilities etc are quoted on a matrix.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
101
6.9.1 Payoff Structure
Consider a T × T
*
payer swaption. Let T = T0, T1, ..., Tn−1 be the fixing dates and
T1, T2, ..., Tn = T
*
the cash flow dates for the swap. If K is the fixed swap coupon and m
the constant accrual factor between fixing and payment dates, then the value at time t
of the payer swap is
[ ]
∑
−
=
− =
1
0
) ) , , ( ( ) ; ( *) , (
n
i
i i i
K U T T L T t mB T t V (6.45)
The payoff from the payer swaption is therefore given by
+
= × *) , ( *) , ( T T V T T t Payoff (6.46)
If we consider a forwardstarting par swap, then the coupon rate K is given by
R(t, T, T
*
). Substituting this rate into the payer swap underlying the swaption, in
(6.45) we get
∑
−
=
− =
1
0
*
) ; ( ) ) , , ( (( *) , (
n
i
i
T t mB K T T t R T t V (6.47)
The payoff from the swaption becomes
1
*
0
1
*
0
*
(( ( , , ) ) ( ; )
(( ( , , ) ) ( ; )
(( ( , , ) ) 01
n
i
i
n
i
i
Payoff R t T T K mB t T
R t T T K mB t T
R t T T K PV
+
−
=
−
+
=
+
= − =
= − ×
= − ×
∑
∑
(6.48)
The summation factor
∑
−
=
1
0
) ; (
n
i
i
T t mB is called the PV01, and represents the present
value of a basis point paid on the swap cash flow dates. Thus a payer swaption is just
a call option on the forward swap rate, with strike K. Similarly, a receiver swaption is
a put option on the forward swap rate.
Chapter 6 More Complex Derivative Products
102
6.9.2 Pricing a Swaption
The Black model is the market standard for pricing swaptions. In fact it is curious
to note here that the Black model started being used by the market itself, and it was
not until later that a theory was elaborated to justify its application The two crucial
assumptions in the model are firstly, that the forward swap rate R(t, T, T
*
) is driven
by a zero drift geometric Brownian motion dR
t
T T
dW
T T t R
T T t dR
*
) , , (
) , , (
*
*
×
= σ (6.49)
and secondly, that the discounting is constant. This implies that the PV01 does
not change through time.
Now, by using exactly the same calculations as for vanilla caplets, it is easy to see
that the price of a payer swaption is given by
[ ]
[ ] ) ( ) ( ) , , ( 01 ) ; (
) ) , , ( ( 01 ) ; ( ) ; (
2 1
*
* *
T T
i
i
payer
d KN d N T T t R PV T t B
K T T t R E PV T t B T T t Payoff
− × × =
− × × = ×
+
(6.50)
t T
t T
K
T T t R
d
T T
T T
T
− ⋅
− ⋅
±


¹

\

=
×
×
*
*
2
) (
) , , (
log
2
*
2 , 1
σ
σ
(6.51)
The only unobservable is the forward rate volatility σT×T* . However, there is a 1 to
1 correspondence between this volatility and the resultant price of a swaption, and
this fact is used to invert observed swaption market prices and obtain a matrix of flat
implied volatilities, also known as Black or lognormal volatilities.
A receiver swaption is similar to a payer swaption, except that it can be expressed
as a put option on the forward starting swap rate. The price of an otherwise identical
receiver swaption is given by
* *
*
2 1
( ; ) ( ; ) 01 ( ( , , ))
( ; ) 01 ( ) ( , , ) ( )
receiver
i
T T
i
Payoff t T T B t T PV E K R t T T
B t T PV KN d R t T T N d
+
× = × × −
= × × − − −
(6.52)
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
103
6.9.3 PutCall Parity for Swaptions
Let the Payoff
Receiver
(t, T × T
*
) be a receiver swaption with strike K and the
Payoff
Payer
(t, T × T
*
) be an identical payer swaption. Consider the portfolio
Payoff (t, T × T
*
) = Payoff
Payer
(t, T × T
*
)  Payoff
Receiver
(t, T × T
*
)
It is simple to verify that
Payoff (t, T × T
*
) = PV01 x (R(T,T,T
*
)K)
Or written in words
Payer Swaption – Receiver Swaption = Payer Swap
By noarbitrage, the value of the portfolio (the Payoff) must be equal to the value
of a payer swap. This relationship can be used as an alternative to direct integration
when finding the price of a receiver swaption. The ATM strike is defined to be the
value of K which makes the values of the payer and receiver swaptions equal. Putcall
parity now implies that this must be the same rate that gives a forwardstarting swap,
zero value. In other words, the ATM strike is simply equal to the forward starting par
swap rate R(t, T, T
*
).
Chapter 7 HJM
104
7. HJM
7.1 Introduction
The HeathJarrowMorton framework is a general framework to model the
evolution of interest rates (forward rates in particular). It describes the behaviour of
the future price (in t) of a zero coupon bond B(t,T) paying 1 unit of currency at time T.
The framework originates from the studies of D. Heath, Robert A. Jarrow and A.
Morton in the late 1980s refer to: “Bond pricing and the term structure of interest
rates a new methodology” (1987)  working paper, Cornell University, and “Bond
pricing and the term structure of interest rates: a new methodology” (1989)  working
paper, Cornell University.
The Heath, Jarrow and Morton term structure model provides a consistent
framework for the pricing of interest rate derivatives. The model is directly calibrated
to the currently observed yield curve, and is complete in the sense that it does not
involve the market price of interest rate risk, something which was a feature of the
early generation of interest rate models, such as Vasicek (1977) and Cox, Ingersoll and
Ross (1985).
The key aspect of HJM techniques lies in the recognition that the drifts of the no
arbitrage evolution of certain variables can be expressed as functions of their
volatilities and the correlations among themselves. In other words, no drift estimation
is needed. Models developed according to the HJM framework are different from the
so called shortrate models in the sense that HJMtype models capture the full
dynamics of the entire forward rate curve, while the shortrate models only capture
the dynamics of a point on the curve (the short rate). In practice however, we will not
work with a complete, absolutely continuous discount curve B(t,T), but will instead
construct our curve based on discrete market quotes, and will then extrapolate the
data to make it continuous.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
105
Given the zerocoupon curve B(t,T), there exists a forward rate F(t,u) such that
P
t
dW T t dt T t T t dF ) , ( ) , ( ) , ( σ µ + = (7.1)
This dynamics is the foundation on which the HJM model is constructed.
7.2 Model Origins
There are two basic arbitrage relationships that derive from the bond pricing
equation:
1.
=
∫
−
T
t
s
ds r
P
t
e E T t B ) , ( associated with the spot rates (Classical)
2.
∫
−
=
T
t
ds s t F
e T t B
) , (
) , ( associated with the instantaneous forward rates (HJM)
All existing models start from one or another and follow the same general
procedure:
They start with a set of bond prices {B(t,T)} that are reasonably arbitrage free, and
use either of the previous two arbitrage relationships to go backwards in time so as to
determine a model for either the spot rate rt or for the set of forward rates F(t,s)
depending on the arbitrage relationship selected.
As both relations hold under the no arbitrage conditions, the models obtained are
risk adjusted i.e. they are valid under the risk neutral measure P.
The aim behind the creation of these rt or F(t,s) models is to then perform the
inverse path. That is, to use the models developed to price interest rate derivatives
other than bonds.
1. Classical methods use the first relationship. They try to extract from the set of
bonds {B(t,T)} a risk adjusted model for the spot rate rt, using an assumption on the
Markovness of rt.
Chapter 7 HJM
106
2. The HJM approach uses the second relationship. It obtains as a result the
arbitrage free dynamics of ‘d’ dimensional instantaneous forward rates F(t,s). It
requires no spot rate modelling, and what is more, it demonstrates that the spot rate rt
is in general not Markov.
7.3 The HJM Development
The HJM model starts off by exploiting the risk neutral relationship. Imagine
that we have a pair of arbitrage free zero coupon bonds B(t,T), and B(t,U), and let
F(t,T,U) be the defaultfree forward interest rate contracted at time t, starting at T and
ending at maturity U. For simplicity, we will assume that we have no discount factor
‘m’. As seen in the Libor section ( Chapter 5.1), we can write the arbitrage free
relationship:
[ ] ) , , ( 1
) , (
) , (
U T t F
U t B
T t B
− = (7.2)
We are thus relating two different bonds (and therefore their two different
dynamics) through a unique forward rate F. This means that the bond’s arbitrage
relations will be directly built into the forward rate dynamics.
The question that logically follows is: which forward rate to use? We have already
seen that there exist both a continuously compounded model for instantaneous rates,
F(t,T), and a discrete expression of the form F(t,T,U). The above clearly makes use of
the discrete approach, and leads to the BGM models created by the work of Brace,
Gatarek and Musiela.
In contrast, the original approach used by HJM was to model the continuously
compounded instantaneous forward rates, F(t,T), where as we saw previously in 5.3.3
that
∫
−
=
T
t
ds s t F
e T t B
) , (
) , ( (7.3)
With the above, the arbitrage relationship between interest rate bonds now
becomes:
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
107
∫
=
u
T
ds s t F
e
U t B
T t B
) , (
) , (
) , (
(7.4)
We will continue our introduction to the HJM model along the lines of the
original HJM approach.
Notice that there is no expectation operator in the above, since the F(t,s) are all
forward rates observed at the current time t, beginning at a future date s, and lasting
an infinitesimal time ds. For simplicity we will now adopt Bt = B(t,T).
The HJM model, following Black, assumes that a typical bond in a risk neutral
environment follows the stochastic differential equation:
( , , )
t t t t t t
dB r B dt t T B B dW σ = + (7.5)
Where rt is the riskfree instantaneous spot rate and is therefore equal for all
bonds or assets. The noteworthy part of this model is the fact that it uses a unique
Brownian Motion. Indeed, it is quite tedious to demonstrate how the Brownians do
not depend on the end W
T
. We will not enter the details of this development here, but
will simply underline once more the importance of the fact that we are able to take a
unique Brownian parameter.
From the equation above (7.4), we could rearrange the expression so as to have
∫
=
u
T
ds s t F
U t B
T t B
) , (
) , (
) , (
log (7.6)
This can be re written in terms of non instantaneous forward rates, for an
infinitesimal interval ∆ as:
( ) T T T T t F T t B T t B − ∆ + ∆ + = ∆ + − ) ( ) , , ( ) , ( log ) , ( log (7.7)
by applying Ito’s Lemma:
[ ] ( ) dt T t B B T t
T t B
T t dB
T t B
T t B d
t
2
2
) , ( ) , , (
) , (
1
2
1
0 ) , (
) , (
1
) , ( log σ


¹

\
 −
+ + =
(7.8)
Chapter 7 HJM
108
we can replace our diffusion expression for dB in the above
[ ]
P
t t t t
dW B T t dt B T t r T t B d ) , , ( ) , , (
2
1
) , ( log
2
σ σ +
− = (7.9)
Similarly for log B(T+∆) we can write
[ ]
P
t t t t
dW B T t dt B T t r T t B d ) , , ( ) , , (
2
1
) , ( log
2
∆ + +
∆ + − = ∆ + σ σ (7.10)
It is important to realize that the drift terms rt are the same in both cases, because
we are considering a risk neutral scenario. This is the same argument that is applied in
the Black Scholes derivation.
The drift term is unknown, but we can use a trick to eliminate it: subtracting the
two equations:
[ ] [ ]
[ ]
2 2
1
log log ( , , ) ( , , )
2
( , , ) ( , , )
t t t t
P
t t t
d B d B t T B t T B dt
t T B t T B dW
σ σ
σ σ
+∆ +∆
+∆
− = + ∆ − +
+ + ∆ −
(7.11)
From before we had
2 2
log ( , ) log ( , )
( ; , )
( , , ) ( , , ) ( , , ) ( , , )
2
P t t t t
t
B t T B t T
F t T T
t T B t T B t T B t T B
dt dW
σ σ σ σ
+∆ +∆
+ ∆ −
+ ∆ =
∆
+ ∆ − + ∆ −
= +
∆ ∆
(7.12)
Now the above can be considered a derivative if 0 → ∆ . Recall that
0
( ) ( )
lim
f f x f x
x
∆→
∂ + ∆ −
=
∂ ∆
We can therefore rewrite the first term in (7.12) as:
2 2
0
( , , ) ( , , ) ( , , )
lim ( , , )
2
t t t
t
t T B t T B t T B
t T B
T
σ σ σ
σ
+∆
∆→
+ ∆ − ∂
=
∆ ∂
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
109
(7.13)
for the second term we have
T
B T t B T t B T t
t t t
∂
∂
=
∆
− ∆ +
∆ + → ∆
) , , (
2
) , , ( ) , , (
0
lim
σ σ σ
(7.14)
and
0
lim ( , , ) ( , ) F t T T dF t T
∆→
+ ∆ =
We therefore end up with
P
t
t t
t
dW
T
B T t
dt
T
B T t
B T t T t dF
∂
∆ + ∂
−
∂
∂
∆ + =
) , , ( ) , , (
) , , ( ) , (
σ σ
σ
(7.15)
where σ are the bond price volatilities (which are generally quoted by the market
itself). We therefore, need only solve the above to attain the HJM forward rate model.
Note lastly that the above corresponds to a diffusion model for F(t,T) of the form
P
t t
dW t s b dt t s b B T t T t dF ) , ( ) , ( ) , , ( ) , ( − ⋅ ∆ + = σ (7.16)
where the partial derivatives are collected under the term b(s,t)
7.4 The rt in the HJM Approach
We will now demonstrate that through the HJM approach, there is no need to
model a diffusion process for rt, that may be inaccurate. Instead, we can directly derive
the spot rates from our instantaneous forward rates F(t,T), by simply realising that:
) , ( t t F r
t
= (7.17)
This is, that the spot rate corresponds to the nearest infinitesimal forward loan
starting at time t recall (5.22) .
Now by integrating our forward model derived in (7.16), this is
P
t t
dW t s b dt t s b B T t T t dF ) , ( ) , ( ) , , ( ) , ( − ⋅ ∆ + = σ (7.18)
Chapter 7 HJM
110
we obtain
∫ ∫
+ ⋅ ∆ + + =
t
P
s
t
t
dW T s b ds T s b B T t T F T t F
0 0
) , ( ) , ( ) , , ( ) , 0 ( ) , ( σ (7.19)
Remember that we had
∂
∂
=
T
B T t
t s b
t
) , , (
) , (
σ
meaning ( , , ) ( , )
t
t
s
t T B b s u du σ =
∫
(7.20)
∫ ∫ ∫
+
+ =
t
P
s
t t
s
dW T s b ds du u s b T s b T F T t F
0 0
) , ( ) , ( ) , ( ) , 0 ( ) , ( (7.21)
So if we now select T = t, our expression for the forward rate becomes an
expression for the spot rate:
∫ ∫ ∫
+
+ =
t
P
s
t t
s
t
dW T s b ds du u s b T s b T F r
0 0
) , ( ) , ( ) , ( ) , 0 ( (7.22)
The forward rates are biased estimators of future spot rates under the risk free
measure.
Proof
Let us demonstrate this by taking the conditional expectation of a future spot rate
rτ with τ > t . Then
[ ] [ ]
+
+ =
∫ ∫ ∫
τ τ τ
τ
τ τ τ
0
) , ( ) , ( ) , ( ) , (
P
s
P
t
t s
P
t
P
t
P
t
dW s b E ds du u s b s b E t F E r E
(7.23)
The last term is 0 as all Brownian processes have 0 future expectation. F(t,τ)is
known at time t, so comes out of the expectation. We are thus left with
[ ]
+ =
∫ ∫
τ τ
τ
τ τ
t s
P
t
P
t
ds du u s b s b E t F r E ) , ( ) , ( ) , ( (7.24)
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
111
meaning ) ( ) , (
τ
τ r E t F
P
t
≠
The HJM exploits the arbitrage relationship between forward rates and bond
prices, eliminating the need to model the expected rate of change of the spot rate.
Chapter 8 Santander HJM
112
8. Santander HJM
In the Heath Jarrow Morton framework, we assume the bond prices follow the
subsequent dynamics:
P
t t
dW T t dt r
T t B
T t dB
) , (
) , (
) , (
Γ + = (8.1)
The first term dt r
t
is constructed based on the risk neutral probability P which
was already explained in detail in the mathematical section 2.6. Remember that it
implies that all assets, bonds and securities should present an equal internal rate of
return. It is thus independent of all bond prices B(t,T), avoiding any arbitrage
possibilities.
The second term
P
t
dW T t ) , ( Γ follows the Heath Jarrow Morton model. The
specific formulation chosen for the diffusion term ) , ( T t Γ has been invented and
developed by the Banco Santander quant team itself.
The initial equation which we have set out with would require a set of infinite
Brownians for every t, especially if the product we model were constructed with
numerous fixings. However, market observation of real data suggests that the curve
obtained through the above equation only experiences translations and rotations
around the 2 to 3 year mark, and presents an important smile which we must be
capable of modelling. These are the only transformations which we need to be capable
of representing, and therefore, we will not be needing hundreds of Brownian sources
of chaos. Instead, we create our HJM model based on a finite number of Brownian
sources.
1
( , ) ( , )
N
P
t j t
i
t T dW t T dW γ
=
Γ =
∑
(8.2)
Where γi is the volatility of the discount factor B(t,T) for a particular instant.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
113
As can be seen by the N index, we introduce a calibration set of N products that
each introduce a particular source of risk or stochasticity. It is up to the trader to
decide which set of N vanilla products will best reproduce the risk that he is trying to
model for his exotic product. In the above notation, each ‘j’ will correspond to a
particular maturity ‘T’.
However, the above time partitioning of the volatilities is fixed for our HJM
model, and independent of any product that we decide to calibrate. This implies that
it is we who define the series of time intervals 0= t0 < t1 < t2 < … < tN <… <∞ that we
will be considering, not the product.
From observation of historical data, we decide also that the Brownian motion
term
P
t
dW is independent of the bond maturities T. Bond price dynamics B(t,T) seem
to all, historically, behave in the same way for a common T.
In the Banco Santander we set out to model Γ using the following criteria. We
have already stated that the model must be capable of reproducing the smile of exotic
products. We search that it be able to provide decorrelation between forward Libor
rates so as to maintain a degree of flexibility within movements in different parts of
the forward rate curve. But most important of all, we search that the model be as
simple as possible, i.e., that it should have the minimal number of parameters capable
of reproducing the above characteristics. This will enable calibrations to be as rapid as
possible.
8.1 How to choose the γ?
Our choice for the different ) (T
j
γ will determine the bond price distribution that
we obtain. We start by seeing how this parameter had been chosen in other models.
The main historical developments in this field can be grouped under the BGM
methodology. Developed in 1995 – 1996, it builds on the construction of a form for the
γ that is consistent with the lognormality of a quasi BlackScholes model, and that
Chapter 8 Santander HJM
114
takes into account a set of particular forward Libor rates, selected depending on their
maturities.
We have also already seen that another main stream of thought was to take the
zero coupon rates R(t,T) where
) )( , (
) , (
t T T t R
e T t B
− −
=
8.2 One Factor
Being one factor refers to the fact that the dynamics we attempt to reproduce are
modelled through a unique parameter, which will be the global volatility σ in our
case.
8.2.1 Onefactor quasi lognormal:
1
( ) ( , ) log ( , )
j j j
T t T B t T γ σ
+
= (8.3)
Proof
The above is derived from the following: recall that
( , )( )
log ( , )
( , ) ( , )
R t T T t
B t T
B t T e R t T
t T
− −
= → =
−
(8.4)
Applying Ito, we obtain
( )
( )
2
2 2
( , )
1 1 1 1 log ( , )
( , ) ( , ) ( , )
( , ) 2 ( , )
dR t T
B t T
dB t T dt t T B t T dt dt
t T B t T B t T
t T
=
 
    − −
 − + Γ +
 
 −
− \ ¹ \ ¹
\ ¹
(8.5)
Replacing our diffusion equation
P
t t
dW T t dt r
T t B
T t dB
) , (
) , (
) , (
Γ + = in the previous
and also replacing log B(t,T) with the expression in (8.4), we obtain
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
115
( )
( )


¹

\

−
− Γ − Γ +
−
− = dt
T t
T t R
dt T t dt dW T t dt r
T t
T t dR
P
t t
) , (
) , (
2
1
) , (
1
) , (
2
(8.6)
and so regrouping terms in dt and dW
P
t t
dW
T t
T t
dt r T t R
T t
T t dR
−
Γ
+


¹

\

− +
−
− =
) , (
2
T) (t, Γ
) , (
1
) , (
2
(8.7)
From market data analysis, we realize that the dynamics of bonds in general,
follows a lognormal term structure. As we have seen in (8.4), B(t,T) is directly related
to R(t,T). Thus if our bonds follow a lognormal behaviour, so must our rate dynamics.
Therefore, if we impose that our model be lognormal, then we must impose that
the volatility term be linear with R(t,T). This is
( , )
( , ) ( , )
t T
t T R t T
t T
σ
Γ
=
−
(8.8)
in such a way that the log of our dynamics be normal
P
t
dW T t dt
T t R
T t dR
T t R ) , ( (...)
) , (
) , (
) , ( log σ + = → (8.9)
As can be seen, the Brownian term associated with log R(t,T) is now normal. Since
we have log R(t,T), we say that our version is lognormal.
With this imposition, we obtain from (8.8) that
( ) ( , ) ( , ) ( , ) t T t T t T R t T σ Γ = − (8.10)
And as we had from (8.4)
log ( , )
( , )
B t T
R t T
t T
=
−
(8.11)
Then
Chapter 8 Santander HJM
116
( , ) ( , ) log ( , ) t T t T B t T σ Γ = (8.12)
Note that the volatility of the rate R is a deterministic function σ(t; T) to be
calibrated to market data. More concretely, we will use swaption and caplet prices to
obtain information about σ, and thus about Γ. In reality we propose a piecewise
constant version of Γ with regards to t, so that R is only lognormal by parts, meaning
that it is quasi lognormal.
As we have seen in section 3.3, lognormality of R means that we have a
relatively flat Black's implied volatility smile. We have already seen that other models
consider normality instead and we have also seen in Fig. 3.4 that it implies a negative
skew for their associated Black's implied volatility smile.
The term log B(t,T) is Markovian, meaning that to continue the process, the
term depends on previous data.
8.2.2 Onefactor normal
The development of a normal model is completely analogous to the above. The
only difference lies at the moment of imposing the model we want to follow. Instead
of ) , ( ) , (
) , (
T t R T t
T t
T t
σ =
−
Γ
we now simply impose ) , (
) , (
T t
T t
T t
σ =
−
Γ
This is a
normal model i.e. the Brownian term is independent of R(t,T). Since (tT) is a
deterministic term, we can include it within the volatility term, which is itself
deterministic and also time dependent. Therefore:
) , (
~
) , ( ) (
) , (
T t T t T t
T t
T t
σ σ = ⋅ − =
−
Γ
(8.13)
In fact, in our Santander model, we will extract from the ) , (
~
T t σ a deterministic,
time dependent part, leaving
) , 0 (
) , 0 (
log ) , ( ) , (
t B
T B
T t T t σ = Γ (8.14)
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
117
8.3 Model Implementation
1
st
Approach:
Suppose a generic HJM setting of the form,
( , )
( , )
( , )
P
t t
dB t T
r dt t T dW
B t T
= + Γ (8.15)
where
) , ( log ) , ( ) , ( T t B T t T t σ = Γ (8.16)
For simplicity we have not included the time dependency, thus
) , ( log ) , ( T t B T t R = (8.17)
We can then write
( ) dt T t B T t
T t B
dt T t dB
T t B
T t B d T t dR
2
2
) , ( ) , (
) , (
1
2
1
0 ) , (
) , (
1
) , ( log ) , ( Γ


¹

\
 −
+ +


¹

\

= =
(8.18)
recalling
P
t t
dW T t dt r
T t B
T t dB
) , (
) , (
) , (
Γ + = , then:
( ) dt T t dt dW T t dt r T t B d
P
t t
2
) , (
2
1
) , ( ) , ( log Γ − Γ + = (8.19)
P
t t
dW T t dt r T t B d ) , (
2
T) (t, Γ
) , ( log
2
Γ +


¹

\

− = (8.20)
Our main difficulty here is the term rt, which is risk neutral. This means that it
must show the same internal rate of return for any two assets. This must also apply
for any two assets that are separated in time. We can therefore examine two bonds of
different maturities, and subtract them to eliminate the term rt.
( ) ( )
P
t
dW U t T t dt
U
U t B T t B d ) , ( ) , (
2
) (t, Γ T) (t, Γ
) , ( log ) , ( log
2 2
Γ − Γ +


¹

\
 −
= −
Chapter 8 Santander HJM
118
(8.21)
The easiest way to implement this model is through a MonteCarlo approach
(refer to section 9.2). For this, we will need to generate a number of paths between
every interval ti and ti+1. As mentioned previously, in the HJM model we only
examine the particular bonds and maturities Ti that are of our interest.
Integrating the previous equation, we obtain:
( )
∫ ∫
=
+
+
+
+
Γ − Γ +


¹

\

−
+
+
1
1
1
2
1
2
) , ( ) , (
2
) (t, Γ ) (t, Γ
1
1
) , (
) , (
i
T
i
T
P
t i i
i
T
i
T
i i
dW T t T t dt
T T
i
i
e
T t B
T t B
(8.22)
Not all of the above components are completely determined since we do not
possess information on the parameter values at future times:
• dt
2
Γ
2
∆
should be integrated, using
1
( ) ( , ) log ( , )
j j j
T t T B t T γ σ
+
=
•
P
t
dW ∆Γ is a stochastic Brownian term, and so relatively easy to calculate. i.e. it
integrates to give a 0 mean, and so we must only calculate its variance. Recall a
rapid example:
2
nd
Approach:
Develops on the previous idea, but is now non Markovian. We therefore change
our initial approach
) , ( log ) , ( ) , ( T t B T t T t σ = Γ (8.23)
to ) , ( log ) , ( ) , ( U T B U t U t
i
σ = Γ [ ]
1
,
+
∈ ∀
i i
T T t (8.24)
In the previous approach, we did not know the future values at time t. Now,
instead, we evaluate our data at the beginning of our time step, where the value is
already known, and where only Ti+1 is left to determine.
Ti are therefore model time steps, strictly associated to the model itself and not to
the product.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
119
B(Ti,U) is now no longer Markovian. This is, futures steps only depend on the
previous point.
Integrating now from Ti to Ti+1 we obtain:
( )
1 1
2 2
1
1
( , ) ( , ) Γ (t, ) Γ (t, )
log log ( , ) ( , )
( , ) ( , ) 2
i i
i i
T T
P i i
t
T T
i i
B T V B T V U V
dt t U t V dW
B T U B T U
+ +
+
+
  −
− = + Γ −Γ

\ ¹
∫ ∫
(8.25)
where ) , ( log ) , ( ) , ( U T B U t V t
i
σ = Γ , and where log B(Ti,U) is no longer time
dependent, so can be extracted from the integral:
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
1 1
1 1
1
1
2 2
2
( , ) ( , )
log log
( , ) ( , )
(t, ) (t, )
log ( , ) log ( , )
2 2
log ( , ) ( , ) log ( , ) ( , )
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
T T
i i
T T
T T
P P
i t i t
T T
B T V B T V
B T U B T U
U U
B T U dt B T V dt
B T U t U dW B T V t V dW
σ σ
σ σ
+ +
+ +
+
+
− =
− +
+ −
∫ ∫
∫ ∫
(8.26)
At Ti we already know all the values for B(Ti, _), and all the σ are also known and
deterministic. We are only left with the need to generate the stochastic integrals
1
( , )
i
i
T
P
t
T
t V dW σ
+
∫
(8.27)
for the maturities V that are of our interest, and which correspond to the fixing
dates at which the cash flows are exchanged.
Notice that in this approach we only have one Brownian motion. This does not
necessarily imply that all our elements
∫
+1
) , (
i
i
T
T
P
t
dW V t σ be perfectly correlated:
Imagine for example that we have
¦
¹
¦
´
¦
∫
∫
dW V t
dW V t
) , (
) , (
2
1
σ
σ
both with the same dW. Then if the individual σi follow
Chapter 8 Santander HJM
120
t
σ
1
(s
t
σ
2
(s
Fig. 8.1. Example of lack of correlation between variables belonging to a unique
Brownian motion
then
¦
¹
¦
´
¦
∫
∫
after t on W depends only ) (
t before on W depends only ) (
2
1
dW s
dW s
σ
σ
Therefore
∫
= = 0 Covariance
2 1
dt σ σ
We notice however, that to simulate the integrals
∫
+1
) , (
i
i
T
T
P
t
dW V t σ , we require
the same number of Brownians Wt as the number of maturities Vi that we want for
each step. Thus we are dependent upon the form of σ(t,V) between any two dates Ti
and Ti+1. We therefore decide to look for the simplest possible expression for σ.
3rd Approach:
We make the hypothesis that σ(t,U) = σ(Ti,U), which appears to be the simplest
form for numeric generation. We therefore have:
) , ( log ) , ( ) , ( U T B U T U t
i i
σ = Γ [ ]
1
,
+
∈ ∀
i i
T T t (8.28)
Notice that we select, as we did for the bonds, a known Ti for our σ(Ti,U), that is,
at the beginning of the interval t. We do this because there is no strong reason that
would suggest we should take any other t, and because by selecting a known Ti,
numerically, everything becomes much easier.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
121
Notice also that Γ is still stochastic for every Ti, as it changes value between each
Ti stochastically. However, Γ is piecewise constant for every interval [ ]
1
,
+ i i
T T
Constructing on the formulation that we had developed in our previous
approach, we can now also extract the constant and known σ(Ti,U) from the integrals:
( )
( ) ( )
( )
1
1 1
1
2
2
1
1
2
( , ) ( , ) (t, )
log log log ( , )
( , ) ( , ) 2
(t, )
log ( , ) log ( , ) ( , )
2
log ( , ) ( , )
i
i
i i
i i
i
i
T
i i
i
T
i i
T T
P
i i t
T T
T
P
i t
T
B T V B T V U
B T U dt
B T U B T U
U
B T V dt B T U t U dW
B T V t V dW
σ
σ
σ
σ
+
+ +
+
+
+
= + −
− +
−
∫
∫ ∫
∫
(8.29)
( )
( )
1
1 1
1
2
2 1
1
2
( , ) ( , ) 1
log log log ( , ) ( , )
( , ) ( , ) 2
1
log ( , ) ( , ) log ( , ) ( , )
2
log ( , ) ( , )
i
i
i i
i i
i
i
T
i i
i i
T
i i
T T
P
i i i i t
T T
T
P
i i t
T
B T V B T V
B T U T U dt
B T U B T U
B T V T U dt B T U T U dW
B T V T U dW
σ
σ σ
σ
+
+ +
+
+
+
= + −
− + −
−
∫
∫ ∫
∫
(8.30)
( ) ( )
( )
[ ]( )
1
2
2 2
1
1
1
log ( , ) ( , ) log ( , ) ( , ) ( , ) ( , )
log log
( , ) ( , ) 2
log ( , ) ( , ) log ( , ) ( , )
i i
i i i i i i
i i
i i
P P
i i i i T T
B T U T U B T V T U B T V B T V
T T
B T U B T U
B T U T U B T V T U W W
σ σ
σ σ
+
+
+
+
−
= + − +
+ − −
(8.31)
At this point therefore, we can summarize that:
· logB which are constant in the interval ∆t
· We have obtained a set of σ which are also constant in ∆t
Now from market data, as previously mentioned, we know that zero coupon
bonds must be globally lognormal. In our model, we have ( )
P
t
dW V t U t ) , ( ) , ( Γ − Γ
with ∆Γ independent of ∆logB
Chapter 8 Santander HJM
122
σ
Black
K
Instantaneously therefore, we have constructed a model that is constant during
∆t, and so is lognormal. Globally however, the model still presents stochasticity for
∆Γ.
Notice finally that for any form of constant Γ (where we take the left Ti value), if
the particular case occurs in which Γ(t,U) = Γ(Ti,U), our approximation then becomes
exact.
4
th
Approach: Shifted Black
To this point, we have developed a lognormal model:
σ
Black
Strike K
Lognormal
(flat)
Fig. 8.2. HJM dynamics for a lognormal model: flat
Following dW
S
dS
σ =
And a normal model:
Fig. 8.3. HJM dynamics for a normal model: skew
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
123
Following dW
S S
dS λ
=
Where λ is a constant
Typically the implied volatilities quoted by market data form a smile that is
somewhat in between both normal and lognormal models. As shown by the following
equation, we choose a parameter α to interpolate between the more or less flat curve
presented by the quasi lognormal version and the negative slope curve produced by
the normal (Gaussian) version.
dW S dt dS ) ( (...) λ σ + + = (8.32)
where the term σS is lognormal, and the term λ is normal.
We can rewrite the above slightly differently so as to better understand its
dynamics. We therefore replace the constant λ by a known S0 and insert a factor of
interpolation α that allows us to modify the slope between a lognormal model for α =
1 and a normal model for α= 0.
t
dW S S dt dS ) ) 1 ( ( (...)
0
α α σ − + + = (8.33)
Our Black shifted model therefore now becomes
[ ]
1
(0, )
( , ) ( , ) ( , ) log ( , ) (1 ( , )) log ,
(0, )
i i i i i i
i
B U
t T T U T U B T U T U t T T
B T
σ α α
+
Γ = + − ∀ ∈
(8.34)
we will refer to σ as the general volatility level, and to α as the skew. Both are
now entirely deterministic functions.
Chapter 8 Santander HJM
124
5
th
Approach:
Notice firstly that if we take α > 1 we obtain
K
σ
Black
Fig. 8.4. HJM dynamics for alpha parameters greater than 1
We realize that our model is constrained by two limiting values
• if α < 0 there is a limiting maximum that we can never touch
• if α > 1 there is a limiting minimum that we can never attain
We decide that we would like to be able to access the entire range of prices with
our model, and still maintain 0 < α < 1. So as to not restrict ourselves, we decide to
include a new parameter that will enable us to attain very steep slopes  both negative
and positive.
− + ⋅ ⋅ = Γ
) , 0 (
) , 0 (
log )) , ( 1 ( ) , ( log ) , ( ) , ( ) , ( ) , (
i
i i i i i
T B
U B
U T U T B U T U T V U T U t α α σ
(8.35)
We are now multiplying our previous volatility by a new term V(Ti,U). The
question is, what expression must this V(Ti,U) undertake. We have already seen a
number of ideas in the model section of Stochastic Volatility. There, the simplest
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
125
possible expression was suggested as the SABR formulation. As we will see further
on, the analysis of stochastic ‘volatilities of volatilities’ is an important part of the
development undergone in this project.
Other Approaches
Another alternative would be to consider the mathematical formulation that is
currently being used as a first order Taylor expansion, and to extend it for instance to
a second order expansion. This would imply that instead of
[ ]dW S S S dt dW S S dt dS
t
) ( (...) ) ) 1 ( ( (...)
0 0 0
− + + = − + + = α σ α α σ
(8.36)
we would now include a new calibration parameter λ, obtaining an expression of
the form:
[ ]dW S S S S S dt dS
2
0 0 0
) ( ) ( (...) − + − + + = λ α σ (8.37)
Other alternatives include a different from of interpolation between normal and
lognormal forms. Instead of performing a linear interpolation as mentioned earlier, we
could perform a geometric interpolation. For instance, instead of
− +
) , 0 (
) , 0 (
log )) , ( 1 ( ) , ( log ) , (
i
i i i
T B
U B
U T U T B U T α α (8.38)
we could consider using
[ ]
) , ( 1
) , (
) , 0 (
) , 0 (
log ) , ( log
U T
i
U T
i
i
i
T B
U B
U T B
α
α
−
(8.39)
Chapter 8 Santander HJM
126
8.4 Controlled correlation
In the models we have seen up until now, the correlation structure among the
bond prices is always implicit. A way to control this correlation structure is by
changing W
P
t in the model to a two dimensional Brownian motion Z
t
= (Z
t
1 ;Z
t
2 ), and
to therefore consider a vectorvalued Γ(t; T) given by
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) 1
1
1
,
0 2
1
sin ,
( , )
( , ) ( ) ( )
( , )
cos ,
j j
j
j
t t
j
j
t T
t T
t T T t
t T
t T
θ
γ
θ
+
+
≥
+
 
Γ  

Γ = = Χ


Γ
 \ ¹
\ ¹
∑
(8.40)
We can think of this as
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) 1
1 1
1 1
,
0
cos , sin , ( )
j j
P
t j j t j t
t t
j
W t T Z t T Z dW t γ θ θ
+
+ +
≥
= +
∑
(8.41)
This modification could be included in any of the versions above, and would give
us one more model parameter θ(t; T).
The insertion of the two factors provides therefore an element of decorrelation
between each of the different interest rate terms
t
r , defined by their
i
T . Without this
modification, an increase in the short term interest rates would necessarily result in a
similar increase in the long term rates implying a correlation very close to 1, and thus
would always lead to vertical displacements of the entire curve.
Instead, with the inclusion of a decorrelation term, we can allow each interest
rate to vary differently in time, allowing for evolutions from flat curves, to positive
gradients, to other more complex interest rate functions.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
127
Time
Rate curve
Fig. 8.5. for a correlation=1 amongst interest rates.
Rate curve
Time
Fig. 8.6. Allowing for decorrelation among different interest rates
Chapter 8 Santander HJM
128
8.5 Tangible Parameter Explanation
To this point, we have seen that the diffusion of the stochastic volatility Γ has
been modelled through 3 parameters and an element of decorrelation. We seek now
to gain a deeper understanding of how they truly behave within our model. Let us
recall that we had:
− + ⋅ ⋅ = Γ
) , 0 (
) , 0 (
log )) , ( 1 ( ) , ( log ) , ( ) , ( ) , ( ) , (
i
i i i i i
T B
U B
U T U T B U T U T V U T U t α α σ
(8.42)
where we could for example take the simplest possible form of stochastic
volatility, V as:
t
Z T t
e T t V
) , (
) , (
γ
= (8.43)
Our parameters are therefore:
σ : global volatility level
α : skew or slope
γ : smile volatility of volatilities (Vol of Vol)
We shall refer to our HJM framework as being 2factor whenever we pursue a
two dimensional approach in the modelling of the Brownian motion.
) ( ) , ( cos ) ( ) , ( sin ) (
2 1
t dW U T t dW U T t dW
i i
θ θ + → (8.44)
We seek to able to model products that present the following behaviour:
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
129
σBlack
Strike
Short maturity
(smile)
Long maturity
(skew)
Fig. 8.7. Typical vanilla dynamics for different maturities
In the 3 dimensional view below, we have attempted to go further in our
understanding on the 2 dimensional representation. Note that the time scale tends to
more recent dates as we look into the 3D view, meaning that the products shows
greatest smiles for more recent dates, and greater skew for very long maturities.
The representations that we have brought here are indeed entirely schematic and
extremely smooth. We refer the reader to later chapters such as the SABR Caplet
surface in section 18.2 to see how real market quotes produce much more irregular
surfaces, and how it is only after an adequate ‘massaging’ process that the data is
finally smoothened out into the below form.
Chapter 8 Santander HJM
130
1
,
0
0
6
,
0
0
1
1
,
0
0
1
6
,
0
0
2
1
,
0
0
2
6
,
0
0
3
1
,
0
0
0
0
3
6
,
0
0
0
0
1
,
0
0
4
,
0
0
7
,
0
0
1
0
,
0
0
1
3
1
6
1
9
2
2
2
5
2
8

0,50
1,00
1,50
2,00
2,50
3,00
Black Volatility
Strike
Time
Smile
Fig. 8.8. Smile to skew deformation with maturity
8.5.1 Impact of Sigma
The sigma parameter represents the global volatility level of the vanilla product
that we analyse. This is, it represents a sort of measure of the stochastic deviation that
the product can suffer with respect to its average drift trend. The sigma is a parameter
that is generally, very closely related to the ‘at the money’ Black’s volatility i.e. to the
product’s volatility at its forward value. This is because it is this point, amongst all
other possible vanilla strikes, which defines the overall level of the smile presented.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
131
Imapct of Sigma
12%
13%
14%
15%
16%
17%
18%
19%
20%
21%
22%
1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7%
Strikes
B
l
a
c
k
V
o
l
k
j
g
h
sigma = 16 % sigma = 18 % sigma = 20 %
Fig. 8.9. Sigma parameter global volatility level
Indeed, we see that the principal effect of the sigma is to set a global volatility
level. The higher we set this sigma, the higher the curve rises on a Black volatility
scale and therefore also in price since the two measures are directly correlated. Note
that typical values for sigma are within the range of 8 – 20%. Note also that we have
constructed the above for a lognormal case, which is why the slope is flat: α = 1. If we
were to have constructed the same with an α = 0, we would have obtained set of
skewed graphs that would be once again, vertically displaced in black volatility with
respect to each other.
Impact of Sigma
Chapter 8 Santander HJM
132
8.5.2 Impact of Alpha:
Impact of Alpha
11%
13%
15%
17%
19%
21%
23%
2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7%
Strikes
B
l
a
c
k
V
o
l
a
t
i
l
i
t
y
k
h
j
k
Alpha = 40 % Alpha = 80 % Alpha = 130 %
Fig. 8.10. Alpha parameter skew
We see from the above behaviour that the alpha clearly acts as a slope or skew
parameter. This is, as we make alpha tend towards 1, it increases the weighting on the
lognormal component of the volatility, thus tending towards a flat slope.
If instead we make the alpha tend towards 1, we revert towards a normal model
presenting a clearly defined skew as is shown by the negative slope above. Other
values are allowed, but whose interpretation is not so clear.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
133
8.5.3 Impact of the Stochastic Volatility
Impact of Vol of Vol
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
22%
24%
26%
28%
2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7%
Strikes
B
l
a
c
k
V
o
l
a
t
i
l
i
t
y
j
h
j
VolOfVol = 20 % VolOfVol = 40% VolOfVol = 60%
Fig. 8.11. Stochastic Volatility: smile creation
As can be seen above, the stochastic volatility successfully produces the sought
for smile effect, increasing Black’s volatility for very high and very low strikes. This is
because the stochastic volatility attributes greater weights to the more extreme values
in strikes, thus having a much more pronounced effect at either ends.
Chapter 9 Numerical Methods
134
9. Numerical Methods
In this section our intention is that of introducing the various numerical engines
that are available when attempting to solve a stochastic differential equation. We will
see that there are three principal alternatives: MonteCarlo simulations, tree diagrams,
and partial differential equation solvers.
We set out with a model of the form:
P
t t t t
dW dt rS dS β + =
We have already seen that both rt and βt can be stochastic.
There are also three main methods or approaches that can be considered when
analysing a product and its associated model.
• An analytical formula such as the case of Black Scholes, that can be solved
directly
• Semi analytic formulas – can be solved almost completely using a direct approach,
apart from an occasional integral which must be performed numerically although
without any further complications
• All other combinations of models and products require a numerical computation
in order to achieve a solution. Such numerical approaches always require some
means of discretisation.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
135
9.1 Discretisation
Theoretical models consider:
• ∞ time intervals i.e. continuous time
• ∞ possible paths that the underlying asset can take between two discretised time
intervals t and t + dt.
Any model in practice can only deal with
• a finite number of future time steps
• a finite number of possible paths between any two time intervals
Anything different from this would require an infinite calculation time.
As stated initially, there are three main approaches by which a discretised model
can be tackled. These are:
• MonteCarlo simulations
• Tree Diagrams
• PDE (Partial Differential Equations) Solvers
We set out in this introduction using the simplest option we can conceive: a call
as our asset of study.
Chapter 9 Numerical Methods
136
Call
Time
K
T
P4
P3
P2
P1
0
(STK)
T
ST
Fig. 9.1. Call future scenarios generation
We will ignore all that has occurred in the past, starting from the present time
instant t = 0, and estimating the future values that our call can take. It is in this future
projection that the mathematical engine comes into play. It acts as a numerical
resource generating future scenarios and identifying all the different paths that an
asset can possibly follow before arriving at the future date.
After this generation, the next step is to equip each of the paths with its own
outcome probability. In each trajectory, we will analyse the gains or losses in which
we have incurred as investors.
The engine then proceeds to calculate the sum over all the possible outcomes,
weighting them with respect to their probabilities.
9.2 MonteCarlo
In the field of financial mathematics, Monte Carlo methods often give better
results for large dimensional integrals, converging to the solution more quickly than
numerical integration methods, requiring less memory and being easier to program.
The advantage Monte Carlo methods offer increases as the dimensions of the problem
increase.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
137
In our model’s scope, we must firstly determine the number of points where the
engine is going to have to stop and construct a probability distribution for the
product. A more complex product with fixings at numerous intervals will logically
require the engine to perform the previously explained weighting of probabilities at a
large number of points. These calculation dates that are required are almost always
defined by the product itself. They tend to be imposed by the fixings or maturities at
which the product must be evaluated. Note that a specific model can also impose the
need for certain time steps, such as in the case of our HJM.
Through the MonteCarlo approach, a finite number of paths is chosen, say n =
10,000. For each, we must construct a possible evolution of the underlying asset S. But
recall that the asset follows
P
t t t t
dW dt rS dS β + = , which depends on a Brownian
motion. We must therefore firstly construct our model’s Brownian variables.
For this reason, a random number generator is used to create ‘n’ variables within
0 < xn < 1 (excluding both the 0 and the 1). Each of these ‘xn’ random numbers are
easily transformed into a Gaussian variable Kn by using an inverse Normal
transformation.
This is, if we consider the cumulative frequency diagram for a Normal
distribution, we have that for any number between 0 < xn < 1
Fig. 9.2. Normally distributed variable generation from random numbers in the
(0,1) interval
Chapter 9 Numerical Methods
138
we can write that xi=N(φi)= Prob (φ < φi). We can therefore perform an inverse
transformation to find φi =N
1
(xi)
At this point we have already established the foundations for the construction of
our Brownian variables:
Remember that we had already seen that [ ]
i k k i k k i
T T W W dW ϕ ⋅ − = − =
− − 1 1
Meaning that any Brownian motion could be decomposed into its temporal
component and its Normal (Gaussian) component. However, we also know that
Brownians have the property of presenting
W(0) = 0, where T0 = 0.
This allows us to calculate every individual Brownian value:
1 0 1 1
1
1 0 1
0
T T T T
i i i
T i i
i
W W W W
W T T T ϕ ϕ
− = − =
= − ⋅ = ⋅
(9.1)
This process must be repeated for each of the i = 1,…, n paths.
Subsequently we can calculate the following path step at T2 by simply generating
another set of random variables yi from T1 to T2. All the yi must be independent from
xi: Thus Vi =N
1
(yi) with
[ ]
i
i
T T
V T T W W ⋅ − = −
1 2
1 2
(9.2)
In the above equality, all the terms are known except for WT2 which we must
solve for.
Returning to our diffusion equation:
P
t t t t
dW dt rS dS β + = (9.3)
we see that we can apply a similar approach to calculate the value of our asset at
every time interval.
S(0) is known at present for T0=0. Then
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
139
[ ]
0 1 0 1
T T
i
T T
dS S S
−
= − (9.4)
but we know
0 1
T T
dS
−
from our diffusion equation, since it can be rewritten as
) ( ) (
0 1 0 0 1
0 1
P
T
P
T t T T T
W W T T rS dS − + − =
−
β (9.5)
where all the Brownians have been previously calculated. We therefore can
directly solve for the asset’s future price by solving
) ( ) ( ) 0 (
0 1 0 1
0 1
P
T
P
T t T T
W W T T rS S S − + − + = β (9.6)
Note that we had said that we would generate n paths. We will consider each
path as having an equal probability of occurring, therefore a probability of 1/n. This is
equivalent to taking a simple random sample of all the possible trajectories.
Finally, for each path i of the product, we will have to evaluate the final product’s
payoff, F(Tk)i ; that is, how much we will receive or pay for the product in that given
scenario. What in fact must be analysed is the value today of that product in its future
scenario. We must therefore discount to today all of its possible cash flows at each of
their different payoff fixing dates:
[ ]
∑
¦
)
¦
`
¹
¦
¹
¦
´
¦


¹

\

=
∫ −
k
i
ds s r
i k i
k
T
e T F A
0
) (
) ( (9.7)
We repeat this valuation for each path scenario i = 1,..n, analysing each of the
payoffs at every time interval k. That is at T0 = 0 ,…, Tn.
The final price value that we select for our product is the weighted average of all
the product values in each path scenario i, with respect to the probability of each path
occurring (as stated, this was 1/n for each). Therefore we end up with
1
i
i
product value A
n
=
∑
(9.8)
Chapter 9 Numerical Methods
140
9.2.1 Limitations
The main limitation of a MonteCarlo approach is the fact that it does not work
well for forward products, whereas it works extremely well for backward products.
This is, if we settle at a future date (Tk)i within our path scenario horizon, we have
only one unique path i leading to that point. This means that we can easily evaluate
the product at that node’s previous conditions, since it is completely determined by
that one path. However, if we had to generate a forward evaluation of the same
product, that is, if we had to find the value of the product that were to evolve from
that point onwards, we would need to perform a calculation of the sort:


¹

\

=
∫
−
Tq
Tk
q k k
ds s r
T
P
T T
e V E V
) (
(9.9)
The value at a future time Tk depends on an expected value of these future
developments. But in the MonteCarlo analysis we only have one path leaving the
point being studied, so cannot really perform an average over a unique path.
A solution could be envisioned as an algorithm that would create a further 10,000
paths leaving from each evaluation node. We cannot realistically consider a
MonteCarlo operating in this way. It would definitely enable us to calculate the future
expected value that we came across previously, as we would now have a set of paths
over which to integrate. However, the proposed method would cause our calculation
time to explode exponentially.
MonteCarlo is therefore only useful for past dependant products.
9.3 Tree Diagrams
The basic idea behind any tree diagram used in financial analysis is very similar
to that used for the MonteCarlo. Its aim is to generate a number of possible paths
along which the asset of study can evolve towards future scenarios. Each path is then
weighted with a specific probability depending on the possibility that the asset
follows that route. The algorithm ends at a predetermined date at which the payoff of
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
141
the product is evaluated. At this point, just as in the MonteCarlo case, the probability
distribution for each possible outcome scenario is computed. The mean expected
payoff is then taken as the final value for our product. This must subsequently be
discounted back to present so as to know its trading value today. The number of
branches that sprout from each node can be chosen at will. In general the simplest
forms are the binomial and trinomial variations, although other multinomial
extensions can easily be constructed.
Binomial – 2 branches
Probdown
Fig. 9.3. Binomial tree
Trinomial 3 branches
Probup
Probdown
Fig. 9.4. Trinomial tree
Chapter 9 Numerical Methods
142
Each of these may or may not have a symmetric setting for their branches, and
may or may not use a symmetric distribution for the probabilities to be assigned to
each of the possible routes.
9.3.1 Non Recombining Tree Diagram:
Analogous to the MonteCarlo simulation, each node here has a unique path
leading to it, and a number n leading away from it. As with the MonteCarlo
discussion, this alternative is impossible to implement as it rapidly diverges towards
infinite simulations. See the binomial case for instance, that generates 2
k
new paths at
each time step, and 3
k
paths in the trinomial case
Probup
Probdown
T
k
T
k+1
T
k+2
Fig. 9.5. Non recombining binomial tree
9.3.2 Recombining Tree Diagrams:
Regarding the previous forms of tree diagrams, the recombining tree alternative
results as the only viable solution with regards towards a practical implementation. It
allows the algorithm to reach the same node via several different paths. The binomial
case is no longer exponential in terms of the number of nodes created at each step.
Instead, it only adds k + 1 nodes at each successive time interval. In the trinomial case,
the number is slightly greater, adding 2k + 1 new nodes at each time step.
T
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
143
It is important to note that in a binomial tree, we reduce the infinite paths that can
stem from any single node to only two possibilities. We must assign to each of these
branches a particular probability, that we will note as Probup and Probdown. It is
evident that the sum of these two probabilities must equal one. In fact, we have three
equations that enable us to evaluate each of the two probabilities. These are:
• zero central moment 1 =
∑
prob
• The first central moment: ( )
1 +
=
k k
T k T
Node E Node
• The second central moment : discrete variance= theoretical variance
The three equations above define a unique Gaussian variable. Note that a normal
distribution is defined entirely by its moments M0, M1 and M2.
In fact, what we have here is a set of three equations and four unknowns:
Prob up, Prob down, S1,up, S1,down
Prob up
Prob down
S
1
up
S
1
down
Fig. 9.6. Binomial tree probabilities
It is therefore necessary to fix one of the four parameters in order to solve for the
other three. Typically, we seek a symmetry of the form Prob up = 0.5, Prob down = 0.5
Chapter 9 Numerical Methods
144
Probup
Probdown
T
k
T
k+1
T
k+2
T
k+3
Fig. 9.7. Recombining binomial tree
In the trinomial recombining tree we would obtain the following graphical
representation:
Probup
Probdown
T
k
T
k+1
T
k+2
T
k+3
Fig. 9.8. Recombining trinomial tree
The tree diagram algorithm has properties that are the complete opposite of those
presented by the MonteCarlo algorithm. A tree diagram turns out to be very good for
future dependant products, since there is no longer the problem of a unique path
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
145
leaving a particular node. Thus, a probability can be computed when calculating a
future expectation by taking into account the numerous paths that emerge from any
given node. In contrast, the tree method is not good with back dependant products, as
any node (Tk, Sk)i cannot be traced back through a particular path, since it possesses a
number of possible routes.
The main problem that arises at this point is when we are faced with products
that are both forward and backward dependant. Neither of the two previous methods
can realistically be applied to this kind of situations and still yield suitable results.
In the 1990’s the Hull White Model developed a series of tricks so as to avoid such
difficulties in some of its products. These however remain limited, and inefficient in
the case where the products have many payoff dates.
Between 1995 and 2000, a series of techniques were created enabling the
MonteCarlo method to tackle future dependant products such as American contracts.
From 2002 onwards, the development has been directed towards a Longstaff
Schwartz approach. A further idea that seems promising but that has never reached a
concrete form was the Willow tree development.
9.4 PDE Solvers
This involves an entirely different approach to that of the two previous methods.
It no longer deals with the probabilities and Brownian motions necessary to solve the
diffusion equations encountered. Instead, it solves deterministic partial differential
equations, eliminating all the stochasticity of the problem. The method is in one of its
variations, a more generic approach that encompasses the recombining tree diagram.
Indeed, it is capable of incorporating tree diagrams as a specific subcase in which the
PDE mesh is generated in a triangular form.
The basic development of the equations used can be considered as follows. Let us
consider the basic stochastic differential equation of any tradable asset. This is:
Chapter 9 Numerical Methods
146
P
t t t t
dW dt rS dS β + = (9.10)
By applying Ito to the product’s payoff, which we shall note as V(t,St), then
( )
P
t t t
P
t t t
t
dW
S
V
dt
t
V
rS
S
V
t
V
dt
t
V
dW dt rS
S
V
dt
t
V
dt
t
V
dS
S
V
dt
t
V
dV
β β
β β
β
∂
∂
+
∂
∂
+
∂
∂
+
∂
∂
=
=
∂
∂
+ +
∂
∂
+
∂
∂
=
=
∂
∂
+
∂
∂
+
∂
∂
=
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
(9.11)
Under the risk neutral probability, every asset must have the same average yield.
This means that the payoff can also be written generically as
P
t t t t
dW dt rV dV γ + = (9.12)
Since both the product and its payoff must have the same yield, we can therefore
equate the two drift terms through the Black Scholes formula:
∂
∂
+
∂
∂
+
∂
∂
=
2
2
2
2
1
β
t
V
rS
S
V
t
V
V r
t t t
(9.13)
With this procedure we have now eliminated the Brownian component of the
equation, and with it, all the probability distributions that it implies. They are still
present in the equation, but implicitly, behind the terms V, S, and β.
Having done this, we proceed to construct a mesh for the PDE solver. This can be
of varying forms, and we shall outline briefly here just the simplest method so as to
achieve a general understanding of the procedure to be followed.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
147
S
t
V
T0
t1 t2 0
ST,1 VT,1
ST,2 VT,2
ST,3 VT,3
.
.
.
V=0
V
T,i
S
T,i
K
V
t
Fig. 9.9. PDE mesh and boundary conditions
Note that we have written the underlying on the vertical axis as reference, but we
will in fact be dealing with the underlying’s payoff V, represented on the right hand
side of our graph as another vertical axis.
We can impose certain boundary conditions to restrict our mesh. For example, if
the value of St drops too far, it is clear that our product, priced V (and that is
proportional to (S  K)
+)
, will not be profitable, meaning that the option will not be
exercised, and its value will drop to 0. In this way we have already imposed the lower
horizontal boundary for our mesh. In addition, we can also exclude any value of S
which is excessively high.
Moreover, at maturity, we have a fixed date which constrains us by imposing a
vertical limit. It is itself divided into all the possible future values that ST,i can take
imposing our mesh divisions. We can therefore construct all the corresponding
payoffs for these different asset prices ST,i as:
[ ] ) ( K S e E V
i i
T
rT
T
− =
−
(9.14)
Where for t=0, we know that V = S0, thus defining our final vertical boundary at
the left of the above mesh.
The resemblance with the tree diagram is now very clear. The above method
allows to start at a future node T already knowing the value of the product here, and
work backwards in time using the discrete equation
T
Chapter 9 Numerical Methods
148
∂
∂
+
∂
∂
+
∂
∂
=
2
2
2
2
1
β
t
V
rS
S
V
t
V
V r
t t t
(9.15)
Let us start for instance at the top left hand corner:
Boundary conditions
Boundary conditions
i+1
i
i1
k1 k+1 k
Fig. 9.10. First PDE algorithm steps
The procedure chosen to discretise the different terms in the equation from this
point onwards can be extremely diverse. For instance, we can take, according to
Taylor expansions:
k k
t t
t t
V V
t
V
k k
−
−
→
∂
∂
+
+
1
1
(9.16)
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
1 1
1 1
− +
− +
−
−
→
∂
∂
i
t
i
t
i
t
i
t
k k
k k
S S
V V
S
V
(9.17)
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
1 1
1 1
2
2
2
− +
− +
− ⋅ −
+ −
→
∂
∂
i
t
i
t
i
t
i
t
i
t
i
t
i
t
k k k k
k k k
S S S S
V V V
S
V
(9.18)
The success of the PDE solver will depend mainly on the mesh used and the way
in which we choose to discretise. We will not discuss any further the advantages and
disadvantages of explicit versus implicit discretisations, or of other methods that
could have been stated we simply name the Crank Nicholson technique as a very
broadly used method in this domain.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
149
10. Calibration
Calibration is the process by which the output on a measurement instrument is
adjusted to agree with the value of the applied standard, within a specified accuracy.
The final objective behind our calibration procedure is to be capable of pricing an
exotic interest rate product whose market value is unknown. To do so, we decompose
the complex product into a set of simple, market traded vanilla products. Thus, we
expect the combination of these simple products to be capable of replicating the
complex product’s behaviour. These simple liquid products have market quoted
prices.
The following step is to create an HJM model capable of correctly pricing these
simple products. For this, we adjust our HJM’s model parameters until its output
price for each of these plain vanilla products coincides with their true market value.
Having reached this point, we have therefore obtained a set of parameters which
correctly model the entire group of vanilla products. Further, we expect that with
these parameters, our HJM model will also be capable of modelling a more complex
exotic product which is in some manner a combination of these simple products.
Thus, inputting into our HJM model the calibrated parameters, the exotic
product’s characteristics and the market rates, we obtain a final price for our exotic
product.
Chapter 10 Calibration
150
10.1 Algorithm
We will now continue to explain in further detail how the overall algorithm
works. We start by presenting a simple flowchart with the main processes involved.
Market Rates
Nliquid
vanilla products
yes
Model Parameters
α, σ, γ, θ
Modify Parameters
Newton Raphson
PRICER
Nmarket prices = Nmodel prices
Export model parameters
α, σ, γ, θ
no
Fig. 10.1. Calibration Process: Vanilla Products
As we have already stated, the aim of the calibration is to be able to price a new
financial exotic product. For this require:
1. Taking from the market the current interest rates, including spot rates,
dividends,…
2. The second element we also take from the market are the characteristics of a set
of n products. These must include a complete description of the various payoffs and
cash flows they generate at each of their possible fixings. The products should be
similar to the new product we want to price. In this vanilla product selection, we
stress
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
151
• That the products should be very liquid i.e. that their market price is exact and
reliable – plain vanillas
• That the product must have a very similar risk profile to the exotic product we
attempt to evaluate.
The calibration group is configured so that it can be selected automatically or
manually by the trader himself.
In general we choose to use vanilla products, which are simple to model, and that
play the role during the calibration of giving us the market’s point of view of the risks
in our exotic product.
3. The last elements are the input parameters needed for our model to generate
the pricing of a product. In the case of Black Scholes, we have seen that there is only
one input parameter, which is the product’s σBlack. In the HJM model, we have seen
that the input data can be σ and α if it is our two strike model, and an additional λ in
the case of the three strike model. The model parameters are responsible for
simulating the different sources of risk in a product. These risks can include variations
in the underlying price, movements in the interest rate curves, …
(There are situations in which the parameter of a particular model can become so
widely used that traders begin to talk of the products themselves in terms of the
specific parameter itself, and consequently, the market creates, itself, a value for which
the parameter of each product trades. Such is the case of the σBlack for instance, and is
now also occurring with the SABR model)
With the above input data, we are now ready to proceed with our calibration
process. We must first select a set of initial guesses for our model parameters
typically between 0 and 1.
We then proceed to test each of the n vanilla products by comparing their market
price with the model price that our HJM pricer algorithm generates for them. If they
are different, it means that our HJM model, with its set of initial parameters, does not
correctly reproduce the market. We must modify our initial parameter values and
Chapter 10 Calibration
152
repeat the procedure, once again comparing the real market prices with those
generated by our model. We continue our iterations until we find a set of parameters
for which our model correctly prices the n vanilla products.
With these parameters, we are ready to tackle the exotic product. We use these
final parameters, the market interest rates and the characteristics of our new exotic
product to enter our HJM algorithm and price the exotic product.
Market Rates
EXOTIC
PRODUCT
Model Parameters
α, σ, γ, θ
PRICER
Exotic Product
Price
Fig. 10.2. Calibration Process: Exotic Pricing
10.1.1 An example of a vanilla product set selection
Let us consider a 10Y callable swap which is callable every year. This means that
each year, we have the option of cancelling the swap. We shall consider this our
complex exotic product.
The product, from a quant’s point of view, is equivalent to entering an inverse
swap so as to cancel the incoming cash flows. Thus, to cancel the callable swap on the
ninth year would be equivalent to having an option in nine years time of entering a 1Y
swap.
9Y 10Y 0Y
Call Swap on the 9th year
1Y
Entering a 1Y Swap on the 9
th
year
Fig. 10.3. Analogy cancellable swap and inverse swap
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
153
The same can be said for all the other fixings, meaning that we can model the
option to cancel in 8 years as the option to enter in a 2 year swap starting in 8 years.
Thus the risk of our exotic product is modelled here by decomposition into a list
of nine simple vanilla products considered very liquid and that can be taken directly
from the market:
Starting Date Length
9Y 1Y
8Y 2Y
7Y 3Y
: :
: :
1Y 9Y
Table 10.1. Exotic product risk decomposition
10.2 Calibration in Detail
For any product calibration, the trader must select a range of simple vanilla
products which he believes will adequately model his exotic product’s risk profile.
The vanilla products that we will use will commonly consist of caplets or swaptions
constructed over their corresponding forward rates.
Say for example that an exotic product has a determined fixing at time T that
depends on the 3 month EURIBOR. The trader may decide therefore to incorporate
this particular risk into his analysis by using a caplet based on the 3 month EURIBOR
whose maturity coincides with T. If instead, the trader needed to model a 1 year
EURIBOR risk at this date T, he would probably decide to use a swaption instead of a
caplet, since the swaptions are constructed over the 1 year EURIBOR. That he should
choose to use a swaption or a caplet on the 1 year EURIBOR over the same time
period would depend on a more subtle analysis that we will not enter here.
The HJM Santander model is constructed following an entirely generic approach.
We realize that an exotic product with a global maturity of UN years may be replicated
Exercise Date Tenor
Chapter 10 Calibration
154
using a wide range of intermediate vanilla products with maturities Ui ≤ UN and of
varying life spans. Therefore, the approach that gives the trader the greatest freedom
is to allow him to select any of these for his calibration.
The first thing that the trader must do is to decide on the minimum time intervals
that his product will depend on. The minimum possibility is a 3 month scenario
between each date, meaning we would proceed to divide the global maturity UN into
3 month intervals. Other options would be to have 6 month or yearly intervals.
t
Settle Product
T
UN
First Fixing Global Maturity
t T
UN
Fig. 10.4. Decomposition of an exotic into time periods
The next step would be to select the specific vanilla products for the calibration.
These could have a starting or fixing time T at any of the dates Ui into which we have
divided our time space, and could have a maturity Uj > T, with a superior limit to this
maturity equal to the product’s global maturity, thus Uj ≤ UN. The range of all the
possible vanilla products that we can incorporate into our calibration set therefore
takes on the form of a matrix. Below we present all the possible combinations for a
given exercise date Ti.
Settle Product
First Fixing
Global Maturity
t T
UN
Vanilla Possibilities starting at Ti
Ti
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
155
Fig. 10.5. Decomposition of an exotic into vanillas fixing at T and with different
maturities
Yet the above decomposition can be equally performed for any Ti satisfying T < Ti
<UN. The global exotic product with maturity UN can therefore be composed by any of
the product combinations presented in the matrix. Note that each cell within the
matrix represents a vanilla product that fixes at its corresponding row date T, and
ends at its corresponding column maturity Ui.
U
0
U
1
U
2
U
3
T
0
V(t, T
0
,U
0
) V(t, T
0
, U
1
) V(t, T
0
, U
2
) V(t, T
0
, U
3
)
T
1
V(t, T
1
,U
0
) V(t, T
1
, U
1
) V(t, T
1
, U
2
) V(t, T
1
, U
3
)
T
2
V(t, T
2
,U
0
) V(t, T
2
, U
1
) V(t, T
2
, U
2
) V(t, T
2
, U
3
)
T
3
V(t, T
3
,U
0
) V(t, T
3
, U
1
) V(t, T
3
, U
2
) V(t, T
2
, T
3
)
Table 10.2 Ideal Vanilla calibration matrix: all data available
In practice however, taking into account the entire matrix to calibrate our model
parameters would result excessively timeconsuming. It would however be the ideal
goal to attain in the future.
In general, we decide instead to calibrate the most representative areas of the
above matrix. These are, firstly, the diagonal, representing vanilla products that start
at Ti and end immediately 3, 6 or 12 months after depending on the vanilla product
we are using.
A further addition that we can allow ourselves to perform is to calibrate with the
end column. This is, to take into account vanilla products that start at each of the
possible time intervals Ti and whose maturity is the product’s global maturity UN.
Thus we have the subsequent matrix appearance:
U
0
U
1
U
2
U
3
T
0
V(t, T
0
,U
0
) V(t, T
0
, U
1
) V(t, T
0
, U
2
) V(t, T
0
, U
3
)
T
1
V(t, T
1
,U
0
) V(t, T
1
, U
1
) V(t, T
1
, U
2
) V(t, T
1
, U
3
)
T
2
V(t, T
2
,U
0
) V(t, T
2
, U
1
) V(t, T
2
, U
2
) V(t, T
2
, U
3
)
T
3
V(t, T
3
,U
0
) V(t, T
3
, U
1
) V(t, T
3
, U
2
) V(t, T
2
, T
3
)
Chapter 10 Calibration
156
Table 10.3 Vanilla calibration matrix: market quoted data
Or schematically:
U
0
U
i
U
N
T
0
T
i
T
N
Fig. 10.6. Schematic calibration matrix representation
Evidently, the above is not sufficient for our calibration. We complete the rest of
our matrix through interpolation and extrapolation between the known values. Thus,
we will refer to the end column and the diagonal as the Target Parameters in our
calibration set, whereas we will consider the rest of the matrix as being composed by
Dependent Parameters.
Note that there is a further extrapolation that we had not mentioned earlier. This
is the initialisation of a set of values that we will also be using. For example, if our first
possible fixing is at date T, we must be aware nevertheless that as traders, we agreed
to enter this product at a previous value date t. There is definitely a time interval
between t and the first fixing T, in which the market is not static, and whose
fluctuations can affect our product before we even start the first fixing.
t
Product Settlement
T
U
First Fixing
Fig. 10.7. Initial Variation before first Fixing
These fluctuations correspond to time intervals which would be included as the
first rows in our matrix. They too must be extrapolated. We really have:
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
157
U
0
U
i
U
N
T
0
T
i
T
N
Fig. 10.8. First Row Interpolated Data
Although for simplicity we will ignore this representation and use the former.
We must distinguish a further characteristic before we can proceed to the analysis
of results. When we are calibrating in a 1 strike model, we need to calibrate with only
one product for each matrix position, whereas in a two strike model, in each cell we
must consider two products with different strikes. Further, a 1 strike model only
calibrates with the end column, whereas a 2 strike model calibrates with both the
column and the diagonal.
10.3 Best Fit or not Best Fit?
The following aims at discussing the criteria required to determine whether we
are satisfied with the approximation between model and market prices, and thus are
ready to end the iterative process.
10.3.1 Minimum Square Error. 1
st
Method:
Given a model of M parameters and a calibration set of N liquid products:
· If N < M, then the problem has an infinite set of solutions, and lacks sufficient
information to be solved.
· If N ≥ M, the problem can be solved by applying a square mean calculation,
where we solve
Chapter 10 Calibration
158
2
min ( )
i i
i
F Market price Model price
= −
∑
(10.1)
The main advantage of this method is the fact that the calibration is performed
over an excess of information. This means that there always exists a solution.
The main problem in contrast, is that it is time consuming when seeking the
solution due to the minimisation algorithm which is necessary. Further, minimisation
algorithms can prove imprecise, finding local minima rather than the absolute
minimum to the problem. We must also realise that we seek
Market prices = Model prices
This means that we seek a minimum of exactly 0 for the difference
Market prices  Model prices
This cannot be guaranteed by our algorithm, which simply provides a minimal
difference between the two parameters but this difference can be arbitrarily large.
In addition, when we arrive at our final solution curve, we cannot know which
points are exact i.e. which points are supplied by the market data and which are
approximations, thus we have truly lost information. Projecting N dimensional data
onto an M dimensional problem space results in a loss of information:
σBlack
Strike K
Fixed Maturity
(t0,T)
Fig. 10.9. Inexact fit: minimum square method
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
159
Above, our approximation curve only coincides with one of the market data
points, so realistically speaking, can only be considered exact at that precise point, and
is therefore an approximation for all other regions.
One of the greatest problems encountered using this procedure is the
introduction of noise in the calculation of the Greeks.
The Greeks:
Are the variations of a product (its derivative) with respect to its market
parameters. All the different types of risks in the pricing of a product can be
measured by several instruments, the Greeks. With these, it is possible to hedge
against the risks in a very easy manner.
The Greeks are vital tools in risk management. Each Greek (with the exception of
theta  see below) represents a specific measure of risk in owning an option, and
option portfolios can be adjusted accordingly ("hedged") to achieve a desired
exposure
As a result, a desirable property of a model of a financial market is that it allows
for easy computation of the Greeks. The Greeks in the BlackScholes model are very
easy to calculate and this is one reason for the model's continued popularity in the
market.
The delta measures sensitivity to price. The ∆ of an instrument is the
mathematical derivative of the value function with respect to the underlying price,
V
S
∂
∆ =
∂
(10.2)
The gamma measures second order sensitivity to price. The Γ is the second
derivative of the value function with respect to the underlying price,
2
2
V
S
∂
Γ =
∂
(10.3)
The speed measures third order sensitivity to price. The speed is the third
derivative of the value function with respect to the underlying price,
Chapter 10 Calibration
160
3
3
V
speed
S
∂
=
∂
(10.4)
The vega, which is not a Greek letter (ν, nu is used instead), measures sensitivity
to volatility. The vega is the derivative of the option value with respect to the volatility
of the underlying,
V
υ
σ
∂
=
∂
(10.5)
The term kappa, κ, is sometimes used instead of vega, and some trading firms
also use the term tau, τ.
The theta measures sensitivity to the passage of time. Θ is the negative of the
derivative of the option value with respect to the amount of time to expiry of the
option,
V
T
∂
Θ = −
∂
(10.6)
The rho measures sensitivity to the applicable interest rate. The ρ is the derivative
of the option value with respect to the risk free rate,
V
r
ρ
∂
=
∂
(10.7)
Less commonly used, the lambda λ is the percentage change in option value per
change in the underlying price, or
1
V
V
S
λ
∂
=
∂
(10.8)
It is the logarithmic derivative.
The vega gamma or volga measures second order sensitivity to implied volatility.
This is the second derivative of the option value with respect to the volatility of the
underlying,
2
2
volga
V
σ
∂
=
∂
(10.9)
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
161
The vanna measures crosssensitivity of the option value with respect to change
in the underlying price and the volatility,
2
V
vanna
S σ
∂
=
∂ ∂
(10.10)
This can also be interpreted as the sensitivity of delta to a unit change in
volatility.
The delta decay, or charm, measures the time decay of delta,.
2
V
charm
T S T
∂∆ ∂
= =
∂ ∂ ∂
(10.11)
This can be important when hedging a position over a weekend.
The colour measures the sensitivity of the charm, or delta decay to the underlying
asset price,
3
2
V
colour
S T
∂
=
∂ ∂
(10.12)
It is the third derivative of the option value, twice to underlying asset price and
once to time.
For our particular model, if we want to calculate:
2 1
2 1
Black Black Black
price price price
σ σ σ −
−
≈
∂
∂
(10.13)
we simply evaluate our product’s price once to obtain price1. This will have an
inherent error E1 due to the square mean minimisation used to obtain the solution
curve. To calculate the price2 we slightly shift the market σBlack which we input into
our calibration set, and then reprice our product. We must notice that with such a
variation, we generate a new minimisation curve that will most probably have a
different minimisation error, E2 at the point we are studying. Such variations are
responsible for the noise generated in the Greeks we obtain.
Chapter 10 Calibration
162
10.3.2 Exact Fit. 2
nd
Method:
Despite the fact that the market contains an excess of products, we seek to have N
= M. This is, for every maturity T, we shall select the same number of market products
as unknown parameters in our model. The difficulty in this procedure is to correctly
select the pertinent calibration set – yet this is where the skill of the trader lies. Thus,
with this model, we can assure that the value at any of the selected strikes is precise.
For example for a model of five parameters, we would select five products:
σBlack
Strike K
Fixed Maturity
(t0,T)
Fig. 10.10. Exact fit
Between points, the model may or may not be exact, but at the specific strikes K
set by the trader, we can be sure of the results obtained.
1
st
Effect:
A further advantage of the best fit method lies in the fact that a real anomaly
within market data can be truthfully taken account of in our model, whereas the same
anomaly would be evened out by the square mean method:
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
163
σBlack
Strike K
Fixed Maturity
(t0,T)
Fig. 10.11. Anomaly in exact fit
The square mean method in contrast, would produce:
σBlack
Strike K
Fixed Maturity
(t0,T)
Fig. 10.12. Anomaly in minimum square method
2
nd
Effect:
The use of the minimum squares method introduces noise in the calculation of
the Greeks, not allowing for any form of control over the residual error created.
The best fit method however allows to calculate sensitivities through differentials
or finite difference methods. It will only present sensitivities towards the factors
included in our calibration set.
Thus, we must include in our calibration set all the sensibilities that we
specifically want to take into consideration. For example, if we want our three
Chapter 10 Calibration
164
Market Price – Model Price
Parameter
σ
1
σ
2
σ
3
σ
4
σ*
P
1
parameter calibration to present several sensibilities, we will not construct it with
three identical vanilla products, but instead for example, with a vanilla at the money,
a risk product and a butterfly. Each of these will be aimed at bringing into our model
a characteristic sensitivities.
3
rd
Effect:
We economise a lot of time by analysing only the pertinent products, and not an
indefinite range of them. Time of calculation is of utmost importance in our working
environment
10.4 Newton Raphson
We seek: Model Prices = Market Prices.
We use the Newton Raphson algorithm to obtain the solution to the above
equation. The algorithm is known to be the fastest among other optimisation
algorithms. Its main problems arise when the surface is not smooth, and when the
initial point of calculation is far from the final solution. The first is not our case, and
we will show that our first guess is generally a good starting approximation.
Fig. 10.13. Newton Raphson Iterations
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
165
The Newton Raphson procedure is simple and well known. It seeks
Model Prices  Market Prices = 0
As seen in the above figure, a first guess σ1 is used to construct the model price,
P1. The slope is calculated at this point as
σ ∂
∂
=
P
m
1
. This is used to construct a
straight line of equal slope at the point (σ1, P1). Its point of intersection with the
horizontal axis provides the next point of calculation.
1
1
1 2
m
P
− =σ σ
The method is easily generalised to M parameters by substituting the slope by the
Jacobian:
i
P
J
σ ∂
∂
= Thus
1
1 1 2
−
⋅ − = J P σ σ
The difficulty in this procedure lies in the need to calculate the inverse of the
Jacobian, something that can result not only difficult numerically, but also time
consuming.
10.4.1 Simplifications of the algorithm.
1
st
Simplification:
The Newton Raphson method can only be used where the slope is smooth. If ever
σ ∂
∂P
is not smooth, we can create what is called a buffer parameter, λ. Typical forms
are:
∫
= dt
2
σ λ or
∫
= dt e
2
σ
λ
The transformation allows for a smooth
λ ∂
∂P
where the Newton Raphson
algorithm can now be applied successfully.
Chapter 10 Calibration
166
2
nd
Simplification:
We do not really need an extremely accurate Jacobian. This is, for a smooth curve,
we can use a constant initial Jacobian in all iterations to reach the final solution σ*.
Although more steps are needed for the algorithm, we avoid the time consuming
calculation of a new Jacobian at each step, and thus comparatively, greatly reduce the
time of computation.
Market Price – Model Price
Parameter
σ
1
σ
2
σ
3
σ
4
σ*
σ
5
σ
6
…
Fig. 10.14. Newton Raphson Iterations with a constant Jacobian
A further solution would be to use an analytic, approximate Jacobian at each
point. Making it analytical would render it very rapid, and would also avoid the need
to calculate the numeric Jacobian at each step. This is what we have developed in
section 12 and called an analytic approximation. In fact, the analytic approximation
calculates an approximate solution using its own approximate Jacobians, and once it
arrives at its solution, the algorithm transforms into a MonteCarlo approach that
nevertheless, still uses the last Jacobian that the analytic approximation calculated.
The proof for the fact that the use of an analytic approximation is less time
consuming than the calculation of a new Jacobian each time relies on the following
logic:
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
167
Without an analytic approximation, each time we go through one whole iteration
within the calibration process we must perform the pricing n+1 times: We call on the
pricer a first time during the calibration so as to calculate the model price for the n
liquid vanilla products based on the first guess model parameters. If we then have to
iterate because these model prices do not coincide with the market prices, we must
call on the pricer a further n times. This occurs because we must generate a Jacobian to
proceed with the slope method of the Newton Raphson algorithm.
P
1
P
i
P
2
P
3
P
n
… …
N Prices
λ
1
λ
i
λ
2
λ
3
λ
n
:
:
N Parameters
Jacobian Matrix
d Price
i
d Param
j
Fig. 10.15. Calibration Jacobian
We calculate the Jacobian by varying or ‘bumping’ the first of the n parameters λ1
by a differential amount dλ1. We then go through the pricer again, calculating all the
new prices Pi + dPλ1. Thus we obtain the first row in our Jacobian matrix:
( )
( ) λ λ λ λ d
dP P P P
i i i
+ −
+ −
=
∂
∂
1 1 1
(10.14)
Chapter 10 Calibration
168
Market Rates
Nliquid
vanilla products
yes
Model Parameters
α, σ, γ, θ
Modify Parameters
Newton Raphson
PRICER
Nmarket prices = Nmodel prices
Export model parameters
α, σ, γ, θ
no
Bump λ
1
Recalculate P
i
Fig. 10.16. Jacobian calculation Iterations
We repeat the process n times for each of the parameters λi .With the old prices Pi
and parameters λi, and with the new parameters λi + dλ and prices Pi + dP, the
Jacobian is then fully computed.
With an analytic approximation therefore, we would avoid calling on the pricer
n+1 times. Instead we would use a unique Jacobian and simply require a few more
iterations to arrive at the final result.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
169
10.5 Iteration Algorithm
Recall the initial Calibration flow chart, we are now going to present in more
detail the iteration’s right hand side:
j = j + 1
Price
λ
j
i
j
i
λ ∆
−
j
0
j
i
Price Price
Store
Model Price
j
i
NewParameters
λ
j+1
i
Bump Parameters
i
j
i
j
i
∆ + = λ λ
Newton Raphson
n Parameters
λ
j
i
i = 0
i = i+1
Export n
Parameters
λ
j
i
PRICER
yes
no
i = 0 ?
yes
i= n ?
Market Price = ModelPrice?
yes
no
no
Market rates
N Vanilla
Products
START
Fig. 10.17. Detailed Calibration Algorithm: Jacobian computation
Chapter 11 Graphical Understanding
170
11. Graphical Understanding
We now seek to truly understand how well our HJM model operates, and a direct
method to achieve this is by reproducing it graphically. By doing so, we will be able to
see where calibration solutions lie, where the first guesses are taken, and how directly
our algorithm converges towards its solution. We also hope that any specific cases
where our algorithm finds difficulties in converging, or does not converge at all, will
become apparent during this phase.
We set out to analyse the two strike HJM model. Recall that the calibration
parameters for such a formulation were simply σ and α. The initial idea is to generate
the space Ω consisting of all the prices that the HJM model generates for each pair (σ,
α), for a determined vanilla product. We then compare this three dimensional surface
with the true market price of the vanilla product. Wherever the HJM model price
coincides with the market price, we would have a valid solution for the parameters
(σ,α).
We develop this idea a step further, and set our z axis directly as:
HJM Model Price – Market Price
This is simply a vertical displacement of the curve along the z axis, since the
market price for a given vanilla product is a constant. What we achieve through this
transformation, is to be able to directly observe our (σ, α) solutions as the intersection
of our surface with the horizontal plane. That is, we have a valid solution whenever
HJM Model Price – Market Price = 0
Note that as discussed in the Black Scholes Chapter, the use of Market prices or of
Black volatilities on our vertical axis is indifferent, as the two are directly related. We
must also be aware of the fact that each valuation must be made for a product with a
defined maturity and a definite strike.
We will not enter the details of the programming algorithm involved in this
procedure yet. For the interested reader, refer to the algorithm at the end of this
section Fig. 11.12.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
171
Our space Ω will consist in the parameters to calibrate along the horizontal plane.
Notice that we can intuitively guess the form that this surface will have, by analysing
the 2 dimensional behaviour of the individual parameters.
We must not confuse the behaviour of the model parameters in this section with
those in the HJM section. Here, we are representing price versus model parameters. In
previous graphs, we were analysing prices versus strikes, and seeing how our
parameters transformed those curves.
The sigma parameter in the two strike model presents a characteristic curve of the
form:
Sigma
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25
Sigma [%]
P
r
i
c
e
s
k
Alpha 20 Alpha 0 Alpha 20 Alpha 40 Alpha 60
Fig. 11.1. HJM model: sigma vs price dynamics with different alpha parameters
It is a monotonously increasing curve. We see that its slope varies depending on
the value of alpha.
The alpha parameter presents a characteristic convexity. Its global level varies
vertically in price depending on the value of sigma.
Chapter 11 Graphical Understanding
172
Alpha
5
0
5
10
15
65 45 25 5 15 35
Alpha [%]
P
r
i
c
e
k
Sigma 0.04 Sigma 0.08 sigma 0.12 Sigma 0.16 Sigma 0.2
Fig. 11.2. HJM model: alpha vs price dynamics with different sigma parameters
By combining the two, we obtain a 3Dsurface Ω of the form:
0,02
0,06
0,1
0,14
0,18

5
0

4
0

3
0

2
0

1
0 0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
M
o
d
e
l
P
r
i
c
e

M
a
r
k
e
t
P
r
i
c
e
.
.
Sigma
Alpha
HJM Dynamics
Fig. 11.3. HJM MonteCarlo model price surface
The possible (σ, α) solutions are those in which Model Price = Market Price,
therefore where the surface passes through 0. This is depicted above as the limiting
curve between the blue and purple regions.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
173
HJM Solution
0
0,02
0,04
0,06
0,08
0,1
0,12
0,14
0,16
0,18
60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80
Alpha [%]
S
i
g
m
a
l
K = 3.35%
K = 4.45%
HJMSolution
0
0,02
0,04
0,06
0,08
0,1
0,12
0,14
0,16
0,18
60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80
Alpha [%]
S
i
g
m
a
l
K = 3.35%
Fig.11.4. HJM MonteCarlo two dimensional solution
Notice however that we obtain an entire curve of possible solutions, meaning that
we have an infinite set of possibilities to select our (σ, α) pair from. As in any
mathematical problem with two variables to solve, it is clear that we need two
equations to fully determine the system. We must therefore perform each calibration
in pairs of vanilla products (that have the same time schedules, and different strikes),
so that the final solution set (σ, α) is that which satisfies both curves, thus their
intersection.
Fig. 11.5. HJM MonteCarlo two dimensional solution intersection for two vanilla products
Notice also that the pair of vanilla products must be selected with the same
maturity, but different strike. It is left to the trader to decide which specific pair of
Chapter 11 Graphical Understanding
174
vanilla products to select at each maturity and tenor, so as to model the risk that he
seeks.
Depending on his selection, the trader will be taking into account a tangent to the
volatility curve at a specific point, or will be reproducing a broad slope modelisation.
Fig. 11.6. Model implications on taking a) very close strikes b)distant strikes
We immediately see here that a trader trying to capture a curvature, i.e. a smile,
will be unable to do so with the selection of only two strike positions. A third strike
would be required, and consequently a third parameter γ – the ‘Volatility of
Volatilities’ would have to be inserted into our HJM formulation to completely
determine the system of 3 equations and 3 unknowns.
11.1 Dynamics of the curve
Increasing the market prices, or equivalently, the σBlack results in a downward
vertical displacement of the entire surface Ω. According to our z axis definition we are
now subtracting a greater amount in the second term of the equation
HJM Model Price – Market Price
This has the effect on our 2D graph of displacing our solution curves upwards in
the sigma axis. (Not to confuse our HJM model’s sigma with the σBlack that is related to
the product price through the Black Scholes formula).
Variation of the strike K in turn appears to be a rescaling of the solution curve.
Its effect is to increase the overall size of the curve and shift it towards smaller values
of alpha, maintaining a more or less constant right end value
K
σB
K
K
K
K
σB
K
K
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
175
σ
Black1
σ
Black2
K
1
K
2
Fig. 11.7. Solution dynamics with a) variation in market price b) variations in
strike
11.2 HJM Problematics
Of specific interest to us is to analyse the cases in which our HJM algorithm does
not find a concrete solution. We have encountered four main cases of concern.
11.2.1 Lack of Convergence
There exists a solution but the algorithm does not converge properly towards it.
σ
K
σ
K
Chapter 11 Graphical Understanding
176
Convergence
0,04
0,06
0,08
0,1
0,12
0,14
0,16
40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40
Alpha [%]
S
i
g
m
a
l
K = 3.35%
K = 3.45%
1st
Guess
no
convergence
Fig. 11.8. Convergence of the algorithm
We realise that this problem can be solved easily and directly through two main
alternatives, each being equally valid.
a. Selecting a first guess which is closer to the initial solution. This will be one of
the driving forces to develop an analytic approximation.
b. Increasing the number of MonteCarlo simulations so as to have a more robust
convergence towards the true solution. The only drawback with this alternative is the
increased computation time required.
11.2.2 Duplicity
There exists a duplicity of solutions
The observant reader will have already noticed this in the previous graph or
could have already forecasted this difficulty due to the fact that the alpha has a
concave form. We present here a more evident solution duplicity case.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
177
Solution Duplicity
0,08
0,1
0,12
0,14
0,16
0,18
0,2
10 5 0 5 10 15
Alpha [%]
S
i
g
m
a
l
K = 4.35%
K = 4.45%
Fig. 11.9. Solution Duplicity
In general we intend our model to have a logical set of parameters. Remember
that the alpha represents the weight that we attribute to the normality or log
normality of our model. Thus we expect our set of alpha values to range between [0,1].
We notice that one of our solutions always lies within this range, whereas a second
solution sometimes appears that can greatly exceed it. To impose that our model does
not converge towards solutions of the form α = 5, we could either code a restrictive
algorithm, or we can simply impose a first guess with an alpha within this range.
Better still, we could approximate our first guess greatly to the valid solution to
ensure that the algorithm converges towards it. (See the analytic approximation in
Section 12).
Chapter 11 Graphical Understanding
178
11.2.3 No solution
No curve intersection, and thus no valid pair of parameters.
Lack of Intersection
0
0,02
0,04
0,06
0,08
0,1
0,12
0,14
0,16
0,18
0,2
50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40
Alpha [%]
S
i
g
m
a
l
K = 4.45%
K = 4.45%
Fig. 11.10. No HJM MonteCarlo solution intersection
11.2.4 No curve whatsoever
This occurs whenever our HJM model is not flexible enough to descend below the
horizontal axis. In other words, the model is never capable of equating its model
prices to the real market prices with any possible combination of parameters (σ, α).
The surface remains asymptotic to the horizontal axis.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
179
0.04
0.11
0.18

2

0
.
5
1
2
.
5
4
5
.
5
7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
M
o
d
e
l

M
a
r
k
e
t
P
r
i
c
e
Sigma
Alpha [%]
Surface Flexibility  Vanilla 2
Fig. 11.11. HJM MonteCarlo surface does not descend sufficiently so as to create a
solution curve
11.3 Attempted Solutions
A first idea that we tested to probe the cause of this inability to calibrate was to
analyse the gradients. We define the gradient in a σBlack versus strike K graph as
Strike
Black
∂
∂σ
We realize that the model has particular difficulties when trying to calibrate
products that are very smile i.e. that are very convex; or that have strong changes in
their slope. We analysed two principal cases:
· Whether the algorithm was incapable of calibrating due to the magnitude
(steepness) of the gradient.
· Whether the algorithm was incapable of calibrating depending on the
particular strike K location where the gradient was calculated i.e., whether the
Chapter 11 Graphical Understanding
180
algorithm found it particularly more difficult to calibrate when it was far from
the ‘at the money’ strike position.
No conclusive evidence was found supporting either of the two suggestions.
A second idea tested was to analyse the actual plain vanilla products that we
were calibrating. We found that calibrations of similar products, for example, a
swaption pair, could be solved for by the HJM model. If instead we calibrated
different products together, such as a swaption and a capfloor pair, the HJM would be
unable to converge to a suitable solution. We noticed also that there is a clear
difference in slopes between these two types of products. On average, a capfloor’s
slope has a value of around 1, whereas a Swaption has a slope of 2.
The above sparks off two possibilities:
The first is an examination of the actual cap market data so as to examine if the
caplets are being correctly derived from their cap market quotes. This will be
discussed in detail in a later chapter Section 16.
A second option would be to try and normalize the caplet volatility measure. We
have noticed that the joint calibration of swaptions (based on the 1Y LIBOR) and 1Y
caplets (based on the 1Y LIBOR), do yield results. However, when we try to calibrate
the same swaptions with 3 month or 6 month caplets (based on the 6M LIBOR),
immediate problems arise. A possible alternative would be to transform these caplets
into an equivalent annual measure, and to calibrate this fictitious annual measure
with the swaption measure. See [BM].
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
181
11.4 3D Surface Algorithm
We follow 4 main steps in the algorithm that constructs the 3 dimensional surface
and that then evaluates the 2 dimensional solutions for α and σ.
1. Selection of the maturity i at which we will evaluate a particular pair of
products
2. Mesh generation: this is, we define the horizontal plane of α’s and σ’s over
which to construct our surface.
3. For each of the two products q, we generate for every mesh node (α, σ) the 3D
surface as
Model Price(α, σ) – Market Price
4. We search for the (α, σ) solutions. This is where the surface passes through the
plane z = 0. For this, we check every node on the horizontal mesh and see if its
corresponding price difference (z value) experiences a change in sign with respect to
any adjacent node. We check both the horizontally adjacent, and vertically adjacent.
Any solution found is stored.
Chapter 11 Graphical Understanding
182
q = q  1
3D Matrix
α0
αL
αn
For each point ML,LL
MarketPriceModelPrice
N Products
2 Parameters
σ0 σLL σm
Set Parameter mesh
LL =mσ points
L = n α points
yes
no
q > 0 ?
LL =LL – 1
L = n
yes
no
Select product
pair ‘i’ to
calibrate
q=2
LL >0
?
Export
3D Matrices
Vertical Check: for each σLL cst.
See if change in sign in α column
Next αL
L > 0 ?
L = L  1
α0
αL
αn
σLL
Next
column σLL
ML,LL· ML1,LL< 0
Export Solution

¹

\
 +
−
LL
L L
σ
α α
,
2
1
START
L = L – 1
LL =m
yes
no
L > 0 ?
Horizontal Check: for each αL cst.
See if change in sign in σ row
Next σLL
LL >0 ?
LL =LL  1
αL
σ0 σLL σm
Next
rowαL
ML,LL· ML,LL1 < 0
Export Solution

¹

\
 +
−
2
,
1 LL LL
L
σ σ
α
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
L = n
LL =m
Fig. 11.12. Graphic surface generation algorithm
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
183
12. HJM 3 Strikes
The HJM three strike model, as stated initially, aims at being able to capture the
smile perceived by the market through the addition of a new parameter. The
peculiarity of this new component lies in the fact that it is itself stochastic. We will see
that the new parameter, which we will call the volatility of volatilities, has its own
diffusion dynamics that is governed by a different Brownian motion, Z.
We will now proceed to analyse the main alternatives which we experimentally
invented and developed here. Notice as we advance, how they all present a direct
relationship with the typical normal and lognormal stochastic differential diffusion
equations. This is why, upon integrating, they all evolve towards an exponential form.
We have provided their mathematical development below:
− + ⋅ ⋅ = Γ
) , 0 (
) , 0 (
log )) , ( 1 ( ) , ( log ) , ( ) , ( ) , ( ) , (
t B
T B
T t T t B T t T t V T t T t α α σ
(12.1)
Where V(t,T) introduces the new term of stochasticity, Z. We will describe several
choices of V tried in HJM Santander.
12.1 Exponential
Is one of the most simple stochasticity models that we shall tackle. It involves a
unique volatility of volatilities parameter, combined with the new Brownian motion
itself.
t
Z T t
e T t V
) , (
) , (
γ
= (12.2)
The above is selected in particular so that we ensure
[ ] 1 ) , ( = T t V E
P
(12.3)
Chapter 12 HJM 3 Strikes
184
A logical extension of the presented model would be
t
Z T t t T t
e T t V
) , ( ) , (
2
1
2
) , (
γ γ + −
= (12.4)
Clearly, recalling chapter 3.1, we can obtain the above from a Black formulation of
the diffusion for the new Brownian motion. Imagine that we have a dynamics of the
form
t
dZ T t V T t dt T t V T t dV ) , ( ) , ( ) , ( ) , ( γ β + = (12.5)
t t
t
t
dZ dt
V
dV
γ β + = (12.6)
Let us impose a change in variable
( )
( )
t
t
V dLN dX
V LN X
=
=
(12.7)
Applying Ito
dt V
V
dV
V
dX
t t
t
t
t
2 2
2
1
2
1
0
1
γ


¹

\

−
+ + = (12.8)
replacing the term in dV with our initial diffusion equation
dt dZ dt dX V dLN
t t t t
2
2
1
) ( γ γ β − + = = (12.9)
and now integrating
∫
+ 
¹

\

−
∫
=
t t t
dZ dt
t
e V V
γ γ β
2
2
1
0
(12.10)
Assuming γ(t,T) to be piecewise constant, we could extract it from the integral,
obtaining
Z t t
t
t t
e V V
γ γ β + −
=
2
2
1
0
(12.11)
If we do not make the above assumption, we must solve the second integral using
Brownian motion properties, as
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
185
( ) ( )
t
Z
dt
t
Z
dt Variance dZ t
t t t ∫ ∫ ∫
= =
2
γ γ γ
(12.12)
Which leaves us with
( )
2 2
1
2
0
t t
Z
dt dt
t
t
V V e
β γ γ
 
− +

\ ¹
∫ ∫
= (12.13)
We will see that this procedure is common throughout all the possibilities
attempted. This is to say, that we could always use a more simplistic approach rather
than a complete integration. In general we had particular difficulties in implementing
the complete integrals. For this reason we commonly resorted to piecewise constant
assumptions. Another successful solution to avoid the integral of a squared parameter
was to approximate:
( )
2
2
t t
dt dt γ γ ≈
∫ ∫
12.2 Mean Reversion
We simply add here a term of mean reversion to the previously developed
dynamics in (12.5).
t
dZ T t dt T t V T t dV ) , ( )) , ( ( ) , ( γ θ β + − = (12.14)
We now must apply a change in variable to attain the solution. Let
∫
=
t
s
ds
t t
e V x
0
β
(12.15)
Then by Ito
0
0 0
+
∫
+
∫
= dt e V dV e dx
t
s
t
s
ds
t t t
ds
t
β β
β (12.16)
( ) dt V dV e
t t t
ds
t
s
β
β
+
∫
=
0
(12.17)
Chapter 12 HJM 3 Strikes
186
And substituting our diffusion equation in dV we obtain
( ) dt V dZ T t dt T t V e
t t t t
ds
t
s
β γ θ β
β
+ + −
∫
= ) , ( )) , ( (
0
(12.18)
Leaving
( )
t t
ds
t
dZ T t dt e dx
t
s
) , (
0
γ θ β
β
+
∫
= (12.19)
Integrating between t and 0 we have
( )
∫
+
∫
= −
t
u u
ds
t
dZ T u du e x x
u
s
0
0
) , (
0
γ θ β
β
(12.20)
We can substitute now our change in variable for x to return to a formulation in
V:
( )
∫
+
∫
=
∫
−
∫
t
u u
ds ds da
t
dZ T u du e e V e V
u
s s
t
a
0
0
) , (
0
0
0 0
γ θ β
β β β
(12.21)
( )
∫
+
∫ ∫
+
∫
=
− − t
u u
ds da ds
t
dZ T u du e e e V V
u
s
t
a
t
s
0
0
) , (
0 0 0
γ θ β
β β β
(12.22)
( )
∫
+
∫ ∫
+
∫
=
− − t
u u
ds da ds
t
dZ T u du e e e V V
u
s
t
a
t
s
0
0
) , (
0 0 0
γ θ β
β β β
(12.23)
Let us take βt = β, then
∫ ∫
− − −
+ + =
t t
u
u t u t t
t
dZ T u e e du e e e V V
0 0
0
) , ( γ βθ
β β β β β
(12.24)
If we assume γ(t,T) to be piecewise constant, we can extract it from the
integration, thus
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
187
t
t
u t
t
t t
t
dZ e e T t
e
e e V V
∫
− − −
+


¹

\
 −
+ =
0
0
) , (
1
β β
β
β β
γ
β
βθ (12.25)
Where using the Brownian motion properties we can calculate
t
t
u
dZ e
∫
0
β
as
( )
t
Z
e
t
Z
dt e Variance
t t t
t
u
⋅ − = ⋅


¹

\

∫
1
2
1
2
0
β β
β
(12.26)
Leaving
( ) ( )
t
Z
e e T t e e V V
t t t t t
t
⋅ − + − + =
− − −
1
2
1
) , ( 1
2
0
β β β β
β
γ θ (12.27)
Notice that if we do not consider γ(t,T) piecewise constant, we would have
t
Z
dt T t e
t
Z
dt T t e Variance
t
t
t t
t
t
⋅


¹

\

= ⋅


¹

\

∫ ∫
0
2 2
0
) , ( ) , ( γ γ
β β
(12.28)
Leaving
2 2
0
0
1
( , ) ( , )
t t
t t t t t
t
Z e
V V e e t T e e t T dt
t
β
β β β β
βθ γ γ
β
− − −
    −
= + + ⋅
 
\ ¹ \ ¹
∫
(12.29)
12.3 Square Root Volatility
We simply state the idea of the diffusion for this form. We did not finally
implement the expression below
t
dZ T t v T t dt T t v T t dv ) , ( ) , ( )) , ( ( ) , ( γ θ β + − = (12.30)
Chapter 12 HJM 3 Strikes
188
12.4 Pilipovic
Notice that the expression below is very similar to the one that we stated in the
mean revision section (12.14). The main difference is simply the inclusion of the
stochastic volatility of volatilities term V in the diffusion (second term). Previously, it
had only been included in the drift term.
t
dZ T t V T t dt T t V T t dV ) , ( ) , ( )) , ( ( ) , ( γ θ β + − = (12.31)
A solution to the above equation was discovered by Dragana Pilipovic as



¹

\

∫
+
∫
=
∫
+ − + − −
du e V e t V
t dZ s d ds dZ t d dt
s s
t
s s s
t
t
βθ
γ γ β γ γ β
0
2
1
2
1
0
2
0
2
) 0 ( ) ( (12.32)
To demonstrate that this is a solution, we will apply Ito as proof. For this we
must calculate each term in:
2
2
2
( ) ( ) 1 ( )
( )
2
t
V t V t V t
dV t dt dZ dt
t Z Z
γ
∂ ∂ ∂
= + +
∂ ∂ ∂
(12.33)
We therefore calculate each of the above partial derivatives as:
2 2
0 0
2 2 2 2
0 0 0 0
1 1
2 2
0
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
2
0
( )
(0)
1
(0)
2
t t
t s s s s s
t t t t
t s s s s s t s s s s s
t t dt dZ ds dZ
t t dt dZ ds dZ t dt dZ ds ds dZ
t
V t
e V e du
t
e V e du e e
β γ γ β γ γ
β γ γ β γ γ β γ γ β γ γ
β βθ
γ βθ βθ
− − + − +
− − + − + − − + − +
 
∫ ∫
∂

= − + −

∂

\ ¹
 
∫ ∫ ∫ ∫

− + +


\ ¹
∫
∫
(12.34)
βθ γ β + − − =
∂
∂
) (
2
1
) (
) (
2
t V t V
t
t V
t
(12.35)
) (
) (
) ( ) 0 (
) (
2
0
2
1
2
1
0
2
0
2
t V
Z
t V
t V du e V e
Z
t V
t
t
t
t dZ s d ds dZ t d dt
t
t
s s
t
s s s
t
t
γ
γ βθ γ
γ γ β γ γ β
=
∂
∂
=



¹

\

∫
+
∫
=
∂
∂
∫
+ − + − −
(12.36)
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
189
By Ito, applying (12.33) and now substituting the above, we see that the complex
terms cancel out, bringing us back to the original diffusion equation.
( ) dZ t V dt t V
dt t V dZ t V dt t V t V t dV
t
t t t
γ β θ β
γ γ βθ γ β
) ( ) (
) (
2
1
) ( ) (
2
1
) ( ) (
2 2
+ − =
+ + 
¹

\

+ − − =
(12.37)
For a constant β, and piecewise constant γt ,our solution would be


¹

\

+


¹

\

− +


¹

\
 −
+ =
=


¹

\

+ =
∫
∫
− − + −
+ − − + −
du e e
e
V e
du e V e t V
t
Z
t
t
t
Z t t
t
Z u u Z t t
u u
t s s t
u u u s s t
0
2
1
2
2
1
0
2
1
2
1
1
2 1
) 0 (
) 0 ( ) (
2 2
2 2
γ
γ
β
γ γ β
γ γ β γ γ β
γ β
βθ
βθ
(12.38)
where the last term is of particular difficulty, and could numerically be
approached as
∑ −
−
i
i i
Z
t t e
i i
) (
1
γ
12.5 Logarithmic
Note that this is still a very similar format to that which we had in our mean
reversion model. We have simply replaced the variable V by log V.
t
dZ T t dt t V t V d ) , ( )) ( log ( ) ( log γ θ β + − = (12.39)
Let us convert the above to a simpler form through
( ) ) ( log ) (
) ( log ) (
t V d t dX
t V t X
=
=
(12.40)
Then the initial equation is now written as
t
dZ T t dt t X t dX ) , ( )) ( ( ) ( γ θ β + − = (12.41)
For which the solution, as we saw previously, for a constant β , was
( )
t
t
u t t t
t
dZ e e T t e e X X
∫
− − −
+ − + =
0
0
) , ( 1
β β β β
γ θ (12.42)
Chapter 12 HJM 3 Strikes
190
Now undoing our initial change in variable:
( ) ) ( log ) (
) ( log ) (
t V d t dX
t V t X
=
=
(12.43)
so ( )
t
t
u t t t
t
dZ e e T t e e V V
∫
− − −
+ − + =
0
0
) , ( 1 log log
β β β β
γ θ (12.44)
Where the integral can be treated as a Brownian term
( )
t
Z
e
t
Z
du e
t
Z
du e Variance dZ e
t t t
t
u t
t
u
t
t
u
⋅ − = ⋅


¹

\

= ⋅


¹

\

=
∫ ∫ ∫
1
2
1
2
0
2
0 0
β β β β
β
(12.45)
( ) ( )
t
Z
e e e
e
t
t t t
t
t
t
e e V V
⋅ − + −
− −
−
⋅ =
1
2
1
1
0
2β β β
β
β
γ θ
(12.46)
12.6 Taylor expansion
Another alternative that has been examined is the transformation of the curvature
into a Taylor expansion. Recall that we had
− + = Γ
) , 0 (
) , 0 (
log )) , ( 1 ( ) , ( log ) , ( ) , ( ) , (
t B
T B
T t T t B T t T t T t α α σ (12.47)
let us note
) , ( log
) , 0 (
) , 0 (
log
0
T t B x
t B
T B
x
=
=
(12.48)
we can then rewrite the above as
0 0
) ( ) , ( x x x T t
t t t
σ α σ + − = Γ (12.49)
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
191
We could imagine a more accurate extension of the above as a second order
Taylor expansion
[ ]
2
0 0 0
) ( ) ( ) , ( x x x x x T t
t t
− − − + = Γ γ α σ (12.50)
The above works relatively well, yet only until maturities of around 12 years. We
do not have a strong reason to abandon this formulation, other than the fact that we
need to narrow down our range of alternatives, and thus have decided to use the
volatility of volatility dynamics method instead, as it gives good results for products
with longer maturities. The behaviour itself depends on the market data. For example,
for the USD, the curvature approach has been implemented already and appears to
work better than the volatility of volatilities approach.
12.7 Graphical Note
Following our discussion on the two strike model, it seems evident that in the
three strike model, we will now need three vanilla products , calibrated jointly, to
attain a unique set of parameters for a given maturity. Remember how before, we
obtained the solution in the intersection of two curves. Now, the solution will be
obtained in the unique intersection of three surfaces.
Visually this is much more complex than before. The only way in which it could
be represented would be to fix one of the model parameters, and plot the remaining
two against a vertical axis consisting of ‘Model Price – Market Price’. We have not
pursued this possibility any further.
12.8 Results
We will now proceed to summarize the results obtained by comparing how each
of the former expressions for the volatility of volatilities performs.
It is worthwhile noting that in many of the previous formulations, we saw several
new parameters apart form the volatility of volatilities. These include for instance the
β and θ, whose values we have decided to hardcode into our algorithms. An
Chapter 12 HJM 3 Strikes
192
alternative or possible future approach could consist in also calibrating these
parameters. For the meantime, we have manually adjusted them, searching for those
for which our calibration works best.
Notice in the following set of results that we have tended to perform a first
simplistic approach setting these additional parameters to default values of 0 or 1. We
have then proceeded to perform a more detailed analysis, searching for their optimal
values and exploring to what extent they improved the calibration. We have noted
these as ‘extended’ results.
We state that all the formulae were exhaustively tested over 20 year products so
as to evaluate at what point the calibration failed. None of the former expressions
were capable of successfully completing the calibration process. The results presented
below were obtained for 10 pack simulations: this is, 10,000 MonteCarlo paths. The
more packs we added, the more difficult the HJM 3 factor algorithm found it to
advance.
12.8.1 Case 1, Exponential (12.2):
1st Case Limit β
Normal 13Y,14Y Caplet
Extended piecewise integration 14Y, 15Y Caplet 0.05
exact integration 2Y, 3Y 0.1 to 0.1
squared integral 14Y, 15Y Caplet 1 to 0.1
Table 12.1. Mean Reversion Stochastic Volatility Summary
This first formulation turned out to be one of the most successful. Notice that the
column headed limit represents the time span up until which the algorithm
successfully calibrated. We have also included a column β which shows the range of
values for this parameter in which the above formula successfully calibrated to the
specified date.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
193
A more careful analysis of the results obtained confirms the following:
· The algorithm seems to fail because the change in the gamma parameter for
long products is too drastic.
· The extended version with beta appears much more flexible.
· The squared integral method allows for the greatest range of parameter
alternatives whilst still reaching the same final length (in years) of calibration.
12.8.2 Case 2, Mean Reversion (12.14):
2
nd
Case
Limit
integral squared 2Y, 3Y
(integral) squared 5Y, 6Y
Table 12.2. Mean Reversion Stochastic Volatility Summary
12.8.3 Case 3, Square Root (12.30) :
3r
d
Case
Limit
2Y, 3Y
5Y, 6Y
Table 12.3. Square Root Stochastic Volatility Summary – 10 and 20 packs
12.8.4 Case 5, Logarithmic (12.39):
5th Case Limit β θ
15Y, 20Y Swaption 1 0.7 to 0.001
15Y, 16Y Caplet 1.5 0.03 to 0.035
16Y, 17Y Caplet 2.8 to 3 0.02 to 0.25
Table 12.4. Logarithmic Stochastic Volatility Summary
Chapter 12 HJM 3 Strikes
194
Clearly, this fifth formulation is the one that has been most successful, reaching
one or two years further in the calibration than the 1
st
case formulation. Nevertheless,
we were still incapable of calibrating the vanilla products to the final maturity of 20
years.
Having reached this point, we began to consider the possibility that perhaps, it
was not the ‘Volatility of Volatilities’ expression that was causing the failure to
calibrate. We postulated the hypothesis that perhaps the key to the problem could be
located elsewhere.
Indeed, we found a surprising feature when performing these tests. All the above
expressions were obtained from joint calibrations of both Swaptions and Caplets,
where the caplets were based on the 1 year EURIBOR. Since we had calibrated up
until 16 years, we expected to find that our MonteCarlo would at least be able to
calibrate any product under the 15 year mark. Contrary to our expectations, we found
that there was a certain range of products that our model was incapable of calibrating,
even in the case of shorter maturities. These were, specifically, joint calibrations of
Swaptions and Caplets in which the Caplets were not based on the 1 year EURIBOR,
but instead, on the 3 month or 6 month EURIBOR.
An important problem is the fact that in the cap market, forward rates are mostly
semi – annual whereas those entering the forwardswaprate expressions are typically
annual rates. Therefore, when considering both markets at the same time, we may
have to reconcile volatilities of semiannual forward rates and volatilities of annual
forward rates. Otherwise, when we treat them as exact equals, the above calibration
problems occur. And perhaps, it is incorrect even to treat the swaptions and caplets
both based on the 1 year EURIBOR as equals. This may be the underlying reason why
we do not calibrate successfully.
This problematic is what gives rise to a deeper study of the joint calibration. We
will first analyse a possibility that the caplet market data themselves should be
erroneous. This will involve an analysis of how the caplets are stripped from their
corresponding cap values. This has been developed in detail in the Caplet Stripping
Section 16. Once this has been implemented, we should ideally return to the 3 Strike
analysis to see whether any improvements are obtained.
If this turns out not to be the true problem, we will perhaps need to somehow
normalise the data of both caplets and swaptions. For this we refer the reader to [BM].
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
195
13. Analytic approximation
What we refer to as an analytic approximation is simply an approximate
formulation of the HJM framework. In other words, it is an approximation of the
model’s dynamics yielding a price for Swaptions which can be described through an
analytical formula that is very simple to implement numerically.
The need for an approximate formula arises from the fact that the HJM can be
very costly timewise. It generally involves a huge number of path simulations which
can weigh heavily on any computer and even on a grid network. As seen in the
calibration section, every additional iteration requires n + 1 additional pricings so as
to calculate all the elements in the Jacobian.
If instead we were to work with an analytical approximation, we would stand in
a far stronger position due to the following main reasons:
The HJM model starts off its calibration with an arbitrary first guess for its
parameters. As it iterates through a Newton Raphson algorithm, this type of
algorithm is characterised by converging badly and very slowly if the first guess is
very far from the true solution. A huge leap forward in computation time would be
achieved if the analytical approximation were to provide us with a good starting
point.
Calculating a numerical Jacobian as is done in the calibration process is extremely
costly. We have already seen that we can freeze the model’s Jacobian so as to iterate in
more steps but without having to recalculate the Jacobian at each step. We could
further reduce calibration time if we were to use an analytical approximation Jacobian
that could be calculated mathematically and not through a finite difference ‘bumping’
procedure.
We therefore set out with the aim of deriving an approximate formula of a
swaption for the Santander HJM model.
Chapter 13 Analytic approximation
196
As shall be demonstrated, we will start off by making an assumption for the
dynamics of the forward swap rate
[ ]
P
t
dW S t t S t t t dS ) 0 ( )) ( 1 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( α α σ − + = (13.1)
We will use this formulation as an analytic approximation to the exact HJM
expression. From this approximation we will derive its timedependent parameters
α(t), σ(t). The exact expressions for these will cover the central part of our research. We
will subsequently need a formula to relate our new approximate expression’s σ(t) and
α(t) to the HJM model’s σi(t) and αi(t) (with i = 0, ..., n)
Secondly, we will use the technique of “averaging” developed by Piterbarg to
convert our time dependent parameters α(t), σ(t) into a diffusion with time
independent parameters α, σ. This will convert our approximate formula into the form
[ ]
P
t
dW S t S t dS ) 0 ( ) 1 ( ) ( ) ( α α σ − + = (13.2)
We will simply state the formulation to be used in this section, but will not
analyse it in any further depth.
13.1 Formula Development
Let us recall two pivotal expressions in our HJM model:
− + = Γ
) , 0 (
) , 0 (
log )) , ( 1 ( ) , ( log ) , ( ) , ( ) , (
t B
T B
T t T t B T t T t T t α α σ
(13.3)
[ ]
P
t
f
dW T t R T t T t R T t T t dt T t dR ) , ( )) , ( 1 ( ) , ( ) , ( ) , ( (...) ) , ( α α σ − + + =
(13.4)
The first expression implies the second. Indeed, write
P
t t
dW T t dt r
T t B
T t dB
) , (
) , (
) , (
Γ + = (13.5)
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
197
) )( , (
) , (
t T T t R
e T t B
− −
= (13.6)
T t
T t B
T t R
−
=
) , ( log
) , ( (13.7)
Applying Ito to R(t,T) we obtain:
( )
( )dt B
T t
dt
B
B T t dB
T t B T t
T t dR log
1 1
2
1
) , (
) , (
1 1
) , (
2 2
2 2
−
−
+
−
Γ +


¹

\

−
=
(13.8)
[ ]
( )
( )dt T t T t R
T t
dt dW rdt
T t
T t dR −
−
− Γ − Γ +
−
= ) , (
1
2
1 1
) , (
2
2
(13.9)
Separating into temporal and Brownian components
( )
dW
T t
dt
T t
T t R
r
T t
r
T t dR
−
Γ
+


¹

\

−
− Γ −
−
=
) , (
2
1
) , (
2
(13.10)
Replacing the Γ in the Brownian part with (13.3)
dW
t B
T B
T t T t B T t T t
T t
dt T t dR
− +
−
+ =
) , 0 (
) , 0 (
log )) , ( 1 ( ) , ( log ) , ( ) , (
1
(...) ) , ( α α σ
(13.11)
And applying the relationship between bonds and rates in (13.7)
( ) [ ]dW T t T t R T t T t T t R T t T t
T t
dt T t dR
f
) )( , ( )) , ( 1 ( ) )( , ( ) , ( ) , (
1
... ) , ( − − + −
−
+ = α α σ
(13.12)
where we have decided to call Rf the zero coupon rate forward
( , )( )
(0, )
(0, )
f
R t T T t
B T
e
B t
− −
= (13.13)
Chapter 13 Analytic approximation
198
13.1.1 Swaption Measure
Let us consider our receiver swaption with strike K and time schedule τ = U0,U1,
...,Un. We are thus left with:
[ ]
P
t
i
f
i i i i i
dW t R t t R t t dt t dR ) ( )) ( 1 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( (...) ) ( α α σ − + + = (13.14)
Where ) , ( ) (
i i
U t R t R =
The swaption rate forward of such a swap at time t is:
∑
=
−
=
n
i
i i
n
U t B m
U t B U t B
t S
1
0
) , (
) , ( ) , (
) ( (13.15)
13.2 Step 1
Under its annuity measure S(t) is a martingale. From the previous equation and
under the HJM model, S(t) presents the following dynamics:
[ ]
∑
=
− +
∂
∂
=
n
i
P
t
i
f
i i i i
i
dW t R t t R t t
t R
t S
t dS
0
) ( )) ( 1 ( ) ( ) ( ) (
) (
) (
) ( α α σ (13.16)
Proof:
By applying a multidimensional form of Ito to (13.15) which in turn can be
rewritten as
0 0 0
( , )( ) ( , )( )
0
( , )( )
1
(0, ) (0, )
( )
(0, )
n n
i i
R t U U t R t U U t
n
n
R t U U t
i i
i
B U e B U e
S t
m B U e
− − − −
− −
=
−
=
∑
(13.17)
through the use of
) , ( ) (
) , (
T t R t T
e T t B
− −
= (13.18)
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
199
We have thus obtained a multidimensional form of the more simplistic Ito
equation
dt
R
S
dt
t
S
dR
R
S
t dS
2
2
2
2
1
) ( σ
∂
∂
+
∂
∂
+
∂
∂
= (13.19)
Imposing that St is a martingale, we can say that it follows a driftless process,
meaning that all the terms in dt should cancel out. In this way we reach that
dR
R
S
t dS
∂
∂
= ) ( (13.20)
Where we have dR from before. Thus, by simply replacing dR and realizing that
we have differentiated with respect to each of the Ri that we take from our continuous
rate curve, we have
[ ]
∑
=
− +
∂
∂
=
n
i
P
t
i
f
i i i i
i
dW t R t t R t t
t R
t S
t dS
0
) ( )) ( 1 ( ) ( ) ( ) (
) (
) (
) ( α α σ
Because our HJM model produces a skew, we can make an assumption for our
approximation, on the dynamics of the swap rate forward such that:
[ ]
P
t
dW S t t S t t t dS ) 0 ( )) ( 1 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( α α σ − + = (13.21)
This is the approximation of the dynamics of St that we choose to use.
We will now need a formula to relate our new approximate expression’s σ(t) and
α(t) to the true HJM model’s σi(t) and αi(t) (with i = 0, ..., n)
Equations (13.16) and (13.21) give us the dynamics for S(t). The first is the HJM
formulation and the second is our newly developed approximation. We must
therefore find a suitable relationship between them.
Chapter 13 Analytic approximation
200
13.2.1 First Method
To get from (13.16) to (13.21), we impose two conditions. The first is that the two
equations should be equivalent along the forward path. Suppose Ri(t) = R
f
i (t)
n i ,..., 0 ∈ ∀ then S(t) = S(0). In fact, when Ri(t)=R
f
i(t) we have
) , 0 (
) , 0 (
) , (
t B
T B
T t B = ,
since
) , ( ) (
) , (
T t R t T
e T t B
− −
= (13.22)
) )( , (
) , 0 (
) , 0 (
t T T t R
f
e
t B
T B
− −
= (13.23)
Hence
∑ ∑
= =
−
=
−
=
n
i
i
i
n
n
i
i i
n
t B
U B
m
t B
U B
t B
U B
U t B m
U t B U t B
t S
1
0
1
0
) , 0 (
) , 0 (
) , 0 (
) , 0 (
) , 0 (
) , 0 (
) , (
) , ( ) , (
) ( (13.24)
By definition
) 0 (
) , 0 (
) , 0 ( ) , 0 (
) (
1
0
S
U B m
U B U B
t S
n
i
i i
n
=
−
=
∑
=
(13.25)
So S(t) = S(0)
From this first condition we obtain, rewriting our two expressions: i.e. the
swaption rate forward dynamics from the HJM and the approximations standpoints:
[ ]
P
t
P
t
dW S t dW S t t S t t t dS ) 0 ( ) ( ) 0 ( )) ( 1 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( σ α α σ = − + = (13.26)
[ ]
∑ ∑
= =
∂
∂
= − +
∂
∂
=
n
i
i
f
i
i
n
i
P
t
i
f
i i i i
i
t R t
t R
S
dW t R t t R t t
t R
t S
dS t
0 0
) ( ) (
) (
) 0 (
) ( )) ( 1 ( ) ( ) ( ) (
) (
) (
) 0 ( ) ( σ α α σ σ
(13.27)
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
201
Both the HJM and the approximate formulation must be equivalent. We can
equate them, and solve for our approximation’s σ(t):
∑
=
∂
∂
=
n
i
i
f
i
i
R t
t R
S
S t
0
) 0 ( ) (
) (
) 0 (
) 0 ( ) ( σ σ (13.28)
Which we write in a simplified manner as
) ( ) ( ) (
) 0 (
) (
) (
) 0 (
) (
0
t t q t
S
t R
t R
S
t
i
n
o i
i i
n
i
i
f
i
σ σ σ
∑ ∑
= =
=
∂
∂
= (13.29)
where in order to be able to solve, we must freeze the parameter Ri , this is
1,...,
f
i i
R R i n = =
And where
) 0 (
) (
) (
) 0 (
) (
S
t R
t R
S
t q
i
f
i
i
∂
∂
= (13.30)
Thus, at this point, we have achieved an expression for our approximate σ(t) that
is a function of parameters that are all known at present. It is important to notice that
we will use the techniche of freezing the Ri to its R
f
i value in this and all subsequent
approximation alternatives.
We proceed now to calculate an expression for α(t). Having decided that the
slope should agree along the forward path as well. We intuitively identify α(t) with
the slope or skew of our HJM model, as has been seen in the HJM Section 8.5.2. Thus,
j ∀ , we analyse the slope by differentiating:
( ) [ ] =
− +
∂
∂
∂
∂
=
∂
∂
∑
=
n
i
i
f
i i i i
i j j
t R t t R t t
t R
t S
t R
t dS
t R
0
) ( )) ( 1 ( ) ( ) ( ) (
) (
) (
) (
) (
) (
α α σ
2
0
0
( )
( ) ( ) ( ) (1 ( )) ( )
( ) ( )
( )
( ) ( ) (1 ( )) ( )
( ) ( )
n
f
i i i i i
i i j
n
f
i i i i
i j j
S t
t t R t t R t
R t R t
S t
t R t t R t
R t R t
σ α α
α α
=
=
∂
= + − +
∂ ∂
∂ ∂
+ + −
∂ ∂
∑
∑
(13.31)
Chapter 13 Analytic approximation
202
where there exists a derivative for ) ( ) (
) (
) (
t R t
t R
t S
i i
i
α
∂
∂
only when i=j. Thus in the
last term we eliminate the “i” index and replace by a “j”:
[ ]
∑
=
∂
∂
+ − +
∂ ∂
∂
=
n
i
j j
j
i
f
i i i i
j i
t t
t R
t S
t R t t R t t
t R t R
t S
0
2
) ( ) (
) (
) (
) ( )) ( 1 ( ) ( ) ( ) (
) ( ) (
) (
α σ α α σ
(13.32)
And separately, we analyse the same slope in our approximate formulation. We
have
[ ]
) (
) (
) ( ) ( ) 0 ( )) ( 1 ( ) ( ) ( ) (
) ( t R
t S
t t S t t S t t
t R
j j
∂
∂
= − +
∂
∂
α σ α α σ (13.33)
σ does not differentiate with respect to R as it is made up of terms at time 0, and
terms in R
f
) (
) 0 (
) (
) (
) 0 (
) ( ) ( t
S
t R
t R
S
t q t
i
i
f
i
i i
σ σ σ
∂
∂
= = (13.34)
Equating the HJM model’s slopes and the approximation formula’s slopes along
the forward path, we obtain j ∀
2
0
(0) (0) (0)
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
n
f
i i j j
i i j j j
S S S
t R t t t t t
R t R t R t R t
σ σ α σ α
=
∂ ∂ ∂
+ =
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
∑
(13.35)
Version 1
Ignoring the second order derivatives and thus just taking a first order approach
) (
) 0 (
) ( ) (
) (
) 0 (
) ( ) (
t R
S
t t
t R
S
t t
j j
j j
∂
∂
=
∂
∂
α σ α σ (13.36)
Thus
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( t t t t
j j
α σ α σ = (13.37)
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
203
Version 2
) (
) 0 (
) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
) (
) 0 (
) ( ) (
) ( ) (
) 0 (
0
2
t R
S
t t t t
t R
S
t R t
t R t R
S
j
n
i
j j
j
i
f
i
j i
∂
∂
=
∂
∂
+
∂ ∂
∂
=
∑
=
α σ α σ σ
(13.38)
This problem with second order considerations normally, does not have a
solution. We reformulate it in the leastsquare sense: finding α(t) such that:
( )
∑
=
−
n
i
j j
t
t t t t
0
2 ) (
min
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( α σ α σ
α
(13.39)
13.3 Second Method
To equate the approximation and the HJM model, we impose two conditions: that
the lognormal and normal terms should both independently be equal. This means that
as we have
[ ]
∑
=
− +
∂
∂
=
n
i
P
t
i
f
i i i i
i
dW t R t t R t t
t R
t S
t dS
0
) ( )) ( 1 ( ) ( ) ( ) (
) (
) (
) ( α α σ (13.40)
and [ ]
P
t
dW S t t S t t t dS ) 0 ( )) ( 1 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( α α σ − + = (13.41)
then equating the lognormal and normal components
∑
=
∂
∂
=
n
i
i i i
i
t R t t
t R
t S
t S t t
0
) ( ) ( ) (
) (
) (
) ( ) ( ) ( α σ α σ (13.42)
∑
=
−
∂
∂
= −
n
i
i
f
i i
i
t R t t
t R
t S
S t t
0
) ( )) ( 1 )( (
) (
) (
) 0 ( )) ( 1 )( ( α σ α σ (13.43)
These equations should also agree along the path forward at Ri(t)=R
f
i (t) and S(t) =
S(0). Solving the above equations, we obtain:
) ( ) ( ) (
) 0 (
) (
) (
) 0 (
) (
0
t t q t
S
t R
t R
S
t
i
n
o i
i i
n
i
i
f
i
σ σ σ
∑ ∑
= =
=
∂
∂
= (13.44)
Chapter 13 Analytic approximation
204
) ( ) (
) (
) 0 (
) ( ) ( ) (
) (
) 0 (
) (
0
0
t t R
t R
S
t t t R
t R
S
t
i
n
i
i
f
i
n
i
i i i
i
σ
α σ
α
∑
∑
=
=
∂
∂
∂
∂
= (13.45)
Note that the formula for σ(t) is the same as the one derived from the first
method. α(t) is now a weighted composition of all the αi(t).
Note that another possible approach would have been to equate the terms in α(t)
and those independent of α(t). We immediately encounter a problem if we pursue this
approach, for we obtain
∑
=
∂
∂
=
n
i
i i
i
t R t
t R
t S
t S t
0
) ( ) (
) (
) (
) ( ) ( σ σ (13.46)
)) ( ) ( )( ( ) (
) (
) (
)) 0 ( ) ( )( ( ) (
0
t R t R t t
t R
t S
S t S t t
i
n
i
i
f
i i
i
−
∂
∂
= −
∑
=
α σ α σ
(13.47)
the first equation yields the same solution for σ(t) as in all the previous cases, but
the second term gives a problem of a division by 0 when S(t) = S(0)


¹

\

−
−


¹

\

∂
∂
=
∑
=
)) 0 ( ) ( (
) ( ) (
) (
) ( ) (
) (
) (
) (
0
S t S
t R t R
t
t t
t R
t S
t
i
i
f n
i
i i
i
σ
α σ
α (13.48)
We will see in the results section that the final formulation we retain for our
algorithm is that which is provided by the second method.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
205
13.4 Step 2
Following Piterbarg (and we will give no further details), we have:
dt t t w
T
∫
=
0
) ( ) ( α α (13.49)
Where
1 ) (
0
=
∫
dt t w
T
(13.50)
How to choose w(t) is crucial. Piterbarg suggest that
dt t t v
t t v
t w
T
) ( ) (
) ( ) (
) (
2
0
2
2 2
σ
σ
∫
= (13.51)
With
∫
=
t
ds s t v
0
2 2
) ( ) ( σ (13.52)
Another test may be for example:
dt t t
T
T
∫
=
0
2
) (
2 /
1
α α (13.53)
For σ, we always choose the following:
dt t
T
T
∫
=
0
2 2
) (
1
σ σ (13.54)
Chapter 13 Analytic approximation
206
13.5 Swaption Valuation
We will now analyse how to adapt our approximate formulation to the valuation
of a simple receiver swap. We will make our derivation as generic as possible so that
any of the two specific methods for the σ(t) and α(t) parameters derived can be equally
applied. We shall see how we simply convert our approximation dynamics into a
geometric Black Scholes form which we will then be able to solve for in a
straightforward manner.
A receiver swaption can be expressed as:
[ ] ) ( ( ) ) ; ( ( ) ; ( ) ; ( ) ; ( ) (
0 0
0
t S K m U t B U t B U t B m U t B K K V
n
i
i i
n
i
n i i t
− = + − =
∑ ∑
= =
(13.55)
Where
∑
=
−
=
n
i
i i
n
U t B m
U t B U t B
t S
1
0
) , (
) , ( ) , (
) ( (13.56)
If we take
∑
=
=
n
i
i i
U t B m t N
1
) , ( ) ( as the numeraire, S(t) will be a martingale
under this probability. So we have that the price of a receiver swaption is:
[ ]
1
0
0
(0; ) ( ( )
n
i i
i
Swaption m B U E K S t
+
−
=
= −
∑
(13.57)
Under its annuity measure, our approximate formula yields
[ ]
P
t
dW S t S t dS ) 0 ( ) 1 ( ) ( ) ( α α σ − + = (13.58)
Performing a change in variable
α
α ) 0 ( ) 1 (
) ( ) (
S
t S t X
−
+ =
We have ) ( ) ( t dS t dX =
Which we can replace for
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
207
[ ]
P
t
dW S t S t dS t dX ) 0 ( ) 1 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( α α σ − + = = (13.59)
and again replacing S(t) we obtain
P
t
dW S
S
t X t dX
− +
−
− = ) 0 ( ) 1 (
) 0 ( ) 1 (
) ( ) ( α
α
α
α σ (13.60)
Leaving
P
t
dW t X t dX ) ( ) ( σα = (13.61)
We have thus arrived at a simple geometric standard differential equation to
which we can directly apply the Black Scholes Formula
[ ]
+
−
=
∑
− =
1
0
0
) ( ' ( ) ; 0 (
n
i
P
i i
t X K E U B m Swaption (13.62)
with .
α
α ) 0 ( ) 1 (
'
S
K K
−
+ =
Applying the Black Scholes formula, we have:
[ ]
∑
−
=
− − − =
1
0
1 2 0
) ( ) 0 ( ) ( ' ( ) ; 0 (
n
i
i i
d N X d N K U B m Swaption (13.63)
where
T
T
K
X
Ln
d
⋅
⋅
+ 
¹

\

=
σα
α σ
2 '
) 0 (
2 2
1
(13.64)
And T d d ⋅ − = σα
2 1
(13.65)
13.6 Approximation Conclusion
We have implemented and tested the two methods extensively dor up to 25 year
calibrations with a maximum of 100,000 simulations. One strike calibrations build on
Chapter 13 Analytic approximation
208
the same form for σ(t), which always works well, provided that the HJM model also
finds a solution. The difference between the two methods lies therefore in the α(t)
implementation. The first approach presents difficulties with certain calibrations.
Despite giving good Jacobians, it requires many MonteCarlo iterations. The second
method proves much more robust. Furthermore, its formulas for σ(t) and α(t) are very
simple. We fancy them in particular because they both seem to be weighted averages
of the σi(t) and αi(t).
The line of research followed to this point in the development of an approximate
formulation seems to be completely compatible with an extension to the 3 Strikes
model.
13.7 Alternative point of Calculation
We now attempt to calculate our approximate formula at a different point from
the original idea of taking Ri(t) = R
f
i(t).
Previously, we had arranged for S(t) = S(0) always ‘at the money’. We now will
examine the possibility of imposing this equality at a different point. We had:
∑ ∑
=
− −
− − − −
=
−
=
−
=
n
i
t R t U
i
t R t U t R t U
n
i
i i
n
i i
n n
e m
e e
U t B m
U t B U t B
t S
1
) ( ) (
) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
1
0
0 0
) , (
) , ( ) , (
) ( (13.66)
∑ ∑
=
− −
− − − −
=
−
=
−
=
n
i
t R t U
i
t R t U t R t U
n
i
i i
n
i
f
i
n
f
n
f
e m
e e
U B m
U B U B
S
1
) ( ) (
) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
1
0
0
0
) , 0 (
) , 0 ( ) , 0 (
) 0 ( (13.67)
Imagine that we search for
*
*
0 0
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
f
i i
f
R t R t
R t R t ε
=
= +
then
∑
=
−
=
n
i
i
i
n
t B
U B
m
t B
U B
t B
U B
t S
1
0
) , 0 (
) , 0 (
) , 0 (
) , 0 (
) , 0 (
) , 0 (
) ( (13.68)
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
209
Imagine that we now want S(t) = S
*
(t)
Then by dividing the previous equations we obtain
) , 0 ( ) , 0 (
) , 0 ( ) , 0 (
) (
) 0 (
) (
0
0
) ( ) ( ) ) ( )( (
) ( ) ( )) ( )( (
*
0 0
0
0
0
n
t U
n
t R t U t R t U
t R t U t R t U
U B e U B
U B U B
e e
e e
t S
S
n
f
n
f
n
f
n
f
−
−
=
−
−
=
− −
− − + − −
− − − −
ε
ε
(13.69)
) , 0 (
) 0 (
) (
1 ) , 0 (
) 0 (
) (
) , 0 (
*
0
*
) (
0
0
n
t U
U B
S
t S
U B
S
t S
e U B


¹

\

− + =
− − ε
(13.70)


¹

\



¹

\

− +
−
=
) , 0 (
) , 0 (
) 0 (
) (
1
) 0 (
) (
) (
1
0
* *
0
U B
U B
S
t S
S
t S
LN
U t
n
ε (13.71)
Note that if we take S(t)
*
= S(0), this model yields ε = 0, which brings us back to
the model we had initially.
We will show in the results section that this approximation method in ε yields
optimal results for calibrations that are performed at the money. This appears to be
quite logical, as the general level of volatility σ is best defined at the money, and so
calibrating it at any other point S
*
(t) does not seem as appropriate.
13.8 Two Factors
The development of an analytic approximation for the two factor HJM model is
completely analogous to the one factor case. Its HJM formulation is expressed as
1 2
0
( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( ) (1 ( )) ( ) (sin ( ) ( ) cos ( ) ( ))
( )
n
f P P
i i i i i i i
i i
dS t
S t
t t R t t R t t dW t t dW t
R t
σ α α θ θ
=
=
∂
= + − +
∂
∑
(13.72)
Notice that the only real difference with respect to the one factor model are the
sine and cosine coefficients which have been included at the end of the expression
with respect to the two different Brownian motions.
Chapter 13 Analytic approximation
210
Because our model produces a skew, we can make an assumption for the
dynamics of the swap rate forward, (once again, analogous to what had been
previously developed), and simply add sine and cosine coefficients with respect to the
two different Brownian motions.
[ ] )) ( ) ( cos ) ( ) ( (sin ) 0 ( )) ( 1 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
2 1
t dW t t dW t S t t S t t t dS
P P
θ θ α α σ + − + =
(13.73)
Solving the above equations by freezing Ri(t) = R
f
i (t) and S(t) = S(0), we obtain:
2
0
2
0
) ( sin ) (
) 0 (
) (
) (
) 0 (
) ( cos ) (
) 0 (
) (
) (
) 0 (
) (


¹

\

∂
∂
+


¹

\

∂
∂
=
∑ ∑
= =
t t
S
t R
t R
S
t t
S
t R
t R
S
t
i i
n
i
i
f
i
i i
n
i
i
f
i
θ σ θ σ σ
(13.74)
The above can also be attained by following a parallel approach:
Separation of αdependent and αindependent terms gives
) ( sin ) ( ) (
) (
) (
) ( sin ) ( ) (
0
t t R t
t R
t S
t t S t
i
n
i
i i
i
θ σ θ σ
∑
=
∂
∂
= (13.75)
) ( cos ) ( ) (
) (
) (
) ( cos ) ( ) (
0
t t R t
t R
t S
t t S t
i
n
i
i i
i
θ σ θ σ
∑
=
∂
∂
= (13.76)
) ( sin )) ( ) ( )( ( ) (
) (
) (
) ( sin )) 0 ( ) ( )( ( ) (
0
t t R t R t t
t R
t S
t S t S t t
i
n
i
i
f
i i i
i
θ α σ θ α σ
∑
=
−
∂
∂
= −
(13.77)
) ( cos )) ( ) ( )( ( ) (
) (
) (
) ( cos )) 0 ( ) ( )( ( ) (
0
t t R t R t t
t R
t S
t S t S t t
i
n
i
i
f
i i i
i
θ α σ θ α σ
∑
=
−
∂
∂
= −
(13.78)
and by applying trigonometry to the first two equations (13.75) and (13.76)
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
211
2
0
2
0
) ( sin ) (
) 0 (
) (
) (
) 0 (
) ( cos ) (
) 0 (
) (
) (
) 0 (
) (


¹

\

∂
∂
+


¹

\

∂
∂
=
∑ ∑
= =
t t
S
t R
t R
S
t t
S
t R
t R
S
t
i i
n
i
i
f
i
i i
n
i
i
f
i
θ σ θ σ σ
(13.79)
Dividing the first two equations we also obtain
) ( cos ) ( ) ( ) (
) (
) (
) ( sin ) ( ) ( ) (
) (
) (
) ( tan
0
0
t t R t t
t R
t S
t t R t t
t R
t S
t
i
n
i
i i i
i
i
n
i
i i i
i
θ α σ
θ α σ
θ
∑
∑
=
=
∂
∂
∂
∂
= (13.80)
Recall however that this methodology provided a difficulty when solving for
alpha in the one factor case. Here we will be faced with the same problem. Squaring
the last two equations (13.77) and (13.78) to eliminate sines and cosines, the expression
obtained can be solved for α(t). However, it involves a division by (S(t)S(0)) in the
denominator, which yields 0 for S(t)=S(0) and thus makes the ratio explode towards
infinity. Further this is impossible to solve for as S(t) is stochastic
2
0
2
2 2
2
0
2 2
( )
( ) ( )( ( ) ( )) sin ( )
( )
( )
( )( ( ) (0))
( )
( ) ( )( ( ) ( )) cos ( )
( )
( )( ( ) (0))
n
f
i i i i i
i
i
n
f
i i i i i
i i
S t
t t R t R t t
R t
t
t S t S
S t
t t R t R t t
R t
t S t S
σ α θ
α
σ
σ α θ
σ
=
=
  ∂
−

∂
\ ¹
= +
−
  ∂
−

∂
\ ¹
+
−
∑
∑
(13.81)
We seek now to find alpha through a different approach:
If we proceed as in the one factor case, we can firstly equate our two expressions
through their Brownian motions, and secondly, we can equate them further, as we
already did before, via their normality and lognormality:
) ( sin ) ( ) ( ) (
) (
) (
) ( sin ) ( ) ( ) (
0
t t R t t
t R
t S
t t S t t
i
n
i
i i i
i
θ α σ θ α σ
∑
=
∂
∂
= (13.82)
) ( cos ) ( ) ( ) (
) (
) (
) ( cos ) ( ) ( ) (
0
t t R t t
t R
t S
t t S t t
i
n
i
i i i
i
θ α σ θ α σ
∑
=
∂
∂
= (13.83)
Chapter 13 Analytic approximation
212
) ( sin ) ( )) ( 1 )( (
) (
) (
) ( sin ) 0 ( )) ( 1 )( (
0
t t R t t
t R
t S
t S t t
i
n
i
i
f
i i
i
θ α σ θ α σ
∑
=
−
∂
∂
= −
(13.84)
) ( cos ) ( )) ( 1 )( (
) (
) (
) ( cos ) 0 ( )) ( 1 )( (
0
t t R t t
t R
t S
t S t t
i
n
i
i
f
i i
i
θ α σ θ α σ
∑
=
−
∂
∂
= −
(13.85)
The main problem that we encounter at this stage is the fact that we have three
variables σ(t), α(t), and θ(t) to solve with four equations.
The addition of a fifth trigonometric relationship must be approached carefully as
it involves squares and roots that enforce the sign on some of our parameters. We add
1 ) ( cos ) ( sin
2 2
= + t t θ θ (13.86)
The system is clearly overdetermined, and a preferential choice of one
combination of solutions over another is not evident. We proceed to derive a range of
alternatives which we have subsequently tested for.
We could solve for alpha in the first two equations (13.82) and (13.83), obtaining
Or
) ( cos ) ( ) (
) (
) 0 (
) ( cos ) ( ) ( ) (
) (
) (
) (
) ( sin ) ( ) (
) (
) 0 (
) ( sin ) ( ) ( ) (
) (
) (
) (
0
0
0
0
t t t R
t R
S
t t R t t
t R
t S
t
t t t R
t R
S
t t R t t
t R
t S
t
i i
n
i
i
f
i
i
n
i
i i i
i
i i
n
i
i
f
i
i
n
i
i i i
i
θ σ
θ α σ
α
θ σ
θ α σ
α
∑
∑
∑
∑
=
=
=
=
∂
∂
∂
∂
=
∂
∂
∂
∂
=
(13.87)
The problem is that we do not know which one of the two to use.
We could attempt some sort of mean:
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
213




¹

\

∂
∂
∂
∂
+
∂
∂
∂
∂
=
∑
∑
∑
∑
=
=
=
=
) ( cos ) ( ) (
) (
) 0 (
) ( cos ) ( ) ( ) (
) (
) (
) ( sin ) ( ) (
) (
) 0 (
) ( sin ) ( ) ( ) (
) (
) (
2
1
) (
0
0
0
0
t t t R
t R
S
t t R t t
t R
t S
t t t R
t R
S
t t R t t
t R
t S
t
i i
n
i
i
f
i
i
n
i
i i i
i
i i
n
i
i
f
i
i
n
i
i i i
i
θ σ
θ α σ
θ σ
θ α σ
α
(13.88)
But this proves not to work too well.
If instead we relate (13.82) and (13.83) through trigonometry
2 2
0 0
( )
1 ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) sin ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) cos ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
n n
i i i i i i i i
i i i i
t
S t S t
t t R t t t t R t t
S t t R t R t
α
σ α θ σ α θ
σ
= =
=
    ∂ ∂
= +
 
∂ ∂
\ ¹ \ ¹
∑ ∑
(13.89)
2 2
0 0
2 2
0 0
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) sin ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) cos ( )
( ) ( )
(0) (0)
( ) ( ) cos ( ) ( ) ( ) sin ( )
( ) ( )
n n
i i i i i i i i
i i i i
n n
f f
i i i i i i
i i i i
S t S t
t t R t t t t R t t
R t R t
t
S S
R t t t R t t t
R t R t
σ α θ σ α θ
α
σ θ σ θ
= =
= =
    ∂ ∂
+
 
∂ ∂
\ ¹ \ ¹
( ) =
    ∂ ∂
+
 
∂ ∂
\ ¹ \ ¹
∑ ∑
∑ ∑
(13.90)
We find that the main problem with this approach is the fact that the root
constrains our solutions of α to a positive plane, whereas we have seen in the one
factor model that α can be both positive and negative.
We also attempted to use the expression for alpha that was developed in the one
factor case (13.45), that is, an expression that would be theta independent.
) ( ) (
) (
) 0 (
) ( ) ( ) (
) (
) 0 (
) (
0
0
t t R
t R
S
t t t R
t R
S
t
i
n
i
i
f
i
n
i
i i i
i
σ
α σ
α
∑
∑
=
=
∂
∂
∂
∂
= (13.91)
Surprisingly enough, we found that, although inconsistent with the two factor
formulas developed, this expression for alpha proved extremely effective.
Chapter 13 Analytic approximation
214
We do realize however, that as in the one factor case, α turns out to be a mean of
all the αi. We could therefore attempt to use other averages which cannot be derived
mathematically from the above equations, such as:


¹

\

∂
∂
+


¹

\

∂
∂


¹

\

∂
∂
+


¹

\

∂
∂
=
∑ ∑
∑ ∑
= =
= =
) ( sin ) ( ) (
) (
) 0 (
) ( cos ) ( ) (
) (
) 0 (
) ( cos ) ( ) ( ) (
) (
) (
) ( sin ) ( ) ( ) (
) (
) (
) (
0 0
0 0
t t t R
t R
S
t t t R
t R
S
t t R t t
t R
t S
t t R t t
t R
t S
t
i i
n
i
i
f
i
i i
n
i
i
f
i
i
n
i
i i i
i
i
n
i
i i i
i
θ σ θ σ
θ α σ θ α σ
α
(13.92)
We have found that we obtain even better results with an expression of the form
2
0
2
0
0 0
) ( sin ) ( ) (
) (
) 0 (
) ( cos ) ( ) (
) (
) 0 (
) ( cos ) ( ) ( ) (
) (
) (
) ( sin ) ( ) ( ) (
) (
) (
2
1
) (


¹

\

∂
∂
+


¹

\

∂
∂


¹

\

∂
∂
+


¹

\

∂
∂
=
∑ ∑
∑ ∑
= =
= =
t t t R
t R
S
t t t R
t R
S
t t R t t
t R
t S
t t R t t
t R
t S
t
i i
n
i
i
f
i
i i
n
i
i
f
i
i
n
i
i i i
i
i
n
i
i i i
i
θ σ θ σ
θ α σ θ α σ
α
(13.93)
Indeed the former proves to be one of our favourite candidates for the analytic
approximation. Its main drawback clearly being the fact that it cannot be derived from
the initial equations. This means that an extension of the analytic approximation to the
three strike scenario would rely more on the insight of the quant to come up with an
appropriate mean for alpha, than a logic followthrough of mathematical formulas.
We therefore decide to persist with our search for a more logical expression.
If we decide instead to take the last two equations (13.84) and (13.85), we would
find:
2 2 2
2 2
0 0
( )(1 ( )) (0)
( ) ( )
( )(1 ( )) ( ) cos ( ) ( )(1 ( )) ( ) sin ( )
( ) ( )
n n
f f
i i i i i i i i
i i i i
t t S
S t S t
t t R t t t t R t t
R t R t
σ α
σ α θ σ α θ
= =
− =
    ∂ ∂
= − + −
 
∂ ∂
\ ¹ \ ¹
∑ ∑
(13.94)
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
215
2 2
0 0
( )
( ) ( )
( )(1 ( )) ( ) cos ( ) ( )(1 ( )) ( ) sin ( )
( ) ( )
1
( ) (0)
n n
f f
i i i i i i i i
i i i i
t
S t S t
t t R t t t t R t t
R t R t
t S
α
σ α θ σ α θ
σ
= =
=
    ∂ ∂
− + −
 
∂ ∂
\ ¹ \ ¹
= −
∑ ∑
(13.95)
2 2
0 0
2 2
0 0
( ) ( )
( ) ( )cos ( ) ( ) ( )sin ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )cos ( ) ( ) ( )sin ( )
( ) ( )
( )
( )(1 ( ))
( )
n n
f f
i i i i i i
i i i i
n n
f f
i i i i i i
i i i i
f
i i i
i
S t S t
t R t t t R t t
R t R t
S t S t
t R t t t R t t
R t R t
S t
t t R
R t
σ θ σ θ
σ θ σ θ
σ α
= =
= =
    ∂ ∂
+
 
∂ ∂
\ ¹ \ ¹
=
    ∂ ∂
+
 
∂ ∂
\ ¹ \ ¹
∂
−
∂
−
∑ ∑
∑ ∑
2 2
0 0
2 2
0 0
( )
( )cos ( ) ( )(1 ( )) ( )sin ( )
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )cos ( ) ( ) ( )sin ( )
( ) ( )
n n
f
i i i i i
i i i
n n
f f
i i i i i i
i i i i
S t
t t t t R t t
R t
S t S t
t R t t t R t t
R t R t
θ σ α θ
σ θ σ θ
= =
= =
    ∂
+ −
 
∂
\ ¹ \ ¹
    ∂ ∂
+
 
∂ ∂
\ ¹ \ ¹
∑ ∑
∑ ∑
(13.96)
However, this method restricts our values of α, forcing them to be smaller than
one, something which we have seen in the one factor case that does not always hold
true.
We finally come across the best solution: that which attempts to encompass all
four of the initial equations, and that is not ‘intuitively’ guessed and constructed by
the quant as a mean.
Let us start by developing the above expression (13.94) concerning the last two
equations (13.84) and (13.85)
2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2
0 0
2 2
( )(1 ( )) (0) ( )( ( ) 2 ( ) 1) (0)
( ) ( )
( )(1 ( )) ( ) cos ( ) ( )(1 ( )) ( ) sin ( )
( ) ( )
n n
f f
i i i i i i i i
i i i i
t t S t t t S
S t S t
t t R t t t t R t t
R t R t
E F
σ α σ α α
σ α θ σ α θ
= =
− = − + =
    ∂ ∂
= − + − =
 
∂ ∂
\ ¹ \ ¹
= +
∑ ∑
(13.97)
Let us recall that a similar approach with the first two equations gave
Chapter 13 Analytic approximation
216
2 2 2
2 2
0 0
2 2
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) sin ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) cos ( )
( ) ( )
n n
i i i i i i i i
i i i i
t t S t
S t S t
t t R t t t t R t t
R t R t
C D
σ α
σ α θ σ α θ
= =
=
    ∂ ∂
= + =
 
∂ ∂
\ ¹ \ ¹
= +
∑ ∑
(13.98)
Therefore
) (
) 0 ( ) 0 (
) ( ) ( ) (
) 0 (
) ( ) ( 2
2
2
2 2
2
2 2
2 2 2
2
2 2
2
t
S
D C
S
F E
t t t
S
F E
t t σ σ σ α σ α −
+
−
+
= − −
+
= −
(13.99)
Remember that we had taken a different expression for σ
( )
2 2
0 0
2 2
( )
1 (0) (0)
( ) ( ) cos ( ) ( ) ( ) sin ( )
(0) ( ) ( )
1
(0)
n n
f f
i i i i i i
i i i i
t
S S
R t t t R t t t
S R t R t
A B
S
σ
σ θ σ θ
= =
=
    ∂ ∂
= +
 
∂ ∂
\ ¹ \ ¹
= +
∑ ∑
(13.100)
Leaving
+
−
+
−
+
=
) 0 ( ) 0 ( ) 0 ( ) ( 2
1
) (
2
2 2
2
2 2
2
2 2
2
S
B A
S
D C
S
F E
t
t
σ
α
(13.101)
The above simplifies to
2 2
) (
B A
DB CA
t
+
+
= α
(13.102)
Or in its extended full version, where as always, in order to solve we must freeze
Ri to R
f
i.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
217
0 0
2 2
0 0
( )
( ) (0)
( ) ( ) ( ) sin ( ) ( ) ( ) sin ( )
( ) ( )
(0) (0)
( ) ( ) cos ( ) ( ) ( ) sin ( )
( ) ( )
( )
( ) ( )
( )
n n
f
i i i i i i i
i i i i
n n
f f
i i i i i i
i i i i
i i
i
t
S t S
t t R t t R t t t
R t R t
S S
R t t t R t t t
R t R t
S t
t t R
R t
α
σ α θ σ θ
σ θ σ θ
σ α
= =
= =
=
    ∂ ∂
 
∂ ∂
\ ¹ \ ¹
+
    ∂ ∂
+
 
∂ ∂
\ ¹ \ ¹
∂
∂
+
∑ ∑
∑ ∑
0 0
2 2
0 0
(0)
( ) cos ( ) ( ) ( ) cos ( )
( )
(0) (0)
( ) ( ) cos ( ) ( ) ( ) sin ( )
( ) ( )
n n
f
i i i i i
i i i
n n
f f
i i i i i i
i i i i
S
t t R t t t
R t
S S
R t t t R t t t
R t R t
θ σ θ
σ θ σ θ
= =
= =
    ∂
 
∂
\ ¹ \ ¹
    ∂ ∂
+
 
∂ ∂
\ ¹ \ ¹
∑ ∑
∑ ∑
(13.103)
From all the alternatives, this last expression resulted in being that which was
fastest in calibrations, was consistent with the mathematical developments, and
always calibrated whenever there also existed a solution through MonteCarlo
simulations for the HJM.
13.9 Use of ‘No Split’
To this point we have always been considering split processes. That is to say, we
have always been considering joint calibrations of two vanilla products at a time. As
examined previously, this was necessary so as to obtain an intersection of the two
solution curves.
A ‘no split’ process is a bulk calibration procedure. We no longer calibrate the
vanilla products by pairs of equal maturity, but instead take the entire range of
maturities and calibrate them together.
This procedure results much more time consuming computationalwise, as it is
much more difficult for the algorithm to converge with so many parameter
considerations at once.
The analytic approximation however is capable of arriving at a rapid solution
when it deals with so many products at once. And the more surprising fact is that if
we use the analytic approximation’s solution as a first guess to then perform a no split
Chapter 13 Analytic approximation
218
calibration through the HJM MonteCarlo process, we find that the calibration now
becomes much faster. In other words, before MonteCarlo no split was extremely
tedious on its own. Now, by this new procedure in which no split MonteCarlos start
from a no split approximation solution, we achieve much more rapid results than the
equivalent split approximation followed by a split MonteCarlo.
We have further noticed that there are specific cases in which with the no split
and analytic approximation, we are capable of solving calibrations performed
exclusively on caplets. Identical calibrations using the split method find no solution:
refer to the Analytic Approximation Results Section 14 in the Calibration Set
interpolation matrix section.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
219
14. Analytic Approximation Results
14.1 1 Factor Model
We now proceed to analyse the results obtained from the tests performed on the
analytic approximation. Both of the proposed methods in the previous section work
well on a wide range of tests. However, the first approach for alpha rapidly ceases to
calibrate past the 5 to 10 year maturity mark.
Our great achievement lies in the fact that the second approximation proves to
always be capable of calibrating, whenever the HJM MonteCarlo is also capable of
converging for a given set of data. If the exact solution by MonteCarlo does not exist,
we will find that even so, many times the analytic approximation still provides us
with a result.
Therefore, having decided on the second method as our final expression for alpha
and sigma for our analytic approximation, we continue to use the graphical analysis
tool developed earlier in the project. This will give us good visual confirmation of how
the analytic approximation is performing, and will strengthen our understanding on
how it works.
We proceed to compare the HJM MonteCarlo solutions with the analytic
approximation solutions to confirm their similarity. Thus we will verify that the
analytic approximation solution is a very good first guess for the HJM.
Chapter 14 Analytic Approximation Results
220
14.1.1 Testing
The analytic approximation was submitted to an exhaustive series of tests. In
these, we attempted to make sure that the analytic approximation responded correctly
to any possible scenario. We therefore tested how it reacted at different maturities and
at different strikes.
We note firstly that the analytic approximation acts more or less as a tangent to
the real HJM MonteCarlo solution curve. Further, the analytic approximation always
shows a monotonous behaviour, whereas the MonteCarlo solution clearly does not.
Approximation at High Strikes
0.05
0.09
0.13
0.17
0.21
0.25
2 0 2 4 6 8
Alpha [%]
S
i
g
m
a
MC K = 0.052
MC K = 0.05
Approximation K = 0.052
Approximation K = 0.05
Fig. 14.1. Analytic approximation at high strikes
The first important thing to notice therefore is that the analytic approximation
acts as a tangent in the region where the final specific solution is achieved, making it
therefore useful for our study as it adapts well to the MonteCarlo simulation.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
221
Analytic Approximation Dynamics
0,05
0,07
0,09
0,11
0,13
0,15
0,17
0,19
0,21
0,23
0,25
2 0 2 4 6 8
Alpha [%]
S
i
g
m
a
l
MC K = 0,03
MC K = 0,06
Analytic Approximation K = 0,03
Analytic Approximation K = 0,06
Fig. 14.2. Analytic approximation at distant strikes
Now the next thing we must state is that the analytic approximation is not always
a perfect tangent. Notice in the above graph how it adapts well to either side of the
HJM’s MonteCarlo hump. However, for ‘at the money’ values, this is, for the
maximum point of the MonteCarlo solution curve in the below graph, the tangent
should be flat. Instead, the analytic approximation acts more or less as a tangent and
not as a curve with a unique point of contact. Further, its gradient is not unique, as
would be the case of a real tangent.
Chapter 14 Analytic Approximation Results
222
Approximation Tangent 'at the money'
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0.22
2 0 2 4 6 8
Alpha [%]
S
i
g
m
a
MC ATM K = 4.2%
MC ATM K = 4.3%
Approximation ATM K = 4.2%
Approximation ATM K = 4.3%
Fig. 14.3. Analytic approximation acting as a tangent ‘at the money’
The need to perform tests for further approximations arises explicitly because the
visual similarity between the analytic approximation and the HJM MontreCarlo
curves is not exact, (as can be seen in the figure below). For certain strikes that are
very far from ‘at the money’, the analytic approximation can visually be quite
different.
Note that we proceed to investigate other possibilities simply to see if any further
optimisation can be achieved. But we must state confidently that the approximation at
this level already calibrates extremely rapidly. Despite the difference in slopes,
because the analytic approximation’s gradient is much more pronounced, it actually
converges more rapidly towards the final solution than other better fitted alternatives.
Further, despite the slope difference, the two solutions, (MonteCarlo and analytic
approximation), continue to be extremely close together.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
223
Approximation at Distant Strikes
0.05
0.09
0.13
0.17
0.21
0.25
2 0 2 4 6 8
Alpha [%]
S
i
g
m
a
MC K = 0.03
MC K = 0.04
Approximation K = 0.03
Approximation K = 0.04
Fig. 14.4. Analytic approximation presents difficulties in adjusting to the curve at
distant strikes
14.1.2 Use of the Epsilon Approximation.
As stated in the previous chapter, the epsilon approximation allows to alter the
point of study. However, with the tests performed on both epsilon adjusted and non
adjusted formulations, we can conclude the following:
Calibrating at the money is a consistent, robust approach, as it settles a very good
average value for the volatility level.
Calibrating at the precise strike under consideration is very unstable. This is
because, as we have to calibrate two products at different strikes, on calibrating we
must continually jump from one of their strikes to the other’s. This is a source of
instability.
The logical next approach would be to calibrate at a fixed intermediate point
between the two products’ strike. Having a fixed position reduces instability, and
proves to generate very good results. However the improvement over calibrating ‘at
the money’ is not substantial. Furthermore, instability can still arise because the
calibration set can still have different pairs of strikes for different pairs of products.
Chapter 14 Analytic Approximation Results
224
This is, at different maturities the average strike also fluctuates, introducing instability
and resulting in a difficulty for the calibration process.
We therefore decide to maintain the calculations performed ‘at the money’ and so
do not pursue the epsilon approach any further.
14.1.3 Sigma and Alpha adjusting
Further corrections were performed on the alpha and the sigma parameters.
These were hardcoded and simply tested for manually without any logic behind
them, more than that of trial and error, and visually seeing if the graphical output
resembled the MonteCarlo.
We found that inserting factors in front of the alpha expression added no further
improvements.
Adjustments in the sigma on the other hand could improve the fit.
Indeed, this adjustment factor only needed to be extremely small to produce a
noticeable visual difference on the analytic approximation results. See below how a
constant factor could greatly improve fits for large strikes, but at the same time
impoverish the adjustment at low strikes.
Epsilon Correction at High Strikes
0.05
0.09
0.13
0.17
0.21
0.25
2 0 2 4 6 8
Alpha [%]
S
i
g
m
a
MC K = 0.06
MC K = 0.03
Approximation K =0.06
Approximation K =0.03
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
225
Fig. 14.5. Analytic approximation corrected in sigma at high strikes
Similarly, modifying this factor we could obtain a good adjustment at low strikes,
but would then lose accuracy at high strikes:
Epsilon Correction at Low Strikes
0.05
0.09
0.13
0.17
0.21
0.25
2 0 2 4 6 8
Alpha [%]
S
i
g
m
a
MC K = 0.06
MC K = 0.03
Approximation K = 0.06
Approximation K = 0.03
Fig. 14.6. Analytic approximation corrected in sigma for low strikes
A constant factor could not be used, and thus we created a factor that varied with
strikes.
14.1.4 Global adjustment: Factor:

¹

\
 −
⋅ + ⋅ =
FWD
K FWD
04 . 0 99 . 0
*
σ σ (14.1)
The above is an example of a good adjustment factor for the calibration set that
we were considering. See below how visually, the adjustment is slightly enhanced.
The main thing to notice here is the fact that we now obtain a very good fit at both
high and low strike values.
Chapter 14 Analytic Approximation Results
226
Sigma Factor Varying with Strike
0.05
0.09
0.13
0.17
0.21
0.25
2 0 2 4 6 8
Alpha [%]
S
i
g
m
a
MC K = 0.06
MC K = 0.03
Approximation K = 0.06
Approximation K = 0.03
Fig. 14.7. Analytic approximation with a varying sigma correction
Despite the evident visual improvement, we must state the following. The
computational time difference between using the plain analytic approximation and
this improved method is very slight, amounting to a difference of only one or two
analytic approximation iterations. The subsequent HJM iteration counts are generally
equal between the two methods (recall that it is these HJM iterations that account for
the principal time consumption in the process).
There is a further statement that we must clearly point out in case any future
developments are pursued along this line. The improvement factor is specific for a
given maturity. This is, the close to perfect fit that we have achieved with the above
formulation is specific to a caplet fixing 6 years after settlement and expiring three
months after that. Tests performed on products with different maturities turned out to
require slightly different sigma adjustment factors.
If this were to be pursued further, the final factor would therefore necessarily
have to be a function of
F(fixing, maturity, strike, forward)
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
227
14.1.5 Use of the qi normalisation approach.
We attempted a final approximation that initially appeared reasonable. Notice
how we have always been altering the sigma factor by minimal amounts. According
to the final formula we saw previously in (14.1) that these values would typically
range between 0.97 and 1.01. Furthermore, we realised that the sigma factor was not
an exact weighting. This is, recalling its expression from the previous section:
) 0 (
) (
) (
) 0 (
) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
0
S
t R
t R
S
t q t t q t
f
i
f
i
i i
n
i
i
∂
∂
= =
∑
=
σ σ (14.2)
∑
∑
=
=
= =
n
i
i i
i i
i i
n
i
i
t t q
t t q
t p t t p t
0
0
) ( ) (
) ( ) (
) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
σ
σ
α α (14.3)
1 ) (
0
≈
∑
=
t q
n
i
i
(14.4)
1 ) (
0
=
∑
=
t p
n
i
i
(14.5)
Now the alpha term is an exact average but we see that the sigma is not. We
therefore decided to normalise all sigma terms using the following expression:
) (
) ( ) (
) (
0
0
t q
t t q
t q
n
i
i
i
n
i
i
i
∑
∑
=
=
=
σ
(14.6)
Results conclusively signalled that this approach worsened calibrations.
14.2 Analytic Approximation Jacobian
Another important factor to take into account at this stage is the Jacobian i.e. the
slopes that the analytic approximation generates. Recall that one of the aims of our
analytic approximation was to be able to use its analytical Jacobian instead of having
to recalculate it numerically through the HJM calibration process. This would greatly
Chapter 14 Analytic Approximation Results
228
reduce computation times. A first, straightforward method to confirm the similarity in
Jacobians is by comparing the slopes graphically.
From a distant perspective we can see below that the behaviour of the two
surfaces can appear to be quite different. Note that the analytic approximation’s
solution is monotonous whereas the HJM has a more peculiar form. However, the
similarity of the slopes in the region that is of our interest, that is, around the solution
curve, is actually very similar.
0.04
0.1
0.16
0.22

2

1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
Model  Market
Price
Sigma
Alpha [%]
HJM MonteCarlo Slopes
solution curve
Fig. 14.8. HJM MonteCarlo slopes and solution curve
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
229
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.2
0.24

2

0
.
5
1
2
.
5
4
5
.
5
7
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
M
o
d
e
l

M
a
r
k
e
t
P
r
i
c
e
Sigma
Alpha [%]
Analytic Approximation Slopes
solution curve
Fig. 14.9. Analytic approximation slopes and solution curve
If we were to make a closer inspection of the region of interest where the final
solution occurs, we would find something of the following form:
0.04
0.1
0.16
0.22

2 
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
3
2
1
0
1
2
M
o
d
e
l

M
a
r
k
e
t
P
r
i
c
e
Sigma
Alpha [%]
HJM MonteCarlo Slopes
solution curve
Fig. 14.10. Closeup on HJM MonteCarlo’s slopes and solution curve
Chapter 14 Analytic Approximation Results
230
0.04
0.09
0.14
0.19
0.24

2

1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
3
2
1
0
1
2
M
o
d
e
l

M
a
r
k
e
t
P
r
i
c
e
Sigma
Alpha [%]
Analytic Approximation Slopes
solution curve
Fig. 14.11. Closeup on analytic approximation’s slopes and solution curve
We see that our well known solution curves are still the intersection of the Ω
surface of prices with the horizontal axis. Once again, we distinguish the analytic
approximation as the tangent of the HJM MonteCarlo curve. Yet now, with the 3
dimensional view, we are capable of appreciating the differences between the slopes:
there is a slight difference in concavity, and the HJM solution flattens out below the
horizontal axis much sooner than the analytic approximation.
Nevertheless, the similarity is sufficient to enable us to use the analytic
approximation’s Jacobian as the HJM model’s Jacobian in any iteration process within
the specified region.
14.3 2 Factor Analytic Approximation
We set out in our analysis to test all of the possible alternatives for alpha. Recall
that the expression for sigma was the same in all cases. Many of the candidates
dropped out straight away because they were unable to advance at all in any given
calibration. The remaining candidates were thus:
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
231


¹

\

∂
∂
+


¹

\

∂
∂


¹

\

∂
∂
+


¹

\

∂
∂
=
∑ ∑
∑ ∑
= =
= =
) ( sin ) ( ) (
) (
) 0 (
) ( cos ) ( ) (
) (
) 0 (
) ( cos ) ( ) ( ) (
) (
) (
) ( sin ) ( ) ( ) (
) (
) (
) (
0 0
0 0
t t t R
t R
S
t t t R
t R
S
t t R t t
t R
t S
t t R t t
t R
t S
t
i i
n
i
i
f
i
i i
n
i
i
f
i
i
n
i
i i i
i
i
n
i
i i i
i
θ σ θ σ
θ α σ θ α σ
α
(14.7)
2
0
2
0
0 0
) ( sin ) ( ) (
) (
) 0 (
) ( cos ) ( ) (
) (
) 0 (
) ( cos ) ( ) ( ) (
) (
) (
) ( sin ) ( ) ( ) (
) (
) (
2
1
) (


¹

\

∂
∂
+


¹

\

∂
∂


¹

\

∂
∂
+


¹

\

∂
∂
=
∑ ∑
∑ ∑
= =
= =
t t t R
t R
S
t t t R
t R
S
t t R t t
t R
t S
t t R t t
t R
t S
t
i i
n
i
i
f
i
i i
n
i
i
f
i
i
n
i
i i i
i
i
n
i
i i i
i
θ σ θ σ
θ α σ θ α σ
α
(14.8)
2 2
0 0
2 2
0 0
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )cos ( ) ( ) ( )sin ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )cos ( ) ( ) ( )sin ( )
( ) ( )
( )
( )(1 (
( )
n n
f f
i i i i i i
i i i i
n n
f f
i i i i i i
i i i i
i i
i
t
S t S t
t R t t t R t t
R t R t
S t S t
t R t t t R t t
R t R t
S t
t
R t
α
σ θ σ θ
σ θ σ θ
σ α
= =
= =
=
    ∂ ∂
+
 
∂ ∂
\ ¹ \ ¹
= −
    ∂ ∂
+
 
∂ ∂
\ ¹ \ ¹
∂
−
∂
−
∑ ∑
∑ ∑
2 2
0 0
2 2
0 0
( )
)) ( )cos ( ) ( )(1 ( )) ( )sin ( )
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )cos ( ) ( ) ( )sin ( )
( ) ( )
n n
f f
i i i i i i
i i i
n n
f f
i i i i i i
i i i i
S t
t R t t t t R t t
R t
S t S t
t R t t t R t t
R t R t
θ σ α θ
σ θ σ θ
= =
= =
    ∂
+ −
 
∂
\ ¹ \ ¹
    ∂ ∂
+
 
∂ ∂
\ ¹ \ ¹
∑ ∑
∑ ∑
(14.9)
) ( ) (
) (
) 0 (
) ( ) ( ) (
) (
) 0 (
) (
0
0
t t R
t R
S
t t t R
t R
S
t
i
n
i
i
f
i
n
i
i i i
i
σ
α σ
α
∑
∑
=
=
∂
∂
∂
∂
= (14.10)
These four alternatives were all capable of calibrating with relative ease any small
set with maturities reaching 15 years. To differentiate which of the candidates we
would finally select, we were thus forced to submit them to more extreme calibrations.
When testing on 18 year calibrations with 34 Swaptions and 15 correlations, the
third and fourth of the above formulas, (14.9) and (14.10), already proved to be much
faster than the rest. The third was capable of calibrating without splitting, in 4
Chapter 14 Analytic Approximation Results
232
iterations. Notice that the first two alternatives were yielding up to 17 iterations,
therefore resulting much more time consuming. The fourth expression was discovered
to also be capable of calibrating, although in 5 iterations
We made a critical final test that proved extremely difficult to calibrate. It
involved 66 Swaptions and 15 correlations. In this final test, only the third expression
and the fourth expression were capable of performing the calibration.
As we found no further difference between the two, we decided to select the third
expression for two principal reasons:
• It performed faster by two to three iterations in all tests performed.
• It was mathematically consistent with the formulae derived for the analytic
approximation, and so did not rely on a quant’s intuitive mean weighting
approach.
14.4 Final Considerations on the Analytic approximation
So far we have seen graphical and numerical comparisons between the HJM and
our analytic approximation and confirmed their similarities. The critical analysis that
remains therefore is to determine whether we really do achieve the principal goal of
our project, this is, whether we really do significantly reduce calibration times.
1 Factor:
Calibration Set: 56 Swaptions
HJMMontecarlo
94s
Analytic approximation + HJMMonteCarlo
without Split:
56s
Analytic approximation + HJMMonteCarlo
with Split:
17s
Table 14.1. Approximation increases calibration speed by a factor of 5
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
233
2 Factors:
Calibration Set: 66 Swaptions, 15 Correlations
HJMMontecarlo:
9mins 53s
Analytic approximation + HJMMonteCarlo:
1min 12s
Table 14.2. Approximation increases calibration speed by a factor of 8
14.5 Conclusions and Further Developments
The analytic approximation appears to work extremely well. It reduces
calibration times by a factor of 3 to 10. These results are truly extraordinary. We
would like to note that the analytic approximation has already successfully been
implemented within the Banco Santander, and is being used on a daily basis by the
interest rate traders. Future developments must centre on an analytic approximation
for the 3 strike model. Initially, this would appear to involve a relatively intuitive
extrapolation of the two strikes analytic approximation methods presented above.
14.6 Analytic approximation Peculiarities
Recall that there existed three cases in which the HJM MonteCarlo failed to
produce results. We find in contrast that the analytic approximation, because of its
characteristics and in particular, because it is monotonous, manages to surmount
these difficulties.
The first problem stated in this document was the duplicity of solutions
encountered. We found that when these situations arised during calibrations with our
analytic approximation always selected the correct solution. This is, it always selected
the solution with an alpha closest to the [0,1] interval. Recall that the alpha was a
weighting parameter that allowed us to choose between a lognormal (α = 1) and a
Chapter 14 Analytic Approximation Results
234
normal model (α = 0). It therefore seems unreasonable that we should select a value of
6 for alpha. This would imply something of the form: “we are six times a lognormal
model”.
Solution Duplicity
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
2 0 2 4 6 8
Alpha [%]
S
i
g
m
a
MC K = 2.5%
MC K = 6.5%
Approximation K = 2.5%
Approximation K = 6.5%
second MC solution
MC and analytic
approximation solution
Fig. 14.12. HJM MonteCarlo versus analytic approximation solving solution
duplicities
Therefore, by using the analytic approximation as a first guess, we condition the
HJM MonteCarlo to start very close to the desired solution. In this way we avoid the
possibility that it erroneously converges to the alternative solution.
Another of the problems which we had encountered was the case in which the
HJM MonteCarlo solution curves were encompassed one inside the other. This
inevitably lead to an inexistent intersection, thus meaning that there was no valid
solution i.e. no valid pair of model parameters that could simultaneously satisfy both
conditions imposed by the two vanilla products.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
235
HJM MonteCarlo Solution Curves
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
2 0 2 4 6 8
Alpha [%]
S
i
g
m
a
MC ATM K = 4.5%
MC K = 3%
Fig. 14.13. HJM MonteCarlo presents no solution curve intersection
Because the analytic approximation is monotonous, we do find an intersection of
its solutions:
Solution Curves
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
2 0 2 4 6 8
Alpha [%]
S
i
g
m
a
MC ATM K=4.5 %
MC K = 3%
Approximation ATM K = 4.5%
Approximation K = 3%
analytic approximation
solution
Fig. 14.14. Analytic approximation solving a case with no HJM MonteCarlo solution
intersection
Chapter 14 Analytic Approximation Results
236
We are yet unclear about whether the solutions provided by the approximate
model should be considered as valid and thus revise our HJM model, or whether they
too are incorrect. Whichever of the two we finally decide upon, the HJM model clearly
still needs further corrections, as it should be able to calibrate given a reasonable set of
input data. The fact that it is incapable is a problem we must examine further.
Recall now the final problematic encountered with HJM calibrations. There were
situations in which the HJM MonteCarlos price surface Ω was incapable of descending
below the horizontal axis. This lack of flexibility implied that we were never capable
of equating the model and market prices. We can analyse this situation more in depth
at this point in our study:
0.04
0.11
0.18

2

0
.
5
1
2
.
5
4
5
.
5
7
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
M
o
d
e
l

M
a
r
k
e
t
P
r
i
c
e
Sigma
Alpha [%]
Surface Flexibility  Vanilla 1
solution curve solution curve
Fig. 14.15. HJM MonteCarlo first vanilla presenting a solution curve
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
237
0.04
0.11
0.18

2

0
.
5
1
2
.
5
4
5
.
5
7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
M
o
d
e
l

M
a
r
k
e
t
P
r
i
c
e
Sigma
Alpha [%]
Surface Flexibility  Vanilla 2
Fig. 14.16. HJM MonteCarlo second vanilla does not descend sufficiently
Realise that we continue calibrating in pairs, and although with one of the
products, the price surface does descend sufficiently, in the other product this surface
remains asymptotic to the horizontal axis. No solution curve is achieved.
When we continue with this scenario onto an analytic approximation calibration,
we find the following:
Chapter 14 Analytic Approximation Results
238
0.04
0.11
0.18

2 
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
M
o
d
e
l

M
a
r
k
e
t
P
r
i
c
e
Sigma
Alpha [%]
Analyticv Approximation  Vanilla 1
solution curve
Fig. 14.17. Analytic approximation presents a solution for the first vanilla
0.04
0.1
0.16
0.22

2

1
0
1
2
3 4
5
6
7 8
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
M
o
d
e
l

M
a
r
k
e
t
P
r
i
c
e
Sigma
Alpha [%]
Analytic Approximation Vanilla 2
solution curve
Fig. 14.18. Analytic approximation also presents a solution for the second troublesome
vanilla
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
239
Surprisingly we find a solution with both vanilla products. On a two dimensional
plane, this is equivalent to:
Solution Curves
0.04
0.09
0.14
0.19
0.24
2 0 2 4 6 8
Alpha [%]
S
i
g
m
a
MC ATM K = 4%
Approximation ATM K = 4%
Approximation K = 1%
analytic approximation
solution
Fig. 14.19. HJM MonteCarlo versus analytic approximation for a two dimensional view of
the previous cases
Where we have included the single HJM MonteCarlo vanilla product that we
managed to calibrate.
Chapter 15 Calibration Set Interpolation Matrix
240
15. Calibration Set Interpolation Matrix
We explore this section in the search of a possible solution to two main problems
presented during our calibration tests:
• The failure to calibrate when our calibration set was solely composed of caplets.
• The failure to calibrate when using a joint set of caplets and swaptions.
15.1 Initial Data
We have discovered (as is presented in the results of this section, 15.4) that the
specific interpolation process that we may decide for our matrix can have a powerful
impact on the convergence of the calibration itself. Further, the extrapolation of our
calibration set can even transform our solution surface Ω, that we had by now grown
so accustomed to. This peculiarity has edged us to seek for the best possible solution.
15.2 Former approach analysis
Initially, we were performing a horizontal linear interpolation within the triangle
defined by the Target Parameters, and linear outside it. Recall what was discussed in
Section 10.2
15.2.1 1 Factor: (only Caplets)
In the 1 factor scenario the data is not interpolated but instead extrapolated
constantly from the Target Parameters.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
241
U
0
U
i
U
N
T
0
T
i
T
N
A
B
Fig. 15.1. Strike Interpolation
From the tests performed, we have concluded that the data above the diagonal is
the most influential to our calibration process. This calibration works best when the
interpolation is performed vertically in this region A, irrespective of whether B is
vertical or horizontal. We proceed to the two factor scenario taking both A and B
vertically.
15.2.2 Tests performed
The one factor calibration was tested successfully up to maturities of 20 years,
with three month caplets and with a frequency of 3 months. Other less drastic
scenarios with fewer fixings and 6 month or 1 year caplets were also successfully
overcome. Thus, the one factor model with vertical extrapolation is in this way now
capable of successfully calibrating caplets.
15.3 2 Strikes
In the 2 strikes scenario, the data was formerly being interpolated horizontally
within the Target Parameter triangle and extrapolated horizontally outside it.
Following on with the improvement in caplet calibration achieved through the
vertical extrapolation, and due also to the fact that the current approach was proving
incapable of calibrating caplets, we proceeded to implement: a horizontal
interpolation within the Target Parameter triangle, and a vertical extrapolation
outside this.
Chapter 15 Calibration Set Interpolation Matrix
242
U
0
U
i
U
N
T
0
T
i
T
N
interpolate
e
x
t
r
a
p
o
l
a
t
e
Fig. 15.2. Strike Interpolation
0.80022 0.81252 0.836424 0.884945 0.934131 0.982652 0.982652 1.00457 2.19095 2.34725 3.82583 3.82583 6.11781
1.39025 1.39025 1.34165 1.2769 1.21126 1.14651 1.08194 1.00457 2.19095 2.34725 3.82583 3.82583 5.11781
1.03141 1.03141 1.02791 1.02324 1.01851 1.01385 1.0092 1.00457 2.19095 2.34725 3.82583 3.82583 4.12055
2.36192 2.36192 2.34291 2.3176 2.29194 2.26662 2.24137 2.21627 2.19095 2.34725 3.82583 3.82583 3.11507
3.27997 3.27997 3.18966 3.06937 2.94742 2.82712 2.70715 2.58785 2.46755 2.34725 3.82583 3.82583 2.11507
2.44481 2.44481 2.56306 2.72058 2.88026 3.03778 3.19487 3.3511 3.50862 3.66615 3.82583 3.82583 1.11233
10.1753 10.1315 9.38082 8.38082 7.36712 6.36712 5.36986 4.37808 3.37808 2.37808 1.36438 0
0.80022 0.81252 0.836424 0.884945 0.934131 0.982652 0.982652 1.00457 2.19095 2.34725 3.82583 3.82583 6.11781
1.39025 1.39025 1.34165 1.2769 1.21126 1.14651 1.08194 1.00457 2.19095 2.34725 3.82583 3.82583 5.11781
1.03141 1.03141 1.02791 1.02324 1.01851 1.01385 1.0092 1.00457 2.19095 2.34725 3.82583 3.82583 4.12055
2.36192 2.36192 2.34291 2.3176 2.29194 2.26662 2.24137 2.21627 2.19095 2.34725 3.82583 3.82583 3.11507
3.27997 3.27997 3.18966 3.06937 2.94742 2.82712 2.70715 2.58785 2.46755 2.34725 3.82583 3.82583 2.11507
2.44481 2.44481 2.56306 2.72058 2.88026 3.03778 3.19487 3.3511 3.50862 3.66615 3.82583 3.82583 1.11233
10.1753 10.1315 9.38082 8.38082 7.36712 6.36712 5.36986 4.37808 3.37808 2.37808 1.36438 0
Table 15.1 Horizontal interpolation, vertical extrapolation
We obtain slightly different results compared to the formerly implemented
interpolation method.
This occurs because the extrapolated data has a slight influence on the
interpolated data, as each entire row of the matrix is used to compute the subsequent
row. A variation in any of the components in the row therefore has an effect on the
following one.
We found the following main results, regarding whether we were capable of
calibrating or not:
The improvement obtained through vertical extrapolation is extremely clear from
the below table.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
243
Calibrates?
Vanilla
Product
Strike Split Proxy / MC Vertical Horizontal
Caplet 1K Split Proxy + MC no no
MC yes no
No Split Proxy + MC yes no
MC yes very
slow
no
2K No Split Proxy + MC yes no
MC yes very
slow
no
Split Proxy + MC no no
MC no no
Caplet +
Swaption
1K yes yes
2K MC fails fails
Table 15.2 Summary table of the differences between vertical, horizontal
extrapolation, split and no split
However, we clearly see two main difficulties in the above. Firstly, the joint
calibration of caplets and swaption remains an unresolved problem.
Secondly, the new interpolation method proves to solve many of the problems
that were previously encountered in any caplet calibration. However, we realize that
it is only effective when it operates as a ‘no split process’ that is, taking the entire set
of vanilla products and calibrating them together at once. This requires an extremely
long and tedious computation process, that is greatly accelerated through the use of
the analytic approximation developed. However, it poses important difficulties if we
are to extend the approach to the three strike model, as here, there is yet no analytic
approximation to speed up the calculations. Calibrations with three strikes and ‘no
split’ will be extremely slow.
Chapter 15 Calibration Set Interpolation Matrix
244
15.4 Graphical representation
We observe further consequences when changing the form of interpolation used.
Recall the graphical surface Ω created. We now obtain a different form for that same
surface, one that tips upwards again at the left end of the below graph, where before it
was almost horizontally asymptotic here.
15
9
3
3
9
15
0 0
.
0
5
0
.
1
0
.
1
5
0
.
2
0
.
2
5
50
0
50
100
150
200
250
Alpha [%]
Sigma
Vertical Extrapolation
Fig. 15.3. Vertical extrapolation no longer flat
This deformation becomes increasingly drastic. Note that now, the intersection
solution with the horizontal axis has actually evolved towards a circular form.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
245
0
0
.
2
0
.
4
0
.
6
0
.
8
1
1
.
2
0.122
0.13
0.138
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
M
o
d
e
l

M
a
r
k
e
t
p
r
i
c
e
Alpha [%]
Sigma
Horizontal Extrapolation
Fig. 15.4. Surface Deformation in Horizontal Extrapolation
We note that this is exclusively a caplet characteristic. When we use the same
vertical interpolation approach to calibrate swaptions, the well known surface Ω
appears once again.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2

2
0

1
4

8

2 4
1
0
1
6
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
M
o
d
e
l

M
a
r
k
e
t
P
r
i
c
e
.
Sigma
Alpha [%]
Swaptions Vertical Extrapolation
Fig. 15.5. Swaption Vertical Extrapolation stays the same
Chapter 15 Calibration Set Interpolation Matrix
246
The transformation of the model price space brings with it a first important
consequence. The fact that the solution curve is no longer a curve with a ‘hump’ but
has now evolved towards a spherical form. This implies that on calibrating two
caplets, the intersection of these circles will always generate a duplicity of solutions
except for the particular case in which one circle is perfectly tangent to another.
Vertical Extrapolation
0.12
0.125
0.13
0.135
0.14
0.145
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Alpha [%]
S
i
g
m
a
K=4.15%
K = 3%
Fig. 15.6. New Circular Solution Intersection
Thus the method introduces a new duplicity of solutions, this time in sigma
whereas previously it was only existent in alpha. The same question however is still
omnipresent: which is the correct solution?
The change in the model price surface has two further implications.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
247
Firstly, the convergence of a Newton Raphson algorithm in this type of surface is
always much more direct as all lines of greatest slope head directly towards the
minimum value i.e. the same bottom pit of the convexity.
Secondly, we would like to state something important: The HJM ends its
calibration process when the error between its model value and the market value is
below a certain level. We realize that perhaps this level should be decreased
somewhat further. The reason is the fact that within the range of currently admitted
model errors, there is sufficient margin for a noticeable variation in the alpha
parameter.
See below a comparison between the two valid solutions, one of which has been
obtained through the new caplet surface and the other obtained through the
traditional horizontal extrapolation. The alpha parameter in particular is substantially
different (30% difference), despite the fact that the HJM accepts both solutions see the
relative error.
Theoretically, the parameter generating a smaller error is more accurate. This
does not mean that the horizontal extrapolation is better. It simply implies that
perhaps one further iteration in the vertical extrapolation method should be
considered before submitting a final parameter value.
15.4.1 Vertical Extrapolation
ITERATION 0 : Type T U Value
1 SIGMA 145.479 171.233 0.116056
2 ALPHA 145.479 171.233 0.27304
MarketPrice ModelPrice Relative error
1 579.465 579.511 0.045526 OK
2 0.205302 0.206877 0.157482 OK
Table 15.3 Results obtained through vertical extrapolation
Chapter 15 Calibration Set Interpolation Matrix
248
15.4.2 Horizontal Extrapolation
ITERATION 0 : Type T U Value
1 SIGMA 119.726 145.753 0.115939
2 ALPHA 119.726 145.753 0.34993
MarketPrice ModelPrice Relative error
1 495.114 495.118 0.004044 OK
2 0.10758 0.107367 0.021235 OK
Table 15.4 Results obtained through horizontal extrapolation
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
249
16. Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities
from cap quotes
16.1 Introduction.
This section describes how to create a set of caplet volatilities that are to be
derived from the market quoted cap volatilities. We will analyse two principal
approaches. The first involves an interpolation between cap prices to then extract the
caplet volatilities. The second method involves a direct interpolation amongst the
caplets themselves.
The input data which we require are the interest rate curve, the cap volatility
matrix, and future option prices. With these, we must be able to compute the caplet
forward volatilities for any given tenor (according to the market conventions, 3M in
the USD dollar, 6M in the Eurozone, etc.) and any given strike. The study is of
particular interest because the caplet volatilities are critical in the calibration of exotic
products. We present below the market quoted caps that are typically used as inputs
when deriving the corresponding caplets.
Fig. 16.1. Market Cap Quotes
Chapter 16 Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes
250
We generally follow the subsequent procedure: taking the market cap volatilities,
we firstly interpolate along the strike direction so as to create all the strike values that
are necessary for our calibration. After this, for each strike we then interpolate along
the maturity direction, (interpolating either in cap volatilities or caplet volatilities
depending on the approach) thus creating values for the already mentioned 6 month
regular intervals.
In general, we can use linear cap or constant caplet volatility interpolation as a
first approach before continuing onto the more complex functional form
optimisations.
A further step is to fit the sets of volatilities that have been calculated to a given
type of smile interpolator. This will require that we carry out the strike interpolation
at the end of the process rather than at the beginning so as to achieve an optimal smile
behaviour.
There are two principal methods of interpolation which we must firstly
distinguish:
1. Functional Form:
we use a simple deterministic function to interpolate between points. We can
further distinguish two variations here:
Global interpolation:
These methods rely on constructing a single equation that fits all the data points.
The equation is usually a high degree polynomial equation that results in a smooth
curve. However, they are usually not well suited for engineering applications, as they
are prone to severe oscillations and overshoots, which we attempt to avoid specifically
here.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
251
Piecewise interpolation.
These methods rely on constructing a polynomial of low degree between each
pair of known data points. If a first degree polynomial is used, it is called linear
interpolation. Second and third degree polynomials are called quadratic and cubic
splines respectively. The higher the degree of the spline, the smoother the resulting
curve. Splines of degree m will have continuous derivatives up to a degree of m1 at
the data points.
2. Stochastic Form:
This is the second possible form of interpolating. It implies using a stochastic
model such as CEV or SABR. We will enter the details of the SABR approach later
16.1.1 Strike Interpolation:
The first, ‘non smile’ interpolation between strikes is performed as simple as
possible. This is directly a linear interpolation as our first step in the previously
described process.
i i
i i i i
K K
K K V K K V
V
−
− + −
=
+
+ +
1
1 1
) ( ) (
16.2 Stripping Caplet Volatility Methods
It may be useful at this point to refer back to the financial product description of a
cap Section 6.7. Recall that a cap is constructed as a sum of caplets.
The price of a cap on the 6 month EURIBOR starting at T and maturing at U is
given by the market by means of a unique flat caplet volatility. This means that the
price of the cap must be computed as the sum of the prices of all 6 month caplets
between T and U, whose volatility must be set as the unique flat caplet volatility
specified by the market.
Chapter 16 Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes
252
However, these flat caplets are simply a construction mechanism to obtain the
market’s cap value easily. The former does not mean that the true caplets in the
specified time period should all have flat volatilities. Instead, it simply imposes that
the sum of all the caplets in the interval should yield the same price as the sum of all
the flat caplets in that interval.
Thus there is a great degree of freedom when we try to analyse the true market of
caplets. We have the liberty of imposing any price we wish on the given group, so
long as their sum equals the market cap. For calibration purposes, we will seek to
construct these caplets so that their volatilities combine to produce a monotonous,
smooth curve.
16.3 Previous Santander Approach for 6 month caplets
The main problem in any Caplet Stripping method lies in the fact that there is not
enough information to be able to extract a unique caplet volatility. Ideally, if we had
two adjacent market cap quotes that were 6 months apart, then we could construct
2 1 1 2 1 1
( , , ) ( , , ) ( , , ) ( , , ) cap t T U cap t T U forwardcap t U U caplet t U U δ − = = +
(16.1)
Where δ= 6months
16.3.1 TYPE I
Cap(t,T,U
1
)
Cap(t,T,U2)
CapForward(t,U1,U2)
= Caplet(t,U1,U2)
U
2
U
1
T t
Fig. 16.2. Cap decomposition into other caps and capforwards
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
253
In this way, the resulting forward cap would be exactly equal to the caplet, so
would also have the same price. Applying the Black Scholes formula, we would be
able to extract the caplet’s volatility from its known price.
However, this is not generally the case. More commonly, two adjacent cap quotes
are separated in maturities by more than six months. In addition, the separation
between cap quotes for LIBOR markets ranges between 12 months and 5 years. In
these cases, the difference between the cap prices (i.e. the forward cap) is equal to the
sum of at least two or more different caplets.
1 2 1 2
1
( , , ) ( , , ) ( , , ) ( , , )
n
i i i
i
cap t T U cap t T U forwardcap t U U caplet t U U i δ
=
− = = + ⋅
∑
(16.2)
There is no additional equation to determine the price to be attributed to any
individual caplet, only to their sum. Therefore, a hypothesis must be made at this
stage so as to decide on how these prices should be distributed among the caplets.
16.3.2 TYPE II
U
2
U
1
t U
1
+δ T
CapForward(t,U1,U2)
Caplet (t,U1,U1+ δ)
Caplet (t, U1+ δ, U2)
Cap(t,T,U
2
)
Cap(t,T,U
1
)
Fig. 16.3. Capforward decomposition into two unknown caplets
We see clearly in the above that there is no additional information available to
choose a specific price for any of the caplets that combine to form the capforward.
Chapter 16 Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes
254
16.4 Linear Cap Interpolation
In the Banco Santander Model, to ease calculations, a first approach was simply to
linearly interpolate the market cap volatilities so as to always fall within the first case
situation. This is, given the below example where there would be an excess of caplets
to determine, we linearly create the necessary caps that will enable us to return to a
simple situation as in TYPE I.
Capσ
1
Capσ
2
Capletσ
1
T U
2
U
1
U
1
+δ U
1
+2δ U
1
+3δ
Fig. 16.4. Each cap is made up of a number of caplets of unknown volatility
We construct each cap by linearly interpolating the volatility
( )
1 1
1 2
1 2
1 1
) , , ( ) , , (
) , , ( ) , , ( U i U
U U
U T t U T t
U T t i U T t
cap cap
cap cap
− ⋅ +


¹

\

−
−
+ = ⋅ + δ
σ σ
σ δ σ
(16.3)
Thus we only have
Capσ
1
Capσ
2 interpolated
Capletσ
1
U
1
+δ U
1
Fig. 16.5. 2 Cap Interpolation
Then we can easily solve each caplet as was stated in the TYPE I approach:
) , ) 1 ( , ( ) ) 1 ( , , ( ) , , (
1 1 1 1
δ δ δ δ ⋅ + − ⋅ + = ⋅ − + − ⋅ + i U i U t caplet i U T t cap i U T t cap
(16.4)
Capletσi
T
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
255
Let us specify the above calculations for the case in which i = 1, and
M
m
6
= δ .
We would then have
) , , ( ) , , ( ) , , (
1 1 1 1
δ δ + = − + U U t caplet U T t cap U T t cap (16.5)
Where the only unknown is the caplet volatility ) , , (
1
δ σ + U T t
cap
that we seek
to calculate. We will now specify how each of the above terms are obtained.
The second term in (16.5)
[ ] ) ( ) ( ) , , ( ) ; ( ) , , (
2 1 1 1 , 1
i i
T T
T t
d KN d N U T t L U t B m U T t cap − = (16.6)
is the market cap, and is a sum of caplets with the cap’s flat market quoted
volatility. As we only have i = 1, the cap is directly equal to the caplet, with
T t U T t cap
T t U T t cap
T
K
U T t L
LN
d
, ) , , (
,
2
) , , (
1
2 , 1
1
1
2
) , , (
δ σ
δ σ
⋅
⋅
± 
¹

\

= (16.7)
The first term in the equation (16.5) has had its volatility interpolated so that the
timespace between the newly interpolated cap and the previous market cap is exactly
equal to the single caplet we seek. This interpolation has been done as:
δ
σ σ
σ δ σ ⋅


¹

\

−
−
+ = +
1 2
1 2
1 1
) , , ( ) , , (
) , , ( ) , , (
U U
U T t U T t
U T t U T t
cap cap
cap cap
(16.8)
Thus we have the expression for the cap as
[ ]
∑
−
=
− ⋅ + ⋅ + = +
1
0
2 1 1 1 1
) ( ) ( ) , , ( ) ; ( ) , , (
n
i
T T
i i
d KN d N i U T t L i U t mB U T t cap δ δ δ
(16.9)
M U T t cap
M U T t cap
i i
U
K
U U t L
LN
d
6 ) , , (
6
2
) , , (
' '
2 , 1
1
1
1
2
) , , (
δ σ
δ σ
δ
δ
δ
⋅
⋅
±

¹

\
 +
=
+
+
(16.10)
Chapter 16 Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes
256
The interpolated cap is therefore the sum of the previous cap and an additional
caplet with the interpolated flat volatility ) , , (
1
δ σ + U T t
cap
Finally, the last term in the equation (16.5) verifies
[ ] ) ( ) ( ) , , ( ) ; ( ) , , (
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
i i
T T
d KN d N U U T L U t mB U U t caplet − + + = + δ δ δ
(16.11)
M U U t caplet
M U U t caplet
T
K
U U t L
LN
d
6 ) , , (
6
2
) , , (
1 1
2 , 1
1 1
1 1
2
) , , (
δ σ
δ σ
δ
δ
δ
⋅
⋅
± 
¹

\
 +
=
+
+
(16.12)
The only element we do not know from all the above equations is the
2
) , , (
1 1
δ
σ
+ U U t caplet
. We will need to solve the black volatility for this caplet typically via
Newton Raphson iterations.
For the second caplet we would construct
) 2 , , ( ) , , ( ) 2 , , (
1 1 1 1
δ δ δ δ ⋅ + + = + − ⋅ + U U t caplet U T t cap U T t cap
(16.13)
And analogously for the rest.
The problem with this form of stripping is that the resulting values for σcaplet i
produce a curve with respect to their maturities that is not smooth at all. (See Fig.
18.2). The ‘bumps’ present an important difficulty for calibration algorithms that
operate on these caplet volatilities. A smoother fit is consequently required.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
257
16.5 Quadratic Cap Interpolation
The procedure that we will follow is completely analogous to the former one.
This is, we have a set of market quoted caps constructed on flat cap volatilities. Once
again we are going to interpolate between two known market quotes so as to obtain
an intermediate cap volatility from which we can easily extract the caplet we are
searching for.
A quadratic fit requires three parameters to completely define the parabola. We
use up two degrees of freedom by setting the parabola to pass through the two known
points (σi and σi1) defined by the market quoted flat cap volatilities. We have absolute
freedom to impose the third point. As we have a greater density of information at the
beginning of the curve, we decide therefore that it is more useful to take our third
point as the volatility σi2. Another approach is to use this degree of freedom to impose
a continuity in the function’s slopes a condition of the form: fj’(Ti1) = fj1’(Ti).
For the first method, we use:
C BT AT T f + + =
2
) ( (16.14)
with coefficients
( )
( )( )
( )
( )( )
i i i i
i i
i i i i
i i
T T T T
f f
T T T T
f f
A
− −
−
−
− −
−
=
− −
−
− − −
−
1 2
2
1 2 1
1
(16.15)
( )
( )
( )
1
1
1
−
−
−
+ −
−
−
=
i i
i i
i i
T T A
T T
f f
B (16.16)
1
1
2
1 −
−
−
− − =
i
i
i
BT AT f C (16.17)
16.6 Cubic Spline Interpolation
The idea behind this method remains the same as before. Our only difference is
that now we interpolate between caps using cubic functions. The motor cause behind
this decision is the fact that using quadratic functions provides concavities and
convexities to which our caplet transformation is very sensitive. Indeed, despite the
Chapter 16 Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes
258
fact that any of the two previous methods apparently produce very smooth flat cap
volatility curves (see Fig. 18.1), we note that their subsequent caplet models show
enhanced irregularities wherever two parabolas or straight lines join (see Fig. 18.2).
This is further enhanced the more different the slopes are at that point. We thus
attempt to solve this problem by means of a cubic fit.
As its name indicates, we fit a series of unique cubic polynomials between each of
the data points, with the stipulation that the curve obtained be continuous and appear
smooth. The fundamental idea behind cubic spline interpolation is based on the
engineer’s tool used to draw smooth curves through a number of points, which is
where the method derives its name from. This spline consists of weights attached to a
flat surface at the points to be connected. A flexible strip is then bent across each of
these weights, resulting in a pleasingly smooth curve.
The mathematical spline is similar in principle. The points, in this case, are
numerical data. The weights are the coefficients on the cubic polynomials used to
interpolate the data. These coefficients ‘bend’ the line so that it passes through each of
the data points without any erratic behaviour or breaks in continuity.
We fit a piecewise function of the form
¦
¦
¹
¦
¦
´
¦
< ≤
< ≤
< ≤
=
− − n n n
x x x if x s
x x x if x s
x x x if x s
x S
1 1
3 2 2
2 1 1
) (
) (
) (
) (
M
where si(x) is a third degree polynomial defined by
3 2
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
i i i i i i i i
s x a x x b x x c x x d = − + − + − + for i= 1, 2, ..., n1.
The first and second derivatives of these n1 equations are
2
' ( ) 3 ( ) 2 ( )
'' ( ) 6 ( ) 2
i i i i i i
i i i i
s x a x x b x x c
s x a x x b
= − + − +
= − +
for i= 1, 2, ..., n1.
The curve must verify the following four conditions:
1. The piecewise function S(x)will interpolate all data points (xi,yi).
2. S(x)will be continuous on the interval [x1, xn]
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
259
3. S’(x) will be continuous on the interval [x1, xn]
4. S’’(x) will be continuous on the interval [x1, xn]
Since the piecewise function S(x) will interpolate all of the data points, we can
conclude that
i i
i i i i i i i i i i i
i i
d y
d x x c x x b x x a y
y x S
=
+ − + − + − =
=
) ( ) ( ) (
) (
2 3
for each i= 1, 2, ..., n1.
Because property 2 imposes that the function be continuous, then at the junction
of two piecewise cubic curves we have
i i i i i
d x s x s = =
−
) ( ) (
1
we also know that
3 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
i i i i i i i i i i i i
s x a x x b x x c x x d
− − − − − − − −
= − + − + − + (16.18)
so we have
1 1 1
2
1 1
3
1 1
) ( ) ( ) (
− − − − − − −
+ − + − + − =
i i i i i i i i i i i
d x x c x x b x x a d
for i= 1, 2, ..., n1.
16.6.1 Analysing the slopes
i i i
i i i i i i i i i
i i i i i i
c x s
c x x b x x a x s
c x x b x x a x s
=
+ − + − =
+ − + − =
) ( '
) ( 2 ) ( 3 ) ( '
) ( 2 ) ( 3 ) ( '
2
2
(16.19)
Applying the third condition of continuous slopes, we also have
) ( ' ) ( '
1 i i i i
x s x s =
−
so
1 1 1
2
1 1 1
) ( 2 ) ( 3 ) ( '
− − − − − −
+ − + − =
i i i i i i i i i
c x x b x x a x s (16.20)
Chapter 16 Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes
260
1 1 1
2
1 1
) ( 2 ) ( 3
− − − − −
+ − + − =
i i i i i i i i
c x x b x x a c for i= 1, 2, ..., n1.
Now considering the second derivatives:
i i i
i i i i i i
i i i i
b x s
b x x a x s
b x x a x s
2 ) ( ' '
2 ) ( 6 ) ( ' '
2 ) ( 6 ) ( ' '
=
+ − =
+ − =
(16.21)
And since the second derivatives must also be continuous, we impose
i i i i i
b x s x s 2 ) ( ' ' ) ( ' '
1
= =
−
(16.22)
1 1 1
1 1 1 1
2 ) ( 6 2
2 ) ( 6 ) ( ' '
− − −
− − − −
+ − =
+ − =
i i i i i
i i i i i i
b x x a b
b x x a x s
for i= 1, 2, ..., n1.
for simplification, let us imagine that we have constant intervals
) (
1 i i
x x x − = ∆
−
and let us note
i i i i
b s x s 2 ' ' ) ( ' ' = =
Then we can rewrite all the coefficients in terms of these parameters as:
i i
i i i i
i
i
i
i i
i
y d
x
s s
x
y y
c
s
b
x
s s
a
=
∆
−
−
∆
−
=
=
∆
−
=
+ +
+
6
' ' 2 ' '
2
' '
6
' ' ' '
1 1
1
(16.23)
Therefore, taking equation
i i i i i i i i
c x x b x x a c + − + − =
+ + +
) ( 2 ) ( 3
1
2
1 1
x
s s
x
y y
x x
s s
x
s s
x
y y
i i i i
i
i i i i i i
∆
−
−
∆
−
+ ∆ + ∆
−
= ∆
−
−
∆
−
+ + + + + + +
6
' ' 2 ' '
6
' ' 2 ' '
3
6
' ' 2 ' '
1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2
β
Which we can simplify to
2
2 1
2 1
2
6 ' ' ' ' 4 ' '
x
y y y
s s s
i i i
i i i
∆
+ −
⋅ = + +
+ +
+ +
for i= 1, 2, ..., n1.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
261
Which leads to a matrix formulation:
+ −
+ −
+ −
+ −
+ −
+ −
⋅
∆
=
− −
− − −
− − −
−
−
−
n n n
n n n
n n n
n
n
n
n
y y y
y y y
y y y
y y y
y y y
y y y
x
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
1 2
1 2 3
2 3 4
5 4 3
4 3 2
3 2 1
2
1
2
3
3
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
' '
' '
' '
' '
' '
' '
' '
' '
1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 4 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 4 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 4 1
M M
L
L
L
M M M M O M M M M
L
L
L
Note that this system has n 2 rows and n columns, and is therefore under
determined. In order to generate a unique cubic spline, two other conditions must be
imposed upon the system.
Historically, the most commonly used boundary conditions have been:
16.7 Natural splines
This first spline type includes the stipulation that the second derivative be equal
to zero
At the endpoints s’’ 1 = s’’n = 0. This results in the spline extending as a line
outside the endpoints. Therefore, the first and last columns of this matrix can be
eliminated, as they correspond to s’’1 = s’’n = 0. This results in a n2 by n2 matrix,
which will determine the remaining solutions for s’’2 through s’’ n1. The spline is now
unique.
Chapter 16 Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes
262
+ −
+ −
+ −
+ −
+ −
+ −
⋅
∆
=
− −
− − −
− − −
−
−
−
n n n
n n n
n n n
n
n
n
y y y
y y y
y y y
y y y
y y y
y y y
x
s
s
s
s
s
s
1 2
1 2 3
2 3 4
5 4 3
4 3 2
3 2 1
2
1
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
' '
' '
' '
' '
' '
' '
1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 4 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 4 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 4 1
M M
L
L
L
M M M M O M M M M
L
L
L
16.8 Parabolic Run out Spline
The parabolic spline imposes the condition on the second derivative at the
endpoints that
s
’’
1 = s
’’
2
s
’’
n =s
’’
n1
The result of this condition is a curve that becomes parabolic at the endpoints.
This type of cubic spline is useful for periodic and exponential data.
+ −
+ −
+ −
+ −
+ −
+ −
⋅
∆
=
− −
− − −
− − −
−
−
−
n n n
n n n
n n n
n
n
n
y y y
y y y
y y y
y y y
y y y
y y y
x
s
s
s
s
s
s
1 2
1 2 3
2 3 4
5 4 3
4 3 2
3 2 1
2
1
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
' '
' '
' '
' '
' '
' '
5 0 0 0 0 0
1 4 1 0 0 0
0 1 4 0 0 0
0 0 0 4 1 0
0 0 0 1 4 1
0 0 0 0 1 5
M M
L
L
L
M M M O M M M
L
L
L
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
263
16.9 Cubic Run out Spline
This last type of spline has the most extreme endpoint behaviour. It assigns
s
’’
1 = 2s
’’
2 s
’’
3
s
’’
n = 2 s
’’
n1 s
’’
n2.
This causes the curve to degrade to a single cubic curve over the last two
intervals, rather than two separate functions.
+ −
+ −
+ −
+ −
+ −
+ −
⋅
∆
=
− −
− − −
− − −
−
−
−
n n n
n n n
n n n
n
n
n
y y y
y y y
y y y
y y y
y y y
y y y
x
s
s
s
s
s
s
1 2
1 2 3
2 3 4
5 4 3
4 3 2
3 2 1
2
1
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
' '
' '
' '
' '
' '
' '
6 0 0 0 0 0
1 4 1 0 0 0
0 1 4 0 0 0
0 0 0 4 1 0
0 0 0 1 4 1
0 0 0 0 1 6
M M
L
L
L
M M M O M M M
L
L
L
For our particular occasion, we have decided to implement a modified spline
method.
16.10 Constrained Cubic Splines
The principle behind the proposed constrained cubic spline is to prevent
overshooting by sacrificing smoothness. This is achieved by eliminating the
requirement for equal second order derivatives at every point (condition 4) and
replacing it with specified first order derivatives.
Thus, similar to traditional cubic splines, the proposed constrained cubic splines
are constructed according to the previous equations, but substituting the second order
derivative with a specified fixed slope at every point.
1
' ( ) ' ( ) '( )
i i i i i
s x s x s x
−
= = (16.24)
Chapter 16 Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes
264
The calculation of the slope becomes the key step at each point. Intuitively we
know the slope will lie between the slopes of the adjacent straight lines, and should
approach zero if the slope of either line approaches zero or changes sign.
1 1
1 1
2
'( )
0
i i i i
i i i i
i
i
x x x x
y y y y
s x
if the slopechanges signat x
+ −
+ −
¦
¦
− −
+
¦
− −
¦
¦
=
´
¦
=
¦
¦
¦
¹
(16.25)
for i =1, 2, ..., n 1
For the boundary conditions, we must impose two further conditions. We shall
construct here a generic approach this time where the intervals ∆x need not be
constant any longer. Thus we will use:
i i i i i
d x c x b x a x s + + + =
2 3
) ( (16.26)
Applying a natural spline constraint of the form s
’’
1 = s
’’
n = 0
We obtain
( )
( )
( )
( ) 2
) ( '
2
3
) ( '
2
) ( '
2
3
) ( '
1
1
1
0
0 1
0 1
0 1
−
−
−
−
−
−
=
−
−
−
=
n
n n
n n
n n
x s
x x
y y
x s
x s
x x
y y
x s
(16.27)
As the slope at each point is known, it is no longer necessary to solve a system of
equations. Each spline can be calculated based on the two adjacent points on each
side.
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
6 ) ( ' ) ( ' 2 2
) ( ' '
6 ) ( ' 2 ) ( ' 2
) ( ' '
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
+
−
−
− =
−
−
+
−
−
− =
i i
i i
i i
i i i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i i i
i i
x x
y y
x x
x s x s
x s
x x
y y
x x
x s x s
x s
(16.28)
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
265
( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
1
3
1
2
1 1
1
1
3 3
1
2 2
1
1
1 1
1
1
2
) ( ' ' ) ( ' '
6
) ( ' ' ) ( ' '
− −
− −
−
− −
−
−
− −
−
−
− − − =
−
− − − − −
=
−
−
=
−
−
=
i
i
i
i i i i i
i i
i i
i
i i
i i i
i
i i
i i i i i i
i
i i
i i i i
i
x a x b x c y d
x x
x x a x x b y y
c
x x
x s x x s x
b
x x
x s x s
a
(16.29)
This modified cubic spline interpolation method has been implemented in our flat
cap volatility interpolation. The main benefits of the proposed constrained cubic
spline are:
• It is a relatively smooth curve;
• It never overshoots intermediate values;
• Interpolated values can be calculated directly without solving a system of
equations;
• The actual parameters (ai, bi, ci and di) for each of the cubic spline equations can
still be calculated. This permits an analytical integration of the data.
16.11 Functional Interpolation
We present here the following most direct approaches to caplet volatility
stripping. Their principal difference respect the previous method lies in the fact that
the interpolation here is performed between caplet volatilities, whereas the previous
approach interpolated between cap volatilities.
Chapter 16 Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes
266
16.12 Constant Caplet Volatilities.
This is the most basic approach for stripping cap volatilities. We will always use
either this method or the previous cap linear interpolation as our first guess in our
optimisation algorithm when proceeding to use more complex interpolation methods.
Note that the algorithm we will construct here requires a simple one dimensional root
solver i.e., it can be simply solved by a one dimensional Newton Raphson for
example.
• Let
{ }
1
n
i
cap
i =
Σ be the set of market quoted caps for a given strike K.
• Let
{ }
1
m
i
caplet
i
σ
=
be the constant caplet volatilities that we are trying to calculate.
We perform the stripping by what is commonly known as a bootstrapping
mechanism. We have the same formula as we had before, where each cap price “i” is
constructed as a sum of caplet prices with the flat cap volatility:
) ( ) (
1
) , ( ) , 0 (
1
Σ = Σ
∑
=
−
n
j
t t i T
j j i
caplet cap (16.30)
and where we construct each caplet as
[ ] ) ( ) ( ) , 0 ( ) , (
2 1 , 1
1
d KN d FN t B m t t caplet
j t t j j
j j
− =
−
−
(16.31)
1
1
2
2 , 1
2
−
−
⋅ Σ
⋅ Σ
± 
¹

\

=
j
j
t
t
K
F
LN
d (16.32)
We are now noting the forward LIBOR rate as F for simplicity.
We can compute the forward caps as:
) ( ) ( ) (
1 ) , 0 ( ) , 0 (
1
, ) , (
1 1
−
−
Σ − Σ = Σ
− −
i T i T
i
i T T
i i i i
cap cap forwardcap (16.33)
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
267
Remember that the problem with these forward caps was the fact that they could
encompass several caplets of unknown volatility
Cap(0,T
i
)(
i
Σ )
CapForward(T
i1,
T
i
)(
i
Σ
,i1
)
U
2
U
1
t U
1
+δ
Caplet1
Caplet 2
T
Cap(0,T
i1
)(
i
Σ
1
)
Fig. 16.6. Forward caps related to the caplets
So as to find the piecewise constant volatilities, we need to solve the following
equation for a unique, constant
i
caplet
σ
) ( ) (
1
) , ( 1 , ) , 0 (
1
i
n
j
t t i i i T
j j i
caplet forwardcap σ
∑
=
−
−
= Σ (16.34)
16.13 Piecewise Linear Caplet Volatility Method
We now no longer use a constant
i
caplet
σ for the group of caplets that form the
capforward. Instead, we impose a linear relationship between them. This really only
gives us one more degree of freedom, as a line is entirely defined by two of its points.
Our constraint is still that the caplets in a given interval sum to give the
capforward price derived from the market caps. However, these caplets that we
construct are now related linearly.
Because we seek a smooth curve, we start by imposing that the end node of the
caplets forming one capforward(i1) (value of
j i
caplet
, 1 −
σ ) coincide with the starting node
(
0 , i
caplet
σ ) of the first caplet that forms the following capforward(i). As we have N cap
volatilities and only N+1 degrees of freedom, we are left with just one free parameter
to fit.
Chapter 16 Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes
268
We can impose an exact fit, i.e., impose the first volatility,
0 , 1
caplet
σ , such that at
each interval, we satisfy the condition
) ( ) ( ) (
,
1
) , (
,
) , ( 1 , ) , (
1 1 1
j i
n
j
t t i
j i
T T i i T T
j j i i i i
caplet forwardcap forwardcap σ σ
∑
=
−
− − −
= = Σ
(16.35)
As a result we obtain a very unstable functional form, that is, not smooth at all
see Fig. 18.2.
We could instead consider a non exact fit, in which we would seek to smoothen
the curve at the expense of allowing for small differences in the previous equation.
This is, we seek to minimize the difference between successive changes in slopes,
and minimize at the same time the difference between each Capforward price and the
sum of each set of caplet prices.
We will note the slopes as
1
1
−
−
−
−
=
i i
i i
i
T T
σ σ
β (16.36)
( ) ( )
1 1
0
1
2
2
,
( , ) , 1 ( , ) 1
1 2
( ,..., )
( ) ( )
i i i i
N
N N
i j
i T T i i T T i i
i i
F
w forwardcap forwardcap
σ σ
σ λ β β
− −
−
− −
= =
=
= Σ = + −
∑ ∑
(16.37)
We can take for example λ = 10
4
and wi = 1/Ti. We would like to point out at this
stage that an inexact fit implies that the resulting prices that we will obtain for the
caplets will not sum to give the market quoted cap values. We are therefore giving up
precision at the expense of greater smoothness in the curve. We do not believe
therefore that an inexact fit method should be pursued if we are attempting to
accurately portray the market.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
269
16.14 Piecewise Quadratic
The approach is very similar to the previous one, with the only difference that at
each interval where a capforward is calculated, we now impose a quadratic
relationship between all the caplets instead of a linear relationship. We will
characterise each of these functional forms with the values at the end points, and with
the mid point of each interval. This is useful as the mid point normally coincides with
the value of a specific caplet that we have to calculate. For example, given a
capforward lasting one year, we will have to divide it into two equal 6 month caplets,
meaning that one of them will coincide with the mid point 6 month caplet that we
must calculate anyway.
Another reason is the fact that we will need the mid point anyway for the
computation of the slopes in each interval.
Evidently, for continuity, we impose that the last caplet volatility in each
quadratic function coincides with the first caplet volatility of the following quadratic
function. In addition, we have an extra midpoint to calculate at each interval. We
therefore have N cap volatilities, and 2N+1 degrees of freedom among the midpoints
‘m’ and end points ‘i’ in the quadratic curve.
As we said, for continuity the two points that we must define at each interval are
related to the previous point via a quadratic function
2
1 2 1 1 1
2
1 2 1 1 1
) ( 25 . 0 ) ( 5 . 0
) ( ) (
− − −
− − −
− ⋅ + − ⋅ + =
− + − + =
i i i i i m
i i i i i i
T T C T T C f f
T T C T T C f f
(16.38)
Where we have
( ) ( )
( )
) (
) (
) (
4 2
1 2
1
1
1
2
1
1 1
2
−
−
−
−
− −
− −
−
−
=
−
− − −
=
i i
i i
i i
i i
i m i i
T T C
T T
f f
C
T T
f f f f
C
(16.39)
And where the slopes are now
Chapter 16 Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes
270
,
,
1
1
m i
im i
i
i m
i im
im
T T
T T
−
−
=
−
−
=
−
−
σ σ
β
σ σ
β
(16.40)
As with the linear fit we can also perform an inexact fit, this is
( ) ( )
1 1
0
2 1
2
2
,
( , ) , 1 ( , ) 1
1 2
( ,..., )
( ) ( )
i i i i
N
N N
i j
i T T i i T T i i
i i
F
w forwardcap forwardcap
σ σ
σ λ β β
− −
+
− −
= =
=
= Σ = + −
∑ ∑
(16.41)
where we allow for differences between the forward cap and its corresponding
sum of caplets. Otherwise, we can impose an exact fit in which we only minimize the
difference between slopes. This would yield:
( )
∑
+
=
−
− =
1 2
2
2
1
0
) ,..., (
N
i
i i
N
F β β σ σ (16.42)
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
271
16.15 The Algorithm
K
Strike Interpolation
Strikes K
M
a
t
u
r
i
t
i
e
s
T
Market Flat
σCaps
1st Guess
σCaplets
For every strike
ForwardCaps Price
from σflat
σCaplets
Slopes βi
Quadratic error
Σ(βi βi1)
2
ForwardCaps Price
from σcaplets
Quadratic error
Σ(FWDCapi
flat
 FWDCappi
caplets
)
2
Optimisation
modify 1st guess
Export
σCaplets
Acceptable combined
Error
Market
Flat
σCaps
yes
no
w
λ
Fig. 16.7. Optimisation algorithm for interpolation in maturities
Chapter 16 Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes
272
16.16 About the problem of extracting 6M Caplets from Market data.
Strike
1 30.6 26.2 21.4
1.5 27 23.8 20.4
2 26.3 23.3 20.2
3 25.6 23.4 21.1
4 25.4 23.4 21.3
5 24.9 23.1 21.1
6 24.5 22.8 21.1
M
a
t
u
r
i
t
y
1.5 1.75 2
Table 16.1. Cap market quotes: flat cap difference under 2 year barrier
The caps that are available to us directly from the market are not constructed over
the same underlying forward LIBOR rates. More specifically, the data that we have
available is constructed over the three month LIBOR for quoted caps with a maturity
of up until two years, and all subsequent caps quoted with longer maturities are
constructed over the six month LIBOR forward rate. Note moreover that the starting
date of our data is no longer always six months past the valuation date. This is still the
case for caps whose maturities last more than 2 years. Now however, for the data
quoted over the 3 month LIBOR, (i.e. with maturities less than 2 years) the starting
date is the third month after the value date. This means for example that the first
market data quoted with a maturity of one year is really constructed from three
caplets, with starting and end dates: (3M,6M), (6M,9M), (9M,1Y).
FlatCaplets
On 3M EURIBOR
0 1Y6M 6M 9M 12M 1Y3M 3M
Fig. 16.8. Cap market quotes: flat cap difference under 2 year barrier
Further, we have to obtain from the 3 month quotes the equivalent six month
caplet starting on the sixth month so as to be consistent with the rest of the data.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
273
Sought for Caplets
on 6M EURIBOR
0 1Y6M 6M 12M 3M 2Y
Fig. 16.9. Creation of the 6 month caplets from 3 month Cap market quotes: flat
cap difference under 2 year barrier
We shall try to develop a method to extract a measure of the six month caplets
from the 3 month data. The most direct approach would be to assume that the
volatility of the six month cap is equivalent to the σflat(L3M). Mathematically this would
mean:
) ( ) (
1
) , (
) , 0 (
3
1
3
i
n
j
t t i i
T
M
j j
M
i
caplet cap Σ = Σ
∑
=
−
(16.43)
But we would be then using
) ( ) (
6
) , 0 (
6 3
) , 0 (
3
i
M
T
M
i
M
T
M
i i
cap cap Σ = Σ (16.44)
which is clearly wrong.
Instead, we decide to construct a cap
6M
using the following procedure:
Consider three instants of time, 0 < S < T < U, all sixmonths spaced. Assume also
that we are dealing with a ‘Swaption x 1’ and with S and T expiry six month caplets.
Fig. 16.10. Decomposition of a six menthe caplet into two 3 month caplets
· Where we have noted F as the forward rate applicable to each caplet, and
where (S, T, U) are each separated by three month intervals. Note that both F1
Caplet
3M
(F1)
U T S t
Caplet
3M
(F )
Caplet
6M
(F)
Chapter 16 Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes
274
and F2 are related to the three month LIBOR, whereas we are trying to
construct an F related to the six month LIBOR rate.
The algebraic relationship between F, F1 and F2 is easily derived expressing all
forward rates in terms of zerocouponbond prices.
2
1
1
1
) , (
) , (
1


¹

\

− =
T t B
S t B
F (16.45)
2
1
1
1
) , (
) , (
2


¹

\

− =
U t B
T t B
F (16.46)
1
1
1
) , (
) , (


¹

\

− =
U t B
S t B
F (16.47)
Notice that we can rewrite the latter in terms of the previous two:
4 2
1
) , (
) , (
) , (
) , (
1
1
1
) , (
) , (
2 1 2 1
F F F F
U t B
T t B
T t B
S t B
U t B
S t B
F +
+
=


¹

\

− ⋅ =


¹

\

− = (16.48)
Let us now apply Ito to the formulae for F1 and F2, where we are only really
concerned with the Brownian terms:
dt t dZ t dZ
t dZ t F t dt t dF
t dZ t F t dt t dF
ρ
σ
σ
=
+ =
+ =
) ( ) (
) ( ) ( ) ( (...) ) (
) ( ) ( ) ( (...) ) (
2 1
2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1
(16.49)
The quantity ρ is the ‘infra correlation’ between the ‘inner rates’ F1 and F2. By
differentiation
dt
F
F
dF
F
F
dt
t
F
t dF
i
i
i
i
i i
σ
∑ ∑
= =
∂
∂
+
∂
∂
+
∂
∂
=
2
1
2
2 2
1
2
1
) (
(16.50)
+ ⋅ +
+ ⋅ + =
4 2
1
) ( ) ( ) (
4 2
1
) ( ) ( ) ( (...) ) (
1
2 2 2
2
1 1 1
F
t dZ t F t
F
t dZ t F t dt t dF σ σ
(16.51)
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
275
) (
4 2
) ( ) (
4 2
) ( (...) ) (
2
2 1 2
2 1
2 1 1
1
t dZ
F F F
t t dZ
F F F
t dt t dF
+ ⋅ +
+ ⋅ + = σ σ
(16.52)
Taking variances on both sides of the above, conditional on the information
available at time t we have
2 2
2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2
1 2
1 1 2 2 1 2
1 2
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
2 4 2 4
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
2 ( ) ( )
2 4 2 4
F t F t F t F t F t F t
t F t t t
F t F t F t F t F t F t
t t
σ σ σ
ρσ σ
⋅ = ⋅ + + ⋅ + +
+ ⋅ + ⋅ +
(16.53)
Let us name
+ =
+ =
4
) ( ) (
2
) (
) (
1
) (
4
) ( ) (
2
) (
) (
1
) (
2 1 2
2
2 1 1
1
t F t F t F
t F
t u
t F t F t F
t F
t u
(16.54)
We can then rewrite the former as
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( 2 ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
2 1 2 1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
t u t u t t t t u t t u t σ ρσ σ σ σ + + = (16.55)
We decide to introduce a deterministic approximation by freezing all F’s (and
therefore u’s) at their timezero value:
) 0 ( ) 0 ( ) ( ) ( 2 ) ( ) 0 ( ) ( ) 0 ( ) (
2 1 2 1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
u u t t t u t u t approx σ ρσ σ σ σ + + =
(16.56)
Now recall that F is the particular (oneperiod) swap rate underlying the ‘S x 1’
swaption, whose (squared) Black’s swaption volatility is therefore
2 2
0
2 2 2 2
1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2
0 0 0
1
( )
1
(0) ( ) (0) ( ) 2 (0) (0) ( ) ( )
S
Black approx
S S S
v t dt
S
u t dt u t dt u u t t dt
S
σ
σ σ ρ σ σ
= =
= + +
∫
∫ ∫ ∫
(16.57)
Chapter 16 Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes
276
The first integral can be inputted directly as a market caplet volatility.
dt t
S
v
S
Caplet S
∫
=
0
2
1
_
2
) (
1
σ (16.58)
The second and third integrals in contrast require some form of parametric
assumption on the instantaneous volatility structure of rates in order to be computed.
The simplest solution is to assume that forward rates have constant volatilities. In
such a case
Caplet T
S
Caplet T
S
v dt v
S
dt t t
S
_
2
0
_
2
0
2 1
1
) ( ) (
1
= ≈
∫ ∫
σ σ (16.59)
The third integral becomes:
Caplet S Caplet T
S
Caplet S Caplet T
S
v v dt v v
S
dt t t
S
_ _
0
_ _
0
2 1
1
) ( ) (
1
= ≈
∫ ∫
σ σ (16.60)
Under this assumption we finally get:
) 0 ( ) 0 ( ) ( ) ( 2 ) ( ) 0 ( ) ( ) 0 ( ) (
2 1 _ _
2
_
2
2
2
_
2
1
2
u u t v t v t v u t v u t
Caplet T Caplet S Caplet T Caplet S
approx ρ σ + + =
(16.61)
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
277
17. SABR
At this point in our study, we have effectively smoothened our curve along the
maturity direction, this is, we have solved the irregularities in the term structure of
our caplet volatility surface. More specifically, and possibly more recognisable
visually, we have interpolated along the vertical direction in the market quoted
matrix:
Strikes[%]
1,50 1,75 2,00 2,25 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 5,00 6,00 7,00 8,00 10,00
1,00 30,60 26,20 21,40 15,70 12,00 10,70 12,20 14,00 17,50 21,00 23,50 25,40 27,10
1,50 27,00 23,80 20,40 17,70 15,70 14,00 15,80 17,00 18,70 20,10 21,20 22,20 26,10
2,00 26,30 23,30 20,20 18,00 16,70 15,10 16,40 17,30 18,80 20,00 21,20 22,20 26,10
3,00 25,60 23,40 21,10 19,50 18,60 16,90 17,50 18,10 19,30 20,60 21,70 22,60 24,40
4,00 25,40 23,40 21,30 19,90 19,20 17,60 17,90 18,30 19,30 20,40 21,40 22,30 23,90
5,00 24,90 23,10 21,10 19,90 19,30 17,90 17,90 18,10 18,90 19,80 20,70 21,50 23,10
6,00 24,50 22,80 21,10 19,90 19,40 18,00 17,90 18,00 18,60 19,30 20,00 20,70 22,40
7,00 24,20 22,60 21,00 19,90 19,40 18,10 17,80 17,80 18,20 18,80 19,50 20,10 21,80
8,00 24,00 22,40 20,90 19,90 19,40 18,10 17,70 17,60 17,90 18,40 18,90 19,50 21,20
9,00 23,80 22,20 20,80 19,80 19,30 18,00 17,60 17,40 17,50 17,90 18,40 18,90 20,50
10,00 23,60 22,10 20,70 19,70 19,20 17,90 17,40 17,20 17,20 17,50 17,90 18,30 19,70
12,00 23,00 21,60 20,30 19,30 18,80 17,50 17,00 16,60 16,40 16,60 16,90 17,30 18,40
15,00 22,50 21,10 19,90 18,90 18,30 17,10 16,50 16,10 15,70 15,70 16,00 16,30 17,20
20,00 21,60 20,30 19,20 18,10 17,60 16,40 15,70 15,20 14,80 14,80 15,00 15,30 16,20
25,00 20,80 19,60 18,50 17,50 17,00 15,90 15,20 14,70 14,20 14,30 14,50 14,90 15,70
30,00 20,10 18,90 17,80 17,00 16,60 15,40 14,70 14,20 13,80 13,90 14,30 14,60 15,50
M
a
t
u
r
i
t
y
[
y
e
a
r
s
]
l
Table 17.1. Shows the different dates and strikes with which to model products with
similar needs to the HJM
This does not mean however that our curve will be smooth along a horizontal
strike direction. In fact, we have not modified these values at all with respect to the
original market values, and therefore obtain market derived smile volatilities that can
be extremely irregular:
Chapter 17 SABR
278
Caplet Smiles with Maturity
5,000%
10,000%
15,000%
20,000%
25,000%
30,000%
1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 5,00 6,00 7,00 8,00 9,00
Strike K[%]
S
i
g
m
a
B
l
a
c
k
l
Maturity 0.5 years
Maturity 1.5 years
Maturity 8 years
Maturity 28 years
Fig. 17.1. Caplet current market behaviour
The requirement of a smooth smile is essential for calibration. Of particular
importance is the small peak observed for very short maturities around the ‘at the
money’ value (strike = 3%).
As is done with the market swaption matrix, we decide to execute an inexact
SABR interpolation along strikes to smoothen the curve. It is inexact because we will
modify slightly the market values in exchange for an increase in smoothness.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
279
17.1 Detailed SABR
The SABR method is a stochastic interpolation method to model LIBOR forward
rates. The model takes a given vector of strikes { }
1
n
i
i
K
=
and a vector of Black
volatilities { }
1
n
i
i
σ
=
i.e., a horizontal row from the above matrix. The fit is done in the
sense of the nonlinear least squares, using:
1
2
ˆ ˆ ˆ
(0)
(0)
dF F dW F f
d dW
β
α
α να α α
= =
= =
(17.1)
1 2
dW dW dt ρ = (17.2)
0
σ α =
There are four parameters in the model, (α, β, ρ, ν), although we will soon see
that two of these can be set beforehand.
The SABR model uses the price of a European option given by Black’s formula:
( )
( )
1 2
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
call set
put call set
V B t f N d K N d
V V B t K f
= ⋅ − ⋅
= + −
(17.3)
2
1,2
( )
log
2
B ex
T
B ex
t f
K
d
t
σ
σ
⋅  
±

\ ¹
=
⋅
(17.4)
It then derives the below expression, where the implied volatility σB(f,K) is given
by singular perturbation techniques. We will not enter the specifics here, but simply
state the expressions:
Chapter 17 SABR
280
( )
( )
( )
( ) ( )
( )
( ) ( )
( )
2 4
1 / 2
2 4
2
2 2
2
1 1 / 2
,
( )
1 1
1 log log ...
24 1920
1
1 2 3
1 ...
24 4 24
B
ex
K f
z
x z
f f
f K
K K
t
f K f K
β
β β
σ
α
β β
β
α ρβνα ρ
ν
−
− −
=
 
= ⋅ ⋅

¦ ¹
\ ¹ − −
¦ ¦    
⋅ + + +
´ `
 
\ ¹ \ ¹
¦ ¦
¹ )
¦ ¹
−
− ¦ ¦
⋅ + ⋅ + + +
´ `
⋅ ⋅
¦ ¦
¹ )
(17.5)
Where
( )
( ) 1 / 2
log
f
z f K
K
β ν
α
−  
= ⋅

\ ¹
(17.6)
and
( )
2
1 2
log
1
z z z
x z
ρ ρ
ρ
¦ ¹
− + + −
¦ ¦
=
´ `
−
¦ ¦
¹ )
(17.7)
For special cases of ‘at the money’ options where f = K, the formula simplifies to
( )
( )
( )
( ) ( )
2
2 2
2
2 2 1 1
1
1 2 3
, 1 ...
24 4 24
ATM B ex
f f t
f f f
β β β
β
α α ρβνα ρ
σ α ν
− − −
¦ ¹
−
− ¦ ¦
= = + ⋅ + + +
´ `
¦ ¦
¹ )
(17.8)
Implementing the SABR model for vanilla options is very easy, since once this
formula is programmed, we just need to send the options to a Black pricer.
The complexity of the formula is needed for accurate pricing. Omitting the last
line of (17.5), for example, can result in a relative error that exceeds three per cent in
extreme cases. Although this error term seems small, it is large enough to be required
for accurate pricing. The omitted terms “+ ” are much, much smaller.
The function being minimised in this procedure is
( )
2
i i i
1
blackToNormal( ,K )sabrToNormal( , , , ,K )
n
i
i
w σ α β ρ ν
=
∑
(17.9)
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
281
This is, we are minimising the difference between the correct market quotes at
specific strikes, and the quotes that the SABR model provides at those same strikes.
The price we are willing to pay for this adjustment is set by the weights in the
minimisation algorithm that we use. We are currently taking weights of the form:
( )
2
1
1
i
i
w
K F
=
+ −
(17.10)
17.2 Dynamics of the SABR: understanding the parameters
1
2
ˆ ˆ ˆ
(0)
(0)
dF F dW F f
d dW
β
α
α να α α
= =
= =
(17.11)
There are two special cases that we must pay special attention to: β=1,
representing a stochastic log normal model (flat) F dF α = , and β=0, representing a
stochastic normal model (skew) α = dF . On top of these curves we have the
superimposed smile, as can be seen in the below graph.
Notice that the σB(f,f) at the money traces the dotted line known as the backbone.
Fig. 17.2. beta = 0 skew imposition, rho smile imposition
Chapter 17 SABR
282
Fig. 17.3. beta flat imposition =1, rho smile imposition
Let us consider a simplified version of the SABR valid when K is not too far from
the current forward f.
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
2
2 2 2
1
,
1 1
1 1 log 1 2 3 log ...
2 12
B
K f
K K
f f f
β
σ
α
β ρλ β ρ λ
−
=
¦ ¹    
= ⋅ − − − + − + − +
´ `  
\ ¹ \ ¹ ¹ )
(17.12)
where
1
f
β
ν
λ
α
−
= (17.13)
The main term in the above is
( )
1
,
B
f f
f
β
α
σ
−
= which represents what we have
called the backbone. This is almost entirely determined by the exponent β, with the
exponent β = 0 (a stochastic Gaussian model) giving a steeply downward sloping
backbone, and the exponent β = 1 giving a nearly flat backbone.
The second term
( )
1
1 log
2
K
f
β ρλ
 
− − −

\ ¹
represents the overall skew:the slope
of the implied volatility with respect to the strike K We can decompose it into two
principal components:
1. The beta skew:
( )
1
1 log
2
K
f
β
 
− −

\ ¹
(17.14)
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
283
Is downward sloping since 0 ≤ β ≤ 1. It arises because the “local volatility”
1 1
f
f f
β
β β
α α
− −
= is a decreasing function of the forward price.
2. The vanna skew:
1
log
2
K
f
ρλ
 
−

\ ¹
(17.15)
Is the skew caused by the correlation between the volatility and the asset price.
Typically the volatility and asset price are negatively correlated, so on average, the
volatility α would decrease (increase) when the forward f increases (decreases). It thus
seems unsurprising that a negative correlation ρ causes a downward sloping vanna
skew.
The last term
( ) ( )
2
2 2 2
1
1 2 3 log ...
12
K
f
β ρ λ
¦ ¹  
− + − +
´ ` 
\ ¹ ¹ )
also contains two
parts:
The first part:
( )
2
2
1
1 log
12
K
f
β
 
−

\ ¹
(17.16)
appears to be a smile (quadratic) term, but it is dominated by the downward
sloping beta skew, and, at reasonable strikes K, it just modifies this skew somewhat.
The second part:
( )
2 2 2
1
2 3 log
12
K
f
ρ λ
 
−

\ ¹
(17.17)
is the smile induced by the volga (volgamma) effect. Physically this smile arises
because of “adverse selection”: unusually large movements of the forward F happen
more often when the volatility α increases, and less often when α decreases, so strikes
K far from the money represent, on average, high volatility environments.
Chapter 17 SABR
284
17.2.1 Fitting market data.
The exponent β and correlation ρ affect the volatility smile in similar ways. They
both cause a downward sloping skew in σB (K, f ) as the strike K varies. From a single
market snapshot of σB (K, f ) as a function of K at a given f, it is difficult to distinguish
between the two parameters.
Fig. 17.4. Undistinguishable smile difference on calibrating with different beta
parameters β = 0 and β =1
Note that there is no substantial difference in the quality of the fits, despite the
presence of market noise. This matches our general experience: market smiles can be
fit equally well with any specific value of β. In particular, β cannot be determined by
fitting a market smile.
Suppose for the moment that the exponent β is known or has been selected. The
exponent β can be determined from historical observations of the “backbone” or
selected from “aesthetic considerations”. Selecting β from “aesthetic” or other ‘a
priori’ considerations usually results in β = 1 (stochastic lognormal), β = 0 (stochastic
normal), or β = 1/2 (stochastic CIR) models. We will see however that in our
particular SABR construction, the beta parameter has a much greater impact than
what we initially expected.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
285
With β given, fitting the SABR model is a straightforward procedure. Simply, for
every particular date (i.e. row) in our caplet matrix, we seek a unique pair ρ, ν with
which we satisfy the SABR equations, and for which we minimize the equation set out
initially in (17.9). The alpha can be fitted analytically in general.
( )
2
i i i
1
blackToNormal( ,K )sabrToNormal( , , , ,K )
n
i
i
w σ α β ρ ν
=
∑
Now, the three parameters α, ρ, and ν have clear different effects on the curve:
·
The parameter α mainly controls the overall height of the curve and is defined
and almost equal to the σATM
· The correlation ρ controls the curve’s skew,
· The vol of vol ν controls how much smile the curve exhibits.
Because of the widely separated roles these parameters play, the fitted parameter
values tend to be very stable.
It is usually more convenient to use the atthemoney volatility σATM β, ρ, and ν
as the SABR parameters instead of the original parameters α, β, ρ, ν. The parameter α
is then found whenever needed by inverting
( )
( )
( )
( ) ( )
2
2 2
2
2 2 1 1
1
1 2 3
, 1 ...
24 4 24
ATM B ex
f f t
f f f
β β β
β
α α ρβνα ρ
σ α ν
− − −
¦ ¹
−
− ¦ ¦
= = + ⋅ + + +
´ `
¦ ¦
¹ )
(17.18)
This inversion is numerically easy since the [...]tex term is small. With this
parameterization, fitting the SABR model requires fitting ρ and ν to the implied
volatility curve, with σATM given by the market and β=1 selected.
In many markets, the ATM volatilities need to be updated frequently, say once or
twice a day, while the smiles and skews need to be updated infrequently, say once or
twice a month. With the new parameterization, σATM can be updated as often as
needed, with ρ, ν (and β) updated only as needed. In general the parameters ρ and ν
Chapter 17 SABR
286
are very stable (β is initially assumed to be a given constant), and need to be refit only
every few weeks. This stability may be because the SABR model reproduces the usual
dynamics of smiles and skews. In contrast, the atthemoney volatility σATM , or,
equivalently the α, may need to be updated every few hours in fastpaced markets.
17.2.2 σATM Selection
For our specific caplet case, the ‘at the money’ volatility with which we set the
global volatility level is obtained as the volatility corresponding to the caplet’s
forward. For a caplet with a value date t, fixing date T and maturity U, the forward
strike is simply:
( , ) 1
1
( , )
FWD
B t T
K
B t U m
 
= −

\ ¹
(17.19)
Thus, since at this stage, we will typically have a caplet matrix (either linear or
cubic spline interpolated), we can extract the corresponding σATM by interpolating
along a row the above strike. Graphically, this is equivalent to:
Cubic spline σATM extraction for SABR
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
0,35
1,5 3,5 5,5 7,5 9,5
Strike [%]
B
l
a
c
k
V
o
l
l
constrained cubic spline
Forward Strike
= 4,55%
σATM = 0,0899
Maturity 1 Year
6 Month caplet
Fig. 17.5. Constructing the caplet ‘at the money’ volatilities
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
287
The above must be performed for each of the maturities. Followingly, the entire
caplet matrix, the forwards FWDi, the σATM i, the set of dates (value date t, fixing dates
Ti and maturities Ui) and the tenors (6 months in our case) are used as inputs for the
SABR surface construction.
Some final considerations:
In most markets there is a strong smile for shortdated options which relaxes as
the timetoexpiry increases; this is exactly what we observe in Fig. 18.14 with the
caplet market. Consequently the volatility of volatilities ν is large for short dated
options and smaller for longdated options, regardless of the particular underlying.
The SABR model predicts that whenever the forward price f changes, the implied
volatility curve shifts in the same direction and by the same amount as the price f.
This predicted dynamics of the smile matches market experience.
If β < 1, the “backbone” is downward sloping, so the shift in the implied volatility
curve is not purely horizontal. Instead, this curve shifts up and down as the atthe
money point traverses the backbone.
Chapter 18 Result Analysis
288
18. Result Analysis
18.1.1 Flat Cap Volatilities:
Are the market data which we possess to begin with. We seek to interpolate
from the caps the necessary intermediate maturity values to be able to perform the
subsequent caplet interpolation procedure. The first thing that we must notice is the
fact that all interpolation methods produce intermediate points that are basically
indistinguishable within the Cap curve. This apparently suggests that they will yield
very similar Caplet curves also. We will see that the latter is not the general case
Flat Cap Volatility
0,14
0,145
0,15
0,155
0,16
0,165
0,17
0,175
0,18
0,185
0,19
0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00 20,00 25,00 30,00
Maturity [Years]
C
a
p
V
o
l
a
t
i
l
i
t
y
l
Market
natural spline
constrained spline
Fig. 18.1. Cap flat market quotes versus interpolated flat market quotes
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
289
18.1.2 Linear Cap Interpolation versus Quadratic Cap Interpolation
The Linear Cap interpolation method is that which was already implemented in
the Banco Santander (the green line below). We will use it as the standard of
comparison with respect to all other methods tested. Notice how it presents very
noticeable ‘bumps’ throughout the entire curve, suggesting that we will encounter
future difficulties when using this data.
The first thing we must realize is the actual location of the irregularities. A careful
examination with respect to the previous cap graph from which the caplets are
derived shows that the jumps produced in the below graph coincide exactly with
sharp changes in the gradient of Fig. 18.1. This apparently suggests that for
smoothness in the caplet values, we require minimal slope variations in our cap
graph.
Cap Linear and Quadratic Interpolation
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Maturity [Years]
C
a
p
l
e
t
V
o
l
a
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
l
Cap Quadratic
Cap Linear
Fig. 18.2. Caplet interpolated volatilities using linear and quadratic approaches
Quadratic formulae tend to show a high degree of convexity or concavity in their
interpolation points. No matter how small they may be in the Cap graph, it is evident
from the above that the caplet transformation is sensitive to them.
18.1.3 Cubic Spline interpolation
Is the next logical step to take. The increase in the order of the polynomial used
clearly translates into a better interpolation of the caps. As a result, caplets are
smoother. Below we show a particularly unfavourable case that occurs at a strike
Chapter 18 Result Analysis
290
value of K = 4%. Notice that we still have undulations, but no longer the abrupt spikes
characteristic in the linear method.
Cap Cubic Spline Interpolation
0,08
0,1
0,12
0,14
0,16
0,18
0,2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Maturity [Years]
C
a
p
l
e
t
V
o
l
a
t
i
l
i
t
y
l
CapLinear
CapCubic Spline
Fig. 18.3. Cap interpolated volatilities using linear and cubic spline approaches
Cap Cubic SplineInterpolation
0,08
0,1
0,12
0,14
0,16
0,18
0,2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Maturity[Years]
C
a
p
l
e
t
V
o
l
a
t
i
l
i
t
y
Cap Cubic Spline Natural
Cap Cubic Spline Constrained
Fig. 18.4. Cap interpolation between natural and constrained cubic splines
The second graph is an analysis of the two different spline methods we
implemented. Remember that we seek the smoothest changes in slope possible in our
cap interpolation, with as little overshooting as possible. This is specifically what is
achieved through the constrained spline method. Although the differences are small, a
more careful examination of the above curves shows that the amplitude of the
oscillations in the natural spline are always greater than those in the constrained
spline.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
291
18.1.4 Piecewise Constant Caplet Interpolation
Caplet Constant Interpolation
0,150000
0,160000
0,170000
0,180000
0,190000
0,200000
0,210000
0,220000
0,230000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Maturity[years]
C
a
p
le
t
V
o
la
t
i
lit
y
l
Caplet Constant, 1st point free
Caplinear interpolation
Caplet Constant, 1st point fixed
Fig. 18.5. Caplet interpolated volatilities using linear and linear cap approaches
We now revert to our second method: interpolation between caplets. Once again
we decide to compare each model with the linear cap interpolation that is already
implemented within the bank. The piecewise constant interpolation for each set of
caps is clearly not a smooth solution and has been presented mostly for a visual
confirmation of what the theory predicted.
It does help however in understanding the range of caplets we must interpolate
at each time interval. It is clearly visible that we interpolate in groups of two up until
10 years, then in two groups of around 5 caplets each until 15 years, and then in vast
groups of 10 caplets apiece until 30 years.
18.1.5 Piecewise Linear Caplet Interpolation
Caplet Linear Interpolation
0,14
0,15
0,16
0,17
0,18
0,19
0,2
0,21
0,22
0,23
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Maturity[Years]
C
a
p
l
e
t
V
o
l
a
t
i
l
i
t
y
l
Cap linear
Caplet linear
Chapter 18 Result Analysis
292
Fig. 18.6. Caplet interpolated volatilities using linear approaches
The improvement here is clear with respect to the piecewise constant. We still
however attain no improvement with respect to the cap linear interpolation.
18.1.6 Piecewise Quadratic Caplet Interpolation: first guess cubic spline
Caplet Quadratic Interpolation
0,1
0,11
0,12
0,13
0,14
0,15
0,16
0,17
0,18
0,19
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Maturity [Years]
C
a
p
l
e
t
V
o
l
a
t
i
l
i
t
y
l
Cap Cubic Spline
Caplet Quadratic
Fig. 18.7. Caplet interpolated volatilities using cubic spline, and an optimisation
algorithm using quadratic approaches
The optimization algorithm here can result extremely time consuming. The
convergence towards an optimal solution is still extremely similar to the results
obtained through the cap spline interpolation.
We decide therefore to implement the spline interpolator. It is simpler, less time
consuming, and equally as efficient in smoothing out the caplet function.
18.2 SABR Results
Our curve is now smooth along maturities. We return now to the analysis of the
interpolation across different strikes. Recall that we had particular difficulties,
especially at very short or extremely long maturities. Through the SABR interpolation
method, we managed to greatly reduce the fluctuations present within the caplet
Black volatilities.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
293
SABR
0,1700
0,1800
0,1900
0,2000
0,2100
0,2200
0,2300
0,2400
1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5 5,5 6,5 7,5 8,5
Strike K[%]
B
l
a
c
k
V
o
l
l
Market caplets
SABR
Fig. 18.8.  SABR shot maturity caplet smile
Above, we have taken a set of different strikes for a six month caplet whose
exercise date was fairly recent, starting in five years time. We see that without the
SABR, the spline interpolated data not too badly, but still has a few irregularities. The
SABR proves to be a lot smoother, and the adjustment is relatively close
SABR
0,1
0,11
0,12
0,13
0,14
0,15
0,16
0,17
0,18
1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5 5,5 6,5 7,5 8,5
Strike K[%]
B
l
a
c
k
V
o
l
l
Market Caplets
SABR
Fig. 18.9.  SABR long maturity caplet smile
Chapter 18 Result Analysis
294
Here with long maturities (28years) for a six month caplet, we see that the
extrapolated data is extremely irregular. This is mainly because the data available
from the market is for caps that have 25 year or 30 year maturities. Interpolation of
caplets with six month intervals can degenerate rapidly in five year intervals. The
SABR proves to be an extremely good approximation.
SABR Smile
0.0000
0.0500
0.1000
0.1500
0.2000
0.2500
0.3000
0.3500
1.50 2.50 3.50 4.50 5.50 6.50 7.50 8.50
Strikes
B
l
a
c
k
V
o
l
Linear Interpolated Caps
SABR Interpolation
Fig. 18.10.  SABR very short 6 month maturity  sharp smile
For very low maturities the smile can be quite sharp. SABR tends to widen it
slightly, and smoothen the curvature on the slopes. Notice that there is a displacement
between ‘at the money’ levels. We shall discuss this characteristic later.
SABR Smile
0.1400
0.1500
0.1600
0.1700
0.1800
0.1900
0.2000
0.2100
0.2200
0.2300
1.50 2.50 3.50 4.50 5.50 6.50 7.50 8.50 9.50
Strike [%]
B
l
a
c
k
V
o
l
Linear Cap Interpolation
SABR Interpolation
Fig. 18.11. SABR short maturity caplet smile inexact correction: very irregular smile
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
295
SABR also prevents overshoots (we typically see these occurring at low strikes),
maintaining the same global volatility level and capturing the general smile convexity.
The SABR that we have implemented has a particular characteristic. This is, it has
the flexibility to perform an independent smile evaluation, and then a global volatility
level evaluation:
We usually have a set of data variables that reproduce the general form of the
smile. However, it is common also to have an independent market quoted value for
the ‘at the money’ volatility. The two are not necessarily obtained from the same set of
data, meaning that they may sometimes not be coherent. See below how the data
points are inconsistent we obtain a general smile that does not pass through the ‘at
the money’ point.
Smile Fitting
0
0.08
0.16
0.24
1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5
Strike [%]
B
l
a
c
k
V
o
l
'at the money'
general smile
'at the money'
Fig. 18.12. Difference in general smile and ‘at the money’ level
For this reason, we use one set of data (without the ‘at the money’) to generate the
smile, and we then displace the curve vertically, thus forcing it to pass through the
desired ‘at the money’ value.
Chapter 18 Result Analysis
296
Smile Fitting
0
0.08
0.16
0.24
1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5
Strike [%]
B
l
a
c
k
V
o
l
'at the money'
general smile
Corrected
'at the money'
Fig. 18.13. Smile correction towards ‘at the money level’
18.3 3D Analysis
If we were to analyse the form of the entire caplet volatility surface, we would see
in a summarized way, the improvements achieved at each phase of the interpolation
process.
18.3.1 Interpolation in Maturities
0
.
0
8
1
.
5
0
3
.
5
0
5
.
5
0
7
.
5
0
9
.
5
0
1
1
.
5
0
1
3
.
5
0
1
5
.
5
0
1
7
.
5
0
1
9
.
5
0
2
1
.
5
0
2
3
.
5
0
2
5
.
5
0
2
7
.
5
0
2
9
.
5
0
0.015
0.065
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
B
l
a
c
k
V
o
l
l
Maturity [Years]
Strike
Caplet Volatility Surface  Linear Cap Interpolation
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
297
Fig. 18.14. Initial linear interpolated caplet volatility surface
0
.
2
5
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
1
6
1
8
2
0
2
2
2
4
2
6
2
8
3
0
1.5
7
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
B
l
a
c
k
V
o
l
l
Maturity [Years]
Strike
Caplet Volatility Surface  Cubic Smile Interpolation
Fig. 18.15. Cubic Spline caplet volatility surface
0
.
2
5
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
1
6
1
8
2
0
2
2
2
4
2
6
2
8
3
0 1
.
5
2
.
2
5
3
.
5
0
6
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
0.00000
0.05000
0.10000
0.15000
0.20000
0.25000
0.30000
0.35000
B
l
a
c
k
V
o
l
Maturity [Years]
Strike
Caplet Volatility Surface SABR
Fig. 18.16. SABR smooth interpolated smile surface with cubic spline
We see from a comparison of the above three caplet volatility surfaces that the
cubic spline successfully smoothens the surface along the maturity axis. Notice how
the surface is particularly irregular with linear interpolation. Notice also that the
SABR may have slightly different (and may we say better) values along the maturity
Chapter 18 Result Analysis
298
axis, despite having used the same cubic spline algorithm as Fig. 18.11 because an
SABR fitting has been performed afterwards.
18.3.2 Smile Analysis
0.25
7.5
15
22.5
30
1
.
5 2
2
.
5
3
.
5 5 7
1
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
B
l
a
c
k
V
o
l
Maturity [Years]
Strike
Linear or Cubic Smile Interpolation
0.25
8
16
24
1
.
5 2
2
.
5
3
.
5 5 7
1
0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
B
l
a
c
k
V
o
l
Maturity [Years]
Strike
SABR Smile
Fig. 18.17. Irregular Smile for both linear interpolation and cubic spline, whereas
SABR presents a much smoother outline
We clearly see form the above two graphs that we have successfully achieved the
interpolation in smile that we set out for. The visual comparison is self explanatory.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
299
18.3.3 Detailed Analysis
While working with our HJM model, we came across a necessity of particular
interest. The caplet volatility surface that the bank was generating presented a
particularly annoying bump ‘at the money’. This was giving way to immense
difficulties in the product calibration process. The anomaly tended to occur especially
amongst smiles with low maturities often between one and two years. We discovered
that it occurred at a strike around 4,5 years, which coincided exactly with a column of
strikes that was being artificially created through linear interpolation. Avoiding this
linear interpolation between strikes was already capable of eliminating a great portion
of the bump.
The implementation of a constrained cubic spline cap interpolation yielded the
below pink graph. As can be seen, the cubic spline improves the smile tremendously.
However, it does not really solve the problem, for it seems to simply displace the
bump further towards lower strikes.
Current 'Bump'
0,07
0,12
0,17
0,22
0,27
1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5 5,5 6,5 7,5 8,5 9,5
Strike [%]
B
l
a
c
k
v
o
l
l
Linear cap interpolation
constrained cubic interpolation
Fig. 18.18. Smile bump ‘at the money level’ in linear cap interpolation; maturity of 1,5
years
That the anomaly should be located beyond 2,5% is extremely suitable for our
purposes. It means that for strikes larger than this, the entire curve appears to be very
smooth and thus valid. Furthermore, discussions with traders have provided the
necessary insight so as to confirm that strikes lower than 2,5% are not liquid enough,
Chapter 18 Result Analysis
300
and so are not even traded: This implies that traders already tend to reject the
problematic region below 2,5%, meaning that our anomaly would not come into play.
A last factor to support the fact that the strange ‘elbow’ below K = 2,25% is not of
great importance is that these values are no longer going to be quoted by REUTERS
(from which we currently obtain our data), meaning that the entire problem would
disappear.
A further discussion on the above subject could extend into analysing what the
SABR smoothing produces in the above situation, and what the ‘conversion from 3
months to six months’ algorithm yields. Recall what was discussed in section 16.16
where the 3 month quotes were converted to artificial 6 month quotes. Remember also
how this only affected the data between the 1 year and 2 year timeperiods. All other
dates coincided exactly with the cubic spline general method.
The main difference we observe among the below graphs is that the 3 month
version also smoothens out the bump problem, but does so at a higher volatility level,
i.e., it provides a smooth smile tangent almost to the top of the bump. Notice that its
‘elbow’ is also displaced.
Smile Comparison
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5 5,5 6,5 7,5 8,5 9,5
Strike [%]
B
l
a
c
k
V
o
l
l
linear cap interpolation
constrained cubic spline
3Mto 6M cubic spline
Fig. 18.19. Caplet 3M to 6M smile for a maturity of 1,5 years
From a quant’s perspective, we cannot really choose which of the spline curves is
more correct visually. It is necessary for the curves to be implemented and used in
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
301
calibrations in order to see whether the prices they yield for certain products coincide
with the market prices.
We present below the variations amongst the three curves for the 1,5 and 2 year
maturities. Beyond this, cubic and ‘3M to 6M’ are identical. Notice that in these cases
the 3 month correction lies below the other two. Thus, the correction seems to present
greater fluctuations in volatility level than the other two curves.
Maturity1Y
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5 5,5 6,5 7,5 8,5 9,5
Strike[%]
B
la
c
k
v
o
l l
Linear capinterpolation
constrainedcubicinterpolation
3Mto6M
Maturity2Y
0,09
0,14
0,19
0,24
0,29
1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5 5,5 6,5 7,5 8,5 9,5
Strike[%]
B
la
c
k
v
o
l l
Linear capinterpolation
constrainedcubicinterpolation
3Mto6M
Fig. 18.20. Comparisons in cubic and 3M to 6M adjustments
18.3.4 The SABR Strike Adjustment
A detailed analysis of the SABR curve’s dynamics proved that the adjustment
was not perfect. There are several important features to notice when applying an
SABR. Recall that we had implemented an algorithm that fitted the SABR curve to a
specific volatility level. This level must be taken at a point of interest and relevance.
Below, we present a case in which it was taken for a strike of 3,08%. It is clear that
the adjustment of the SABR to the cubic spline curve is exact at the corresponding
volatility level of 0,158. However, the adjustment in other areas of the graph –
especially around the ‘at the money’ region and beyond is a lot worse.
Chapter 18 Result Analysis
302
SABR adjusted at K = 3,08
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5 5,5 6,5 7,5 8,5 9,5
Strike [%]
B
l
a
c
k
V
o
l
a
t
i
l
i
t
y
linear cap interpolatin
Cubic spline
SABRadjusted at K=3,08
Fig. 18.21. SABR strike adjustment
SABR adjusted at K=4,5
0,04
0,09
0,14
0,19
0,24
0,29
1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5 5,5 6,5 7,5 8,5 9,5
Strike [%]
B
l
a
c
k
V
o
l
a
t
i
l
i
t
y
l
Linear cap interpolation
Cubic spline
SABRadjusted at the money
Fig. 18.22. SABR at the money strike adjustment, β = 1
Above in Fig. 18.22, for a strike at the money, the general level is much better
achieved. However we notice a possible problematic ‘undershoot’ in the ‘at the
money’ region.
It would be necessary, as we said previously, to analyse through calibrations
whether the above is in fact a correct, viable option, or whether the SABR is producing
a form that is too pronounced.
Aiming to analyse now the flexibility of the SABR model, we proceeded to vary
some of its parameters so as to see if it is possible to modify at our own will the form
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
303
of the curve. Our initial intention is to avoid the undershoot and to resemble as best
as possible the cubic spline interpolation curve, avoiding however its peculiar elbow
for low strikes.
Before proceeding any further, it is necessary to state clearly that the SABR is not
an exact method, whereas the cubic spline is. Thus, the SABR does not satisfy the
condition that
caplets Forward cap =
∑
but instead, constructs its caplets on a best fit minimisation procedure that gives
more importance to the fitting of a smooth curve.
18.3.5 The Beta Parameter
A first idea was to refer back to the SABR model and to realise that the β
parameter which we initially thought of as playing a minor role, could have a much
greater impact in our graphs than what we initially expected. Recall that the SABR
model was:
1
2
ˆ ˆ ˆ
(0)
(0)
dF F dW F f
d dW
β
α
α να α α
= =
= =
(18.1)
This means that a β = 1 yields a flat lognormal model, whereas β=0 yields a
normal skew model.
Notice how in Fig. 18.22, we use a flat lognormal model. This means the SABR
can only adapt to the caplet points with a very pronounced curvature that
undershoots. A more skewed model is capable of solving the problematic. See below
with β =0 how the problem is already greatly reduced.
Chapter 18 Result Analysis
304
SABR, B=0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5 5,5 6,5 7,5 8,5 9,5
Strike [%]
B
l
a
c
k
V
o
l
l
linear cap interpolation
constrained cubic spline
3Mto 6Mcubic spline
Fig. 18.23. SABR β = 0, normal skew; maturity 1 year
However, for long maturities that present a very flat smile, the lognormal model
turns out to be much more adequate than the skew. See below for a detailed analysis.
18.3.6 SABR Weights
Recall that we had initially implemented the weights as
( )
2
1
1
i
i
w
K F
=
+ −
(18.2)
This implies that we give greater weights to the values that are closest to the ‘at
the money’ strike, whereas more distant values do not have such a great impact in
determining the form of the SABR. We will see now that maintaining the β parameter
and simply modifying the weights enables us to decide in which area we want to
stress our SABR. We can also choose to consider all areas as being equally important.
We shall compare the above weighting scheme therefore with a wi = 1 homogeneous
form
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
305
18.3.7 Global Analysis
We present below the cases that we believe, best summarize the range of tests
performed. They analyse the adequacy of the different parameters within the SABR
model to the fitting of the caplet volatility smile.
SABRβ=1, 1,5Y, w=1
0,07
0,12
0,17
0,22
0,27
1,5 3,5 5,5 7,5 9,5
Strike [%]
B
l
a
c
k
V
o
l
l
SABR β=1, 1,5Y, weighted
0,07
0,12
0,17
0,22
0,27
1,5 3,5 5,5 7,5 9,5
Strike [%]
B
l
a
c
k
V
o
l
l
SABRβ=0,5 1,5Yw=1
0,07
0,12
0,17
0,22
0,27
1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5 5,5 6,5 7,5 8,5 9,5
Strike [%]
B
l
a
c
k
V
o
l
SABRβ=0, 1,5Yweighted,
0,07
0,12
0,17
0,22
0,27
1,5 3,5 5,5 7,5 9,5
Strike [%]
B
l
a
c
k
V
o
l
Fig. 18.24. SABR comparisons between long and short maturities, varying the β and
the weights
We see clearly that for flat short maturities, the caplet curve has a pronounced
skew, meaning that the normal skew model β = 0 adapts better with less undershoot.
As for the weighting, it seems as if the weighted parameters act better for short
maturities.
Chapter 18 Result Analysis
306
For flat long maturities, both the β curves are capable of adapting relatively well,
although the β=1 flat lognormal tends to be slightly better. The greatest impact is
achieved through the variation of the weights attributed to each region. Below, we see
that uniform curves encompass the curve from below.
SABR β=1, 8Y, w=1
0,11
0,12
0,13
0,14
0,15
0,16
0,17
0,18
0,19
1,5 3,5 5,5 7,5 9,5
Strike [%]
B
l
a
c
k
V
o
l
l
Series1
Series2
Series3
linear cap
interpolation
constrained cubic
SABR β=1, 8Y, weighted
0,11
0,12
0,13
0,14
0,15
0,16
0,17
0,18
0,19
0,2
1,5 3,5 5,5 7,5 9,5
Strike [%]
Fig. 18.25. Weighted SABR, β = 1, Maturity 8Y
We conclude from the above study that it seems that an even weighting of wi = 1
is more adequate for our caplet volatility surface . Furthermore, it seems that the ideal
adjustment does not consist in a unique β parameter. Instead, we see how skewed
models with β = 0 are more adequate for short maturities, whereas flat lognormal
models tend to be better for long maturities.
We could consider implementing this variation of β in our final model, or
perhaps even attempt to calibrate our model for the best possible β.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
307
18.4 Algorithm
We proceed now to outline the algorithm that was finally implemented. From all
the above alternatives, we finally decided to perform a cubic spline cap interpolation
on the initial cap data along the maturity direction other interpolation methods or
even the optimisation algorithms can alternatively be selected for use at this stage.
From these interpolated exact caps we easily construct the interpolated
capforwards, and from these extract the corresponding (and therefore also exact)
caplets. This can be done with or without a 3 month to 6 month adjustment.
If the user wants to further smoothen the curve, he has the opportunity of
selecting an SABR fit, where he also has the freedom to choose the beta factor and
weights that he prefers. From this, the final caplet matrix is recalculated.
Chapter 18 Result Analysis
308
Maturity Interpolation
Strikes K
M
a
t
u
r
i
t
i
e
s
T
Market Flat
σCaps
0,5 to 2Y
3M= 6M caplets
SABR fit for each
maturity
(caplet matrix row)
SABR?
yes
no
TYPEI: cubic spline
Quadratic
Linear
TYPEII quadratic optimisation
Linear optimisation
Piecewise constant
0,5 to 2Y
3Mto 6M caplets
adjusted
Capforward creation
Caplets extracted
Strikes K
M
a
t
u
r
i
t
i
e
s
T
Final SABR
σCaplets
Strikes K
M
a
t
u
r
i
t
i
e
s
T
Final cubic
spline
σCaplets
Adjustment
Option?
Fig. 18.26. Caplet volatility surface construction algorithm
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
309
18.5 Future Developments
Along this line, we have still not closed any of the alternatives, but left all the
SABR parameters and interpolation or optimisation algorithms available for the end
trader. Depending on his calibrations and results, an optimum set of parameters could
be selected to finally implement. From our initial tests however, it seems that the best
combinations always include cubic splines. These could be sufficient on their own if
an exact calculation is desired. For further smoothness, we have found an SABR to be
necessary, ideally with constant weights, w=1, and with a variation in the beta
parameter from β=0 for low maturities and β=1 for high maturities.
There is a further possibility to include extra data in the caplet volatility matrix.
We did not have time to implement the algorithm, but it is the logical next step if such
information wants to be added to the adjustment.
REUTERS or other market quotes often add an independent column to the cap
matrix that we have used so far, which includes ‘at the money ‘caplet quotes for each
maturity. The difficulty in incorporating them into the already used matrices is the
fact that they do not correspond to a single unique strike but instead, each maturity
has its own strike.
We present here the procedure that we recommend following.
CAPS STRIKES
Fixing End 1,5 2 3 4 5 6
0,5 1 σU=1,K=1.5 σU=1, K=2 σU=1,K=3 σU=1,K=4 σU=1,K=5 σU=1,K=6
0,5 1,5 σU=1.5,K=1.5 σK=1.5, U=2 σK=1.5, U=3 σK=1.5,U=4 σK=1.5,U=5 σK=1.5,U=6
0,5 2 σK=2, U=1.5 σK=2,U=2 σK=2,U=3 σK=2,U=4 σK=2, U=5 σK=2,U=6
0,5 3 σK=3,U=1.5 σK=3,U=2 σK=3, U=3 σK=3,U=4 σK=3,U=5 σK=3,U=6
0,5 4 σK=3, U=1.5 σK=3,U=2 σK=3, U=3 σK=3, U=4 σK=4,U=5 σK=4, U=6
ATM
Vol
σ1ATM K1
σ1,5ATM K1,5
σ2 ATM K2
σ3 ATM K3
σ4 ATM K4
Fig. 18.27. Cap market quotes
1. We are going to perform a step construction. The first idea consists in taking
the first row from the cap market quotes (0,5 to 1Y). We know that for these, we can
either perform a three month to six month adjustment, or directly take them as being
equal to the six month caplets. With our row of caplets, we also have our ATM cap
Chapter 18 Result Analysis
310
volatility with its particular strike. For this first step, we can also consider the ATM
cap as being equal to the caplet volatility.
Caps = Caplets = Capforwards
0,5 1 σU=1,K=1.5 σU=1, K=2 σU=1,K=3 σU=1,K=4 σU=1,K=5 σU=1,K=6
σ1ATM K1
With all this data and constructing the forwards and σATM necessary for the SABR,
we can proceed to create our SABR smile for this first row. (Notice that the σATM for
the cap and the σATM for the caplet are two separate entities. The first is quoted by the
market and is used as an additional point in our curve. The caplet’s ATM is calculated
directly from its corresponding forward, as stated in 17.2.2).
0,10
0,11
0,12
0,13
0,14
0,15
0,16
0,17
1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5 5,5 6,5 7,5 8,5 9,5
Strike[%]
B
la
c
k
V
o
l l
2. For the second row in the cap matrix, (0,5Y to 1,5Y), we can no longer consider
the caps and caplets as having equal volatilities. Now, using our current row and the
previous cap row we can construct the corresponding cap forward as their difference.
0,5 1,5 0,5 1 to Y to Y
CapForward Cap Cap = −
Cap:
0,5 1 σU=1,K=1.5 σU=1, K=2 σU=1,K=3 σU=1,K=4 σU=1,K=5 σU=1,K=6
0,5 1,5 σU=1.5,K=1.5 σK=1.5, U=2 σK=1.5, U=3 σK=1.5,U=4 σK=1.5,U=5 σK=1.5,U=6
σ1,5ATM K1,5
CapForward=Caplet (from subtracting prices and inverting Black Scholes)
1 1,5 σU=1.5,K=1.5 σK=1.5, U=2 σK=1.5, U=3 σK=1.5,U=4 σK=1.5,U=5 σK=1.5,U=6
This must be directly equal to the corresponding caplets, as the capforward is
constructed over a unique 6 month interval.
We cannot however construct the K1,5 ATM capforward by subtracting the ATM
cap from the previous row’s ATM 1Y cap as they correspond to different strikes (K1
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
311
K1,5 ATM
σ1Y ATM K1,5Y
σ1Y ATM K1,5Y
σ1,5ATM K1,5
and K1,5 respectively). To construct the K1,5 ATM capforward we need to extract the
corresponding previous row’s K1,5Y cap by interpolation. (where we have included
the previous row’s ATM in the data)
Fixing End 1,5 2 3
K1 ATM 4 5 6
0,5 1 σU=1,K=1.5 σU =1, K=2 σU=1,K=3 σ1 ATM K1 σU=1,K=4 σU=1,K=5 σU=1,K=6
Now with this interpolated (red arrow) σU=1 K(K1,5Y), the capforward ATM is
constructed by subtraction of the two caps with equal K1,5ATM strike.
σ1,5ATM K1,5
The caplets are followingly created, and then exported to be smoothened through
the SABR fit.
0,10
0,11
0,12
0,13
0,14
0,15
0,16
0,17
1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5 5,5 6,5 7,5 8,5 9,5
Strike[%]
B
la
c
k
V
o
l l
3. The 0,5Y to 2Y cap row is analogous to the former.
4. The following row proves to be different. The 0,5Y to 3Y cap row would
produce capforwards composed by two 6 month caplets. Instead, we must take all the
previous cap rows and use a cubic spline interpolator to generate an intermediate
fictitious 2,5Y cap row.
Caps
0,5 2 σK=2, U=1.5 σK=2,U=2 σK=2,U=3 σK=2,U=4 σK=2, U=5 σK=2,U=6
0,5 3 σK=3,U=1.5 σK=3,U=2 σK=3, U=3 σK=3,U=4 σK=3,U=5 σK=3,U=6
σ2 ATM K2
σ3 ATM K3
Cubic spline cap interpolation
Chapter 18 Result Analysis
312
K2,5 ATM
K2,5 ATM
0,5 2 σK=2, U=1.5 σK=2,U=2 σK=2,U=3 σK=2,U=4 σK=2, U=5 σK=2,U=6
0,5 2,5 σU=2.5,K=1,5 σK=2.5, U=2 σK=2.5, U=3 σK=2.5,U=4 σK=2.5,U=5 σK=2.5,U=6
0,5 3 σK=3,U=1.5 σK=3,U=2 σK=3, U=3 σK=3,U=4 σK=3,U=5 σK=3,U=6
With it we can extract a first intermediate forward cap volatility (2 to 2,5Y), form
which the 2,5Y maturity caplets can easily be extracted. The 3Y maturity caplets are
now constructed as
2 3 2 2,5 2,5 3 to Y to Y to Y
CapForward Caplet Caplet = +
We obtain the Caplets
2 2,5 σU=1.5,K=2,5 σK=2.5, U=2 σK=2.5, U=3 σK=2.5,U=4 σK=2.5,U=5 σK=2.5,U=6
2 3 σK=3,U=1.5 σK=3,U=2 σK=3, U=3 σK=3,U=4 σK=3,U=5 σK=3,U=6
The difficulty arises now with the extra ATM cap volatility to be included. Notice
that it has a different strike K3Yto the previous row’s K2Y ATM. We interpolate an
intermediate strike for the artificially created 2,5Y caps.
3 2
2,5
2
Y ATM Y ATM
Y ATM
K K
K
+
=
The corresponding σU=2,5 K2,5Y is obtained by interpolating in the new cap row:
0,5 2,5 σU=2.5,K=1,5 σK=2.5, U=2 σK=2.5, U=3 σK=2.5,U=4 σK=2.5,U=5 σK=2.5,U=6
With this artificial strike, we must also now interpolate in the 0,5 to 2Y cap row to
extract the corresponding cap quote.
Fixing End 1,5 2 3
K2 ATM 4 5 6
0,5 2 σK=2, U=1.5 σK=2,U=2 σK=2,U=3 σ2 ATM K2 σK=2,U=4 σK=2, U=5 σK=2,U=6
With the newly obtained σU=2 K(K2,5Y), and the previous σU=2,5 K2,5Y, the capforward
for the 2,5Y strike can be created, and from their subtracted prices, the caplet can be
constructed.
σ2,5ATM K2,5Y
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
313
K3 ATM
σ2,5ATM K3Y
σ2,5ATM K3Y
σ2,5ATM K3Y
Analogously, the 3Y maturity ATM cap requires that we interpolate in the 2,5Y
cap row the corresponding cap for the 3Y ATM strike.
0,5 2,5 σU=2.5,K=1,5 σK=2.5, U=2 σK=2.5, U=3 σK=2.5,U=4 σK=2.5,U=5 σK=2.5,U=6
With it, we can then construct the capforward at this 3Y ATM strike and from it,
extract the caplets.
σ3 ATM K3
The two rows of caplets can now be sent to the SABR algorithm to construct their
smoothened smiles.
2 2,5 σU=1,5,K=2,5 σK=2.5, U=2 σK=2.5, U=3 σK=2.5,U=4 σK=2.5,U=5 σK=2.5,U=6 σ2,5ATM K2,5Y
2 3 σK=3,U=1.5 σK=3,U=2 σK=3, U=3 σK=3,U=4 σK=3,U=5 σK=3,U=6 σ3 ATM K3Y
0,04
0,06
0,08
0,10
0,12
0,14
0,16
1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5 5,5 6,5 7,5 8,5 9,5
Strike[%]
B
la
c
k
V
o
l l
Really, the above could have been performed without a stepwise process, but
with a bulk treatment. Notice that the SABR creation is independent of the rest of the
process, as we never use the data which it provides. Therefore, we could have simply
constructed all the caplet cubic spline matrix incorporating a new end row with an
ATM variable strike. This would be an exact matrix on which a further SABR could be
constructed if necessary.
CAPLETS STRIKES ATM
Fixing End 1,5 2 3 4 5 6 K Vol
0,5 1 σU=1,K=1.5 σU=1, K=2 σU=1,K=3 σU=1,K=4 σU=1,K=5 σU=1,K=6 K1ATM σ1ATM K1
1 1,5 σU=1.5,K=1.5 σK=1.5, U=2 σK=1.5, U=3 σK=1.5,U=4 σK=1.5,U=5 σK=1.5,U=6 K1,5ATM σ1,5ATM K1,5
1,5 2 σK=1, U=1.5 σK=2,U=2 σK=2,U=3 σK=2,U=4 σK=2, U=5 σK=2,U=6 K2 ATM σ2 ATM K2
2 2,5 σU=1,5,K=2,5 σK=2.5, U=2 σK=2.5, U=3 σK=2.5,U=4 σK=2.5,U=5 σK=2.5,U=6 K2,5ATM σ2,5ATM K2,5Y
2 3 σK=3,U=1.5 σK=3,U=2 σK=3, U=3 σK=3,U=4 σK=3,U=5 σK=3,U=6 K3 ATM σ3 ATM K3Y
3 4
σK=3, U=1.5 σK=3,U=2 σK=3, U=3 σK=3, U=4 σK=4,U=5 σK=4, U=6 K4 ATM σ4 ATM K4
Chapter 19 Summary and Conclusions
314
19. Summary and Conclusions
In this project, we sought to approach the study of the HeathJarrowMorton
framework, seeking to optimize its speed of calibration and robustness through the
use of approximate formulas and other possible alternative methods. We set out to
also examine the degree of control that the Banco Santander’s implemented model
had over its solutions, and whether or not they were unique.
The first main problem encountered was the framework’s failure to calibrate
when attempting to model rates whose time to maturity exceeded five years. A crucial
objective was to identify and solve the cause of these errors.
There also appeared to be specific cases in which the HJM program ceased to
calibrate. These cases were isolated so as to examine whether the problem was due to
an anomaly in the market data, or whether it was due to an internal error of the
program.
Lastly, the dependence between the price and our model’s sigma parameter
proved to be the cause of a limiting value in the implied model’s volatility surface.
Whenever the true market quoted prices lay below this boundary, we found it
impossible for our model to replicate the market prices. The two initial suggested
solutions were:
· a modification of the volatility term of the Γ diffusion function for each bond
price and more specifically, variation of its relationship with respect to the α
parameter controlling the lognormality of the distributions.
· A new election of the underlying statistical distribution to use for the
volatility of volatilities λ parameter, with respect to the currently used
lognormal distribution.
It was the second alternative that was finally selected. After several sets of
analysis, we found that there seemed to be nothing drastically wrong with the
theoretical approach followed in the implementation of the HJM framework. As a
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
315
result of this, we concluded that the problems that were being brought up were
simply the result of an incomplete model. Evidently, a two parameter framework as
the one proposed could never capture a volatility smile by taking only two strike
positions. This proved only sufficient for the creation of skew characteristics. As a
result, we set out immediately in the construction of a three strike model.
The three strikes enhanced framework is entirely analogous to the former, but it
incorporates a stochastic volatility parameter that introduces a new source of
randomness in the former dynamics. Indeed, the modification allows us to capture the
implied smile, but at a price. Calibrations become ever more tedious, and fail to
succeed in pricing exotic products whose maturities extend beyond 16 years. Hence it
turned out that the two factor model was not itself incomplete, but was simply
forecasting the same problems that would later be encountered in the three strikes
model.
At this point, the entire model and calibration procedure was subjected to
questioning in order to try to isolate the particular flaw which the process was
suffering from. A first attempt was to modify the plain vanilla extrapolation
techniques. The chapter that deals with this aspect proves extremely interesting from
an optimisation algorithm’s point of view. It shows a complete deformation in the
model volatility surface. That a simple extrapolation technique should prove to be so
different depending solely on the derivative products taken as inputs aroused the
hypothesis that perhaps the caplet and swaption input data we inherently inconsistent
by construction.
Before deciding as a possible final measure to forbid their joint calibration, a
careful analysis proved that even the calibrations composed uniquely by caplets were
having difficulties during calibration. The problem was successfully resolved through
the selection of an adequate interpolation and extrapolation technique as mentioned
earlier. However the combined calibration with swaptions still proved unsuccessful.
We decided to tackle the problem from its core foundations. This is, to examine in
depth the entire caplet process, from the very input of the data into our model,
straight through to the final results. We found that a possible cause for the problem
could be located at the very beginning of the entire process.
Chapter 19 Summary and Conclusions
316
Caplet stripping procedures from their corresponding cap quotes are all but
trivial. A very simplistic linear interpolation approach was being used in the Banco
Santander. However, this was proving largely insufficient for the subsequent
calibration procedures. Indeed, it was introducing immense noise at all points in
which data was being interpolated, both in the maturity term structure as in the strike
implied volatility smiles.
We analysed two principal techniques in the extraction of caplet quotes. The first
approach is based on the direct interpolation of cap quotes, thus constructing
capforwards whose duration is exactly the desired 6 or 3 month caplets which we
want to construct. Hence, the caplets are exactly equivalent to the capforward itself,
and so can be obtained directly. This first approach is exact and depends solely on the
interpolation technique implemented. We found that among these, the most
successful was a constrained cubic spline which was capable of producing term
structures that were just as smooth as quadratic optimisation algorithms.
Our second alternative was to obtain the individual caplets by creating a smooth
evolution of caplet values with which to construct the corresponding capforwards.
These capforwards were no longer constructed with 3 or 6 month durations, but were
directly derived from the existent market cap quotes. Thus, the interpolation
algorithm was no longer being performed amongst caps but now within the caplets
themselves that constructed each capforward.
This text presents a wide range of optimisation algorithms to tackle the caplet
fitting to their corresponding capforward. We provide both exact fit analyses, as well
as best fit minimisation approaches. Notably, quadratic optimisation techniques
proved just as efficient as cubic spline methods, yielding almost identical results. We
state here once again, linking with a notable discussion of ‘best fit versus exact fit’
presented in the text, that we have always tended to follow the exact fit procedures.
The final cubic spline that was implemented did away with the sharp features
within the term structure dynamics. Further, it eliminated a particular ‘bump’
anomaly that was present in the short maturity volatility smiles. However, a deeper
analysis of these proved that the smile generated was not as smooth as could be
desired for a successful exotic calibration procedure. As a result, the SABR was
implemented.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
317
In this project we have exhaustively analysed the alternatives that the SABR
stochastic interpolator provides. Despite the fact that it is an inexact minimum square
approach, the variations that it provides for any particular caplet market quote are
minimal. In the current project we examined the effects of varying any one of the
parameters within the model, finally arriving at an optimal combination for our caplet
volatility surface. This involved a dynamic beta parameter that shifted from a skewed
normal model in short maturities to a lognormal flat model for longer maturities. We
also examined the effect of playing with the weighting scheme attributed to the
different regions within the volatility smile. Traditional approaches had commonly
used a stronger weighting for the central ‘at the money’ values. We found however
that this was not necessarily the optimal strategy, and that to capture the pronounced
curvature present in short maturity smiles, it was often necessary to attribute an
equally strong weighting to the most extreme strike values. Without this modification,
the smile was often incapable of curving up sufficiently at its end points.
During the development of the project, this precise calculation became critical for
the bank’s interest rate analysts. The problem of a ‘bump’ in the most relevant region
of the smile was a problem that required an immediate solution. The program
developed in this project successfully dealt with this problem, and has been passed on
directly to traders as a direct solution. It will be immediately coded form its Visual
Basic environment to C++ so as to implement it in the Banco Santander Madrid, as
well as in its headquarters in New York and Latin America.
Another major objective of this project was to be able to arrive at an analytical,
approximate formula that would make use and correctly forecast the three volatility
parameters within the global volatility expression Γ: α , σ , λ . The task was entirely
experimental and mathematical, and encompassed a great part of our work. An initial
proposition was encountered under the assumption that the dynamics of the forward
swap rate followed
[ ]
P
t
dW S t t S t t t dS ) 0 ( )) ( 1 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( α α σ − + = (19.1)
However, the above was not in the least sufficient to create a consistent
approximation. Moreover, specific analytic expressions had to be encountered and
created for the two principal volatility parameters alpha and sigma. As is clear from
Chapter 19 Summary and Conclusions
318
the above formulation, our initial approach only attempted to reproduce the two
strike, skewed HJM dynamics, leaving the development of a three strike model for a
later stage.
As is demonstrated in the text, we were faced with a very wide range of
alternatives for the parameters to select. In general, all formulations converged to a
unique expression for sigma. However, we were not as fortunate with the alpha
parameter. For this, we ended selecting a weighted version which not only proved to
be the simplest alternative mathematically, but also turned out to be the most effective
in successfully performing calibrations.
The next development consisted in extending the analytic approximation’s
formulation to a two factor scenario. This is, we incorporated a multifactor approach
into the previous model through the use of two Brownian variables that were
correlated in terms of a common theta parameter through sines and cosines. This
extension appeared relatively simple at first, but the introduction of the new variables
gave rise to a set of equations that was overdetermined. Strangely, we once again had
a common sigma parameter that was attained through basically any procedure we
decided to undertake. Its implementation in the one strike two factor models proved
to be extremely potent and accurate. The alpha on the other hand was an entirely
different matter. Every possible approach to the extraction of an analytic formula for
the alpha from the original equations yielded an entirely different expression.
Moreover, most of these either left out the vast majority of the equations, and so were
only consistent with one or two of them, or else, were directly incapable of producing
adequate calibration results.
We finally narrowed down our analysis to two main expressions, one of which
was consistent with all the analytic expressions, and the other simply being a mean
weighting of the various alpha expressions, consequence of an intuitive insight and
with no mathematical background. Further, we had the lingering alternative of simply
using the 1 factor expression for alpha, inputting it directly into the two factor model
as if it were completely independent of the two different Brownian terms.
Of course, it was the mathematically consistent formulation which finally yielded
the best results, and that proved capable of solving the longest and most troublesome
two factor calibrations.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
319
The discovery of such an analytic approximation formula was immediately
implemented in the trader systems. It enabled these to bypass the time consuming
MonteCarlo or Tree simulations by instead, providing a first guess to the final HJM
solution parameters. This first guess is so close to the final exact solution that the
subsequent MonteCarlo algorithm needs only perform two or three further iterations
before arriving at the final solution. What is more, the analytic approach generates
also an approximate Jacobian expression that we can substitute for the MonteCarlo’s
expression. This proves to be a great advantage in time computation, as the
MonteCarlo Jacobian is calculated through finite difference bumping techniques that
are extremely long and tiresome. With the analytic Jacobian, we need not recompute
these Jacobians, hence directly providing the necessary approximate slopes.
As a result, the implementation of the analytical approximation in the Banco
Santander has successfully reduced by a factor of ten the time that traders need to
spend in each exotic product’s calibration. The optimization or time reduction of the
calculation process results in a much friendlier tool for these traders, who ideally need
immediate predictions of the exotic products they operate with. Thus, reducing the
calibration’s duration permits them to be more efficient, allowing them to analyse
many more exotic products in the same time.
Chapter 20 References
320
20. References
[Björk 2004] Björk, T., “Arbitrage Theory in Continuous Time”, Oxford Finance,
Oxford University Press, 2004.
[Black 1976] Black, F., “The pricing of commodity Contracts”, Jour. Pol. Ec., 1976
[Bachert 2006] Bachert, P., Gatarek, D., Maksymiuk, R., "The Libor Market Model in
Practice", Wiley Finance, London, 2006.
[Brigo 2001] Brigo, D., Mercurio, F. "Interest rate models. Theory and practice.",
Springer Finance, Berlin, 2001.
[Cole 1968] Cole, J. D., "Perturbation Methods in Applied Mathematics", Ginn –
Blaisdell, 1968
[Cole 1985] Cole, J. D., Kevorkian, J., "Perturbation Methods in Applied
Mathematics", Springer  Verlag, 1985
[Chow 1978] Chow, Y. S., Teicher, H. "Probability Theory. Independence,
Interchangeability, Martingales"., SpringerVerlag, New York, 1978.
[Dupire 1994] Dupire, B., "Pricing with a smile", Risk, 1994
[Dupire 1997] Dupire, B., "Pricing and Hedging with smiles in Mathematics of
Derivative Securities", Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1997
[Derman 1994] Derman, E., Kani, I., "Riding on a Smile", Risk, 1994
[Hull 1989] Hull, J. C., "Options, Futures, & Other Derivatives", PrenticeHall
International, New Jersey, 1989.
[Heston 1993] Heston, S. L., "A closedform solution for options with stochastic
volatility with applications to bond and currency options", The
Review of Financial Studies, 1993
[Hull 1987] Hull, J. C., White, A., "The pricing of options on assets with stochastic
volatilities", J. of Finance, 1987.
A Practical Implementation
of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
321
[Ikeda 1981] Ikeda, N., Watanabe, S. "Stochastic differential equations and
diffusion processes", NorthHolland, Amsterdam, 1981.
[Karatzas 1988] Karatzas, I., Shreve, S., "Brownian motion and stochastic calculus",
Graduate Texts in Maths., 113, SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 1988.
[Lewis 2000] Lewis, A., "Option Valuation Under Stochastic Volatility", Financial
Press, 2000
[Musiela 1997] Musiela, M., Rutkowswki, M., "Martingale Methods in Financial
Modelling", Springer, 1997
[Neftci 1996] Neftci, S. N., "Introduction to the Mathematics of Financial
Derivatives", Academic Press, United States of America, 1996.
[Vievergelt
1993]
Vievergelt, Y., "Splines in Single Multivariable Calculus", Lexington,
MA, 1993
[Okdendal
1998]
Okdendal, B., "Stochastic Differential Equations", Springer, 1998
[Wilmott 2000] Wilmott, P., "Paul Wilmott on Quantitative Finance", John Wiley and
Sons, 2000
Papers
[Karoui 2003] Karoui, N. E., "Couverture des risques dans les marches financiers",
Ecole Polytechnique, 2003
[Kruger 2005] Kruger, C. J. C., "Constrained Cubic Spline Interpolation for Chemical
Engineering Applications", 2005
[Hagan 2004] Hagan, P., Konikov, M., "Interest Rate Volatility Cube: Construction
and Use", 2004
[Hagan 2002] Hagan P., Kumar, D., Lesniewski, A., Woodward, D., "Managing Smile
Risk", 2002
[Hagan 1998] Hagan P, Woodward, D,. "Equivalent Black Volatilities", 1998
[Martinez
2005]
Martinez, M. T., "Interest Rate Bible Notes of some discussions with
Monsieur F. Friggit", 2005
[Mamon 2004] Mamon, R. S., "Three Ways to Solve for Bond Prices in the Vasicek
Model", 2004
Chapter 20 References
322
[McKinley
2000]
McKinley, S., Levine, M., "Cubic Spline Interpolation", 2000
[Sen 2001] Sen, S., "Interest Rate Options", 2001
6
A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
A Practical Implementation of the Heath–Jarrow–Morton Framework
1. IntroductionEquation Chapter (Next) Section 1 1.1 Exotic Options 1.2 History 1.3 Models 1.4 HJM 1.5 Document Structure. 1.6 Special Acknowledgements 1.7 Project Aims 2. Stochastic Calculus 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Markov Process 2.3 Martingale 2.4 Brownian Motion 2.5 Stochastic Differential Equation 2.6 Risk Neutral Probability 2.7 Solving Stochastic Differential Equations 2.8 Ito’s Lemma 2.9 Stochastic Integral 2.10 Girsanov’s Theorem 2.11 Martingale Representation Theorem 2.12 Major Stochastic Differential Equations 3. Historical ModelsEquation Chapter (Next) Section 1 3.1 The Black Scholes Model 3.2 Beyond Black
5 6 7 8 9 10 14 14 16 16 17 18 21 22 23 24 24 27 27 30 32 36 36 42
7
3.3 Lognormal Classic Black 3.4 Normal Black 3.5 Black Shifted 3.6 Local Volatility  Dupire’s Model 3.7 Stochastic Volatility 3.8 SABR 4. Interest Rate Models Equation Chapter (Next) Section 1 4.1 Rendleman and Bartter model 4.2 HoLee model 4.3 Black Derman Toy model 4.4 Vasicek Model 4.5 Cox Ingersoll and Ross model 4.6 Black Karasinski model 4.7 Hull White Model 4.8 Conclusions 5. Interest Rate ProductsEquation Chapter (Next) Section 1 5.1 Discount Factors 5.2 Zerocoupon bond 5.3 Interest Rate Compounding 5.4 Present Value PV 5.5 Internal Rate of Return IRR 5.6 Bond Yield (to Maturity) YTM 5.7 Coupon Rate 5.8 Interest Rates 5.9 Forward Rates 5.10 Instantaneous forward rate 6. More Complex Derivative ProductsEquation Chapter (Next) Section 1 6.1 Calls and Puts 6.2 Forward 6.3 Future 6.4 FRA
8
45 46 47 48 59 60 62 63 63 64 64 64 65 65 67 68 68 70 70 71 72 72 73 75 78 79 81 81 86 87 89
5 Iteration Algorithm 11.4 PDE Solvers 10.3 The HJM Development 7.4 The rt in the HJM Approach 8.2 Model Origins 7.8 Swap 6.9 Swaption 7.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 6.4 Newton Raphson 10.1 Dynamics of the curve 90 92 94 97 100 104 104 105 106 109 112 113 114 117 126 128 134 135 136 140 145 149 150 153 157 164 169 170 174 9 .3 Best Fit or not Best Fit? 10.2 Calibration in Detail 10.1 Introduction 7.3 Model Implementation 8.2 One Factor 8.6 Caplet 6.7 Cap 6.5 FRA Forward 6. CalibrationEquation Chapter (Next) Section 1 10.3 Tree Diagrams 9.1 How to choose the γ? 8. Graphical UnderstandingEquation Chapter (Next) Section 1 11. HJMEquation Chapter (Next) Section 1 7. Santander HJMEquation Chapter (Next) Section 1 8.2 MonteCarlo 9.4 Controlled correlation 8. Numerical MethodsEquation Chapter (Next) Section 1 9.1 Discretisation 9.5 Tangible Parameter Explanation 9.1 Algorithm 10.
1 1 Factor Model 14. Calibration Set Interpolation MatrixEquation Chapter (Next) Section 1 15.6 Taylor expansion 12.3 Square Root Volatility 12.7 Alternative point of Calculation 13.5 Conclusions and Further Developments 14.4 Step 2 13.2 Step 1 13.5 Swaption Valuation 13.8 Results 13.9 Use of ‘No Split’ 14.4 3D Surface Algorithm 12. Analytic Approximation ResultsEquation Chapter (Next) Section 1 14.1 Initial Data 10 175 179 181 183 183 185 187 188 189 190 191 191 195 196 198 203 205 206 207 208 209 217 219 219 227 230 232 233 233 240 240 .11.8 Two Factors 13.3 Attempted Solutions 11.1 Exponential 12.5 Logarithmic 12.4 Pilipovic 12.6 Approximation Conclusion 13.2 Analytic Approximation Jacobian 14.3 2 Factor Analytic Approximation 14.6 Analytic approximation Peculiarities 15.2 HJM Problematics 11.1 Formula Development 13. Analytic approximation Equation Chapter (Next) Section 1 13.2 Mean Reversion 12.7 Graphical Note 12. HJM 3 StrikesEquation Chapter (Next) Section 1 12.3 Second Method 13.4 Final Considerations on the Analytic approximation 14.
2 SABR Results 18.10 Constrained Cubic Splines 16.6 Cubic Spline Interpolation 16.3 3D Analysis 18.4 Algorithm 18.4 Linear Cap Interpolation 16.5 Quadratic Cap Interpolation 16.1 Introduction.9 Cubic Run out Spline 16.11 Functional Interpolation 16.2 Former approach analysis 15.2 Dynamics of the SABR: understanding the parameters 18. 16.12 Constant Caplet Volatilities. Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes 16. Equation Chapter (Next) Section 1 16.1 Detailed SABR 17.3 2 Strikes 15. 17.14 Piecewise Quadratic 16.2 Stripping Caplet Volatility Methods 16.8 Parabolic Run out Spline 16.15 The Algorithm 16.16 About the problem of extracting 6M Caplets from Market data.5 Future Developments 19. SABREquation Chapter (Next) Section 1 17. Summary and ConclusionsEquation Chapter (Next) Section 1 240 241 244 249 249 251 252 254 257 257 261 262 263 263 265 266 267 269 271 272 277 279 281 288 292 296 307 309 314 11 .7 Natural splines 16.4 Graphical representation 16.13 Piecewise Linear Caplet Volatility Method 16.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 15. Result AnalysisEquation Chapter (Next) Section 1 18.3 Previous Santander Approach for 6 month caplets 16.
3. 55 Fig. References 320 Figure index Fig. Any intermediate timeperiods are irrelevant Fig.1. 2.1.3. Future volatility scenarios for different strikes of a same underlying asset 56 Fig. 5. 3.2. Alpha skew modelling Fig.4.3. Only the present call value is relevant to compute its future price.f) if forward price decreases from f0 to f (solid line) 46 47 48 53 55 Fig.11.8. Stochastic Volatility Dynamics Fig. 3. 3.5. Bond curve for different maturities Fig.20.10. 3.2.2. Future value of money Fig. Square Root Stochastic Differential Equation dynamics 17 33 33 34 Fig. Discount factor Fig.6. Future asset volatility scenarios for different an asset 56 Fig.9.1.3. Flat lognormal Black Volatilities 42 43 45 Fig. 3. 2.f) if forward price increases from f0 to f (solid line).4. 3. Geometric Stochastic Differential Equation dynamics Fig. 5. 5. 3. 5.7. 3. Relating discount rates 69 69 73 74 76 12 . Implied volatility σB(K. 3. Smiles at different maturities Fig.4. Term Structure of Vanilla Options Fig. 5. 2.5. 3. Normal and lognormal Black Scholes model comparison a) price vs strike b) black volatility vs strike Fig. Implied volatility σB(K. 2. Linear Stochastic Differential Equation dynamics Fig. Bond curve dynamics Fig. Market data smile Fig.
Cap payoffs Fig. 8.7. FRA future’s payoffs Fig. 6.1. Example of lack of correlation between variables belonging to a unique Brownian motion Fig. Strike K= 60$ 82 Fig. 8. 6. Allowing for decorrelation among different interest rates Fig. HJM dynamics for alpha parameters greater than 1 Fig. 6. 8.5.10. Smile to skew deformation with maturity Fig. 6. Forward contract: future expected value versus real future value Fig.11.9.2. 6. 6.10. Strike = 90$ Fig. FRA payoffs Fig. 6. 8. 8.8.5. Strike = 60$ 83 Fig. 6. Profit from writing a European put option: Option price= 7$.2. Investor’s profit from buying a European call option: Option price= 5$. Strike = 90$ Fig. 8. Fig. 8. Investor’s profit from buying a European put option: Option price= 7$. Caplet payoffs Fig. Typical vanilla dynamics for different maturities Fig. Alpha parameter skew 120 122 122 124 127 127 129 130 131 132 13 .4.7. Swap payoffs 84 85 86 88 90 90 93 95 98 Fig.3.9.Vendor’s profit from selling a European call option: Option price= 5$. 8.6.8.1. 6. 8. HJM dynamics for a normal model: skew Fig.6.3. 6.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Fig. Future contract: future expected value versus real future value Fig.4. Sigma parameter global volatility level Fig. for a correlation=1 amongst interest rates. HJM dynamics for a lognormal model: flat Fig. 6. 8.
6.7. 10.5. Non recombining binomial tree Fig. 9. Analogy cancellable swap and inverse swap Fig. Decomposition of an exotic into time periods 137 141 141 142 143 144 144 147 148 150 152 152 154 Fig. 9. Recombining binomial tree Fig. 9. 8. 10.Fig.10. 10. Anomaly in exact fit Fig. 10. 9.10. 10. Recombining trinomial tree Fig.11.8. 9.12.9.5. Normally distributed variable generation from random numbers in the (0. Calibration Process: Vanilla Products Fig. Inexact fit: minimum square method Fig.11.1. 9. Call future scenarios generation 133 136 Fig. Calibration Process: Exotic Pricing Fig.1) interval Fig.3. 10.4.7. 10. 10.2. 9.4. 9. 10. Stochastic Volatility: smile creation Fig. Binomial tree probabilities Fig.1. Schematic calibration matrix representation Fig. PDE mesh and boundary conditions Fig. 9. First PDE algorithm steps Fig. Trinomial tree Fig.8. 10. Anomaly in minimum square method 155 156 156 157 158 162 163 163 14 . Binomial tree Fig.6. 9. Initial Variation before first Fixing Fig. 10. Exact fit Fig.3. First Row Interpolated Data Fig.2.9. Decomposition of an exotic into vanillas fixing at T and with different maturities Fig. 10.
10. HJM model: alpha vs price dynamics with different sigma parameters Fig.13. Newton Raphson Iterations with a constant Jacobian Fig.10. 14. Analytic approximation at high strikes Fig. 11.3. HJM MonteCarlo model price surface Fig. Analytic approximation at distant strikes Fig. HJM MonteCarlo two dimensional solution intersection for two vanilla products Fig. Graphic surface generation algorithm Fig.5. Calibration Jacobian Fig.16.14.9. 11. 14.1.4. 11. 11.4.2. Newton Raphson Iterations Fig. Solution dynamics with a) variation in market price b) variations in strike 175 Fig.3. Analytic approximation acting as a tangent ‘at the money’ 179 182 220 221 222 Fig. Model implications on taking a) very close strikes b)distant strikes 173 174 Fig. 11.2. 10. No HJM MonteCarlo solution intersection 176 177 178 Fig. 14. 14. 14.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Fig. Solution Duplicity Fig. 11. 10. Jacobian calculation Iterations Fig.5. 10. 11.11.7.12. 11.15. 11. HJM model: sigma vs price dynamics with different alpha parameters Fig.17. Analytic approximation presents difficulties in adjusting to the curve at distant strikes Fig.11.6.8. Analytic approximation corrected in sigma at high strikes 223 225 15 . HJM MonteCarlo two dimensional solution 164 166 167 168 169 171 172 172 173 Fig. HJM MonteCarlo surface does not descend sufficiently so as to create a solution curve Fig. 11. 11. 10. Convergence of the algorithm Fig.1. Detailed Calibration Algorithm: Jacobian computation Fig.
Closeup on HJM MonteCarlo’s slopes and solution curve Fig.2. 15. 15. Strike Interpolation Fig. HJM MonteCarlo second vanilla does not descend sufficiently Fig. HJM MonteCarlo slopes and solution curve Fig.18. 14.1. Market Cap Quotes Fig. HJM MonteCarlo presents no solution curve intersection 234 235 Fig. Swaption Vertical Extrapolation stays the same Fig. Strike Interpolation Fig.6.14. 14. Cap decomposition into other caps and capforwards 16 239 241 242 244 245 245 246 249 252 . Analytic approximation presents a solution for the first vanilla 235 236 237 238 Fig. 14.1. 14. Analytic approximation with a varying sigma correction Fig.10.15. 14. 14. Analytic approximation slopes and solution curve Fig.7.4. HJM MonteCarlo versus analytic approximation for a two dimensional view of the previous cases Fig. 15. 14. Surface Deformation in Horizontal Extrapolation Fig.17. 14. Analytic approximation corrected in sigma for low strikes Fig. 14.6.2.3. Closeup on analytic approximation’s slopes and solution curve 225 226 228 229 229 230 Fig. 14.8. Vertical extrapolation no longer flat Fig. Analytic approximation also presents a solution for the second troublesome vanilla 238 Fig. HJM MonteCarlo first vanilla presenting a solution curve Fig. 14.9. 16. 14.11. Analytic approximation solving a case with no HJM MonteCarlo solution intersection Fig.5. 14. HJM MonteCarlo versus analytic approximation solving solution duplicities Fig. 14. 15. 16.19. 15.13.Fig.16. New Circular Solution Intersection Fig. 15.12.
16.7.2. 2 Cap Interpolation Fig. 18. 16.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Fig. 17.5. Decomposition of a six menthe caplet into two 3 month caplets Fig.8. Creation of the 6 month caplets from 3 month Cap market quotes: flat cap difference under 2 year barrier Fig.1. 17. 18.9. 18. . 18.9. 18.6. 18. Optimisation algorithm for interpolation in maturities Fig. and an optimisation algorithm using quadratic approaches Fig.4. Caplet interpolated volatilities using cubic spline.6. Cap interpolation between natural and constrained cubic splines Fig. Cap market quotes: flat cap difference under 2 year barrier 253 254 254 267 271 272 Fig. rho smile imposition Fig. Caplet interpolated volatilities using linear approaches 284 286 288 289 290 290 291 292 Fig. Each cap is made up of a number of caplets of unknown volatility Fig. Undistinguishable smile difference on calibrating with different beta parameters β = 0 and β =1 Fig. Cap flat market quotes versus interpolated flat market quotes Fig. beta = 0 skew imposition. 18.2. 18. 16.4.4. Forward caps related to the caplets Fig.5. beta flat imposition =1. Cap interpolated volatilities using linear and cubic spline approaches Fig. 17. 17.3.SABR shot maturity caplet smile Fig.8. 16. . 16. 16. Caplet interpolated volatilities using linear and quadratic approaches Fig.1. 16. Capforward decomposition into two unknown caplets Fig.3. Caplet current market behaviour Fig. Constructing the caplet ‘at the money’ volatilities Fig. 17. Caplet interpolated volatilities using linear and linear cap approaches Fig. 16.10.7.5. rho smile imposition 273 273 278 281 282 Fig.3. 18.SABR long maturity caplet smile 292 293 293 17 .
SABR comparisons between long and short maturities. Caplet volatility surface construction algorithm Fig. SABR at the money strike adjustment. Initial linear interpolated caplet volatility surface Fig. Maturity 8Y Fig. 18. Difference in general smile and ‘at the money’ level Fig.14. 18. . 18. β = 1 Fig. Cubic Spline caplet volatility surface Fig. Comparisons in cubic and 3M to 6M adjustments Fig. 18.23.5 years Fig. SABR short maturity caplet smile inexact correction: very irregular smile294 Fig. normal skew. maturity 1 year 299 300 301 302 302 304 Fig. Weighted SABR.11.22. 18. 18. Irregular Smile for both linear interpolation and cubic spline.5 years Fig.17. Cap market quotes 305 306 308 309 18 .24. maturity of 1. SABR smooth interpolated smile surface with cubic spline 295 296 297 297 297 Fig.10.21. β = 1. 18.12.18.15.13. 18. 18.sharp smile 294 Fig. whereas SABR presents a much smoother outline 298 Fig.25.SABR very short 6 month maturity . SABR strike adjustment Fig. 18. Smile bump ‘at the money level’ in linear cap interpolation. 18. 18. 18. Smile correction towards ‘at the money level’ Fig. 18. SABR β = 0.20.26.16. 18.27. 18. Caplet 3M to 6M smile for a maturity of 1.19. varying the β and the weights Fig. 18. 18.Fig.
3 Vanilla calibration matrix: market quoted data Table 12.2 Ideal Vanilla calibration matrix: all data available Table 10.1. Mean Reversion Stochastic Volatility Summary Table 12.1 Construction of forward rates from bonds Table 6. Exotic product risk decomposition Table 10. Approximation increases calibration speed by a factor of 8 Table 15.2. Cap market quotes: flat cap difference under 2 year barrier 243 247 248 272 Table 17.1. vertical extrapolation 66 78 97 153 155 156 192 193 193 193 232 233 242 Table 15.2. Square Root Stochastic Volatility Summary – 10 and 20 packs Table 12.1 Horizontal interpolation.1. horizontal extrapolation.4. Logarithmic Stochastic Volatility Summary Table 14. Mean Reversion Stochastic Volatility Summary Table 12.3 Results obtained through vertical extrapolation Table 15. Shows the different dates and strikes with which to model products with similar needs to the HJM 277 19 .A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Table index Table 4.2 Summary table of the differences between vertical. split and no split Table 15. Approximation increases calibration speed by a factor of 5 Table 14.1.3.1 Normal or lognormal models with a mean reversion Table 5.1 Swap payoff term structure Table 10.4 Results obtained through horizontal extrapolation Table 16.1.
20 .
Introduction During the past two decades. a general method could be used to price any derivative product. With the above tools. A derivative can be defined as a financial instrument whose value depends on (derives from) the values of other. The ideas are the basis of most discussions in mathematical finance. more basic underlying variables. The paper they published was also influential because of technical steps introduced in obtaining a closedform formula for option prices • The equivalent martingale measures dramatically simplified and generalised the original approach of Black and Scholes. • The arbitrage theorem. sometimes called the ‘Fundamental Theorem of Finance’ gives the formal conditions under which ‘arbitrage’ profits can or cannot exist. Some major developments have occurred in the theoretical understanding of how derivative asset prices are determined.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 1. Hence arbitragefree prices under more realistic conditions could be obtained. Three major steps in the theoretical revolution led to the use of advanced mathematical methods. and how these prices change over time. This major development permitted the calculation of the arbitragefree price of any ‘new’ derivative product • The BlackScholes model (1973) used the method of arbitragefree pricing. But how close are the market prices of options really to those predicted by BlackScholes? Do traders genuinely use Black Scholes when determining a price for an option? Are the probability distributions of asset prices really lognormal? What further developments have been carried out since 1973? 5 . derivatives have become increasingly important in the world of finance. Very often the variables underlying derivatives are the prices of traded assets.
nonstandard American options. well defined properties and trade actively. This defines implied volatility as a function of both strike price and time to maturity. These have standard. binary options. they assume that the probability distribution of a derivative price has a heavier left tail and a less heavy right tail than the lognormal distribution. Types of exotic options can typically include packages. Instead. Their prices or implied volatilities are quoted by exchanges or by brokers on a regular basis. This is because they allow the volatility used for the pricing of an option to depend on its strike price and its time to maturity. As a result. Asian options. This suggests that traders do not make the same assumption as Black and Scholes. lookback options. traders do still use the Black Scholes Model. Often.1 Exotic Options Derivatives covered at the beginning of the 1980’s were what we note as plain vanilla products. Although they are usually a relatively small part of its portfolio. a plot of the implied volatility as a function of its strike price gives rise to what is known as a volatility smile. barrier options. One of the exciting aspects of the over the counter derivatives market is the number of nonstandard (or exotic) products that have been created by financial engineers. When volatility smiles and volatility term structures are combined. 6 . The implied volatility of an option then depends on its life.Chapter 1 Introduction In fact. chooser options. These exotic products are options with rules governing the payoffs that are more complicated than standard options. traders also use a volatility term structure. forward start options. these exotic products are important to a bank because they are generally much more profitable than plain vanilla products. but not exactly in the way that Black and Scholes originally intended.…. 1. they produce a volatility surface.
in Einstein’s seminal paper outlining the theory of Brownian Motion that the concepts of Brownian motion and differentials were finally formalised.2 History Models using stochastic differential equations for the modelling of stock markets arise from the search of a function capable of reproducing the historical behaviour of the prices. a function that presents the same spiky irregular form as market stock quotes. However. which would later become and essential tool of modern finance. and thus reflects the randomness of the dynamics. he assumed that the stock prices were Gaussian rather than lognormal as in the Black Scholes Model. work for which the surviving members received the Nobel Prize for economics in 1997. Kiyoshi Ito went on to develop stochastic calculus. In it he proposed to model the movement of stock prices with a diffusion process. Bachelier’s work was largely lost for more than half a century. After this it wasn’t long until the links between the two separate branches of work (both stemming from Bachelier) were reunited when Black. Scholes and Merton wrote down their famous equation for the price of a European Call and Put option in 1969. or what was later to be called a Weiner. or Brownian Motion process. the mathematical and financial branches of Bachilier’s work evolved independently of each other. It wasn’t until 1965 that an American called Paul Samualson resurrected Bachelier’s work and extended his ideas to include an exponential (or geometric) form rather than the arithmetic Brownian Motion. The behaviour itself is said to be fractal because any rescaling of the temporal axis always yields the same irregular price form. For most of the century. influenced by Bacheliers work. 7 . On the mathematical side.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 1. On the financial side. This is. It was not until five years later. The origins of much of financial mathematics traces back to a dissertation published in 1900 by Louis Bachelier.
They need a complicated diffusion model to realistically reconstruct the volatility observed in forward rates. These models are very robust and can be used in conjunction with any set of initial zero rates. such as the Hull White model. European bond options and European swap options. Furthermore.3 Models Models based on the original BlackScholes assumptions and the numerical procedures they require are relatively straightforward. In addition. This allows. to work with the associated Partial Differential Equation (PDE) and to subsequently derive a rather simple formula for bond prices. there is no simple way of calculating the volatility that should be input from the volatility smile applicable to plain vanilla options. the Vasicek Model. but is not in accord with the observation that rates for adjacent maturities tend to move together. a simplistic approach such as that by Black Scholes models assumes that the individual spot rates move independently to one another in a random fashion. This is perhaps acceptable abstractly. through Markov theory. they all lead to the same drawback when solving interest rate products: the fact that they use only one explanatory variable (the short interest rate rt ) to construct a model for the entire market. The main advantage of these methods lies in the possibility of specifying rt as a solution to a Stochastic Differential Equation (SDE). The use of a single rt proves insufficient to realistically model the market curve. A number of alternative new models have since been introduced to attempt to solve this problematic. the Cox Ingersoll and Ross model or the Black Karasinski model to name but a few.Chapter 1 Introduction 1. when tackling exotic options. there is no way of controlling their future volatilities. However. despite being able to provide a perfect fit to volatilities observed in the market today. However. they involve the building of a term structure. The parameters of these models can be chosen so that they are approximately consistent with the volatility smile observed in the market. which appears to be dependent on 8 . Further. they have some limitations. typically based on the short term interest rate r. This makes them widely suited for valuing instruments such as caps. These models. For this reason. Their main difference with respect to previous models is the incorporation of a description of how interest rates change through time. that have come to be known as the ‘traditional models’ for pricing interest rate options.
we could perhaps consider a model in which we would use one representative short term rate. it is relatively easy to calibrate to the price of caps or European sap options.4 HJM The most straightforward solution to the above problem should include the use of more explanatory variables: long and medium term rates. 1. The LIBOR market model also provides an approach that gives the user complete freedom in choosing the volatility term structure. a middle term rate. This is. We will not cover the study of this model in the present text. Both HJM and LIBOR market models have the serious disadvantage that they cannot be represented as recombining trees. callable bonds. The Heath Jarrow Morton framework arises as the most complete application of the suggested approach. and structures notes. but only state here the advantages that it presents over the HJM model. as well as at all future times.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework all the rates and their different time intervals. It constrains the model to move randomly up and down. with all the rates moving together by the same amount according to the random motions in the unique short rate r. Firstly. In practice. this means that they must be implemented using MonteCarlo Simulations. these models cannot be used for valuing interest rate derivatives such as Americanstyle swap options. and finally a long term interest rate. Consequently. Secondly. It chooses to include the entire forward rate curve as a theoretically infinite dimensional state variable. as they introduce arbitrage possibilities. Unlike other models. it is developed in terms of the forward rates that determine the pricing of caps rather than in terms of instantaneous forward rates. this model can match the volatility structure observed today in the market. 9 .
Such an approach may be found imprecise by a technical reader. However.Chapter 1 Introduction 1. Chapter 3 and 4 discuss classical approaches in the modelling of the term structure of interest rates. The first is essentially an introduction to mathematical engineering methods in finance. Learning the differences between the assumptions. the HJM. information is also revealed continuously. Hence. A strong background in calculus or stochastic processes is not needed. The second focuses on a much more practical implementation of a concrete model. It is hoped that practitioners in financial markets. as the concepts are built from scratch within the text. mathematics or science. The mathematics necessary for dealing with such random variables is known as Stochastic calculus. We simply hope that the informal treatment provides enough intuition about some of these difficult concepts to compensate for this shortcoming. but who is willing to embark in the adventure of getting acquainted with this unknown domain. Chapter 2 introduces the mathematics of derivative assets assuming that time passes continuously. Consequent to this assumption. the basic philosophies. 10 . and discusses in depth certain problematics that can surface within this framework. The text is directed towards a reader with minimal background in finance. Hence technical tools for pricing derivative products require ways of handling random variables over infinitesimal time intervals. The language of financial markets is largely mathematical. and decision makers may face instantaneous changes in random news. the text is designed for individuals who have a technical background roughly equivalent to a bachelor’s degree in engineering. The text approaches the mathematics behind continuoustime finance informally.5 Document Structure. and the practical implementations that one can adopt in each case is an important step for understanding the valuation of interestsensitive instruments. and some aspects of the subject can only be expressed in mathematical terms. previous knowledge in these fields will certainly be helpful. as well as beginning graduate students will find the text useful. and it is necessary that the reader be comfortable with the use of mathematics as a method of deduction and problem solving. The project is divided into two parts.
becoming more and more involved in practical discussions. we have attempted to introduce each problematic situation firstly under a broad theoretical scope. and Partial Differential Equations Solvers. we proceed to introduce the more complicated classes of derivatives such as swaps or swaptions. options and futures. In this part of the text. interest rates. For this reason. The purpose of the second part of the text is principally to provide an introduction to one way in which the HJM framework can be implemented. Chapters 5 and 6 deal with the basic building blocs of financial derivatives: bonds. and the results which they yielded. We conclude by showing how these complicated products can be decomposed into a number of simpler derivatives. We continue in Chapter 9 and 10 with the practical implementation of the HJM. until diverting to solve the specific problematics that the model faced. Chapter 10 attempts to provide a broad discussion of how the parameters are extracted from simple vanilla products. We will often suggest alternatives for the different methods that we implement. or offer ideas to face further developments that could stem from our studies. it enables us to understand the limitations behind these models. With these. and why the HJM framework could be used as a good alternative. We deem it necessary to acquire an understanding of the calibration procedure itself. We discuss in detail the advantages of the Newton Raphson root solver in our approach. and how we obtain the precise parameters that the model requires for the pricing of more complex exotic products. The text focuses on the practical implementation of the framework developed in the Banco Santander. Tree Diagrams. Following. hypotheses.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Further. This decomposition results extremely practical. A very interesting discussion is also presented facing two contrary lines of thought: the use of 11 . Chapter 9 is a very brief introduction to the various numerical techniques that are available for resolving stochastic differential equations: specifically. and development of the framework through Chapter 8. It sets out in Chapter 7 by providing a broad vision of the framework itself before discussing the more technical aspects. we proceed to explain the practical implementation which we decided on. MonteCarlo integrals. These are truly the foundations necessary for modelling the term structure of interest rates. We analyse the assumptions.
We reach back briefly to Chapter 11 to analyse this problem by using the mathematical tool developed here. Chapter 11 discusses a mathematical tool that proves extremely useful for visually analysing the HJM iterative process before it converges towards its final parameter values. the volatility of volatilities. could present. Chapter 15 is a first attempt to solve the calibrations problems that the HJM was facing. and examines the possible causes of the failure to calibrate for long maturities.Chapter 1 Introduction exact calibration methods versus the use of over determined systems that centre on a error minimisation. As a direct result of this. We conclude the chapter by selecting the most advantageous alternatives. We provide a broad description for the main interpolation and optimisation algorithms available. As its name indicates. it is an approximate formulation of the HJM model that enables us to reduce calibration computation times drastically. but show how even so. It analyses the process by which the vanilla products for any specific calibration are selected. We end realising that the selection of our interpolation and extrapolation methods can have a drastic impact in the model solution surface itself. and continues to analyse a set of possible formulations that the third parameter. we continue to 12 . In particular it points directly at a possible flaw in the caplet – swaption calibrations. and the need for consistent interpolation techniques to extract the necessary values can be far from simple. Obtaining caplet quotes from market cap data proves incomplete. and implementing them at the trader’s desk. The chapter concludes with an analysis of specific calibrations performed with the three strike model. It discusses the need for a three parameter HJM model. We then proceed in Chapter 14 to analyse the specific results attained through the various alternatives. The exhaustive mathematics of the approximation are studied in the present chapter. The analytic approximation of Caplet and Swaption prices is a huge achievement that is presented in Chapter 13. and more specifically.e. i. we are incapable of doing away with certain irregularities in the caplet volatility surface. It is also in this section where we begin to encounter certain calibration flaws in the model that we will need to tackle in future chapters. Chapter 12 the first genuinely experimental chapter. it studies how the ‘missing’ data is completed in the corresponding calibration matrices. Chapter 16 picks up the loose ends left behind in Chapter 12 and tackles the caplet problematics as a cause for the failure in the 3 strikes HJM.
showing how the latter succeed in achieving a smoother characteristic at the expense of losing precision. 13 . presenting its parameters and dynamic characteristics. It compares the exact interpolation methods with the inexact optimisations and SABR algorithm.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework the introduction of the SABR in Chapter 17. This is a stochastic volatility model that centres on smoothening out the smile obtained by the previous interpolation techniques. The model is discussed in depth. Chapter 18 is the down to earth study of the results obtained in the previous two chapters.
I congratulate him for his work and thank him immensely for his friendship. Cristina. I thank him for his help. Carlos. patience and friendship. I cannot imagine what I would have done without him. aimed at: • An introduction to pricing derivative models The study of existing theoretical models: Black Scholes. The project was thus.7 Project Aims We briefly outline the aims with which we initiated the current project.6 Special Acknowledgements Several people provided comments and helped during the process of revising the document. Pedro Franco. Manuel. Lamine. The team is truly marvellous. • • The analysis of the internal Banco Santander HJM approach. the first part of the project was directed towards building up this knowledge. Alberto. I would also like to thank Luis Martí in particular for having a word of help in practically everything I did. Jorge. her mathematical introductory text. I thank in particular Álvaro Serrano. Setting out with the realisation that we cannot successfully approach the HJM model without a consistent background in mathematical finance. for his endless fantastic humour and support.Chapter 1 Introduction 1. 1. I thank François Friggit for his invaluable discussions on mathematical finance and models. I thank him also for being such a great director. Hull White. Souahil. and the rest of the team. Álvaro Baillo. 14 . I thank Maria Teresa Martínez for her advice. and her help working out many technicalities in this project. Heath Jarrow Morton amongst others. Miguel Pardo. we directly proceeded to a practical analysis of the implemented model with a direct exposure to the relevant problematics. I would finally like to thank all the other quant team members of the Banco Santander that have made my stage during the current year so formidable. Having had the possibility to work together with Anh Tuan NGO in the creation of the analytic approximation has proved a marvellous experience. Immediately after this.
Comprehension of the minima obtained in the Price versus Alpha graphical representations. • Graphical representation and analysis of the correlation between the price and each of the volatility parameters. Analysis of the market data related to the above casesverification of whether the failure to compute is due to anomalies in the market. as a simplified model serving as prior knowledge to the Heath Jarrow Morton framework. Modification of the parameters themselves: selection of an appropriate statistical distribution other than the lognormal or normal distributions. • Development and implementation of an analytic approximate formula so as to reduce the time involved in the calibration process. • Detailed comprehension of the Heath Jarrow Morton framework: Identification of specific market examples where the HJM calibration does not compute: examination of the cases. complier. The following two preliminary approaches will be considered: · · Adjustment of the dependence between HJM volatility and the parameters. • Analysis and resolution of the existing HJM problems: possible caplet matrix stripping problem. 15 . Possible failure in interpolation techniques.net 2003: programming framework in C++. linker and assembler · · · · Python IL interface Murex: valuation platform for credit. • Resolution of the impossibility to correctly model real market situations in which the true price lies below the minimum value of our model. equity and interest rate products Internal tools created and programmed by the BSCH quant team Visual Basic • Acquaintance with the Hull White framework already implemented and running in the Banco Santander. Isolation and examination of specific examples.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework • Development of an understanding of the various programming techniques in use: · Microsoft Visual Studio.
and these are instead replaced by Ito Integrals. In deterministic or classical calculus. We only know the probability density that our function will follow. i. in continuous time. w) that is therefore time dependent and that is defined by the variable W which represents a source of randomness. we do not know the value of ft for any future instant of time. we can no longer apply Riemann integrals.Chapter 2 Stochastic Calculus 2. If f is stochastic as in the case of Brownian motion. A stochastic process is a random function. and a mean diffusion term that may 16 . it is not differentiable almost anywhere. Stochastic Calculus Equation Chapter 2 Section 1 2. In it. the future value of any function f(t) is always known by simply calculating f t = f 0 + ∫ df 0 t The above requires ft to be differentiable. that is stochastic.1 Introduction Stochastic calculus handles random variables over infinitesimal time intervals. Moreover. a function of the form f(t. We can simply write: f t = f 0 + ∫ α ( s)ds + ∫ β ( s)dWs 0 0 t t known today Slope Standard Brownian Motion Mean diffusion Random motion (stochastic) dispersion The above function is composed by two main processes. A term representing the random motion or dispersion.e.
All other previous (or historical) information sets ~ ~ Ft −1 . 2..1) Before proceeding any further with the Ornstein Uhlenbeck Process or any other more elaborate setting. (2.. noise mean Fig. 2. Moreover. increasing or decreasing. it can in turn either be deterministic or stochastic depending on whether the slope term α is also stochastic. and the second as the diffusion. F1 are considered irrelevant for the given probability calculation.2 Markov Process In a non mathematical approach. Stochastic Volatility Dynamics We are in this way left with what is known as an Ornstein Uhlenbeck Process: df = α (t )dt + β (t )dWt where the first term is known as the drift. a Markov Process is one in which the future probability that a variable X attains a specific value depends only on the latest observation ~ Ft available at present..A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework be constant over time.1. 17 . we must first grasp a set of important concepts that we will now proceed to introduce..
x2.1 Martingale Properties Martingales possess a number of very interesting properties that we will come across time and time again. This is: EtP [ St +U ] = St (2.3) 2. (calculated at time t over an information set ~ F ). a Markov Process is therefore a discrete time process {X1.3 Martingale We will say that an asset St is a martingale if its future expected value.3. A continuous square integrable martingale is a martingale with a finite second order moment EtP St 2 < ∞ almost everywhere Stochastic processes can behave as: (2.X2.Chapter 2 Stochastic Calculus Mathematically.5) 18 . The main properties that martingales verify are: 1.Xt. ~ Ft 2. The random variable St is completely defined given the information at time t. A martingale is always defined with respect to a probability P.2) ~ 2. is equal to its current value.4) 4. Unconditional finite forecasts EtP [S t +U ] < ∞ almost everywhere 3.…} with a joint probability distribution function F(x1. meaning there are no trends EtP [ St +U − St ] = EtP [ St +U ] − EtP [ St ] = St − St = 0 (2.….xt) that verifies % P( X t + s ≤ a FS ) = P( X t + s ≤ a X S ) And where FT is the information set on which we construct the probability (2. Future variations are completely unpredictable.….
2 Doob Meyer Decomposition: involves adding or subtracting the expected trend from the martingale. E(M2t ) = E(<M>t). (2.7) In general. They verify: EtP [ St +U ] ≤ St almost everywhere (2. assets are therefore submartingales because they are not completely unpredictable but instead. in the case of right continuous time submartingales St.< M>t} is a martingale.3. that is measurable with respect to ~ Ft . They verify: • EtP [ St +U ] ≥ St almost everywhere • (2. are expected to increase over time. thus leaving only the random component. we can split St into the sum of a unique right continuous martingale Mt and an increasing process At. For such martingales that in addition are square integrable – see (2. In other words.6) Supermartingale: for processes that decrease on average.5) . S t = M t + At. For example. 19 . normalized by <M>0 = 0. we can define their quadratic variation process as the unique increasing process given by the DoobMeyer decomposition of the positive submartingale {M2}.8) In general we will normalize our martingales so that their first order moment is equal to 0.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework • Martingales: if the trajectory has no trends or periodicities Submartingale: for processes that increase on average. In most cases. There are two main methods of converting non martingales to martingales: 2. It is important to notice that they can be converted to martingales using risk neutral probability if there is absence of arbitrage. it is the unique increasing process <M>t such that {M2 . In particular. our martingales will also have continuous trajectories.
10) Continuous martingales have a further set of specific properties: 1.T] the St’s get closer. All variations of greater order than V2 tend to 0. Therefore P S ti − S ti −1 > ε → 0 ( ) 2. V 1 = ∑ Sti − Sti−1 → ∞ i =1 n (2.Chapter 2 Stochastic Calculus Quadratic Variation Process: M = lim ∑ M ti − M ti−1 ∏→ 0 i =1 n 2 t (2. 20 . ~ → P so as to EtP [ St +U ] > St → EtP [ St +U ] = St % (2. As we increase the partitioning of the interval [0. and so contain no useful information. P convert non – martingales to martingales.3 First Approach to Girsanov’s Theorem The transformation of a probability distribution using Girsanov’s Theorem involves simply changing the probability space in which we operate.11) 4.9) ∏ = supi ti − ti −1 limit in probability 2. They must have nonzero variance n P ∑ S ti − S ti −1 i =1 2 > 0 = 1 .3. The quadratic variation therefore converges to a positive well defined random variable. Thus the martingale is completely defined by its first two moments. 3.
A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
2.4 Brownian Motion
Also known as a Wiener Process, is a continuous process St whose increments ∆St are normally distributed, i.e. they are Gaussian.
2.4.1 Characteristics:
1. W0 = 0 2. Continuous square integrable function in time 3. Independent increments dW:
Time t U V
Thus (WU – Wt) is independent of (WV – WU) and independent of (Wt –W0) = Wt. This implies that any model based on a Brownian motion parameter will be independent of all that has occurred in the past. Only future events are of any concern. 4. dWt2 = dt 5. Follows a Normal probability distribution, under the probability space Ω
(WU − WT )~N (0,U − T )
P (WT − WU ∈ A ) = ∫
1 2 − x T −U 1 e 2 dx 2π T − U A
(2.12)
(2.13)
The mean or expectancy of any given increment in the Brownian variable is µ=E(WU  WT) = 0
U
The variance is the time interval itself
Variance = U  T =
∫ dt
T
This is easily deduced following the subsequent logic.
21
Chapter 2
Stochastic Calculus
WU = WT + WU − WT ET (WU >T ) = E (WT ) + E (WU − WT )
Where we have initially defined
(2.14)
E (WU − WT ) = 0 and where we know
E (WT ) = WT as it is calculated for the present instant of time at which all data is
known. Therefore:
ET (WU ) = WT
U >T
(2.15)
Which is what we previously introduced as a Markov Process  a variable whose future expectation is exactly equal to its current value. A Brownian motion is therefore always a martingale.
2.5 Stochastic Differential Equation
We will start by analysing the simplest stochastic differential equation possible. Recall that we have already encountered it under the name of an Ornstein Uhlenbeck process:
df = α (t ) dt + β (t ) dWt
(2.16)
Where α(t) is known as the drift term, and σ(t) as the diffusion. It is the diffusion term, through the Brownian motion, that introduces the randomness in this dynamics. We will start by taking both α(t) and σ(t) as being deterministic, as this is the simplest scenario that we can possibly imagine. In such a case, the solution to the integral form of the stochastic differential equation is relatively straightforward
·
∫ α (s)ds
0
t
has a classic, deterministic solution, or at its worst, can be solved
numerically through a Riemann integral, as
lim ∑ α ( S k −1 , k ) ( tk − tk −1 )
n →∞ k =1
n
(2.17)
22
A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
•
∫ β (s)dW
0
t
s
is probabilistic, follows a Normal (Gaussian) distribution which we
can represent as having a zero mean and whose variance is easily calculated, thus leaving
t ~ N 0, ∫ β 2 ( s )ds 0
Where we have seen that dW2 = dt
2.6 Risk Neutral Probability
The difficulty when dealing with real probability is the fact that each investor has a different inherent risk profile. This means that each will have a different willingness to invest.
Imagine that we have a number of investors and each one of them faces the following situation: Each investor starts off with 100,000$. He stands a 10% chance that if he invests, his returns will be of 1M $, whereas he faces a 90% chance that his return will be 0 $. As each investor has a different risk profile, they will each price the product differently or in other words, they will each be willing to pay a different price with respect to the 100,000 $ stated to enter this ‘roulette’ game. The reader himself may be willing to enter the game at a price of only 10,000 $ whereas another more risk averse may find 90,000 $ a more suitable price for the game. Thus we realize that it is too arbitrary to associate a price to a product if we rely on real probability.
The risk neutral probability arises as one in which the risk profile is homogeneous. This is, that all assets present the same instantaneous yield throughout time, and are all infinitely liquid. They must therefore all present the same rt.
23
Chapter 2
Stochastic Calculus
Under the risk neutral probability, any tradable asset follows the dynamics
dS = rt Sdt + σ (t )dWt P
Where σ is known as the volatility process associated to the asset S.
(2.18)
Here rt is the instantaneous rate defined in the discount factor section. It is time dependent, but independent of the underlying asset S. We can see clearly in the above formula that dS is a stochastic process, as it depends on dWtP. In this risk neutral probability space, if we were to select another asset S2, then it too would present the same instantaneous yield rt, despite the fact that it would probably follow a different random process, dW2P
2.7 Solving Stochastic Differential Equations
In multiple occasions, we must resort to a change in variable so as to simplify the more complex stochastic differential equations, attempting to transform them back into the ideal Ornstein Uhlenbeck formulation seen before (2.1). For this reason we use two principal methods: Ito’s Lemma and the Girsanov Theorem.
2.8 Ito’s Lemma
Is the stochastic version of the chain rule in classical calculus. We must firstly realize that whereas partial derivatives are valid for stochastic calculus, (just as they are for classical calculus), total derivatives and the chain rule itself are no longer applicable. That is, considering f(t, St):
Partial derivatives: valid
ft =
∂f ∂t
fS =
∂f dS t ∂S t
Total derivatives: not valid
df =
∂f ∂f dt + dS t ∂t ∂S t
24
A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
Chain rule:
not valid
df ∂f ∂f dS t = + dt ∂t ∂S t dt
Let S = S(t, dWt) where dWt is a Brownian process. Let us recall the stochastic differential equation:
dSt = α t dt + σ t dWt
(2.19)
If we perform a Taylor expansion on the function f(t, S) with respect to the two variables S and t, then
f t = f t −1 +
∂f t ∂f ∂ 2 ft 1 ∂ 2 ft 1 ∂ 2 ft dt + t dSt + (dt ) 2 + (dSt ) 2 + dtdSt + R 2 ∂t 2 2 ∂S 2t ∂t ∂St ∂St ∂t
(2.20)
Replacing with our diffusion equation, we obtain
df t =
∂f t ∂f 1 ∂ 2 ft 2 dt + t (α t dt + σ t dW ) + dt + ∂t ∂St 2 ∂t 2 ∂2 f 1 ∂ 2 ft 2 (α t dt + σ t dW ) + t dt (α t dt + σ t dW ) + R 2 ∂S 2t ∂St ∂t
(2.21)
In general, with Taylor expansions we decide to at least maintain the first order terms, both in S as in t. However, we must be particularly careful with this simplification:
•
Our variable t is deterministic, meaning that as with classic Taylor expansions, we can ignore powers that are greater or equal than the second order. St however is a random process as it depends on dW, where we must recall that dW2 = dt. This is equivalent to a first order term in t and thus cannot be ignored. Therefore, from (2.20) and (2.21) we retain all the first order elements, that are
∂f ∂f 1 ∂2 f df = dt + dS + dt ∂t ∂S 2 ∂S 2
(2.22)
25
Chapter 2
Stochastic Calculus
The first two terms correspond to a classical differentiation. The last term is known as Ito’s term, where we have already replaced dW2 by dt. We can now replace in (2.22) the diffusion dS of the initial function (2.19), obtaining:
df
∂f ∂f 1 ∂2 f dt + dt (α dt + σ dWt ) + ∂t ∂S 2 ∂S 2 ∂f ∂f 1 ∂2 f ∂f dt + σ dWt = + α + 2 ∂S 2 ∂S ∂t ∂S =
(2.23)
Ito’s Lemma is mainly used when applying a change in variable to differential equations. It takes a function f(t, S), that depends on both time and the stochastic function S and then writes the diffusion of the new variable f(t, S) in terms of S and the old function’s diffusion dynamics.
Ito’s formula can be used to evaluate Integrals. The general procedure is the following: · · · · To guess a form for f(Wt, t) Then apply Ito’s Lemma to obtain the standard differential equation Integrate both sides of the equation. Rearrange the resulting equation.
We proceed to provide a simple practical example: Suppose that we would like to solve
∫ W dW
s
t
s
. Then
0
W 2 d = WdW 2 W2 f (t , Wt ) = 2
1 df = 0 + WdW + dt 2
26
t ) − ∫ + α + ∫ ∂S ∂t ∂S 2 ∂S 2 0 0 t dt (2. t ∂f ∂f 1 ∂2 f df = ∫ + α + ∫ 0 ∂t ∂S 2 ∂S 2 0 t t ∂f dt + ∫ σ dWt ∂S 0 (2.10 Girsanov’s Theorem Girsanov’s Theorem is generally used when we seek to change the probability space in which we work. t ) − f ( S0 . if we have a Brownian variable under the probability measure P and want to transform it to the probability measure Q.25) 2. t ∂f ∂f ∂f 1 ∂2 f σ dWt = f ( St .22). we then simply perform: dW P = dW Q + λ ( P.9 Stochastic Integral Is nothing more than the integrated form of Ito’s equation (2. temporal terms.24) Which rearranged solves the stochastic integral in terms of deterministic. Thus. Q )dt (2.26) 27 .A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework integrating and then rearranging ∫ WdW = ∫ df − 2 ∫ dt ∫ WdW = f − 2 t Substituting f again we obtain 1 1 ∫ WdW = W2 1 − t 2 2 2.
31) E [ξ ( Z t )] = 1 . it cannot simplify the diffusion term. df = α dt + β dW P = α dt + β dW Q + λ ( P. and the product S t ⋅ ξ ( Z t ) is now also a martingale. The two Brownians will be related by % dWt = dWt − St dt (2. We can now say: Girsanov’s Theorem states that given a Wiener process Wt. we can always multiply this process by a probability distribution Wiener process ξ ( Z t ) to convert it to a different ~ Wt . This implies that the two are equivalent probability measures if and only if it is possible to go back and forth between the two measures.28) % P ( dZ ) > 0 ↔ P ( dZ ) > 0 ~ P (2. However. thus % dP = ξ ( Z t ) dP This also implies that ↔ % dP = ξ −1 ( Z t ) dP (2. 28 .30) and their probability measures by % % dP (Wt ) = ξ (Wt ) dP (Wt ) Notice that ξ ( Z t ) is a martingale with (2.29) The two can only exist if P assigns a 0 probability at the same time as Thus with this new knowledge about the Radon Nikodym derivative we can revise what we had said about Girsanov’s Theorem.10. Q)dt = = (α + βλ ) dt + β dW Q ( ) (2.Chapter 2 Stochastic Calculus The result is particularly useful when seeking to change the drift term in an equation.27) 2.1 Radon Nikodym Derivative: States that ~ dP = ξ ( Z t )dP .
then There are several conditions that must always hold true: • St must be known exactly. 29 . How can this mean. • St must not vary much: E e ∫o [ t S 2 u du ]< ∞ But these conditions do not yet assure us that St is a martingale. they do not simultaneously present 0 means with respect to one common probability measure. However. A condition that is sufficient for condition assume ξt ( Z t ) to satisfy the hypothesis of Girsanov’s theorem is to 1 ∫ot S 2u du E e 2 <∞ With this. and Wt under its respective measure P.32) ξ 0 ( Z 0 ) = 1 ). given the information set ~ Ft . ~ We define the random process respect to W: ξ (Z t ) as the stochastic exponential of St with ξ (Zt ) = e (Notice that 1 t 2 t ∫0 Su dWu − ∫o S u du 2 t ∈ [ 0.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Notice also that both ~ Wt and Wt are Brownian motions. T ] (2. they are related by the expression be possible? The answer lies in the fact that ~ Wt has 0 mean under its probability measure P . meaning that they have 0 ~ dWt = dWt − S t dt .33) ξt ( Z t ) is a martingale if S is deterministic. (2. Therefore.
see [Karatzas 1988]. This was St = Mt + At. its integral form M t = M 0 + ∫ H u dZu 0 t (2.34) =e If the last term is finite.Chapter 2 Stochastic Calculus 2. then 1 t − ∫o S 2u du S S dW ∫0 u u 2 e e =e 1 S − ∫o S 2u du t S dW ∫0 u u 2 e = SS (2.10.37) 30 .2 Novikov condition: The above conditions imply that respect to the probability P. For a more generic approach.35) 2. we were able to convert any asset price St into a martingale by simply separating it into a right continuous martingale component Mt and an increasing process At that was measurable under the information set ~ Ft . − ∫0 S u du S dW % % E ( St FS ) = e 2 E e ∫0 u u FS t 2 t 1 Given ( ) 1 t 2 ∫ S u du 2 S (2. Let us consider now that we have M tk = M t0 + ∑ H ti−1 Z ti − Z ti−1 i =1 k (2.36) or equivalently. ξ ( Z t ) is a square integrable martingale with Proof We proceed now to provide a demonstration for the deterministic scenario.11 Martingale Representation Theorem Recall that from the Doob Meyer Decomposition.
then ~ M t k is also a martingale with respect to Ft . They are unknown and have unpredictable increments. implies that martingale.4) we know that are therefore left with (2.36). • ~ Z ti − Z ti−1 is any martingale with respect to Ft and P. Each H ti−1 is constant because they are each entirely know at time t.3) . The same is true for H ti−1 when we apply the expectation operator on it for time ti1. We can therefore rewrite the DoobMeyer martingale decomposition as: T T St = M t + At = M 0 + ∫ H ( M s ) dZ s + ∫ α s ds t t [ ] (2.38) M t0 is known at time t0.39) Eti−1 Z ti − Z ti−1 = 0 . Proof: If we calculate the expectation of the above (2.40) M t k is itself a (2. meaning that its expectation is its own value. 31 . We [ ] Et0 M tk = M t0 which according to the definition of a martingale (2. Given the above conditions. then k Et0 M tk = Et0 M t0 + Et0 ∑ Eti−1 H ti−1 Z ti − Z ti−1 i =1 = (2.41) This formulation is what is known as the martingale representation theorem.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework • ~ H ti−1 is any random variable adapted to Fti−1 . It too can therefore exit the operator. k = M t0 + Et0 ∑ H ti−1 ⋅ Eti−1 Z ti − Z ti−1 i =1 Now from the martingale properties (2.
measurable process given ~ Fs 2. The trend At is obtained by the interaction of αt. which is a known.12. ~ Fs and P.12 Major Stochastic Differential Equations We shall now proceed to give a brief outline of the major existing stochastic differential equations.43) St = µ t + σ Wt It is entirely defined by the measures mean: E [dS t ] = µdt Variance(dS t ) = σ 2 dt σ is called the normal volatility of the process 32 .42) (2. and is composed by H.1 Linear constant coefficients Parameters: µ drift. a function adapted to Ms (that is in turn adapted to Zs that is already a martingale given ~ Fs ). and a constant component M0. 2. σ diffusion This model has the following well know stochastic differential equation dSt = µ dt + σ dWt P Whose solution is (2. Many of the more complex developments can be grouped or transformed into these more simple formulations.Chapter 2 Stochastic Calculus The martingale component Mt represents the degree of deviation about a given trend.
Geometric Stochastic Differential Equation dynamics 33 .12. 2. 2.e. whose slope is µdt The fluctuations do not increase over time. The variations are therefore entirely random.2 Geometric Brownian Motion It is the basis of the Black Scholes model. its variance increases with time The ratio of the change has constant parameters dS t P = µdt + σdWt St S0 Fig.3. Linear Stochastic Differential Equation dynamics The variable St fluctuates around a straight line. which as we shall see.2.45) Variance(dS t ) = σ 2 S 2 t −1 St has an exponential growth rate µ Its random fluctuations variance i. and have no systematic jumps. has the following stochastic differential equation: dSt = µ St dt + σ St dWt P St = S 0 e σ is called the volatility of the process 1 2 µ − σ t +σ Wt 2 (2.44) (2. 2.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework µdt S0 Fig.
Square Root Stochastic Differential Equation dynamics 2.12.47) As St falls below the mean µ. 2.3 Square Root This is the same as the Black Scholes model only changing the variance to a square root form as its name implies dSt = µ St dt + σ St dWt P Variance(dSt ) = σ 2 St −1 St has an exponential growth rate µ Its random fluctuations are much smaller than in the Black Scholes model.St) becomes positive and so tends to make dSt more positive still. σ is still called the volatility of the process.1) is therefore a particular case of this mean reverting process 34 .4 Mean Reverting Process: dSt = λ ( µ − St ) dt + σ St dWt P dSt = λ ( µ − St ) dt + σ St dWt P (2.4. attempting to ‘revert’ the dynamics towards its mean trend.Chapter 2 Stochastic Calculus 2.12. the term (µ. The speed of this reversion is defined by the parameter λ The Ornstein Uhlenbeck as seen in (2. (2.46) S0 Fig.
dSt = µ St dt + σ t St dWt P dσ t = λ (σ 0 − σ t ) dt + βσ t dZ t P If (2. with the simple addition of a stochastic volatility in the last term.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 2. we have created a dynamics where the volatility has a mean reverting process. which before was used to exclusively determine the underlying. In the above.5 Stochastic Volatility Consists in using a volatility parameter that is in itself.12. 35 . Thus a new source of stochasticity is introduced into the model that is different from that which we previously had: W. time dependant and random. St ) is deterministic then we have a local volatility model. Any other diffusion equation could also be considered.48) σ t = σ (t . The particularity of the above model lies in the fact that the volatility depends on a different Brownian motion Z.
3. We hope that with this ‘timetravel’ the reader will be able to finally arrive at the current date in which this project was written.1 The Black Scholes Model Was developed in the early 1970’s by Fisher Black. The model has since had a huge influence on the way that traders price and hedge options. This is to say. Undoubtedly. and to recognise our project’s developments as an intuitive ‘next step’ to what had previously been done. 36 . Then the price may be described as dSt = rSt dt + β (t ) dWt P (3. Historical Models We will now proceed to present the historical development of the major models that have been used in the world of finance. Let the price S of an underlying security be governed by a geometric Brownian motion process over a time interval [0. The value of the bond satisfies the well known dynamics dB = rBdt. In 1997 the importance of the model was recognised when Robert Merton and Myron Scholes were awarded the Nobel Prize for economics. It soon became a major breakthrough in the pricing of stock options. r is the risk neutral rate of a risk free asset (a bond) over [0. he would have otherwise also been a recipient of the prize.1) where W is a standard Brownian motion (or a Wiener Process). T]. to show how each model builds on the previous and attempts to solve its intrinsic problems.T]. Scholes and Merton the Nobel Prize. Fisher Black had sadly died in 1995. It is the theory behind the rate r that truly won Black. It has also been pivotal to the growth and success of financial engineering in the 1980’s and 1990’s. The equation was developed under the assumption that the price fluctuations of the underlying security of an option can be described by an Ito process. Our aim here is to show the logical development of ideas from one model to the next.Chapter 3 Historical Models 3. Myron Scholes and Robert Merton. We will follow a simplistic approach. stating the principal characteristics of each and discussing their flaws.
we have dSt = rSt dt + σ St dWt P (3.1 Solving the PDE The easiest setting to tackle is therefore that in which r is deterministic and σ is constant.7) 37 .4) g ( St . we have dg = where ∂g ∂g 1 ∂2 g dt + dSt + dt ∂t ∂St 2 ∂St 2 (3. As previously shown. in stochastic calculus we seek to transform our expression into an Ornstein Uhlenbeck expression. Then applying Ito’s Lemma. Thus.1.St is stochastic.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework We also impose that β(t) = St σ. Thus we seek dSt = rdt + σ dWt P St (3.2) We cannot solve the above dynamics directly because the diffusion term is not deterministic .6) dLnSt = 1 1 ( rSdt + σ St dWt P ) − σ 2 dt St 2 (3. t ) = dSt = dLnSt St (3.3) 3. despite the fact that σ is constant and deterministic in a first simplistic approach.5) ∂g =0 ∂t ∂g 1 = ∂S t S t ∂2g 1 =− 2 2 ∂S t St dLnSt = 0dt + Substituting dS we now have 1 1 −1 dSt + 2 σ 2 St 2 dt St 2 St (3.
we can now price a Call of strike K and yield r.9) − ∫ rs ds St = Et SU e T U P (3. its mean is 1 38 . we must realize the following: As a direct consequence of the expression dSt = rSt dt + β (t ) dWt P we know that the expectation of any such tradable assets is (3.13) U t U∫ β ( t ) dWt P −U∫ β (2) dt − ∫ rdt P P T 2 St T e T St = ST Et SU e = ST Et 2 (3.11) SU = ST e − ∫ rdt U T ∫ rdt + ∫ β (t ) St dWt P − ∫ T (3.14) Gaussian variance As it is a martingale.8) Having obtained a solution to the diffusion of the asset dSt.10) Proof dLnSt = rdt + U β (t ) St U T dWt P − U T β 2 (t ) 2 St 2 β 2 (t ) 2 St 2 dt dt (3.Chapter 3 Historical Models T St = S 0 e 0 ∫ rt dt − σ 2T 2 +σ WT P (3.12) U SU e Taking expectations = ST e ∫ β (t ) St dWt P − ∫ T U β 2 (t ) 2 St 2 dt T (3. But before.
It may be useful for the reader to jump momentarily to Chapter 6. but not the obligation.15) Where (ST – K)+ = max [ST – K. A Call gives the buyer of the option the right.1 at this point for a detailed description of a Call option. so the positive sign can come out from the expectation operator − ∫ rt dt − ∫ rt dt C0 = E0 e 0 ST − Ke 0 T T + P (3. Suppose that we are holding a call option and that at time T the price of the underlying asset is ST < K. Note that exponentials are always greater than zero. The seller (or "writer") is obligated to sell the commodity or financial instrument should the buyer so decide. In this case.1. Thus. Thus we would not exercise the option. and then go on to the market to sell the share of our underlying. to buy an agreed quantity of a particular commodity or financial instrument (the underlying instrument) from the seller of the option at a certain time (the expiration date) and for a certain price (the strike price). and our profit from this contract would be 0.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 3. so as to make a profit of ST .2 Pricing a Call by Black Scholes1 Let us consider now the pricing of a Call Option. 0]. we would not be interested in buying the asset at price K.K. at time T. The buyer pays a fee (called a premium) for this right. the expected benefit obtained from the call option would be − ∫ rt dt C0 = E0 e 0 ( ST − K ) + T P (3. if ST > K. we would be ready to buy the asset at the lower price K from the unfortunate underwriter of our call option. On the other hand.16) Let us note the function Note that we could have also derived Black’s formula by using the equivalent ~ martingale measure P 1 39 .
we see that we are left with: − ∫ rt dt − ∫ rt dt − ∫ rt dt ∞ E0P St e 0 ⋅ 1{S t > K } = e 0 E0P St ⋅1{ S t > K } = e 0 ∫ St ⋅ dP ( St ) K T T [ ] T (3.Chapter 3 Historical Models 1 → St > K 1{St > K } 0 → St < K − ∫ rt dt − ∫ rt dt C0 = E0 e 0 ST ⋅1{St > K } − Ke 0 ⋅1{St > K } T T Then P (3.17) Now considering the second term in the above.4 lies in the fact that they can be split into a normal and temporal component.21) once again substituting St − σ 2T 2 S0e +σ WT P > Ke − ∫ rt dt 0 T ↔ LnS0 − σ 2T 2 + σ WT P > LnK − ∫ rt dt 0 T (3. the exponential (deterministic) is independent of St so can be extracted from the expectation since its value is well known.22) The property of Brownians seen in Chapter 2. thus if 40 .20) K K now notice St > K ↔ St e − ∫ rt dt > Ke − ∫ rt dt 0 T (3.8): T St = S 0e We then have T − ∫ rt dt ∞ 0 ∫ rt dt − σ 2T 2 +σWT P 0 e ∫ S t ⋅ dP ( S t ) = e T − ∫ rt dt ∞ 0 T ∫ S 0e T 0 ∫ rt dt − σ 2T 2 +σ WT P 0 ⋅ dP ( S t ) (3. − ∫ rt dt E Ke 0 ⋅1{St > K } T P 0 = Ke = Ke − ∫ rt dt 0 T E 1{St > K } = Ke P 0 T − ∫ rt dt ∞ 0 −∞ − ∫ rt dt 0 T ∫1 { St > K } dP( St ) (3.18) T − ∫ rt dt ∞ 0 ∫ dP(S ) t = Ke prob( St > K ) K Analysing the first term.19) Let us substitute St with the formula that we derived previously in (3.
At this point therefore we now have both the first and second terms in the expression (3. assuming a deterministic rate r ∞ C0 = ∫ S0 e d0 ∞ − σ 2T 2 +σ U T e − U2 2 2π ⋅ dU − Ke − ∫ rt dt 0 T − ∫ rt dt 0 T ⋅ prob(U > d 0 ) = S0 ∫ d0 e − (U −σ T ) 2 2 2π ∞ ⋅ dU − Ke ⋅ N (−d 0 ) (3.17). We can substitute them into the equation to find the call’s price discounted to present.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework WTP = U T and U ~ N(0.24) Evidently therefore. all that occurs in between these two dates is irrelevant to us.23) Ln d0 = K T − ∫ rt dt S0 0 σ T + σ T 2 (3. • • 41 .25) = S0 d 0 −σ ( T ) ∫ e − X2 2 2π ⋅ dX − Ke T − ∫ rt dt 0 T ⋅ N (−d 0 ) = S0 N (σ (T ) − d 0 ) − Ke = S0 N (d1 ) − Ke − ∫ rt dt 0 T − ∫ rt dt 0 ⋅ N (−d 0 ) ⋅ N (d2 ) It is important to notice that the price of the Call depends only on • its price today (t0) the distribution of probability of ST at its maturity T the discount factors Therefore. U > d0.1) then Ln St > K ↔ U > We shall call K T − ∫ rt dt σ T S0 0 + 2 σ T (3.
we would discover that their σ is not unique. • Term Structure: for any given strike K.2 Beyond Black The Black Scholes model presents several difficulties that it cannot surmount.Chapter 3 Historical Models ST (STK)T S 0 K T Tiem po Time t0 irrelevant Fig. is not what is perceived by the traders in the markets. and perform the inverse transformation of the Black Scholes formula so as to find their corresponding σ. there are different Black implied volatilities σBlack for different maturities T. This however. As we have seen. the two main problems presented by the Black Scholes’ model are: • Smile: for any given maturity T. and instead varies with K and T.1. 3. Only the present call value is relevant to compute its future price. If we were to set up a matrix of prices for K vs T for a given underlying asset. 42 . there are different Black implied volatilities σBlack for different strikes K. Therefore. Any intermediate timeperiods are irrelevant 3. in theory it has a single volatility σ for every K and maturity T.
1 Term Structure For a given strike K. we have learnt in the above development that we can successfully use the Black Scholes model as a ‘translator’ between option prices and their σBlack. 3. Black’s implied volatility is not unique. We will explore the advantage of this property in the following discussion. any movement in prices will result in a similar movement in the asset’s σBlack. Both have parallel dynamics. the model has triggered an enormous amount of research and revolutionised the practice of finance. As stated initially.. Term Structure of Vanilla Options The lack of a unique volatility as assumed by Black does not mean that the Black Scholes model is useless to our case. therefore σ ≠ σ1 ≠ σ2 43 . Further. 3.2.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Black Implied Volatility σ σ Short maturity (smile) Long maturity (skew) Strike Fig.2. thus. we may have the following structure: T1 0 σ1 of Variance = σ12T1 and for a different product: T2 0 σ2 of Variance = σ22T2 As stated previously.
2 Time Dependent Black We can solve this inconvenience by modelling σ as the mean value of the variance that is accumulated between 0 and T2.26) Thus we have a deterministic σ(t) yielding: dS t = rS t dt + σ (t ) S t dWt which is known as ‘Time Dependent Black’.2. This is simply obtained by replacing in the original equation T σ T→ ∫σ 0 2 (t )dt (3.Chapter 3 Historical Models 3. This is because we do not know the strike K at which P the asset will be sold in the market.3 Smile We cannot use a similar change as in the previous case and convert our equation to dS t = rS t dt + σ ( K ) S t dWt . We now have a unique σ(t) so can write T1 0 P (3.2.27) σ1 Var1 = ∫ σ 2 (t )dt 0 T1 T2 0 T2 T1 T2 2 2 σ2 Var2 = ∫ σ (t )dt = ∫ σ (t )dt + ∫ σ 2 (t )dt = Var1 + Var12 0 0 T1 3. 44 .
as its diffusion term depends only on the Brownian parameter and a constant sigma.29) dS t is transformed St dLnS t . the term through Ito into (3.3 Lognormal Classic Black We have so far seen that we can write the diffusion of the Black Scholes model as: dS t = rS t dt + σS t dWt P (3. Flat lognormal Black Volatilities 45 . Therefore it is the log of St that is now normal. when is represented in a strike vs σBlack graph. 3.3. but also the term as St which itself follows a stochastic diffusion. As the diffusion is constant in the lognormal model. We can rewrite the above dS t P = rdt + σdWt St We call it a lognormal model because subsequently.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 3. we obtain a flat curve: σBlack Lognorm al (flat) Strike K Fig.28) The second term is not normal as it includes a Brownian (which is normal).
32) σBlack a) b) Lognorm al (Flat) Lognorm al Norm al Norm al (Skew) Strike K ATM Strike K Fig. Normal and lognormal Black Scholes model comparison a) price vs strike b) black volatility vs strike The comparison between the two models must be made under the classic σBlack. The above is commonly rewritten as: dSt = rSt dt + σ S0 dWt P (3. we would find it difficult to perceive any difference. This diffusion term is already normal without having to transform it to a lognormal version.30) the second term now consists in a constant volatility attached to a Gaussian Brownian motion. if we were to compare the two normal and lognormal models in terms of their Call prices.Chapter 3 Historical Models 3.4. 3. As seen above. Thus we realise the utility of using the σBlack: The σBlack allows us to compare and clearly 46 .4 Normal Black We could attempt to transform the probability distribution that our equation follows to a different form.31) where we have included a constant term S0 so that the magnitude of the volatility is comparable to that in the classic Black Scholes model. The previous formulation can be transformed to its lognormal version so as to compare its dynamics with the classic lognormal Black Scholes model: dSt S = rt dt + σ 0 dWt P St St Call Price (3. Thus by taking: dS t = rS t dt + σdWt P (3.
Alpha skew modelling The interpretation of this new model is best made when analysed from the classic lognormal σBlack perspective: 47 . and is basically independent of the α parameter. The parameter α acts as the weight associated to each of the models. Thus a logical continuation to the model is proposed.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework distinguish models that are otherwise undistinguishable under their price measures.5 Black Shifted dS t = rS t dt + σ (αS t + (1 − α ) S 0 )dWt P (3. σBlack Lognorm al (Flat) α= 1 Norm al (Skew)α=0 ATM Strike K Fig. Market data shows that the general level of volatility is imposed at the money ATM.5. The main problem with the normal Black model is the fact that it imposes a slope that doesn’t always coincide with that which is observed in real markets.33) This model allows for a variety of slopes ranging between the skewed normal and the flat lognormal version. 3. This matches up with our previous section’s discussion in which we questioned the utility of calculating σBlack if we knew that the Black Scholes model could not correctly model varying local volatilities. 3.
3.Chapter 3 Historical Models dS t S P = rdt + σ α + (1 − α ) 0 dWt St St Acts as the volatility ~σ*(St)dWtP (3. St )dWt St (3. in practice.35) Recall that in Black’s model there is a oneto one relationship between the price of a European option and the volatility parameter σBlack. This was seen clearly in Fig.6 Local Volatility .6.34) Just as we had expected. Consequently. For example for a unique maturity. the volatility σBlack in Black’s model is a constant but as we have already stated. we see that by varying the alpha parameter we are capable of adjusting our model to any true market slope. Market data smile 48 .Dupire’s Model dS t P = rdt + σ (t . market data may present this form: Fig.3 where the lognormal Black model was a flat straight line. options with different strikes K require different volatilities σBlack to match their market prices. option prices are often quoted by stating the implied volatility σBlack: the unique value of the volatility which yields the option’s money price when used in Black’s model. 3. 3. In theory. constant at all strikes K.
1 Detailed Comparison We will now advance to derive a more detailed comparison between the traditional Black model and the Dupire model.6. as we shall discover the dynamic behaviour of smiles and skews predicted by local volatility models is exactly opposite to the behaviour observed in the marketplace: when the price of the underlying asset decreases. However. To derive the value of the option. arbitragefree. The development of local volatility models by Dupire and Derman. since these desks usually have large exposures across a wide range of strikes. asset prices and market smiles move in the same direction. and can be calibrated to precisely match observed market smiles and skews. This contradiction between the model and the marketplace tends to destabilize the delta and vega hedges derived from local volatility models. and often these hedges perform worse than the naive BlackScholes’ hedges. If the holder exercises the option on tex. then on the settlement date tset he receives the underlying asset A and pays the strike K. when the price increases. these models predict that the smile shifts to lower prices. and define ˆ f = F (0) to be today’s forward 49 . Yet the inherent contradiction of using different volatilities for different options makes it difficult to successfully manage these risks using Black’s model. Local volatility models are selfconsistent. and strike K.Kani was a major advance in handling smiles and skews. 3. In reality. Consider a European call option on an asset A with exercise date tex.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Handling these market skews and smiles correctly is critical to fixed income and foreign exchange desks. Currently these models are the most popular way of managing smile and skew risk. define ˆ F (t ) to be the forward price of the asset for a forward contract that matures on the settlement date tset. local volatility models predict that the smile shifts to higher prices. settlement date tset .
” there is a measure.37) V put = Vcall + B(tset ) ( K − f ) (3. The coefficient C (t. under which the value of a European option can be written as the expected value of the payoff. * ).c. Here the expectation E is over the forward measure. one cannot determine the coefficient C(t. Instead one must postulate a mathematical model for C (t.* ) may be deterministic or random.*)dW for some coefficient C (t. let B(t) be the value today of 1 u. * ).38) (Refer to the Discount Factor section in Chapter 5. which can be equivalently expressed as a bond maturing at the future date).39) ˆ dF (t ) = C (t . and % F0 can be interpreted as “given all information available at t = 0.” Martingale pricing theory also shows that the forward price ˆ F (t ) is a Martingale under this measure. that is.*) on purely theoretical grounds. known as the forward measure. so the Martingale representation theorem shows that ˆ F (t ) obeys ˆ F (0) = f (3.36) and the value of the corresponding European put is ˆ V put = B(tset ) E P K − F (tex ) ( + % F0 (3. Martingale pricing theory asserts that under the “usual conditions. to be delivered on date t. 50 . Also let B(t) be the discount factor for date t. and may depend on any information that can be resolved by time t. In particular.1 to learn that a future payoff can be discounted to its present value by continuous compounding. The value of a call options is ˆ Vcall = B(t set ) E P F (tex ) − K ( ) ) + % F0 (3. where dW is a Brownian motion in this measure. This is as far as the fundamental theory of arbitrage free pricing goes.Chapter 3 Historical Models price.
We saw in previous sections that Black postulated that the coefficient C(t. To go any further requires postulating a model for the coefficient C(t. which is a known quantity.40) ˆ % Vrec = ∑ mB(t . Ti ) ⋅ E ( K − Rs (tex ))+ F0 i =0 Vrec = V pay + ∑ mB(t . Ti ) ⋅ [ K − R (0)] i =0 n −1 n −1 (3. (Refer to a swpation description in Chapter 6. this is identical to the framework provided by the previous equations for European calls and puts. since they are just one period payer and receiver swaptions. Caplets and floorlets can also be included in this picture.42) Here the level ∑ mB(t.43) where dW is Brownian motion. and E is the expectation.*) may be deterministic or random. so once again ˆ dRs (t ) = C (t . The PV01 of the forward swap. Let and let ˆ Rs (t ) be the swaption’s forward swap rate as seen at date t. Ti ) ⋅ E ( Rs (tex ) − K )+ F0 i=0 and the value of a receiver swaption is n −1 (3. As before.*). and cannot be determined from fundamental theory.2 Black’s model and implied volatilities. 3.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework European swaptions fit within an identical framework.*)dW ˆ Rs (0) = R0 (3.6. Consider a European swaption with exercise date tex and fixed rate (strike) K. Apart from notation. The value of a payer swaption is ˆ % V pay = ∑ mB(t . ˆ R0 = Rs (0) be the forward swap rate as seen today.9). T ) i =0 i n −1 is today’s value of the annuity.*) is ˆ σ B F (t ) where 51 . the coefficient C(t.41) (3. like the discount factor rate ˆ Rs (t ) is a Martingale in this measure.
the volatility σBlack implied by the market price of an option is unique.46) for the price of European calls and puts. However. An option’s implied volatility is the value of σBlack that needs to be used in Black’s formula so that this formula matches the market price of the option. the implied volatility needed to match market prices nearly always varies with both the strike K and the timetoexercise tex . All parameters in Black’s formula are easily observed.36) and (3. Vcall = B(t set ) ( f ⋅ N (d1 ) − K ⋅ N (d 2 ) ) V put = Vcall + B(t set ) ( K − f ) where 2 f σ ⋅ (t ) log ± B ex 2 K = σ B ⋅ tex (3.37) under this model then yields through Black’s formula. Indeed. as is wellknown. The forward price motion: ˆ F (t ) is then a geometric Brownian ˆ ˆ dF (t ) = σ B F (t )dW ˆ F (0) = f (3. except for the volatility σBlack .Chapter 3 Historical Models the volatility σB is a constant.44) Evaluating the expected values in equations (3.45) T d1. Since the call (and put) prices in equations (3. The derivation of Black’s formula presumes that the volatility σBlack is a constant for each underlying asset A. in many markets it is standard practice to quote prices in terms of the implied volatility σBlack implied the option’s dollar price is then recovered by substituting the agreed upon σBlack into Black’s formula. 52 .45) are increasing functions of σBlack.2 (3.
53 . 3. In an insightful work.7. F ) F then yields the “local volatility model.47) in the forward measure. Instead one should only assume that C is Markovian: ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ C = C (t . F )dW ˆ F (0) = f (3. F ) .6. Smiles at different maturities Changing the volatility σBlack means that a different model is being used for the underlying asset for each K and tex.*) to ˆ σ B F (t ) . Dupire essentially argued that Black was too bold in setting the coefficient C (t. Rewriting C (t . F ) as σ loc (t . 3.” where the forward price of the asset is ˆ ˆ dF = σ loc (t . F ) .A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Fig. Dupire argued that instead of theorizing about the unknown local volatility function ˆ σ loc (t .3 Local volatility models. one should obtain it directly from the marketplace by “calibrating” the local volatility model to market prices of liquid European options.
one starts with a given local volatility function evaluates ˆ σ loc (t .) Once ˆ σ loc (t .49) To obtain the theoretical prices of the options. F ) . 6m. This model yields 54 . 3.Chapter 3 Historical Models 3. F ) = σ loc ( F ) j ˆ ˆ σ loc (t . F ) to reproduce the option prices at 1 tex for all strikes 2 ˆ σ loc (t .. one then varies the local volatility function ˆ σ loc (t .. and ˆ Vcall = B(t set ) E P F (tex ) − K ( ) + % F0 (3.49). for 1m. selfconsistent model which correctly reproduces the market prices of calls (and puts) for all strikes K and exercise dates tex without “adjustment. then calibrates forth.47) to (3. for example.. for all K.6. Commonly the local volatilities be piecewise constant in time: 1 ˆ ˆ σ loc (t . F ) to reproduce the option prices at 2 tex .48) = V put + B(t set ) ( f − K ) (3. the local volatility model is a single. 2m.. F ) = σ loc ( F ) J ˆ ˆ σ loc (t . F ) until these theoretical prices match the actual market prices of the option for each strike K and exercise date tex. 1 ˆ σ loc (t .” Prices of exotic options can now be calculated from this model without ambiguity. tex . and 12m from today.J One first calibrates K. and so (This calibration process can be greatly simplified by solving to obtain the prices of European options under the local volatility model (3.. and from these prices we obtain explicit algebraic formulas for the implied volatility of the local volatility models. tex . F ) has been obtained by calibration..4 Calibration In calibration. F ) are taken to for for for 1 t < tex j j tex−1 < t < tex J t > tex j = 2.. In practice liquid markets usually exist only for options with specific exercise dates 1 2 3 tex . 3m. F ) = σ loc ( F ) ˆ σ loc (t .
55 . the local volatility model predicts the wrong dynamics of the implied volatility curve. perturbing f and recalculating the option prices enables one to determine how the implied volatilities change with changes in the underlying asset price.8. Unfortunately. which leads to inaccurate and often unstable hedges. Local volatility models predict that the market smile/skew moves in the opposite direction with respect to the price of the underlying asset.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework consistent delta and vega risks for all options.9. the local volatility model provides a method of pricing and hedging options in the presence of market smiles and skews.f) if forward price decreases from f0 to f (solid line) Fig. 3. so these risks can be consolidated across strikes. It is perhaps the most popular method of managing exotic equity and foreign exchange options. Finally. Thus. 3. This is opposite to typical market behaviour. Implied volatility σB(K. Fig. Implied volatility σB(K.f) if forward price increases from f0 to f (solid line). in which smiles and skews move in the same direction as the underlying.
each with their respective probabilities of occurring. Thus we have the corresponding probability distribution at time t + dt for all the values that the local volatility could possibly take.11. on obtaining the probability distribution.Chapter 3 Historical Models Let us explain in a little more detail this calculation for the future projection of local volatilities. how do we construct the model up to time t + dt? At t we know the price of the asset St. Time t t + dt Fig. 3. we can then simply invert the Black Scholes formula so as to obtain each σBlack for each of the product’s strikes. Given that we know the σ(t. t t + dt Fig. and projecting their scenarios into the future.10. Thus. Future asset volatility scenarios for different an asset By analysing for a given asset the continuum of market prices for every strike at time t. it is possible to discover for each price the corresponding probability distribution at time t + dt. We can also calculate for it a set of possible future scenarios. 3. St) up until the present time instant t. Future volatility scenarios for different strikes of a same underlying asset 56 .
52) ∂C ∂C =− ∂t ∂T (3.e. Proof: Let us set out by writing the expression for a Call through a typical stochastic diffusion equation i. S t ) dt + σ (t . therefore also obtaining a σBlack for a continuum of times. St )dt ∂t ∂S 2 ∂S 2 (3. composed by a risk neutral drift and a stochastic component yields: dCt = rCdt + σ (t .50) from before. just as is shown by the market quoted data. S t )CdWt Ito → P ∂C ∂C 1 ∂ 2C 2 dt + dS + σ (t .A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Each strike has a particular σBlack at a given date T. the strike must consequently decrease. =− ∂S ∂K ∂S 2 ∂K 2 Similarly (3. S t )dWt P 2 2 ∂S ∂S ∂t ∂S we can apply here the fact that the Call Price = (S – K)t (3.51) Therefore. The same procedure can be repeated at every desired maturity T. Note that the method used here for interpolation will have a great impact on the final value and smile of the various σBlack. for a known fixed price as is our case. if the underlying asset S increases. S t )dWt Thus replacing we P ∂C ∂C 1 ∂ 2C 2 ∂C + rS + σ (t . Any other desired σBlack can simply be calculated by interpolating between two known σBlack derived from the market data. we also know that obtain dS t = rS t dt + σ (t .53) Ignoring the Brownian term in dW we obtain 57 . This implies the following relationship between the given variables ∂C ∂C ∂ 2C ∂ 2C =− .
5 Problems The model correctly simulates the market smile at any strike and for any maturity T starting from the present date t0. The model known as Local Volatility because it associates a local σ to each pair (K. The dynamics of the products obtained through the Dupire model results in an almost flat σBlack vs K curve. However. S t ) dt 2 2 ∂K ∂T ∂K (3. it is possible to construct a unique solution for σ(t. 3. it is not accurate for forward products that start at a future time U and end at T. The computation is much slower as the algorithm advances by infinite time intervals dt which can consist in periods of time composed by days or weeks.6. whereas market data show a smile. 2.T). it also presents a set of intrinsic problems: 1. We saw that the Black Scholes model could jump directly from the data in time t0 to the probability distribution at maturity T (say 1. Experience has demonstrated that although the model is extremely accurate for evaluating products that start today and end at time T. The integral form of the above can therefore easily be calculated obtaining a value for σ 2 (t . Thus. S t ) at each (K.Chapter 3 Historical Models ∂C ∂C 1 ∂ 2C 2 dC = − − rS − σ (t .54) All of which is known from the market data with respect to every strike and maturity. as stated before.and this has meant the need to return to the 58 . given a continuum of market prices with respect to the strike K and the maturity T. This implies the need of a further parameter to introduce another stochastic source into our expression The above concerns have taken the quant world to step back from the Dupire model when analysing future products. The Dupire model implies that the volatility at a given time depends only on the underlying ST whereas experience has demonstrated that this dependence is not really constant. 10 or 30 years in the future) without the need for any intermediate steps. 3.St).T).
where. as discussed previously.7 Stochastic Volatility dS t P = rdt + VdWt St (3. i. Notice that the Brownian motion driving the volatility process is different from the asset’s Wiener process. Both Brownian motions may be correlated ρ t dt = dWt P . if correlated with a ρ= 1. whereas gt represents the volatility of the volatility. although with very subtle modifications.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework models that we were previously discussing. Now in turn. W and Z.55) dV = f t dt + g t dZ t P (3. from W. This is the approach followed to introduce a new variable of stochasticity different from dW.e. all the stochasticity derived from S. 59 . the normal and lognormal Black Scholes models. 3. This approach has given way to the models know as: • Heston 1994 SABR 1999 Current lines of thought suggest that the path to follow include a combination of • local volatility versus stochastic volatility.57) Note also that ft represents the drift term of the volatility V. dZ tP (3. give way to the previously discussed normal and lognormal models. or the Black shifted. and in turn. we have two sources if stochasticity.56) In this model we assume that the volatility itself follows a stochastic process. otherwise referred to as Vol of Vol. The advantage of this new model is the fact that before.
60) under the forward measure. and where the Volatility of Volatilities is a constant.59) where the stochastic volatility includes a mean revision term. 3.2 Local volatility versus simple Stochastic Volatility dS t = rS t dt + VS tσ (t . Choosing the simplest reasonable process for α now yields the “stochastic – α β ρ model. Respecting the preceding discussion. where the “volatility” α is itself a stochastic process. the two processes are correlated dW1dW2 = ρ dt (3. the forward price and volatility are ˆ ˆ dF = α F β dW1 dα = να dW2 ˆ F (0) = f α (0) = α (3.61) The SABR model has the virtue of being the simplest stochastic volatility model which is homogenous in ˆ F and α. In this model. it predicts the correct dynamics of the implied 60 . This suggests that volatility is not constant.8 SABR Most markets experience both relatively quiescent and relatively chaotic periods.58) 3. S t )dWt dV = (V − λV0 )dt + g 0 dZ t P P (3.7. We find that the SABR model can be used to accurately fit the implied volatility curves observed in the marketplace for any single exercise date tex. the unknown coefficient V (t. but is itself a random function of time.1 Black shifted with Stochastic Volatility 2002 – 2003 dS t = rS t dt + V (αSt + (1 − α ) St )dWt dV = fdt + gdZ t P P (3.Chapter 3 Historical Models 3.7.” which has become known as the SABR model. More importantly.*) is chosen to be ˆ αSβ .
A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
volatility curves. This makes the SABR model an effective means to manage the smile risk in markets where each asset only has a single exercise date; these markets include the swaption and caplet/floorlet markets.
The SABR model may or may not fit the observed volatility surface of an asset which has European options at several different exercise dates; such markets include foreign exchange options and most equity options. Fitting volatility surfaces requires the dynamic SABR model or other stochastic volatility models.
In the SABR there are two special cases: If we analyse (3.60) in a little more depth, we notice that for β = 1, we obtain our previous stochastic log normal Black model. For β = 0 in turn we obtain the stochastic Black normal model. For a deeper
understanding, refer to the SABR study in the Caplet Stripping Section 17.
Finally, it is worthwhile noting that the SABR model predicts that whenever the forward price f changes, the implied volatility curve shifts in the same direction and by the same amount as the price f. This predicted dynamics of the smile matches market experience, and so is a great advance over the Dupire model which was inconsistent at this point.
61
Chapter 4
Interest Rate Models
4. Interest Rate Models
As seen, Black can be used for simple vanilla options such as Caps, European Swaptions,... The BlackScholes model is commonly used for the pricing of equity assets where the model takes on a deterministic rate r. The model replicates the evolution of its underlying asset through the use of a drift and a diffusion parameter. However a difficulty arises when interest rate models are constructed using this technique as the interest rate curve r is non deterministic and so can lead to arbitrage solutions. If we were to apply the Black Scholes formulation to forward interest rates, we would obtain a lognormal model with a constant volatility σ. Under the risk neutral forward probability, we would have
dF (t , T , U ) = 0dt + σF (t , T , U )dWt
P
which results extremely simple. Applying Girsanov’s Theorem and inverting the forward rates in a local volatility approach, we would need a different underlying each time, because each forward rate has a different black volatility. This is a characteristic that Black’s model does not support. Black requires a unique volatility. A solution to the problem that we haven’t discussed could be to consider the different forward rates as a basket of different products in equity each being lognormal with their associated volatility. Thus we would obtain a matrix of correlations between them. This approach gives way to arbitrage opportunities, creating a forward curve that always increases with time. According to market data, the former does not always occur thus the need for specific interest rate models. Hence, in previous approaches, interest rate models avoid assigning a short rate by specifying it at every time and state. Although this is a good and practical method, an alternative is to specify the short rate as a process defined by an Ito equation. This allows to work in continuous time.
62
A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
In this approach we specify that the instantaneous short rate r satisfies an equation of the type
dr = µ (r , t )dt + σ (r , t )dW
(4.1)
where W(t) is a standardised Wiener process in the riskneutral world. Given an initial condition r(0), the equation defines a stochastic process r(t)
Many such models have been proposed as being good approximations to actual interest rate processes. We list a few of the best known short rate models:
4.1 Rendleman and Bartter model
dr = mrdt + σ rdW
(4.2)
This model copies the standard geometric Brownian motion model used for stock dynamics. It leads to lognormal distributions of future short rates. It is now, however, rarely advocated as a realistic model of the short rate process
4.2 HoLee model
dr = θ (t ) dt + σ dW
This is the continuoustime limit of the HoLee model. The function
(4.3)
θ (t ) is
chosen so that the resulting forward rate curve matches the current term structure. A potential difficulty with the model is that r(t)may be negative for some t
63
Chapter 4
Interest Rate Models
4.3 Black Derman Toy model
dLnr = θ (t )dt + σ dW
(4.4)
This is virtually identical to the HoLee model, except that the underlying variable is Ln r rather than r. Using Ito’s Lemma, it can be transformed to the equivalent form
1 dr = θ (t ) + σ 2 rdt + σ rdW 2
(4.5)
4.4 Vasicek Model
dr = a ( b − r ) dt + σ dW
(4.6)
The model has the feature of mean reversion in that it tends to be pulled to the value b. Again, it is possible for r(t) to be negative, but this is less likely than in other models because of the mean reversion effect. Indeed, if there were no stochastic term (that is if
σ = 0 ), then r would decrease if it were above b and it would increase if it
were below b. This feature of mean reversion is considered to be quite important by many researchers and practitioners since it is felt that interest rates have a natural ‘home’ of about 5% and that if rates differ widely from this home value there is a strong tendency to move back to it.
4.5 Cox Ingersoll and Ross model
dr = a ( b − r ) dt + σ rdW
(4.7)
In this model not only does the drift have a mean reversion, but the stochastic term is multiplied by rate r itself decreases.
r , implying that the variance of the process increases as the
64
A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
4.6 Black Karasinski model
dLnr = (θ − aLnr ) dt + σ dW
This is the Black Derman Toy model with mean reversion
(4.8)
4.7 Hull White Model
dr = (θ t − at r )dt + σ t dWt P
Where θ, σ and ‘a’ are deterministic.
(4.9)
r is a normal (Gaussian) variable with a mean reversion term. This mean revision within the drift parameter allows for a more static evolution of the interest rates, a property that is historically consistent Notice that the above equation can be solved analytically.
However, there are two main problems connected to this model:
•
The first is the fact that the model is normal by definition, thus always yields a positive probability for values of r < 0. This is not such a great concern if the product we try to model depends on high interest rates.
•
Secondly, the model gives a correlation of practically 1 between the different long and short term interest rates. This means that any movement we try to reproduce in our interest rate curve will result in an equal translation across the entire curve. Thus the flexibility required to bend the curve at different points, as occurs in reality is unavailable here. A possible solution would be to take a short term interest rate into consideration in our model, and at the same time a long term interest rate. This however requires taking two Brownian motions that are not correlated.
65
Chapter 4
Interest Rate Models
4.7.1 BK
To solve the normality of the problem, a lognormal Hull White model can be proposed, which follows a diffusion equation of the form:
dLnr = (θ t − at Lnr )dt + σ t dWt
P
(4.10)
and where θ, σ and a are deterministic. The above is known as the BK model. This equation however has no analytical solution, meaning it must be solved through mathematical approximations such as tree diagrams or PDE solvers (MonteCarlo is not applicable). This results in more difficult and time consuming calibrations.
4.7.2 BDT
is a solution that greatly simplifies the calculations. In it, we take the previous equation for BK, (4.10) imposing at = ±
σ ' (t ) σ (t )
σ '(t ) dLnr = θt ± ·Lnr dt + σ t dWt P σ (t )
(4.11)
However, the previously stated problem that was characterised by uniform translations in the interest rate curve is still recurrent with this form, i.e. there is still a unique interest rate that must be selected to define an entire curve.
A summary of the models following similar approaches are:
Table 4.1 Normal or lognormal models with a mean reversion
66
which appears to be dependent on all the rates and their different time intervals. This allows. 67 . the use of a single rt proves insufficient to model the market curve. In addition. There are other models that are ‘multifactor’ which depend on two or more underlying Wiener processes. This model will be described in Chapter 7. The disadvantage: the need for a complicated diffusion model to realistically reconstruct the volatility observed in forward rates.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 4. a middle term rate. All the single factor models lead to the same drawback: the fact that they use only one explanatory variable (the short interest rate rt ) to construct a model for the entire market. and finally a long term interest rate. The Heath Jarrow Morton framework arises as the most complete application of the suggested approach. This is. It chooses to include the entire forward rate curve as a theoretically infinite dimensional state variable. The main advantage of these methods lies in the possibility of specifying rt as a solution to a Stochastic Differential Equation (SDE). through Markov theory. The most straightforward solution should include the use of more explanatory variables: long and medium term rates.8 Conclusions All of these models are referred to as ‘single factor models’ because they each depend on a single Wiener process W. we could perhaps consider a model in which we would use one representative short term rate. to work with the associated Partial Differential Equation (PDE) and to subsequently derive a rather simple formula for bond prices.
By the end of the 1980’s there already appears a market for options over swaps. 68 . Interest rate derivatives are more difficult to value than equity and foreign exchange derivatives due to four main reasons: 1. The behaviour of an individual interest rate is more complicated than that of a stock price or exchange rate. FRA’s.1 Discount Factors The money account. Interest rates are used for discounting as well as for defining the payoff obtained from the derivative. Caplets. In 1973.. – were developed to meet the particular needs of end users. Interest Rate Products Interest rate derivatives are instruments whose payoffs are dependent in some way on the level of interest rates. The product valuation generally requires the development of a model to describe the behaviour of the entire zerocoupon yield curve 3. These begin trading based particularly on the LIBOR and EURIBOR rates: London Interbanking Offer Rate and the European equivalent. Caps. 2.Swaptions. public debt explodes causing a huge increase in the number of Swaps being traded. thus a whole range of new products. The volatilities of different points on the yield curve are different 4. bank account or moneymarket account process is the process that describes the values of a (local) riskless investment.. By the 1980’s. where the profit is continuously compounded at the risk free rate existent in the market at every moment. the market for calls over stocks begins. 5.Chapter 5 Interest Rate Products 5..
This is defined therefore as B '(t . u. T Thus.c. T et t ∫ rs ds T Fig. 5. − ∫ rs ds t T e t T Fig.1) B * (t . Let us assume that the bank account evolves according to the following differential equation: dB * (t ) = rt B * (t ) dt (5. It is used to bring prices from the future to the present. we know the exact value of the bank account.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Let B(t) be the value of a bank account at time t ≥ 0. t ) = 1 because we assume that today we invest one unit of currency. T ) = e t * ∫ rs ds = 1 B(t . integrating we obtain B (t .) on day t. T ) = e t * ∫ rs ds .c. The above gives us the return at a future time T obtained from the bank when we invest 1 unit of currency (u. where rt is a positive (usually stochastic) function of time. Discount factor 69 .1. at the bank’s riskless rate.2. we define T B (t . This value is not yet stochastic because today. Future value of money As the opposite backward operation is more common. 5.2) The inverse operation is the discount of money from a future date T to present t. T ) (5. T ) = e − ∫ rs ds t T and is known as the stochastic discount factor.
and decide to invest it at an annual interest rate of r = 10% = 0. and represents how much you win to compensate for the fact that you have been unable to access or invest your money during the period [t.1 70 . at maturity T. denoted by B(t.3 Interest Rate Compounding Refers to the profit that one makes by loaning money to a bank at a given time t. we set ST = 1 u. follows a diffusion of the form dSt = rSt dt + σ (t ) St dWt P (5. T]. Remember that all martingales have the above property. − ∫ rs ds B (t . As we do not know what the future discount rate will be.c. rt the instantaneous risk free rate and S0 a constant.T) is the value of a contract that starts at time t and guarantees the payment of 1 u. Imagine that we start off with a sum of S = 100$. and receiving it back at time T increased by a factor rt. 5.2 Zerocoupon bond The zero coupon bond at time t with maturity T > t. The factor rt is the interest rate. T ) = Et e t T P (5.4) Where WtP is a Brownian motion. we can only calculate the bond’s expected price.3) − ∫ rs ds This is simply the extension of a martingale measure S t = E e t S T where T P according to our definition of a zero coupon bond.a martingale is any tradable asset that under risk neutral probability. We proceed to describe the different forms of interest rates through a simple numerical example.c. It’s price is the future unit of currency.Chapter 5 Interest Rate Products 5. discounted to present.
r r over n years S 1 + t S 1 + t → m m m mn (5.2 Semi annual compounding: r = 5% every 6 months.054 = 121.6) 5.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 5.5) 5.05 = 110.55$ equivalent to 1001.05 = 105$ 1051.3 Continuous Compounding: is the limit when the rate r is fixed at every instant of time r lim S 1 + t = Se rt ⋅n m →∞ m m (5.25$ 1001.1 = 110$ 5. The difference respect the previous case is that you can reinvest the profits every 6 months.3. 6M 12M 2Y 1001.4 Present Value PV Is obtained bringing all future cash flows to present by using predicted or constant interest rates rt ∑ S 1 + m − m⋅ n continuous compound → ∑ Se − rt ⋅n (5.3.052 annual.7) 71 .3.1 Annual Compounding: thus mathematically S (1 + rt ) 1001.
the more desirable the investment will be (provided that it is larger than the bank’s interest rate r). with C/m coupon payments each time period in between. Thus its PV is the face value brought to present summed to each coupon also brought to present. then PV = F IRR 1 + m ⋅n +C m+ C m IRR 1 + m ⋅n (5.Chapter 5 Interest Rate Products 5. then the PV of the bond price decreases. PV = F IRR 1 + m ⋅n +∑ k =1 k =n C m IRR 1 + m ⋅k (5.6 Bond Yield (to Maturity) YTM Is the internal rate of return IRR at the current price. 5. rt ∑ S 1 + m − IRR⋅n continuous compound = 0 ∑ Se − IRR⋅n = 0 → (5. It is always quoted on an annual basis. It is the face value paid at maturity.9) If there are n periods of coupons left. The IRR is the main method to evaluate an investment together with its NPV.5 Internal Rate of Return IRR rate IRR that will make the PV = 0. If the IRR increases.10) There exists an inverse relationship between interest rates and bond prices. 72 .8) The higher the IRR.
as before. more k =1 k =n coupons are paid thus the present value is greater 73 .A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 5. analysing how they are influenced by the maturity · if IRR = 0 then PV = F + ∑ C m thus if you increase the maturity T.3.7 Coupon Rate It is possible to calculate the most representative points on the present value curve for any given bond. 5. Imagine that F = 100$.7. C = 10$ : · if IRR = 0 then PV = F + ∑ C m k =1 k =n · · if Coupon = YTM if IRR Price so price is constant at F PV 0 ∞ then 15% 10% F10% 10% Yield Fig.1 Time to Maturity For each curve we can calculate three characteristic points. Bond curve dynamics 5.
7.5$ You earn 100 − 97.5 = 2.56%·4 = 10.4.127% 74 . the curve becomes steeper.Chapter 5 Interest Rate Products · if YTM= Coupon the same point then PV = F thus all curves pass through · if IRR Price ∞ PV 0 30Y 10Y 3Y F 10% Yield Fig.0256 ) 2.5 = 100e − r3 M ⋅ 1 4 giving r 3M = 10.24% per year An easier way to see this is by doing 97. becoming also more sensitive to variations in interest rates 5.56% every 3M 97.5 4 In 1Y you would earn (Note that you do not reinvest so cannot do 0.2 Using Bonds to Determine Zero Rates: Paying no Coupons: using the interest rate compounding formula Principal = 100$ Time to Maturity: 3M Price: 97. 5. Bond curve for different maturities As maturity increases.
1Y 10. etc.5Y Price: 96$ Annual Coupons paid every 6M = 8$ (thus every 6M we receive 4$) The price will be all the cash flows discounted to present price = C1e 96 = 4e − r6 M ⋅ 1 2 1 2 + C2 e − r1Y ⋅1 + ( principal + C3 )e − r1. each currency has a particular calendar to be considered when calculating the difference UT.536% Let us imagine our bond is defined by having Principal = 100 Time to Maturity: 1. act=360. the times that appear are dates whose length we specify as (T.5Y Price: 97. we can use the short term bonds: Principal = 100 Time to Maturity: 1. etc. The simple forward rate contracted at t for the period [T.469⋅ (5. The convention that is usually taken is that of counting national holidays.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Paying Coupons: once the short rate interests have been calculated. U] is 75 .5 → r1. This is.5Y ⋅1.5$ Having calculated the zero interest rate curve paying no coupons. U) = U – T /1 year the daycount fraction assumed for the product can vary depending on the reference used.496%.536⋅1 −10. bank holidays.5Y = 10.11) + 4e + (100 + 4)e − r1. Further.127%. In general. We state here the most common: (act=act. we have 3m 10.). we convert the interval into a yearly basis as m = m(T. • 6M 10. 681% 5.8 Interest Rates Most of the interest rates we will deal with are yearlybased rates.5 −10.5 Y ⋅1. act=365.U).
Recall that the above can be rewritten as 1 e − ∫ rs ds t U = e 1 − ∫ rs ds t T ⋅ (1 + L ⋅ m) which are the discount factors 1 1 = ⋅ (1 + Lm) .Chapter 5 Interest Rate Products B (t .13) U T Not to mistake with e ∫ rs ds t = et ∫ rs ds that would involve the reinvestment of the benefits obtained.U ) (5. U ) B(t . whereas r is the known rate between today t and a future time period.12) This can easily be obtained following the previous discussions we have considered. T ) 76 . That is: U et t ∫ rs ds T U T e ∫ rs ds t U eT ∫ Ls ds Fig. T . 5.5.U ) = B (t . Relating discount rates U Therefore e ∫ rs ds t T =e ∫ rs ds t U ⋅ eT ∫ Ls ds . If we do not use continuous compounding but instead use annual compounding (without reinvestment) the former then becomes U T e ∫ rs ds t = et ∫ rs ds ⋅ (1 + L ⋅ m) L ⋅ 1 + m m (5.U ) − 1 m(T . L is clearly the forward rate and therefore the rate between two future time periods. Solving for L we obtain the simple forward rate: B(t . T ) 1 L(t .
t+1bd. U) with t = T. we can recover at time t the values of the zerocoupon curve B(t. in the first equation B(t. T ) 1 L(t . and T=t+2bd given the market rates 77 . t. fixed in London) are simple forward rates. The Libor rate is usually fixed sometime before the payment period starts. t + 1bd ) B(t .14) The EURIBOR (Europe InterBank Offer Rate. U = t + 2bd.15) For each of the two equations independently. the fixing T* is made two business days (2bd) before T. it is made the same day. t + 1bd) 5.U ) = B(t . 1 1 O (t . Therefore TN(t. and in London. 5.t) = 1.U ) = B(t . thus T = T*. T. 1Y).U ) (5. t + 2bd ) − 1 m(t + 1bd . In the Euro zone. T .2 The tomorrownext market rates: Are forward rates for a one day period. t + 2bd ) (5.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework B (t . t + 1bd ) 1 TN (t . T . U) with T = t + 1bd. Therefore O(t.1 Overnight market rates: Are forward rates fixed each day for a one day period starting that day. i. T . 6M. for the European zone and fixed in Frankfurt) and the LIBOR (London InterBank Offer Rate.e they are fixed on one day and applied on the following. U = t + 1bd. They are of the form TN(t.U) are unknown (modelled as stochastic) as they fluctuate up until the true fixing date T*. T. U ) − 1 m(T . They are an average of the rates at which certain banks (risk rated AAA) are willing to borrow money with specified maturities (usually 3M. The rates L(t. U ) = B (t . t + 1bd ) − 1 m(t .8.T. T) for T = t + 1bd. meaning they have the form O(t. t+2bd) We will now proceed to demonstrate that the market interest rate curve can only exist if there exists a discount factor curve: Observe that from the expressions.8.
YEAR 1 2 3 4 Zero Rate per Year 10 10. T + 6M.T) since their usual fixing date is simpler.4 11. U).of the form t = T.9 Forward Rates Forward interest rates are those implied by current (continuously compounding) zero coupon rates. typically. For longer values of U we need to use swap forward rates.Chapter 5 Interest Rate Products for O(t. we can calculate the forward rate for 4Y as: 100e11⋅4 = 100e10 ⋅ e11 ⋅ e11.4 ⋅ e Or r f 3Y →4 Y ⋅1 → rf 3Y →4Y = 11.1 Construction of forward rates from bonds r ⋅T2 S 0e T2 = S 0e T1 1 ⋅ e r ⋅T r f ⋅( T2 −T1 ) and solving rf = rT2 ⋅ T2 − rT1 ⋅ T1 T2 − T1 We can therefore calculate the forward rate for the 2Y: 100e10.6% → rf 3Y →4Y = 11. from the different Libor rates we obtain B(t. T.8 11 Forward Rate 11 11. U) and TN(t. For longer T's. 5.5 10. T + 1y.6% 100e11⋅4 = 100e10. we use Libor rates to obtain the values of B(t. Thus.8⋅3 ⋅ e r f 3Y →4 Y ⋅1 78 . T.5⋅2 = 100e10⋅1 ⋅ e r f 1Y ⋅1 → rf 1Y = 11% And analogously.6 Table 5.U) with U = T + 3M.
18) We have − ∫ F ( t . T ) ∂T (5.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 5.U ) = E e t U P (5. T ) 1 ∂B(t . we would have − ∫ F ( t . Recall. assuming m(t. T . T ) 1 − 1 B(t . U) = U . U ) − B(t .17) Because ∂ log B(t . U ) = B(t . then (5.21) 79 . T+dT ] if the contract is made at T.T.10 Instantaneous forward rate The instantaneous forward rate is the risk free rate of return which we may have on an investment over the infinitesimal interval [T.19) If instead of T we were to take t. T . T ) ∂T U (5. U ) − 1 m(T .u ) s du B(t . T ) = ∂T B(t . where B(t. T ) = − ∂ log B(t .20) But remember now from (5. T ) ∂T We therefore define the instantaneous forward rate with maturity T F (t . that we had B(t . T ) ∂ log B (t . U ) = lim −1 B (t .U ) = B(t . T ) (5.16) U →T lim L(t .U ) U −T If we assume U and T to be very close. T) as an estimate of the future short rate r(T). T ) =− =− ∂T B(t .3) that we also had the expression from the zero coupon bond − ∫ rs ds B(t .U ) =e T B(t . U ) = e (5. U ) U −T 1 ∂B(t . Thus it is natural to view f(t. T ) L(t . T ) = U →T B (t . U ) − B(t . t) = 1.u ) s du t U B(t .
22) 80 .20) and (5. obtaining rt = F(t.21).21). Having done this. by making U tend to t in (5.Chapter 5 Interest Rate Products Therefore. t) (5. we can now directly equate the expressions (5. the expectation becomes known at t.
the Libor rate that will exist in a future t period..1.1 Calls and Puts 6. or is willing to give up some of the upside (profit) from a price rise in return for (a) the premium (paid immediately) plus (b) retaining the opportunity to make a gain up to the strike price A European call option allows the holder to exercise the option (i. seen from time t. More Complex Derivative Products The LIBOR is the London InterBank Exchange Rate.T. The buyer of a call option wants the price of the underlying instrument to rise in the future so that he can ‘call it’ from the vendor at the cheaper preestablished price and then go on to sell it in the market at a profit.e. to sell (buy) the share of the asset.T. is a contract that gives to its holder the right. The price is known as the exercise price or strike price.U).U) at maturity U. The final date is the expiration or maturity.T. This rate fixes at time T.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 6. such that 1$ invested at this rate pays 1+mL(T. We will let L(t. The seller either expects that the call’s price will not rise. to buy (respectively to sell) one share of the asset at the fixed time T. The maturity U is generally expressed in terms of fractions of years. but not the obligation. 81 . This is. The underwriter of the option has the obligation.25. if the holder decides to exercise the option. Thus the spot LIBOR rate is given as L(T.1 Call A European call option (respectively a put option) with strike or exercise price K and maturity or exercise date T on the underlying asset St. such that a 3 month LIBOR will have an m = 0. to buy) only on the option expiration date.U) denote the forward LIBOR. ranging from T to U. The option can be exercised exclusively at time T. An American call option allows exercise at any time during the life of the option. 6.
the investor will clearly not exercise the call option to buy at 60$.1. This is because he gains 2$ for selling the stock. Strike K= 60$ In the above. If in 5 months the stock price is above 60$.0) (6. It is important to notice that the investor can lose money even if he does not exercise the purchase.1) The above figure shows the investor’s net profit or loss on a call option. The option exercises in 5 months. the investor is still incurring in a loss. In this way his loss is 82 . The call’s payoff is therefore Payoff = max( ST − K . 6. Investor’s profit on buying a European call option: Option price= 5$. The price to purchase this option is 5$. Nevertheless. thus gaining 15$ (ignoring the initial 5$ cost to buy the call). consider an investor who buys a European call option with strike 60$ to buy a given stock whose current price is 58$. say 75$ the option will be exercised and the investor will buy the stock. If the price of the stock falls below 60$.Chapter 6 More Complex Derivative Products Fig. because he has paid the initial price or prime of 5$. Notice the subtlety that even if the stock price rises to 62$ which is above the market price of 60$. although in the graph the investor is under the horizontal axis and therefore in a situation of loss. but initially lost 5$ by entering the transaction. He can immediately sell the share for 60$ at the market. he should still exercise the option.
he is losing money because he is selling at 60$ an asset that is worth more than 60$ in the market. If he does not exercise.2) Note: an option is said to be “at the money” if the strike price of the option equals the market price of the underlying security. 83 . His payoff is the exact opposite of the investor’s: Payoff = − max( K − ST .1) still holds valid as the call’s terminal value. we have seen that irrespective of the initial price. 0) = min( K − ST . we will always sell if the final price is greater than the strike Fig. As soon as the stock’s price rises above 60$. Although we are not taking the initial price into consideration.0) (6. his loss are the entire 5$ that he spent to enter the contract. Strike = 60$ From the vendor’s point of view. The above calculation (6. 6. he will only gain a profit (the price at which the call was sold) if the option is not exercised.2.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework only of 3$.Vendor’s profit on selling a European call option: Option price= 5$. We see his profits in the above graph.
Investor’s profit on buying a European put option: Option price= 7$.3) Conversely. The vendor of a put option therefore hopes that the asset’s price will decrease so that he will be able to ‘put it’ to the buyer at the higher preestablished price. 6. he will be forced to buy the stock more expensive than its market quote. His payoff is Payoff = − max( K − ST . higher price. and will instead go directly to the market where he can sell the stock at its true. if the stock’s price goes up. the buyer earns 15$ (ignoring the initial cost) because he can exercise the option to sell at 90$. 0) = min( K − ST . The put’s payoff is Payoff = max( K − ST . so will be losing money. Fig. If the price instead rises above 90$. Imagine an investor who buys a European put option with a strike price of 90$.Chapter 6 More Complex Derivative Products 6.4) .2 Put A call option gives the holder the right to buy the underlying asset.0) 84 (6. the investor will clearly not exercise the option to sell at 90$.1.3. Strike = 90$ If the share price drops to 75$. and that the option price is 7$. If it declines. the person who buys the put can only win the prime price paid when the investor entered the contract.0) (6. Imagine the current stock price is of 85$. A put option gives the holder the right to sell the underlying asset by a certain date at a certain price.
9) 85 .7) σ2 S Ln 0 + r − q + T 2 K d1 = σ T σ2 S Ln 0 + r − q − T 2 K d2 = = d1 − σ Τ σ T (6. Profit from writing a European put option: Option price= 7$.6) (6.2) a formula to calculate the present value of a call which at a future date gives the final payoffs that we have seen above. Strike = 90$ 6.1.5) (6.3 Present value of an option We already derived in the Black Scholes section (Chapter 3. 6.1.4.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Fig. Call = S0e − qT N ( d1 ) − Ke− rT N ( d 2 ) Put = Ke− rT N ( − d 2 ) − S0 e − qT N ( −d1 ) S e − qT S0 Ln 0 = ln − qT K K (6. We simply recall the results that were derived.8) (6.
5. This is best understood with a graphical representation: K=F(t. all the payments take place at time T. irrespectively of any possible future variations in that asset’s price. ST is the real future price of the asset. Forward contract: future expected value versus real future value St is the asset’s current price.2. the vendor sold above the real future price so earns the difference (K–ST). 86 . so he secures a fixed future price K. F(t. It is therefore a security that settles a future price. at a determined future date.ST) difference St t ST T Fig.2 Forward A forward contract on a commodity is an agreement between two parts to purchase or sell a specific amount of an underlying commodity at a defined price. ST) is today’s expected future price of the asset at time T.1 Mathematically A forward contract on an asset ST made at t has the following cash flows: • The holder of the contract pays at time T a deterministic amount K that was settled before at t. Obviously the buyer only enters such a contract if he thinks the asset is going to be more expensive in the future. 6. In the above example. In a forward contract. and so is the price K at which the vendor sells his asset today to be delivered in the future. 6. The buyer is said to be long whereas the seller is said to be short.Chapter 6 More Complex Derivative Products 6. and is only known at time T.
A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework • He receives a stochastic (floating) amount F(T. The forward price K is determined at time t so that it equals the future expected price of the asset ST.ST) = ST which is the future value of that underlying asset he has bought. One would enter only if he were to receive a floating amount that were greater than the fixed amount K paid.2 Call option on a forward A call option over a forward contract would be the possibility of entering the forward agreement at a time 0 < t < maturity. % CallForward t = e − r (T −t ) Et P ( ST − K ) + Ft = 0 (6. giving them great liquidity and few transactional costs.10) 6. with some differences: K=F(t. Forwardt = e − r (T −t ) Et P [ ( ST − K )] = 0 K = S t e − r (T − t ) (6.ST) difference St t ST T 87 .2. A futures contract on an asset ST made at t with delivery date T is very much like a forward contract.3 Future Future contracts are quoted in organised markets.11) 6. Nothing is paid or received at t.
so earns the difference. If ever this difference increases (moves upwards in Fig. T1 . • • ST is the real future price of the asset. he will receive the money from the counterparty. T.6. T. ST). the seller sold above the real price. The expected future value right at the end must equal the price of the underlying at that point. he receives this amount from the vendor instead of having to pay for it. ST) is the evolution of that expected future value as we advance through time. T . this is substituted by a continuous stochastic payment process F(t. Future contract: future expected value versus real future value • St is the asset’s current price.T] in such a way that the contract value be continually zero. The buyer. ST) = ST. ti). S T1 ) = Et ST1 Ft = S t e r (T1 − t ) 88 [ ] (6. Instead only the cash is exchanged. ST ) − F (t i −1 . thus F(T. the price of K at time t was the expected future cost of the asset F(t.Chapter 6 More Complex Derivative Products Fig. t ≤ t1 ≤ t2 ≤ …≤ T. 6. and is only known at time T.12) . now pays it continually • at every ti as the difference in F with respect to the previous date.3. 6. Therefore ~ P F (t . 6. the exchange of the asset at T for its real price at T needn’t be done. instead of paying the difference at the end T. Now with futures. ST) made continuously over the time interval (t. The contract is achieved by the following agreement: During each time interval (ti1. and so is the price K at which the vendor sells his asset to be delivered in the future. F(t.1 Mathematically Mathematically we can give the following explanation: In forwards. ST). In practice. T . In the previous example. the holder of the contract pays F (t i . There is no obligation to interchange the claim ST and the payment F(T. F(ti. ST ) . ST) is today’s expected future price of the asset.T. If the payment is negative.6).
proceeding as above in the call option case. and by using Black Scholes. ST1) . T1.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 6. we obtain that the price of the call option on the future is CallFuturet = e − r (T1 −t ) Et P F (t . In return we receive a 3 month EURIBOR rate fixed at maturity (in T = U = 3M) 89 . consider a future contract on ST1. T1. For instance.2 Call option on a future One can also formulate call options on futures contracts.15) 6. T1 . ST1) with exercise price K and exercise date T < T1. and a call option on F(T. Let us set the case where we pay a fixed leg in 3 months at a 3% annual interest rate. ST1 ) N (d1 ) − KN (d 2 ) with 2 F (t . we get CallFuturet = e − r (T1 − t ) F (t . From this.K)+. 2 (6.13) Thus. where one of the two parts pays a fixed flow of income (or fixed leg) against a variable flow of income (or variable leg) which he receives in return. T1 . The payment at T of this option is thus (F(T.4 FRA A FRA.14) d1T. consists in an agreement between two counterparties. or future rate agreement.3. S T1 ) σ T ⋅ (T − t ) ± log K 2 = σT ⋅ T −t ( ) (6. T1 . fixed today. with delivery date T1. ST1 ) − K =e − r (T1 −t ) ( ) + % Ft = Et St e r (T1 −t ) − K P ( ) + % Ft (6.
6. the interchange of flows at time U is then Nm ( K − L (T .U) the floating rate. The fixed rate is settled at the present date t = 0. FRA payoffs We will therefore be paying 0.03 · 0.Chapter 6 More Complex Derivative Products V ariable leg 0 Fixed leg Fig.16) where N is the nominal and L(T.7. FRA future’s payoffs Mathematically. assuming N = 1 for simplicity. where one of the two parts pays a fixed flux of income (or fixed leg) against a variable flux of income (or variable leg) which he receives in return. The value of such a contract discounted to time t. whereas the variable leg is set by the LIBOR value at the fixing date T. is: 90 .5 FRA Forward Consists in an agreement between two counterparties. 6.25 = 0. U ) ) (6. over a time period up until U.75% By definition this contract has a NPV = 0 6.8. The difference between the two rates at T is exchanged at U. Variable leg 0 T Fixed leg U Fig.
U )e ∫t m ( K − L (T .U ) Ft − E P e ∫t + E P e ∫t B(T . We are obliged to pay.U ) (6.U ) ) Ft T − rs ds % = E P B(T . In reality.U ) T T T P (6. multiplied by the notional over which the exchange was agreed.U ) ) Ft (6. This quantity is variable as we cannot know the value of the LIBOR lasting 1Y and starting in 3M until T = 3M itself. U ) = B(t .T. 91 . T .20) we can rewrite the above as FRAt − rs ds − rs ds − rs ds % = KmE e ∫t B(T .U) is defined as B(t .17) remembering that the LIBOR forward rate L(t. what is exchanged is the difference between the two rates.19) And because bonds can be expressed as − B(t .18) then FRAt − = E e ∫t P T rs ds % ( KmB(T .A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework FRAt − rs ds % = E P e ∫t m ( K − L (T .21) Let us set as an example a FRA Forward contract 3M x 15M.U ) T T T U U − rs ds − rs ds % − rs ds − rs ds % − rs ds = KmE P e ∫t e ∫T Ft − E P e ∫t + E P e ∫t e ∫T F = KmB(t . U ) ) Ft U (6. at time U = 15M. T ) 1 L(t . the rate fixed today. In return we receive at time U the LIBOR rate L(T. T ) + B(t . U ) − 1 m(T .U ) − B(t .U ) − 1 + B(T .U). T ) = e ∫t T rs ds (6.
so that the holder benefits from rising interest rates. U ) are normally distributed with a specified constant volatility σT . U ) − K ) i (6. if the variable leg is greater than the fixed leg (and thus compensates for the premium paid). at time U.U ) (6.U ) E P ( L(t .24) This implies a lognormal distribution for L(T. T.25) T ς t = mB(t . the riskadjusted relative changes in the forward LIBOR L(t. L(T. One of the standard models for this is the Black model. the value of the caplet increases. Therefore. T) : T ≥ t} represents the observed term structure of zerocoupon bond prices at time t. for each maturity T. The payoff is daycount adjusted. a caplet with maturity T and strike K will have the following payoff: at time U the holder of the caplet receives: Caplet T = m( L (T .U).6 Caplet Is the option of entering a FRA contract.23) In this equation.e. T . By the usual arguments. U ) N (d1T ) − KN (d 2 ) i (6. i. and clearly if interest rates increase. T . T . If {P (t. then the price of the caplet is given by Caplet t = mB (t . dL(T . According to this model.26) 92 . U ) − K ) + (6. U ) − K ) + [ ] (6. T . This is.U ) = σ T dWt L(T . U ). U ). i. and under this modelling assumption the price of the T – maturity caplet is given by + ς t = mB(t . but the payoff is received at the end of the accrual period.22) Note that the caplet expires at time T. the option of entering the FRA at time T (at a premium). The liabilities of the holder of this caplet are always bounded above by the strike rate K.U ) L(t . the only random term is the future spot LIBOR.U ) Et ( L (T . the price of this caplet is given by the discounted riskadjusted expected payoff.Chapter 6 More Complex Derivative Products 6.e.T. The price of the caplet therefore depends on the distributional assumptions made on L(T. T . T. T . T.
T . Specifically. 2 2 L(t .27) N ( z) = 1 2π −∞ ∫e −2 z 1 u2 du (6. T . It follows that.U ) (6. T . U ) (6. U ] is L(T. T . U ).29) This payoff is received at time T + 1Y/m.U ) = from which it follows that 1 1 + mL(T . T .13) as Caplet T = 1 m( L(T . where m is the number of payments in a year. at time T.31) 93 .30) The price of a zerocoupon bond.6. on the other hand.U ) − K ) + 1 + mL(T .U ) − K )+ (6. Caplet payoffs 6. and since bond prices are inversely related to interest rates. is expressed as B(t .1 Caplet as a Put Option on a ZeroCoupon Bond A caplet is a call option on an interest rate. the price of the caplet is annually discounted from U to T as was shown in (5.U * ) σ T ⋅ (T − t ) ± log K 2 = σT ⋅ T − t (6.28) Exercise Option V ariable leg 0 T Fixed leg U Fig. T. The LIBOR rate prevalent over the accrual period [T.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework d 1T. 6. it is natural to be able to view a caplet as a put option on a zero coupon bond. the payoff of a caplet at time U is CapletU = m( L(T .9. T .
called the fixing dates or caplet maturity dates. Thus. Suppose we are currently at time t.…. it is a collection (or strip) of caplets. Thus a caplet is a put option on a zerocoupon bond.Chapter 6 More Complex Derivative Products 1 1 1 Caplet T = mB(t . is a basket of put options on zerocoupon bonds of various maturities. This is. each of which is a call option on the LIBOR level at a specified date in the future. T1. The cap is then just equal to the sum of the prices of the strip of caplets. therefore.U ) − 1 − K = (1 + mK ) (1 + mK ) − B(t . Each Caplet has an equal duration of time 1year/m up until its corresponding Ui. A cap. T . struck at K. we proceed backwards in steps of length 1year/m. the option at every fixing Ti of entering that specific Caplet from Ti to Ui = Ti+1.…. T . Starting with U. T . More specifically. we get a set of times T0 = t + δ T1 = T1 + 1Y/m T2 = T2 + 1Y/m = T0 + 2·1Y/m Tn = U = T0 + n·1Y/m We now construct the portfolio of n caplets. T2. The payment dates are thus T1. then the price of the cap is 94 . Let n be the number of complete periods of length 1year/m between t and U.32) This is just 1 + mK units of a put option on the T + 1Y/m – maturity zerocoupon bond with strike (1 + mK) − 1 . We will now calculate this strip: If ζi(t) denotes the price at time t of a caplet with maturity date Ti (and payment date Ui = Ti+1).U ) (6. we proceed as follows. with maturities T0. + + 6. Tn1. Tn.7 Cap Is a sum of Caplets.U ) m mL(T . To construct a standard cap on the 1year/m – maturity LIBOR with strike K and maturity U.
.. T . T ) = ∑ ς i (t ) =∑ mB(t.U ) Et [( L(T . Ti . σ T . T ) = ς (t . σ T . σ T . T . 6. U i ) − K ) + ] n −1 i =0 n −1 i =0 (6. The market’s observed prices of caps of various maturities are inverted numerically to obtain a term structure of Black volatilities.σ Tn −1 ) = ς (t ..U ) L(T .. T ) = ς (t .. σTi for each caplet. T .A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework ς (t . Thus ς (t .33) Applying Black Scholes T ς (t .. Exercise Option V ariable leg T1 Fixed leg T2 T3 T4 T5 U 0 Fig.. σ T .. σ . σ . and these implied volatilities are then quoted on the market itself.34) The only quantity that cannot be directly observed in this pricing formula is the set of forward rate volatilities.σ ) 0 1 then this σ is called the implied or Black volatility for the U – maturity cap..... σ Tn −1 ) 0 1 As a given set of forward rate volatilities produces a unique price. T ) = ∑ ς i (t ) =∑ mB(t .... Ti . if we can find a single number σ such that ς (t .10. Cap payoffs 95 . U i ) N (d 1T ) − KN (d 2 ) + i i n −1 i =0 n −1 i=0 [ ] (6.
6.7.Chapter 6 More Complex Derivative Products 6.7. Ti . Thus we have the following version of the putcall parity appropriate for caps and floors: Cap – Floor = Payer Swap [ ] 96 . i. The pricing and hedging of floors is exactly complementary to the treatment of caps.U i ) )+ = m[(L(T . Ti . The value of a floor also increases with maturity. with the same strike rate K.U ) KN (−d 2 ) − L(T . The owner of a floor is always long in the market and long in vega. is a strip of floorlets. received at the end of the accrual period. U i ) N (− d1T ) i i n −1 i =0 n −1 i =0 [ ] (6.U i ) − K )+ − (K − L(T . The price of a floor with similar a structure to the plain vanilla cap discussed before is given by: T φ (t . as the number of put options increases.36) This is just a cash flow from a payers swap. Ti . is π T = m (L(T .e.1 A Floor.2 PutCall Parity Consider a caplet ζ and a floorlet Ф. Ti . T ) = ∑ φi (t ) =∑ mB(t . The hedging instruments for floors are the same as for caps. each of which is a put option on the LIBOR level at a given future date. Let us construct a portfolio ̟=ζ−Ф The payoff from this portfolio. each maturing at time T.35) Just as a caplet is a put option on a pure discount bond. benefits from rising volatility.U i ) − K )] (6. similarly a floorlet is a call option on such a bond. except that positions are reversed since the holder of a floor benefits from falling interest rates.
A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 6. where one of the two parts pays a fixed coupon rate K on every fixing (or fixed leg) and in return.Tn1. The difference between the two rates is exchanged at Ui. The timetable for payments can be represented schematically as follows (assuming a unit notional).37) where K is the fixed coupon rate. Tim e T0 T1 : Tn Fixed Coupon 0 m K : m K Floating Coupon 0 m 0. an investor is said to hold a receiver swap if the reverse is true. The payments are based on a notional underlying principal. An investor is said to hold a payer swap if he pays the fixed leg and receives the floating. To give this swap zero initial value. Ui). whereas the variable leg is set by the LIBOR value at each fixing date Ti. Tn ) = ∑ mB(t .8 Swap Consists in an agreement between two counterparties made at t = 0. There is only one option to enter or not the agreement.T0.U) L(T : m n1. we can set 97 . lasting a time period until Ui .1 Swap payoff term structure Consider the position of the holder of a payer swap.U)) : m (KL(Tn1. It is thus an exchange of a series of payments at regular intervals for a specified period of time. The fixed rate K is settled at the present date t = 0. Ti .Tn1.U)) Table 6.U) L(T Cashflow 0 m (KL(T0. after being multiplied by a notional.T0. receives a variable floating rate (or variable leg) defined over LIBOR rates. Note that every maturity has Ui = Ti+1 The lifetime of the swap is called its tenor.thus L(Ti.U i ) − K )] i =0 n −1 (6. The value of the payer swap at time t < T0 (the first LIBOR fixing date) is given by V (t . Ti +1 )[( L(T .
T .1 Swap –another approach A swap with notional N and time schedule τ = (T0. T2. The spot starting par swap rate. T) for a swap with tenor T − t. Ti) The floating leg pays at times U1.…. is called the forward par swap rate for a swap with tenor Tn − T0. T1.n mi = m(Ui1.…. Tn ) = ∑ B(t.11.….…. for example.Chapter 6 More Complex Derivative Products K = R(t . T2.8. according to what is done with the fixed leg. we call it a payer swap.… . There are different classes of swaps. Tn) which gives a zero value to a swap starting at time T0 and expiring after n payments at Tn. Um that are most probably different from Ti. although U0 = T0. Ui. is the fixed coupon rate that gives zero initial value to a swap starting at the present time. T0 . and a receiver swap if the fixed leg is received.Tn a fixed annual rate NmiK. T ) L(T . Ui) The basis or day count convention for the floating leg is usually act/360. and for the fixed leg there are many usual choices. resetting at Ti.n mi = m(Ti1. t. If it is paid.38) This rate R(t. 98 . Let us think. or just the swap rate. seen from time t ≤ T0. Swap payoffs 6. This is denoted by R(t. Variable leg T1 Fixed leg T2 T3 T4 T5 U 0 Fig.Tn) is a contract that interchanges payments of two legs: The fixed leg pays at times T1. T ) i =0 i n−1 (6. The payments are based on the Libor forward rates.U ) i =0 i i i n −1 ∑ B(t. T0. With i = 1. Ui+1) with i = 1. 6. N miL(t. of a payer swap. Um = Tn. That is.
40) To value the floating leg. Ti −1 .T ) i =1 i (6. Thus. the value of the payer swap is Vt fl = K ∑ B ( t . the formula results less concise. that is Vt s = Vt fi − Vt fl (6. Ti ) Ft i =1 n −T∫i rs ds B ( t . T0 ) − B ( t .41) = ∑ ( B ( t . T ) i −1 % = ∑ EP e t − 1 Ft B ( t . T). Nevertheless. let us assume that there are no differences in the time schedules Ti and Ui as was mentioned previously.T ) i =1 i mi Ti n − ∫ rs ds B ( t . Ti )Kmi i =1 i =1 fi P (6. Ti ) mi −B ( t . Ti ) ) = B ( t .A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework − ∫ rs ds According to S t = E e t ST the value of the payer swap will be the conditional T P expectation of the discounted payoff of the product. Tn ) i =1 n (6. Thus. Ti −1 ) = ∑ B ( t . Tn ) i =1 n With different time schedules. T0 ) + B ( t . let us assume N = 1. Ti −1 ) − B ( t . Therefore. its value is Vt fl n − T∫i rs ds % = E ∑ e t mi L ( t . Ti ) − 1 B (t.39) For simplicity. For the fixed leg. its value is n − T∫i rs ds n % Vt = E ∑ e t Kmi Ft = ∑ B(t .42) 99 . Ti ) i =1 P n B ( t . it is often said that a floating leg that is valued as was done previously is valued “at par”. the value (at t) of our payer swap is then the value of the fixed leg minus the value of the floating leg. by the linearity of the conditional expectation and the definition of B(t. T ) 1 i −1 P % = ∑ mi E e t − 1 Ft B (t.
is the rate of the fixed leg that makes the contract fair (price 0) at time t: thus. 6. T ) m i =1 i n (6. volatilities etc are quoted on a matrix. 100 . For values of the curve with T’s that are not exactly these values.43) i Of course.τ ) = ( K − Sτ . (which are market data).m (t ) = B(t . paying floating and receiving fixed rate payments for a specified time. A receiver swaption allows to exercise into a receiver swap.44) Observe that by using the values of the curve already obtained from the forward cash rates and using these market swap rates.9 Swaption A swaption is the option of entering a Swap contract at a future time T. we can therefore rewrite the initial formula in terms of Sτ. T0 ) − B ( t . Such a recursive method to obtain information is often called a bootstrapping method. we can obtain the values of the zerocoupon bond B(t. etc.m and VSt = 0 we obtain Sτ . T2.m (t ) ) ∑ B ( t .Chapter 6 More Complex Derivative Products The market swap rate associated to a swap with a time schedule of τ = (T0. but also the tenor T* of the swap resulting from exercise. 6M.…. At maturity. since heuristically B(0. For this reason. 1y. we use interpolation (usually log linear interpolation. Ti ) mi i =1 n (6. thus agreeing to pay a fixed quantity and receive floating cash flows for a specified period of time. such that the fixed leg and the variable leg have the same price. Tn ) ∑ B ( t. called the swap tenor.Tn) and a daycount convention m. where the unknown is r). swaptions must specify not just the expiry time T of the option. Solving for K = Sτ.T) for values of T = 3M. T) ~ erT . the holder of a swaption can exercise into swaps having several possible tenors.m as Vt s ( K . There are two types: A Payer swaption allows its holder to exercise into a payer swap at maturity U. Thus swaption prices. T1.
9. T * ) − K ) + × PV 01 The summation factor ∑ mB(t. Similarly. Thus a payer swaption is just a call option on the forward swap rate. Substituting this rate into the payer swap underlying the swaption. T . . Tn = T* the cash flow dates for the swap. Ti ) = i =0 + = (( R(t . Ti ) i=0 n −1 (6.U i ) − K )] i=0 n −1 (6. 101 . T..45) we get V (t .A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 6.48) = (( R(t . then the coupon rate K is given by R(t. and represents the present i =0 i n −1 value of a basis point paid on the swap cash flow dates. T . with strike K. T1. T *) = (( R(t . Ti )[( L (T ...46) If we consider a forwardstarting par swap. then the value at time t of the payer swap is V (t . Let T = T0.. T * ) − K )∑ mB(t . . T * ) − K ) + × ∑ mB(t .45) The payoff from the payer swaption is therefore given by Payoff (t . Ti ) i =0 n −1 (6. If K is the fixed swap coupon and m the constant accrual factor between fixing and payment dates. T *) + (6. Ti . T × T *) = V (T . T .1 Payoff Structure Consider a T × T* payer swaption. Tn−1 be the fixing dates and T1..47) The payoff from the swaption becomes n −1 Payoff = (( R(t . a receiver swaption is a put option on the forward swap rate. T2. in (6. T*). T * ) − K )∑ mB(t ..T ) is called the PV01. T . T *) = ∑ mB(t .
Ti ) × PV 01× KN (−d 2 ) − R(t . T . T * ) − K ) + = B(t . T. A receiver swaption is similar to a payer swaption. This implies that the PV01 does not change through time. T . The price of an otherwise identical receiver swaption is given by Payoff (t . 2 2 R(t . and this fact is used to invert observed swaption market prices and obtain a matrix of flat implied volatilities. T .9. T ) N (d ) − KN (d ) * T 1 T 2 [ [ ] ] (6. it is easy to see that the price of a payer swaption is given by Payoff (t . T .51) The only unobservable is the forward rate volatility σT×T* .Chapter 6 More Complex Derivative Products 6. that the discounting is constant. T*) is driven by a zero drift geometric Brownian motion dR dR(t .2 Pricing a Swaption The Black model is the market standard for pricing swaptions. In fact it is curious to note here that the Black model started being used by the market itself. T * ) = σ T ×T * dWt R(t .50) d 1T. T × T * ) payer = B (t .52) 102 . T * ) N (−d1T ) (6. Ti ) × PV 01× E ( K − R (t .49) and secondly. T . by using exactly the same calculations as for vanilla caplets. However. T * ))+ T = B(t . Now. there is a 1 to 1 correspondence between this volatility and the resultant price of a swaption. also known as Black or lognormal volatilities. Ti ) × PV 01 × E ( R(t . Ti ) × PV 01 × R (t . T . T * ) (6. except that it can be expressed as a put option on the forward starting swap rate. T . and it was not until later that a theory was elaborated to justify its application The two crucial assumptions in the model are firstly. T * ) σ T ×T * ⋅ (T − t ) ± log K 2 = σ T ×T * ⋅ T − t (6. that the forward swap rate R(t. T × T * ) receiver = B(t .
T.PayoffReceiver (t. This relationship can be used as an alternative to direct integration when finding the price of a receiver swaption. T × T*) It is simple to verify that Payoff (t.T*)K) Or written in words Payer Swaption – Receiver Swaption = Payer Swap By noarbitrage. T × T*) be a receiver swaption with strike K and the PayoffPayer (t. T*).9. Putcall parity now implies that this must be the same rate that gives a forwardstarting swap. Consider the portfolio Payoff (t. T × T*) be an identical payer swaption. the ATM strike is simply equal to the forward starting par swap rate R(t. T × T*) = PayoffPayer (t. T × T*) = PV01 x (R(T. T. zero value. T × T*) .A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 6. In other words. The ATM strike is defined to be the value of K which makes the values of the payer and receiver swaptions equal. the value of the portfolio (the Payoff) must be equal to the value of a payer swap.3 PutCall Parity for Swaptions Let the PayoffReceiver (t. 103 .
T) paying 1 unit of currency at time T. Robert A. Jarrow and Morton term structure model provides a consistent framework for the pricing of interest rate derivatives.working paper. HJM 7. The key aspect of HJM techniques lies in the recognition that the drifts of the noarbitrage evolution of certain variables can be expressed as functions of their volatilities and the correlations among themselves.1 Introduction The HeathJarrowMorton framework is a general framework to model the evolution of interest rates (forward rates in particular). such as Vasicek (1977) and Cox. The model is directly calibrated to the currently observed yield curve. and is complete in the sense that it does not involve the market price of interest rate risk. Cornell University. we will not work with a complete. Ingersoll and Ross (1985). and will then extrapolate the data to make it continuous. absolutely continuous discount curve B(t.refer to: “Bond pricing and the term structure of interest rates. Jarrow and A. Heath. but will instead construct our curve based on discrete market quotes.Chapter 7 HJM 7.working paper. In other words. Morton in the late 1980s. In practice however. The Heath. It describes the behaviour of the future price (in t) of a zero coupon bond B(t.a new methodology” (1987) . while the shortrate models only capture the dynamics of a point on the curve (the short rate). and “Bond pricing and the term structure of interest rates: a new methodology” (1989) .T). something which was a feature of the early generation of interest rate models. Models developed according to the HJM framework are different from the so called shortrate models in the sense that HJMtype models capture the full dynamics of the entire forward rate curve. The framework originates from the studies of D. 104 . Cornell University. no drift estimation is needed.
B(t . there exists a forward rate F(t. T ) = µ (t . T )dt + σ (t .2 Model Origins There are two basic arbitrage relationships that derive from the bond pricing equation: − ∫ rs ds 1. using an assumption on the Markovness of rt.s) depending on the arbitrage relationship selected.e. s ) ds t T associated with the instantaneous forward rates (HJM) All existing models start from one or another and follow the same general procedure: They start with a set of bond prices {B(t. As both relations hold under the no arbitrage conditions.1) 7. T ) = E e t associated with the spot rates (Classical) T P t 2. (7. and use either of the previous two arbitrage relationships to go backwards in time so as to determine a model for either the spot rate rt or for the set of forward rates F(t. T )dWt P This dynamics is the foundation on which the HJM model is constructed.u) such that dF (t .s) models is to then perform the inverse path. the models obtained are risk adjusted i. to use the models developed to price interest rate derivatives other than bonds.T)} that are reasonably arbitrage free. they are valid under the risk neutral measure P. 1. The aim behind the creation of these rt or F(t. B (t . T ) = e − ∫ F ( t .A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Given the zerocoupon curve B(t.T). 105 . Classical methods use the first relationship.T)} a risk adjusted model for the spot rate rt. They try to extract from the set of bonds {B(t. That is.
3.3) With the above. it demonstrates that the spot rate rt is in general not Markov. where as we saw previously in 5. It obtains as a result the arbitrage free dynamics of ‘d’ dimensional instantaneous forward rates F(t. T ) = [1 − F (t . F(t. the original approach used by HJM was to model the continuously compounded instantaneous forward rates.T.T). F(t.U). It requires no spot rate modelling. T .1).U). Imagine that we have a pair of arbitrage free zero coupon bonds B(t. 7. T ) = e (7. s ) ds t T B(t .U ) We are thus relating two different bonds (7.T). and B(t. This means that the bond’s arbitrage relations will be directly built into the forward rate dynamics. we will assume that we have no discount factor ‘m’.U) be the defaultfree forward interest rate contracted at time t.T). For simplicity. The above clearly makes use of the discrete approach.3 that − ∫ F ( t . In contrast.s).U )] B(t .2) (and therefore their two different dynamics) through a unique forward rate F. the arbitrage relationship between interest rate bonds now becomes: 106 . we can write the arbitrage free relationship: B(t . The question that logically follows is: which forward rate to use? We have already seen that there exist both a continuously compounded model for instantaneous rates.Chapter 7 HJM 2.3 The HJM Development The HJM model starts off by exploiting the risk neutral relationship. and what is more. starting at T and ending at maturity U.T. The HJM approach uses the second relationship. Gatarek and Musiela. and let F(t. and leads to the BGM models created by the work of Brace. As seen in the Libor section ( Chapter 5. and a discrete expression of the form F(t.
The noteworthy part of this model is the fact that it uses a unique Brownian Motion. T . Notice that there is no expectation operator in the above. T ) + 0 + B(t . we could rearrange the expression so as to have log B (t . T ) − log B(t . T . for an infinitesimal interval ∆ as: log B(t . but will simply underline once more the importance of the fact that we are able to take a unique Brownian parameter.U ) T (7. assumes that a typical bond in a risk neutral environment follows the stochastic differential equation: dBt = rt Bt dt + σ (t .A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework u ∫ F ( t .6) This can be re written in terms of non instantaneous forward rates. s ) ds B(t . T ) = eT B(t . From the equation above (7.4).7) d [log B(t . and lasting an infinitesimal time ds.s) are all forward rates observed at the current time t. For simplicity we will now adopt Bt = B(t.4) We will continue our introduction to the HJM model along the lines of the original HJM approach. We will not enter the details of this development here. Bt ) Bt dWt (7. T + ∆)((T + ∆) − T ) by applying Ito’s Lemma: (7. s )ds B(t .5) Where rt is the riskfree instantaneous spot rate and is therefore equal for all bonds or assets. T + ∆) = F (t . beginning at a future date s. T ) 2 (7. T )] = 1 1 −1 2 dB(t . it is quite tedious to demonstrate how the Brownians do not depend on the end WT. following Black. Bt ) B(t . The HJM model. Indeed.T). since the F(t.8) 107 . T .U ) (7. T ) ) dt B(t . T ) u = ∫ F (t . T ) 2 (σ (t .
T + ∆. Bt ) 2 dt + σ (t . Bt +∆ ) 2 − σ (t .subtracting the two equations: d [ log Bt +∆ ] − d [ log Bt ] = 1 σ (t . because we are considering a risk neutral scenario. This is the same argument that is applied in the Black Scholes derivation. Bt +∆ ) − σ (t .9) Similarly for log B(T+ ∆ ) we can write 1 P d [log B(t . Bt )dWt 2 (7. T . Bt )dWt (7. Bt +∆ ) − σ (t . T ) ∆ σ (t . T . T .10) 2 It is important to realize that the drift terms rt are the same in both cases. T + ∆. Bt +∆ )2 − σ (t .11) From before we had F (t . T + ∆. T . Bt ) 2 dt + σ (t . T . Recall that ∂f f ( x + ∆) − f ( x) = lim ∆→ 0 ∂x ∆ We can therefore rewrite the first term in (7. T . T + ∆) − log B(t . T + ∆)] = rt − σ (t . T + ∆.12) as: σ (t . T + ∆. Bt ) P = dt + dWt 2∆ ∆ (7. but we can use a trick to eliminate it:. T )] = rt − σ (t . T + ∆. The drift term is unknown. T + ∆) = log B(t . Bt +∆ )2 − σ (t . T . T . T .Chapter 7 HJM we can replace our diffusion expression for dB in the above 1 P d [log B(t . T + ∆.12) Now the above can be considered a derivative if ∆ → 0 . Bt ) ∆→ 0 2∆ ∂T 108 . T . Bt ) 2 ∂σ (t . Bt ) lim = σ (t . Bt )] dWt P (7. Bt ) 2 σ (t . Bt )2 dt + 2 + [σ (t .
A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework (7.22) . Bt + ∆ ) − σ (t . T + ∆.14) and We therefore end up with lim F (t . that may be inaccurate. Bt ) ∂σ (t . T + ∆. We therefore. Bt ) dt − dWt ∂T ∂T (7. T . T + ∆) = dF (t . t )dWt P (7. Bt ) ∂T (7. T ) = σ (t . Note lastly that the above corresponds to a diffusion model for F(t.t) (7. T .18) 109 .16) 7.17) This is.recall (5. Bt ) P dF (t . this is dF (t . T + ∆.13) for the second term we have lim ∆→0 σ (t . t )dt − b( s. Bt ) ⋅ b( s. need only solve the above to attain the HJM forward rate model.16). that the spot rate corresponds to the nearest infinitesimal forward loan starting at time t. T + ∆. T ) ∆→ 0 ∂σ (t . Bt ) ⋅ b( s. T ) = σ (t . by simply realising that: rt = F (t . t )dWt P where the partial derivatives are collected under the term b(s.4 The rt in the HJM Approach We will now demonstrate that through the HJM approach.T) of the form dF (t .T). Instead. T + ∆. Now by integrating our forward model derived in (7. there is no need to model a diffusion process for rt. t )dt − b( s. T ) = σ (t . T . Bt ) 2∆ = ∂σ (t .15) where σ are the bond price volatilities (which are generally quoted by the market itself). we can directly derive the spot rates from our instantaneous forward rates F(t. t ) (7. T .
21) So if we now select T = t. Bt ) b ( s.23) The last term is 0 as all Brownian processes have 0 future expectation. T ) ∫ b( s. Then τ τ τ EtP [rτ ] = EtP [F (t .22) The forward rates are biased estimators of future spot rates under the risk free measure.τ )] + EtP ∫ b( s. T )ds + ∫ b( s. T )dWsP 0 0 s (7.τ )dWsP t s 0 (7.24) 110 .τ ) ∫ b( s.19) Remember that we had ∂σ (t . u )du ds + EtP ∫ b( s. so comes out of the expectation.τ ) ∫ b( s. u )du ds + ∫ b( s. T )dWsP 0 0 t t (7. T . T ) + ∫ σ (t . u )du s t (7.Chapter 7 HJM we obtain F (t . We are thus left with τ τ EtP [rτ ] = F (t . Proof Let us demonstrate this by taking the conditional expectation of a future spot rate rτ with τ > t . our expression for the forward rate becomes an expression for the spot rate: t t t rt = F (0. T ) = F (0. T ) + ∫ b( s. Bt ) ⋅ b( s.τ)is known at time t.τ ) + EtP ∫ b( s.20) t t t F (t . T )dWsP 0 0 s (7. t ) = ∂T meaning σ (t . T ) + ∫ b( s. F(t. u )du ds t s (7. T ) ∫ b( s. T . T + ∆. Bt ) = ∫ b( s. u )du ds + ∫ b( s. T ) = F (0.
A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework meaning F (t .τ ) ≠ EtP (rτ ) The HJM exploits the arbitrage relationship between forward rates and bond prices. eliminating the need to model the expected rate of change of the spot rate. 111 .
The second term Γ(t . we will not be needing hundreds of Brownian sources of chaos. Γ(t . Instead.1) rt dt is constructed based on the risk neutral probability P which was already explained in detail in the mathematical section 2. we create our HJM model based on a finite number of Brownian sources. Γ(t . market observation of real data suggests that the curve obtained through the above equation only experiences translations and rotations around the 2 to 3 year mark. T ) P = rt dt + Γ(t . These are the only transformations which we need to be capable of representing.2) Where γi is the volatility of the discount factor B(t. Santander HJM In the Heath Jarrow Morton framework. bonds and securities should present an equal internal rate of return.Chapter 8 Santander HJM 8. T )dWt B(t . and therefore. T )dWt = ∑ γ j (t . especially if the product we model were constructed with numerous fixings. 112 . T )dWt P i =1 N (8. T ) The first term (8.T) for a particular instant. we assume the bond prices follow the subsequent dynamics: dB(t . T ) has been invented and The initial equation which we have set out with would require a set of infinite Brownians for every t. T )dWt follows the Heath Jarrow Morton model. However.6. It is thus independent of all bond prices B(t. avoiding any arbitrage possibilities.T). The P specific formulation chosen for the diffusion term developed by the Banco Santander quant team itself. Remember that it implies that all assets. and presents an important smile which we must be capable of modelling.
not the product. we introduce a calibration set of N products that each introduce a particular source of risk or stochasticity. that it should have the minimal number of parameters capable of reproducing the above characteristics. From observation of historical data. This will enable calibrations to be as rapid as possible. and that 113 . each ‘j’ will correspond to a particular maturity ‘T’. historically.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework As can be seen by the N index. i. it builds on the construction of a form for the γ that is consistent with the lognormality of a quasi BlackScholes model. behave in the same way for a common T.1 How to choose the γ? Our choice for the different γ j (T ) will determine the bond price distribution that we obtain. 8. Bond price dynamics B(t. But most important of all. The main historical developments in this field can be grouped under the BGM methodology. We start by seeing how this parameter had been chosen in other models.T) seem P to all. we search that the model be as simple as possible. We search that it be able to provide decorrelation between forward Libor rates so as to maintain a degree of flexibility within movements in different parts of the forward rate curve. In the above notation.e. In the Banco Santander we set out to model Γ using the following criteria. and independent of any product that we decide to calibrate. we decide also that the Brownian motion term dWt is independent of the bond maturities T. We have already stated that the model must be capable of reproducing the smile of exotic products. However. the above time partitioning of the volatilities is fixed for our HJM model. Developed in 1995 – 1996. It is up to the trader to decide which set of N vanilla products will best reproduce the risk that he is trying to model for his exotic product. This implies that it is we who define the series of time intervals 0= t0 < t1 < t2 < … < tN <… <∞ that we will be considering..
3) B(t . T ) ) dt + 2 B (t . T )dWt in the previous B(t . we obtain log B(t . T ) dt + 2 dt ( Γ(t . we obtain 114 . T ) = e − R ( t . We have also already seen that another main stream of thought was to take the zero coupon rates R(t. which will be the global volatility σ in our case. T ) t −T (8.T) where B(t . selected depending on their maturities. 8. T ) 2 dB(t .T) with the expression in (8.2 One Factor Being one factor refers to the fact that the dynamics we attempt to reproduce are modelled through a unique parameter. T ) (t − T ) (8.4).T )(T −t ) → R(t . T ) and also replacing log B(t. T ) B(t . T ) 2 B (t .Chapter 8 Santander HJM takes into account a set of particular forward Libor rates.4) dR(t . T ) = e − R (t .5) Replacing our diffusion equation dB(t . T ) log B(t j .2. T ) P = rt dt + Γ(t . T ) = − 1 t −T 1 1 −1 − log B (t .1 Onefactor quasi lognormal: γ j (T ) = σ (t j +1 . T ) Proof The above is derived from the following: recall that (8. T ) = Applying Ito.T )(T −t ) 8.
T ) R(t .T). T )dWt R(t . T ) (8. T ) = ( t − T ) σ (t .T). follows a lognormal term structure.6) ( ) and so regrouping terms in dt and dW dR(t . T ) P = (. so must our rate dynamics. This is Γ(t . With this imposition.T).T) is now normal. we realize that the dynamics of bonds in general. B(t. As we have seen in (8.4).11) 115 . T ) = σ (t .10) R(t . T ) P rt dt + Γ(t . then we must impose that the volatility term be linear with R(t. T ) R(t . Thus if our bonds follow a lognormal behaviour.9) As can be seen.8) log R(t . if we impose that our model be lognormal. T ) + − rt dt + dWt P 2 t −T (8.8) that Γ(t .. Therefore. we say that our version is lognormal. T) Γ(t . the Brownian term associated with log R(t. T ) 2 dt − dt (t − T ) 2 (8. T ) t −T (8. T )dWt dt − Γ(t .. T ) t −T in such a way that the log of our dynamics be normal (8. T ) → dR(t .)dt + σ (t .7) From market data analysis.T) is directly related to R(t.4) (8. Since we have log R(t. T ) = − 1 t −T 1 R(t . T ) = − 1 t −T Γ 2 (t.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework dR(t . we obtain from (8. T ) = Then log B(t . T ) And as we had from (8. T ) R(t .
T ) ~ = (t − T ) ⋅ σ (t . T ) log B(0. t ) (8. T ) a deterministic. T ) = σ (t . the term depends on previous data. More concretely.2 Onefactor normal The development of a normal model is completely analogous to the above. we can include it within the volatility term. We have already seen that other models consider normality instead and we have also seen in Fig. which is itself deterministic and also time dependent. we will use swaption and caplet prices to obtain information about σ. meaning that to continue the process. T ) = σ (t . and thus about Γ. Therefore: Γ(t . T) to be calibrated to market data. Instead of Γ(t . The only difference lies at the moment of imposing the model we want to follow.T) is Markovian. The term log B(t.T). Since (tT) is a deterministic term.14) 116 . T ) log B(t . T ) This is a t −T t −T normal model i.4 that it implies a negative skew for their associated Black's implied volatility smile. Γ(t .12) Note that the volatility of the rate R is a deterministic function σ(t. so that R is only lognormal by parts. T ) = σ (t . T ) B(0. in our Santander model. 8. T ) Γ(t . T ) we now simply impose = σ (t . T ) = σ (t . As we have seen in section 3. T ) R(t . lognormality of R means that we have a relatively flat Black's implied volatility smile. 3. the Brownian term is independent of R(t.2. T ) t −T In fact.e. T ) (8. we will extract from the time dependent part.3. leaving (8. In reality we propose a piecewise constant version of Γ with regards to t.Chapter 8 Santander HJM Γ(t .13) ~ σ (t . meaning that it is quasi lognormal.
T ) = rt dt + Γ(t . T ) = B(t . T ) dWt . T ) dt + 0 + 2 B 2 (t . Γ 2 (t. T ) = log B(t . This must also apply for any two assets that are separated in time. T ) P = rt dt + Γ(t . T ) dWt dt − Γ(t . thus (8. T ) dB(t .U ) )dWt P d (log B(t .19) Γ 2 (t. T ) = rt − 2 (8.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 8. We can therefore examine two bonds of different maturities. T ) For simplicity we have not included the time dependency. T ) log B(t . T ) − log B(t . T ) 1 P d log B(t . T ) = rt dt + Γ(t .20) Our main difficulty here is the term rt. then: B(t .18) recalling dB(t . This means that it must show the same internal rate of return for any two assets. dB(t . T) dt + Γ(t . T ) − Γ(t . T )dWt P d log B(t . T ) where (8. T ) B(t . T ) = d log B(t . which is risk neutral.U ) ) = 2 117 .U ) dt + (Γ(t . T ) ) dt (8.3 Model Implementation 1st Approach: Suppose a generic HJM setting of the form. T ) (Γ(t .17) 1 1 −1 2 dR(t . and subtract them to eliminate the term rt.16) R(t . T ) 2 dt 2 ( ) (8.15) Γ(t . T ) = σ (t . T ) dWt P B(t . T) − Γ 2 (t. T ) We can then write (8.
Ti ) dt + 2 ∫Ti Ti +1 (Γ ( t .21) The easiest way to implement this model is through a MonteCarlo approach (refer to section 9. T ) to (8. 118 .2).U ) ∀t ∈ [Ti . it integrates to give a 0 mean. we did not know the future values at time t. we evaluate our data at the beginning of our time step. strictly associated to the model itself and not to the product.24) Γ(t . but is now non Markovian. Ti +1 ) ∫Ti Ti +1 2 2 Γ (t. and where only Ti+1 is left to determine. For this.22) Not all of the above components are completely determined since we do not possess information on the parameter values at future times: • ∆ Γ2 dt should be integrated. instead. using γ j (T ) = σ (t j +1 . T ) 2 ∆ΓdWt P is a stochastic Brownian term.Ti +1 ) − Γ (t.23) (8. Now.U ) = σ (t . As mentioned previously. We therefore change our initial approach Γ(t . T ) log B(t . and so we must only calculate its variance.Ti+1 ) − Γ ( t . T ) = σ (t .Ti ) )dWt P (8.Chapter 8 Santander HJM (8. T ) log B(t j . where the value is already known. Ti are therefore model time steps. we will need to generate a number of paths between every interval ti and ti+1.U ) log B(Ti . and so relatively easy to calculate. Integrating the previous equation. we obtain: B(t . Recall a rapid example: • 2nd Approach: Develops on the previous idea. Ti +1 ) =e B(t .e. Ti +1 ] In the previous approach. in the HJM model we only examine the particular bonds and maturities Ti that are of our interest. i.
V ) Ti +1 B (Ti +1 .U ) log B(Ti . U ) B(Ti . _). V )dWt P (8.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework B(Ti. U ) 2 dt − ( log B(Ti . futures steps only depend on the previous point.V )dW ∫ 1 both with the same dW.27) for the maturities V that are of our interest. This is. U ) − Γ(t . V ) P − log =∫ dt + ∫Ti ( Γ(t .V )dW 119 . V ) = σ (t . V ) ) ∫ Ti σ (t .V )dWt P be perfectly correlated: σ (t . and where log B(Ti. and which correspond to the fixing dates at which the cash flows are exchanged. so can be extracted from the integral: log B(Ti +1 . Notice that in this approach we only have one Brownian motion. and all the σ are also known and deterministic. V ) B(Ti . We are only left with the need to generate the stochastic integrals ∫ Ti+1 Ti σ (t .25) where Γ(t . V )dWt P (8. U ) ( log B(Ti . Then if the individual σi follow ∫ σ 2 (t .U) is now no longer Markovian. Integrating now from Ti to Ti+1 we obtain: 2 2 Ti +1 Γ (t.U ) ) ∫ Ti +1 Ti σ (t . This does not necessarily imply that all our elements Imagine for example that we have ∫ Ti +1 Ti σ (t .U) is no longer time dependent.U ) 2 Ti Ti +1 dt + + ( log B (Ti . U ) − Γ (t. V ) ) ∫ Ti +1 σ 2 (t. V ) ) dWt B (Ti +1 .26) At Ti we already know all the values for B(Ti. U ) Ti 2 log (8.U ) ) ∫T 2 Ti +1 i σ 2 (t.U )dWt P − ( log B(Ti .V ) − log = B(Ti +1 .U ) .V ) B (Ti .U ) B(Ti .
V )dWt P . at the beginning of the interval t. that is. Ti +1 ] (8. We therefore decide to look for the simplest possible expression for σ.U ) = σ (Ti .U ) log B(Ti . and because by selecting a known Ti.U). 120 . Thus we are dependent upon the form of σ(t. that to simulate the integrals ∫ Ti +1 Ti σ (t .V) between any two dates Ti and Ti+1. Example of lack of correlation between variables belonging to a unique Brownian motion then σ ( s )dW ∫ 1 ∫ σ 2 ( s ) dW Therefore only depends on W before t only depends on W after t Covariance = ∫ σ 1σ 2 dt = 0 We notice however. numerically.Chapter 8 Santander HJM σ1(s σ2(s t t Fig.U ) ∀t ∈ [Ti .U) = σ(Ti. We do this because there is no strong reason that would suggest we should take any other t. 8. as we did for the bonds. We therefore have: Γ(t . 3rd Approach: We make the hypothesis that σ(t. we require the same number of Brownians Wt as the number of maturities Vi that we want for each step.28) Notice that we select. a known Ti for our σ(Ti. everything becomes much easier.U).1. which appears to be the simplest form for numeric generation.
In our model. we know that zero coupon bonds must be globally lognormal.U ) ∫ Ti B (Ti +1 .29) log Ti +1 1 B (Ti +1 . V )σ (Ti . U ) ) σ 2 (Ti .U ) ) ∫ Ti +1 Ti σ (t . U ) ∫ Ti +1 Ti Ti +1 1 dt + log B (Ti .30) 2 2 2 B (Ti +1 . V ) ) σ (Ti . U ) 2 log − ( log B(Ti . we can now also extract the constant and known σ(Ti.31) At this point therefore. However.U ) 2 + [ log B (Ti . V ) 2 dt − = log + ( log B (Ti . U ) 2 − ( log B (Ti . Γ is piecewise constant for every interval [Ti . V )σ (Ti . U )dWt P − ( log B(Ti . U )σ (Ti .V ) ) ∫ Ti +1 σ 2 (t.V ) B (Ti .U ) (Ti +1 − Ti ) + log = log + B (Ti +1 .U ) − ( log B(Ti . we have with ∆Γ independent of ∆logB (Γ(t . V ) B(Ti . U ) ∫ Ti dWt P (8.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Notice also that Γ is still stochastic for every Ti.V ) B(Ti .U )] WTP+1 − WTP i i ( ) (8. Ti +1 ] Constructing on the formulation that we had developed in our previous approach. U ) B (Ti . U ) B(Ti .U ) B(Ti .U ) ) ∫ Ti B(Ti +1 .U ) − Γ(t .V )dWt P (8.U ) − log B(Ti .U) from the integrals: 2 B(Ti +1 .V ) ( log B (Ti .V ) )dWt P 121 . as it changes value between each Ti stochastically. as previously mentioned.V ) 2 Ti +1 σ (t.U )σ (Ti . U ) dt − = log + ( log B(Ti . U ) 2 Ti +1 Ti Ti dt + ( log B(Ti .V ) ) ∫ σ (t . U ) ∫ dWt P − Ti 2 Ti +1 − log B (Ti . we can summarize that: · · logB which are constant in the interval ∆t We have obtained a set of σ which are also constant in ∆t Now from market data.U ) ) σ (Ti .V ) ) σ 2 (Ti .
8.3. Notice finally that for any form of constant Γ (where we take the left Ti value). 4th Approach: Shifted Black To this point. and so is lognormal.U). 8. HJM dynamics for a lognormal model: flat Following dS = σdW S And a normal model: σBlack Fig. if the particular case occurs in which Γ(t. the model still presents stochasticity for ∆Γ.Chapter 8 Santander HJM Instantaneously therefore. Globally however. HJM dynamics for a normal model: skew K 122 . we have constructed a model that is constant during ∆t. our approximation then becomes exact.U) = Γ(Ti. we have developed a lognormal model: σBlack Lognorm al (flat) Strike K Fig.2.
. 123 .U )) log B (0. and to α as the skew. Ti ) ∀t ∈ [Ti . T ) = σ (Ti .. we choose a parameter α to interpolate between the more or less flat curve presented by the quasi lognormal version and the negative slope curve produced by the normal (Gaussian) version. U ) + (1 − α (Ti . and the term λ is normal.U ) log B(Ti . Ti +1 ] (8. (8. U ) α (Ti .U ) Γ(t . As shown by the following equation.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Following dS λ = dW S S Where λ is a constant Typically the implied volatilities quoted by market data form a smile that is somewhat in between both normal and lognormal models..)dt + σ (αS + (1 − α ) S 0 ) dWt Our Black shifted model therefore now becomes (8.32) We can rewrite the above slightly differently so as to better understand its dynamics.34) we will refer to σ as the general volatility level.. dS = (.) dt + (σS + λ ) dW where the term σS is lognormal. We therefore replace the constant λ by a known S0 and insert a factor of interpolation α that allows us to modify the slope between a lognormal model for α = 1 and a normal model for α= 0. dS = (.33) B(0. Both are now entirely deterministic functions.
U )) log B(0.Chapter 8 Santander HJM 5th Approach: Notice firstly that if we take α > 1 we obtain σBlack K Fig. There.U ) = σ (Ti .both negative and positive. and still maintain 0 < α < 1. 8. We have already seen a number of ideas in the model section of Stochastic Volatility. HJM dynamics for alpha parameters greater than 1 We realize that our model is constrained by two limiting values • if α < 0 there is a limiting maximum that we can never touch if α > 1 there is a limiting minimum that we can never attain • We decide that we would like to be able to access the entire range of prices with our model. Ti ) (8. what expression must this V(Ti.35) We are now multiplying our previous volatility by a new term V(Ti.U) undertake. the simplest 124 .U ) Γ(t .U ) log B(Ti .U). So as to not restrict ourselves.U ) ⋅ V (Ti . The question is.4.U ) + (1 − α (Ti . we decide to include a new parameter that will enable us to attain very steep slopes .U ) ⋅ α (Ti . B(0.
U )) log B(0.36) we would now include a new calibration parameter λ.38) we could consider using [log B(Ti ..)dt + σ [S 0 + α ( S − S 0 )]dW (8.U ) (8.37) Other alternatives include a different from of interpolation between normal and lognormal forms.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework possible expression was suggested as the SABR formulation. This would imply that instead of dS = (..U ) log B(0.U ) α (Ti .U ) + (1 − α (Ti .. the analysis of stochastic ‘volatilities of volatilities’ is an important part of the development undergone in this project.)dt + σ S 0 + α ( S − S 0 ) + λ ( S − S 0 ) 2 dW [ ] (8.U ) B(0.U ) log B(Ti . we could perform a geometric interpolation.. Ti ) 1−α ( Ti . For instance. As we will see further on. Other Approaches Another alternative would be to consider the mathematical formulation that is currently being used as a first order Taylor expansion.. obtaining an expression of the form: dS = (. instead of B(0.)dt + σ (αS + (1 − α ) S 0 ) dWt = (.U )] α (Ti .39) 125 . Instead of performing a linear interpolation as mentioned earlier.. and to extend it for instance to a second order expansion. Ti ) (8.
The insertion of the two factors provides therefore an element of decorrelation between each of the different interest rate terms ( ( ) ( ) ) rt . T). T ) j ≥0 We can think of this as ( ( )Χ ) ( t j .4 Controlled correlation In the models we have seen up until now. T ) Zt1 + sin θ ( t j +1 . an increase in the short term interest rates would necessarily result in a similar increase in the long term rates.implying a correlation very close to 1.Chapter 8 Santander HJM 8. Without this modification. T) given by sin θ ( t j +1 .t ) (t ) j j +1 j≥0 (8.t j +1 ) (t ) (8. T ) Γ 2 (t . with the inclusion of a decorrelation term. to other more complex interest rate functions. T ) Γ(t . allowing for evolutions from flat curves. defined by their Ti .40) Wt P = ∑ γ j cos θ ( t j +1 . T ) Γ (t . 126 . T ) = 1 = ∑ γ j (T ) cos θ ( t j +1 .Zt2 ). we can allow each interest rate to vary differently in time.41) This modification could be included in any of the versions above. T ) Z t1 dW( t . to positive gradients. the correlation structure among the bond prices is always implicit. A way to control this correlation structure is by changing WPt in the model to a two dimensional Brownian motion Zt = (Zt1 . and thus would always lead to vertical displacements of the entire curve. Instead. and to therefore consider a vectorvalued Γ (t. and would give us one more model parameter θ(t.
5. Rate curve Time Fig. Allowing for decorrelation among different interest rates 127 . 8.6. 8.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Rate curve Time Fig. for a correlation=1 amongst interest rates.
U )) log B(0.U ) = σ (Ti .U ) Γ(t .U ) ⋅ V (Ti . dW (t ) → sin θ (Ti .U ) dW 2 (t ) We seek to able to model products that present the following behaviour: (8.volatility of volatilities (Vol of Vol) We shall refer to our HJM framework as being 2factor whenever we pursue a two dimensional approach in the modelling of the Brownian motion.T ) Z t (8.5 Tangible Parameter Explanation To this point.43) Our parameters are therefore: σ : global volatility level skew or slope α: γ : smile. T ) = e γ ( t .U ) log B(Ti .Chapter 8 Santander HJM 8. V as: V (t . Let us recall that we had: B(0.44) 128 . Ti ) (8. We seek now to gain a deeper understanding of how they truly behave within our model.U )dW 1 (t ) + cos θ (Ti .U ) ⋅ α (Ti .U ) + (1 − α (Ti . we have seen that the diffusion of the stochastic volatility Γ has been modelled through 3 parameters and an element of decorrelation.42) where we could for example take the simplest possible form of stochastic volatility.
A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework σBlack Short m aturity (sm ile) Long m aturity (skew) Strike Fig.2 to see how real market quotes produce much more irregular surfaces. and how it is only after an adequate ‘massaging’ process that the data is finally smoothened out into the below form.7. and greater skew for very long maturities. Note that the time scale tends to more recent dates as we look into the 3D view. The representations that we have brought here are indeed entirely schematic and extremely smooth. meaning that the products shows greatest smiles for more recent dates. 129 . Typical vanilla dynamics for different maturities In the 3 dimensional view below. 8. We refer the reader to later chapters such as the SABR Caplet surface in section 18. we have attempted to go further in our understanding on the 2 dimensional representation.
50 1.00 4.Chapter 8 Santander HJM Smile 3.e. This is because it is this point.1 Impact of Sigma The sigma parameter represents the global volatility level of the vanilla product that we analyse.00 21.00 Strike 31. to the product’s volatility at its forward value. which defines the overall level of the smile presented.5. it represents a sort of measure of the stochastic deviation that the product can suffer with respect to its average drift trend. The sigma is a parameter that is generally. This is. 130 1.00 16 19 25 28 Tim e 16. 8.00 Black Volatility 1.50 1.00 10.00 11.8.00 36.00 26.00 13 22 .00 2. Smile to skew deformation with maturity 8.50 2. very closely related to the ‘at the money’ Black’s volatility i.00 6. amongst all other possible vanilla strikes.0000 7.00 0.0000 Fig.
A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Im apct of Sigm a 22% Impact of Sigma 21% 20% kjgh B lack V ol 19% 18% 17% 16% 15% 14% 13% 12% 1% 2% 3% 4% Strikes 5% 6% 7% sigm = 16 % a sigm = 18 % a sigm = 20 % a Fig. 131 .and therefore also in price since the two measures are directly correlated. Sigma parameter global volatility level Indeed. the higher the curve rises on a Black volatility scale. which is why the slope is flat: α = 1. vertically displaced in black volatility with respect to each other. 8. we see that the principal effect of the sigma is to set a global volatility level. The higher we set this sigma. If we were to have constructed the same with an α = 0. we would have obtained set of skewed graphs that would be once again. Note that typical values for sigma are within the range of 8 – 20%.9. Note also that we have constructed the above for a lognormal case.
10. This is. it increases the weighting on the lognormal component of the volatility.5. thus tending towards a flat slope. we revert towards a normal model presenting a clearly defined skew as is shown by the negative slope above. 8. If instead we make the alpha tend towards 1. as we make alpha tend towards 1. 132 .Chapter 8 Santander HJM 8. Alpha parameter skew We see from the above behaviour that the alpha clearly acts as a slope or skew parameter.2 Impact of Alpha: Impact of Alpha 23% 21% khjk 19% Black Volatility 17% 15% 13% 11% 2% 3% 4% 5% Strikes 6% 7% Alpha = 40 % Alpha = 80 % Alpha = 130 % Fig. but whose interpretation is not so clear. Other values are allowed.
5.3 Impact of the Stochastic Volatility Impact of Vol of Vol 28% 26% 24% jhj Black Volatility 22% 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 2% 3% 4% Strikes VolOfVol = 20 % 5% 6% 7% VolOfVol = 40% VolOfVol = 60% Fig.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 8.11. increasing Black’s volatility for very high and very low strikes. This is because the stochastic volatility attributes greater weights to the more extreme values in strikes. 133 . 8. Stochastic Volatility: smile creation As can be seen above. thus having a much more pronounced effect at either ends. the stochastic volatility successfully produces the sought for smile effect.
We will see that there are three principal alternatives: MonteCarlo simulations. 134 . and partial differential equation solvers. that can be solved directly • Semi analytic formulas – can be solved almost completely using a direct approach. We set out with a model of the form: dSt = rSt dt + β t dWt P We have already seen that both rt and βt can be stochastic. Such numerical approaches always require some means of discretisation.Chapter 9 Numerical Methods 9. • An analytical formula. Numerical Methods In this section our intention is that of introducing the various numerical engines that are available when attempting to solve a stochastic differential equation. apart from an occasional integral which must be performed numerically although without any further complications • All other combinations of models and products require a numerical computation in order to achieve a solution. There are also three main methods or approaches that can be considered when analysing a product and its associated model.such as the case of Black Scholes. tree diagrams.
• Any model in practice can only deal with • a finite number of future time steps a finite number of possible paths between any two time intervals Anything different from this would require an infinite calculation time. continuous time ∞ possible paths that the underlying asset can take between two discretised time intervals t and t + dt. • As stated initially. 135 .i.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 9.1 Discretisation Theoretical models consider: • ∞ time intervals. These are: • MonteCarlo simulations Tree Diagrams PDE (Partial Differential Equations) Solvers • • We set out in this introduction using the simplest option we can conceive: a call as our asset of study.e. there are three main approaches by which a discretised model can be tackled.
The advantage Monte Carlo methods offer increases as the dimensions of the problem increase. the next step is to equip each of the paths with its own outcome probability. converging to the solution more quickly than numerical integration methods. It is in this future projection that the mathematical engine comes into play. weighting them with respect to their probabilities. The engine then proceeds to calculate the sum over all the possible outcomes. In each trajectory. 136 . It acts as a numerical resource generating future scenarios and identifying all the different paths that an asset can possibly follow before arriving at the future date.1. Call future scenarios generation We will ignore all that has occurred in the past. we will analyse the gains or losses in which we have incurred as investors. Monte Carlo methods often give better results for large dimensional integrals. starting from the present time instant t = 0. After this generation. requiring less memory and being easier to program. and estimating the future values that our call can take. 9.Chapter 9 Numerical Methods Call S T (S K)T T K P1 P2 P3 0 P4 T Time Fig.2 MonteCarlo In the field of financial mathematics. 9.
A more complex product with fixings at numerous intervals will logically require the engine to perform the previously explained weighting of probabilities at a large number of points. But recall that the asset follows dSt = rSt dt + β t dWt .A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework In our model’s scope. if we consider the cumulative frequency diagram for a Normal distribution. Normally distributed variable generation from random numbers in the (0. These calculation dates that are required are almost always defined by the product itself. Note that a specific model can also impose the need for certain time steps. we must firstly determine the number of points where the engine is going to have to stop and construct a probability distribution for the product. such as in the case of our HJM. For this reason.1) interval 137 . we must construct a possible evolution of the underlying asset S. say n = 10. They tend to be imposed by the fixings or maturities at which the product must be evaluated. Through the MonteCarlo approach. we have that for any number between 0 < xn < 1 Fig. We must therefore firstly construct our model’s Brownian variables. a random number generator is used to create ‘n’ variables within 0 < xn < 1 (excluding both the 0 and the 1). a finite number of paths is chosen.2. 9. This is. which depends on a Brownian P motion.000. For each. Each of these ‘xn’ random numbers are easily transformed into a Gaussian variable Kn by using an inverse Normal transformation.
1) This process must be repeated for each of the i = 1. Then 138 .3) we see that we can apply a similar approach to calculate the value of our asset at every time interval. where T0 = 0. all the terms are known except for WT2 which we must Returning to our diffusion equation: dSt = rSt dt + β t dWt P (9.…. T2 − WT1 i = T2 − T1 ⋅ Vi ] (9. However. S(0) is known at present for T0=0. This allows us to calculate every individual Brownian value: WT1 − WT0 = WT1 − 0 = WT1 i i WT1 = T1 − T0 ⋅ ϕi = T1 ⋅ ϕi i i (9. Subsequently we can calculate the following path step at T2 by simply generating another set of random variables yi from T1 to T2. All the yi must be independent from xi: Thus Vi =N1(yi) with [W solve for.Chapter 9 Numerical Methods we can write that xi=N(φi)= Prob (φ < φi). we also know that Brownians have the property of presenting W(0) = 0.2) In the above equality. We can therefore perform an inverse transformation to find φi =N1(xi) At this point we have already established the foundations for the construction of our Brownian variables: Remember that we had already seen that dWi = [Wk − Wk −1 ]i = Tk − Tk −1 ⋅ ϕ i Meaning that any Brownian motion could be decomposed into its temporal component and its Normal (Gaussian) component. n paths.
Tn. We will consider each path as having an equal probability of occurring.n.. This is equivalent to taking a simple random sample of all the possible trajectories.5) where all the Brownians have been previously calculated. since it can be rewritten as dST1 −T0 = rST0 (T1 − T0 ) + β t (WT1 − WT0 ) P P (9.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework [S but we know T1 − ST0 i = dST1 −T0 ] (9.4) dST1 −T0 from our diffusion equation.8) 139 . that is. We must therefore discount to today all of its possible cash flows at each of their different payoff fixing dates: T − ∫kr ( s ) ds e 0 Ai = ∑ [F (Tk ) ]i k i (9.6) Note that we had said that we would generate n paths. That is at T0 = 0 . analysing each of the payoffs at every time interval k. how much we will receive or pay for the product in that given scenario.…. for each path i of the product. F(Tk)i . The final price value that we select for our product is the weighted average of all the product values in each path scenario i. We therefore can directly solve for the asset’s future price by solving ST1 = S (0) + rST0 (T1 − T0 ) + β t (WT1 − WT0 ) P P (9. What in fact must be analysed is the value today of that product in its future scenario. therefore a probability of 1/n.7) We repeat this valuation for each path scenario i = 1.. Finally. we will have to evaluate the final product’s payoff. Therefore we end up with product value = ∑ Ai i 1 n (9. with respect to the probability of each path occurring (as stated. this was 1/n for each).
It would definitely enable us to calculate the future expected value that we came across previously.2. since it is completely determined by that one path.3 Tree Diagrams The basic idea behind any tree diagram used in financial analysis is very similar to that used for the MonteCarlo. if we had to find the value of the product that were to evolve from that point onwards. if we settle at a future date (Tk)i within our path scenario horizon. This is. as we would now have a set of paths over which to integrate. However. 9. But in the MonteCarlo analysis we only have one path leaving the point being studied. Its aim is to generate a number of possible paths along which the asset of study can evolve towards future scenarios. we would need to perform a calculation of the sort: − ∫ r ( s ) ds VTk = E VTq e Tk Tq P Tk (9.Chapter 9 Numerical Methods 9.1 Limitations The main limitation of a MonteCarlo approach is the fact that it does not work well for forward products. We cannot realistically consider a MonteCarlo operating in this way. if we had to generate a forward evaluation of the same product.000 paths leaving from each evaluation node.9) The value at a future time Tk depends on an expected value of these future developments. The algorithm ends at a predetermined date at which the payoff of 140 . we have only one unique path i leading to that point. Each path is then weighted with a specific probability depending on the possibility that the asset follows that route. whereas it works extremely well for backward products. so cannot really perform an average over a unique path. A solution could be envisioned as an algorithm that would create a further 10. that is. This means that we can easily evaluate the product at that node’s previous conditions. MonteCarlo is therefore only useful for past dependant products. However. the proposed method would cause our calculation time to explode exponentially.
9. Binomial tree Trinomial. In general the simplest forms are the binomial and trinomial variations.3 branches Prob up Prob dow n Fig. just as in the MonteCarlo case. 9. Trinomial tree 141 . At this point. although other multinomial extensions can easily be constructed.3. the probability distribution for each possible outcome scenario is computed.4.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework the product is evaluated. The number of branches that sprout from each node can be chosen at will. This must subsequently be discounted back to present so as to know its trading value today. Binomial – 2 branches Prob dow n Fig. The mean expected payoff is then taken as the final value for our product.
It allows the algorithm to reach the same node via several different paths. and a number n leading away from it. it only adds k + 1 nodes at each successive time interval. Instead.3.3. that generates 2k new paths at each time step. and may or may not use a symmetric distribution for the probabilities to be assigned to each of the possible routes. As with the MonteCarlo discussion. and 3k paths in the trinomial case Prob up Prob dow n Tk Tk+1 TT k+2 Fig. adding 2k + 1 new nodes at each time step. each node here has a unique path leading to it. The binomial case is no longer exponential in terms of the number of nodes created at each step. 9. 9.2 Recombining Tree Diagrams: Regarding the previous forms of tree diagrams. In the trinomial case.1 Non Recombining Tree Diagram: Analogous to the MonteCarlo simulation.5. See the binomial case for instance. Non recombining binomial tree 9. 142 . the number is slightly greater. the recombining tree alternative results as the only viable solution with regards towards a practical implementation. this alternative is impossible to implement as it rapidly diverges towards infinite simulations.Chapter 9 Numerical Methods Each of these may or may not have a symmetric setting for their branches.
Prob down = 0. that we will note as Probup and Probdown.down S1 up Prob up Prob dow n S1 dow n Fig.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework It is important to note that in a binomial tree. These are: • zero central moment ∑ prob = 1 NodeTk = Ek NodeTk +1 • The first central moment: ( ) • The second central moment : discrete variance= theoretical variance The three equations above define a unique Gaussian variable. we seek a symmetry of the form Prob up = 0. Binomial tree probabilities It is therefore necessary to fix one of the four parameters in order to solve for the other three.up. we reduce the infinite paths that can stem from any single node to only two possibilities. 9.5 143 . In fact. We must assign to each of these branches a particular probability. It is evident that the sum of these two probabilities must equal one.6. S1.5. Note that a normal distribution is defined entirely by its moments M0. what we have here is a set of three equations and four unknowns: Prob up. In fact. we have three equations that enable us to evaluate each of the two probabilities. Typically. S1. M1 and M2. Prob down.
9.Chapter 9 Numerical Methods Prob up Prob dow n Tk Tk+1 Tk+2 Tk+3 Fig.8. Recombining trinomial tree The tree diagram algorithm has properties that are the complete opposite of those presented by the MonteCarlo algorithm. Recombining binomial tree In the trinomial recombining tree we would obtain the following graphical representation: Prob up Prob dow n Tk Tk+1 Tk+2 Tk+3 Fig. since there is no longer the problem of a unique path 144 . A tree diagram turns out to be very good for future dependant products. 9.7.
Indeed. it is capable of incorporating tree diagrams as a specific subcase in which the PDE mesh is generated in a triangular form. 9. The basic development of the equations used can be considered as follows. a more generic approach that encompasses the recombining tree diagram. It no longer deals with the probabilities and Brownian motions necessary to solve the diffusion equations encountered. The main problem that arises at this point is when we are faced with products that are both forward and backward dependant. Between 1995 and 2000. Sk)i cannot be traced back through a particular path. since it possesses a number of possible routes. a probability can be computed when calculating a future expectation by taking into account the numerous paths that emerge from any given node. Instead. Neither of the two previous methods can realistically be applied to this kind of situations and still yield suitable results.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework leaving a particular node. Let us consider the basic stochastic differential equation of any tradable asset. In the 1990’s the Hull White Model developed a series of tricks so as to avoid such difficulties in some of its products. Thus. and inefficient in the case where the products have many payoff dates.4 PDE Solvers This involves an entirely different approach to that of the two previous methods. as any node (Tk. A further idea that seems promising but that has never reached a concrete form was the Willow tree development. These however remain limited. a series of techniques were created enabling the MonteCarlo method to tackle future dependant products such as American contracts. From 2002 onwards. The method is in one of its variations. it solves deterministic partial differential equations. the development has been directed towards a Longstaff Schwartz approach. In contrast. the tree method is not good with back dependant products. eliminating all the stochasticity of the problem. This is: 145 .
but implicitly. Having done this. which we shall note as V(t.11) Under the risk neutral probability. we proceed to construct a mesh for the PDE solver. behind the terms V.10) By applying Ito to the product’s payoff. S. then ∂V ∂V 1 ∂ 2V 2 β dt = dt + dS + ∂t ∂S 2 ∂t 2 ∂V ∂V 1 ∂ 2V 2 P β dt = = dt + rS t dt + β t dWt + ∂t ∂S 2 ∂t 2 ∂V ∂V 1 ∂ 2V 2 ∂V = + rS t + β dt + β t dWt P 2 2 ∂t ∂S ∂t ∂S dVt = ( ) (9. we can therefore equate the two drift terms through the Black Scholes formula: ∂V ∂V 1 ∂ 2V 2 rtVt = + rSt + β 2 ∂t 2 ∂t ∂S (9. and β. This means that the payoff can also be written generically as dVt = rVt dt + γ t dWt P (9. 146 . and with it. They are still present in the equation. and we shall outline briefly here just the simplest method so as to achieve a general understanding of the procedure to be followed. all the probability distributions that it implies. This can be of varying forms. every asset must have the same average yield.St).12) Since both the product and its payoff must have the same yield.13) With this procedure we have now eliminated the Brownian component of the equation.Chapter 9 Numerical Methods dSt = rSt dt + β t dWt P (9.
i can takeimposing our mesh divisions.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework St VT. thus defining our final vertical boundary at the left of the above mesh. We can impose certain boundary conditions to restrict our mesh. we know that V = S0. For example. The resemblance with the tree diagram is now very clear.2 S T. at maturity. we have a fixed date which constrains us by imposing a vertical limit.14) Where for t=0. We can therefore construct all the corresponding payoffs for these different asset prices ST.K)+). we can also exclude any value of S which is excessively high. Moreover. and its value will drop to 0.i as: VTi = E e −rT ( STi − K ) [ ] (9. but we will in fact be dealing with the underlying’s payoff V. Vt T V=0 Fig. The above method allows to start at a future node T already knowing the value of the product here. 9. . if the value of St drops too far. represented on the right hand side of our graph as another vertical axis.9. In addition.3 ST.2 V T.1 S T. meaning that the option will not be exercised.iK V T. PDE mesh and boundary conditions Note that we have written the underlying on the vertical axis as reference. and work backwards in time using the discrete equation 147 .i S T. it is clear that our product. . will not be profitable.3 VT0 0 t1 t2 . priced V (and that is proportional to (S . It is itself divided into all the possible future values that ST.1 V T. In this way we have already imposed the lower horizontal boundary for our mesh.
according to Taylor expansions: Vt − Vtk ∂V → k +1 ∂t t k +1 − t k (9.Chapter 9 Numerical Methods ∂V ∂V 1 ∂ 2V 2 rtVt = + rSt + β 2 ∂t 2 ∂t ∂S Let us start for instance at the top left hand corner: (9.18) The success of the PDE solver will depend mainly on the mesh used and the way in which we choose to discretise.15) Boundary conditions i+1 i Boundary conditions i1 k1 k k+1 Fig.17) t k i −1 Vt k i +1 − 2 Vt k i + Vt k i −1 ∂ 2V → ∂S 2 St k i +1 − St k i ⋅ St k i − St k ( ) ( ) ( ) (( ) ( ) ) (( ) ( ) ) i −1 (9. 9.16) Vt ∂V → k ∂S S tk ( ) ( ) i +1 i +1 ( ) − (S ) − Vtk i −1 (9. First PDE algorithm steps The procedure chosen to discretise the different terms in the equation from this point onwards can be extremely diverse. For instance. 148 .we simply name the Crank Nicholson technique as a very broadly used method in this domain. We will not discuss any further the advantages and disadvantages of explicit versus implicit discretisations. we can take. or of other methods that could have been stated.10.
For this. The final objective behind our calibration procedure is to be capable of pricing an exotic interest rate product whose market value is unknown. Thus. inputting into our HJM model the calibrated parameters. we adjust our HJM’s model parameters until its output price for each of these plain vanilla products coincides with their true market value. we obtain a final price for our exotic product.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 10. The following step is to create an HJM model capable of correctly pricing these simple products. Having reached this point. 149 . Further. Thus. we expect the combination of these simple products to be capable of replicating the complex product’s behaviour. These simple liquid products have market quoted prices. To do so. the exotic product’s characteristics and the market rates. we expect that with these parameters. Calibration Calibration is the process by which the output on a measurement instrument is adjusted to agree with the value of the applied standard. we decompose the complex product into a set of simple. market traded vanilla products. we have therefore obtained a set of parameters which correctly model the entire group of vanilla products. within a specified accuracy. our HJM model will also be capable of modelling a more complex exotic product which is in some manner a combination of these simple products.
σ. the aim of the calibration is to be able to price a new financial exotic product. including spot rates. θ M arket R ates N liquid vanilla products PRICER M odify P aram eters N wton R e aphson no Nm arket prices = N m odel prices yes E xport m odel param eters α. For this require: 1. In this vanilla product selection.1 Algorithm We will now continue to explain in further detail how the overall algorithm works.1. The products should be similar to the new product we want to price. We start by presenting a simple flowchart with the main processes involved. σ. M odel P aram eters α. θ Fig.Chapter 10 Calibration 10. Calibration Process: Vanilla Products As we have already stated. we stress 150 . Taking from the market the current interest rates. dividends. γ. These must include a complete description of the various payoffs and cash flows they generate at each of their possible fixings. γ. 10. The second element we also take from the market are the characteristics of a set of n products.… 2.
These risks can include variations in the underlying price. we are now ready to proceed with our calibration process. The last elements are the input parameters needed for our model to generate the pricing of a product. and that play the role during the calibration of giving us the market’s point of view of the risks in our exotic product. movements in the interest rate curves. with its set of initial parameters. In the case of Black Scholes. we have seen that there is only one input parameter. … (There are situations in which the parameter of a particular model can become so widely used that traders begin to talk of the products themselves in terms of the specific parameter itself. and is now also occurring with the SABR model) With the above input data. We then proceed to test each of the n vanilla products by comparing their market price with the model price that our HJM pricer algorithm generates for them. that their market price is exact and reliable – plain vanillas • That the product must have a very similar risk profile to the exotic product we attempt to evaluate. The model parameters are responsible for simulating the different sources of risk in a product. which are simple to model. Such is the case of the σBlack for instance. In the HJM model. The calibration group is configured so that it can be selected automatically or manually by the trader himself. a value for which the parameter of each product trades. We must modify our initial parameter values and 151 . If they are different. which is the product’s σBlack. we have seen that the input data can be σ and α if it is our two strike model. does not correctly reproduce the market. In general we choose to use vanilla products. the market creates. and consequently. and an additional λ in the case of the three strike model. 3.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework • That the products should be very liquid i. it means that our HJM model. itself.e. We must first select a set of initial guesses for our model parameterstypically between 0 and 1.
We shall consider this our complex exotic product.1.3. σ. Analogy cancellable swap and inverse swap 152 . M odel P aram eters α. 10. Thus. Call S ap on the 9th year w 0Y 9Y 1Y 10Y Entering a 1Y S ap on the 9th year w Fig. we have the option of cancelling the swap. θ E TIC XO PR ODU CT M arket R ates PRICER E xotic P roduct P rice Fig. With these parameters. from a quant’s point of view. once again comparing the real market prices with those generated by our model. the market interest rates and the characteristics of our new exotic product to enter our HJM algorithm and price the exotic product. γ. We use these final parameters.Chapter 10 Calibration repeat the procedure. we are ready to tackle the exotic product. This means that each year. The product. to cancel the callable swap on the ninth year would be equivalent to having an option in nine years time of entering a 1Y swap. 10.1 An example of a vanilla product set selection Let us consider a 10Y callable swap which is callable every year. is equivalent to entering an inverse swap so as to cancel the incoming cash flows.2. Calibration Process: Exotic Pricing 10. We continue our iterations until we find a set of parameters for which our model correctly prices the n vanilla products.
the trader needed to model a 1 year EURIBOR risk at this date T.1. meaning that we can model the option to cancel in 8 years as the option to enter in a 2 year swap starting in 8 years.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework The same can be said for all the other fixings. the trader must select a range of simple vanilla products which he believes will adequately model his exotic product’s risk profile. The trader may decide therefore to incorporate this particular risk into his analysis by using a caplet based on the 3 month EURIBOR whose maturity coincides with T. We realize that an exotic product with a global maturity of UN years may be replicated 153 . Thus the risk of our exotic product is modelled here by decomposition into a list of nine simple vanilla products considered very liquid and that can be taken directly from the market: Exercise Date Starting Date Tenor Length 1Y 2Y 3Y : : 9Y 9Y 8Y 7Y : : 1Y Table 10. If instead. The vanilla products that we will use will commonly consist of caplets or swaptions constructed over their corresponding forward rates.2 Calibration in Detail For any product calibration. he would probably decide to use a swaption instead of a caplet. Exotic product risk decomposition 10. The HJM Santander model is constructed following an entirely generic approach. since the swaptions are constructed over the 1 year EURIBOR. That he should choose to use a swaption or a caplet on the 1 year EURIBOR over the same time period would depend on a more subtle analysis that we will not enter here. Say for example that an exotic product has a determined fixing at time T that depends on the 3 month EURIBOR.
thus Uj ≤ UN. The minimum possibility is a 3 month scenario between each date. and could have a maturity Uj > T. meaning we would proceed to divide the global maturity UN into 3 month intervals. Below we present all the possible combinations for a given exercise date Ti. 10. Decomposition of an exotic into time periods The next step would be to select the specific vanilla products for the calibration. The range of all the possible vanilla products that we can incorporate into our calibration set therefore takes on the form of a matrix.Chapter 10 Calibration using a wide range of intermediate vanilla products with maturities Ui ≤ UN and of varying life spans. The first thing that the trader must do is to decide on the minimum time intervals that his product will depend on. V anilla Possibilities starting at Ti t Settle Product T First Fixing Ti UN Globa Maturity l 154 .4. Other options would be to have 6 month or yearly intervals. with a superior limit to this maturity equal to the product’s global maturity. the approach that gives the trader the greatest freedom is to allow him to select any of these for his calibration. These could have a starting or fixing time T at any of the dates Ui into which we have divided our time space. Settle Product First Fixing Global Maturity t T UN t T UN Fig. Therefore.
T . U3) V(t. U ) 3 1 U 2 V(t. T . T . U ) 1 2 V(t. U ) 3 2 U 3 V(t. T . U1) 1 V(t.U0) 1 V(t. U1) 3 U2 V(t.U0) 2 V(t. T . U ) 2 V(t. T3) 155 . T . T . to take into account vanilla products that start at each of the possible time intervals Ti and whose maturity is the product’s global maturity UN. firstly. T1. T2.U0) 0 V(t. U2) 0 V(t.U0) 1 V(t. taking into account the entire matrix to calibrate our model parameters would result excessively timeconsuming. 10. Decomposition of an exotic into vanillas fixing at T and with different maturities Yet the above decomposition can be equally performed for any Ti satisfying T < Ti <UN. T .U0) V(t. T . U3) V(t. T0. T2.U0) 2 V(t. U2) 2 V(t. U2) 1 V(t. T . T . T .5. T . we decide instead to calibrate the most representative areas of the above matrix. T . A further addition that we can allow ourselves to perform is to calibrate with the end column. T . T . Thus we have the subsequent matrix appearance: U 0 T 0 T 1 T 2 T 3 V(t. T1. U0 T 0 T 1 T 2 T 3 V(t. The global exotic product with maturity UN can therefore be composed by any of the product combinations presented in the matrix. This is. and ends at its corresponding column maturity Ui. U ) 0 2 V(t. These are. T . T . U3) V(t. It would however be the ideal goal to attain in the future. U1) 2 V(t. Note that each cell within the matrix represents a vanilla product that fixes at its corresponding row date T. U3) 1 V(t.U0) 3 U1 V(t. In general. U3) 0 V(t. T ) 2 3 Table 10. T . U1) 0 V(t. 6 or 12 months after depending on the vanilla product we are using. U2) 3 U3 V(t. U ) 2 1 V(t.2 Ideal Vanilla calibration matrix: all data available In practice however. T . T . T . T . T2. U3) 2 V(t. T0. the diagonal. representing vanilla products that start at Ti and end immediately 3. U ) 1 V(t.U0) 3 U1 V(t.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Fig. T . T . U ) 0 1 V(t.
Chapter 10 Calibration Table 10. 10. We complete the rest of our matrix through interpolation and extrapolation between the known values. we agreed to enter this product at a previous value date t. Schematic calibration matrix representation Evidently. if our first possible fixing is at date T. we must be aware nevertheless that as traders. Note that there is a further extrapolation that we had not mentioned earlier. the above is not sufficient for our calibration.3 Vanilla calibration matrix: market quoted data Or schematically: U0 T0 Ti TN Ui UN Fig. whereas we will consider the rest of the matrix as being composed by Dependent Parameters. For example. We really have: 156 .6. Thus. This is the initialisation of a set of values that we will also be using. They too must be extrapolated.7. 10. in which the market is not static. and whose fluctuations can affect our product before we even start the first fixing. Initial Variation before first Fixing These fluctuations correspond to time intervals which would be included as the first rows in our matrix. There is definitely a time interval between t and the first fixing T. First Fixing Product Settlem ent t T U Fig. we will refer to the end column and the diagonal as the Target Parameters in our calibration set.
where we solve 157 . 10. 10. then the problem has an infinite set of solutions. the problem can be solved by applying a square mean calculation. whereas a 2 strike model calibrates with both the column and the diagonal. We must distinguish a further characteristic before we can proceed to the analysis of results. and lacks sufficient information to be solved. When we are calibrating in a 1 strike model. 10.3. Further.1 Minimum Square Error. First Row Interpolated Data Although for simplicity we will ignore this representation and use the former. in each cell we must consider two products with different strikes. and thus are ready to end the iterative process.8. a 1 strike model only calibrates with the end column. whereas in a two strike model.3 Best Fit or not Best Fit? The following aims at discussing the criteria required to determine whether we are satisfied with the approximation between model and market prices. 1st Method: Given a model of M parameters and a calibration set of N liquid products: · If N < M. we need to calibrate with only one product for each matrix position. · If N ≥ M.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework U0 T0 Ti TN Ui UN Fig.
This means that there always exists a solution. thus we have truly lost information. The main problem in contrast.1) The main advantage of this method is the fact that the calibration is performed over an excess of information.Chapter 10 Calibration F = min ∑ ( Market pricei − Model pricei ) 2 i (10. Inexact fit: minimum square method 158 .e. 10. which simply provides a minimal difference between the two parameters. minimisation algorithms can prove imprecise. we cannot know which points are exact i. finding local minima rather than the absolute minimum to the problem. is that it is time consuming when seeking the solution due to the minimisation algorithm which is necessary. Further. We must also realise that we seek Market prices = Model prices This means that we seek a minimum of exactly 0 for the difference Market prices .Model prices This cannot be guaranteed by our algorithm.9.but this difference can be arbitrarily large. when we arrive at our final solution curve. In addition. Projecting N dimensional data onto an M dimensional problem space results in a loss of information: σBlack Fixed Maturity (t0.T) S trike K Fig. which points are supplied by the market data and which are approximations.
The Greeks: Are the variations of a product (its derivative) with respect to its market parameters. The delta measures sensitivity to price. The Greeks are vital tools in risk management.see below) represents a specific measure of risk in owning an option.2) The gamma measures second order sensitivity to price. so realistically speaking. The Γ is the second derivative of the value function with respect to the underlying price. The speed is the third derivative of the value function with respect to the underlying price. and option portfolios can be adjusted accordingly ("hedged") to achieve a desired exposure As a result. With these. a desirable property of a model of a financial market is that it allows for easy computation of the Greeks. ∆= ∂V ∂S (10. One of the greatest problems encountered using this procedure is the introduction of noise in the calculation of the Greeks. All the different types of risks in the pricing of a product can be measured by several instruments. The ∆ of an instrument is the mathematical derivative of the value function with respect to the underlying price. the Greeks. can only be considered exact at that precise point. our approximation curve only coincides with one of the market data points.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Above. The Greeks in the BlackScholes model are very easy to calculate and this is one reason for the model's continued popularity in the market. 159 . and is therefore an approximation for all other regions. Each Greek (with the exception of theta . Γ= ∂ 2V ∂S 2 (10. it is possible to hedge against the risks in a very easy manner.3) The speed measures third order sensitivity to price.
∂V 1 ∂S V (10. υ= ∂V ∂σ (10.6) The rho measures sensitivity to the applicable interest rate. which is not a Greek letter (ν. The theta measures sensitivity to the passage of time. ρ= ∂V ∂r (10. The vega is the derivative of the option value with respect to the volatility of the underlying.4) The vega. τ. The ρ is the derivative of the option value with respect to the risk free rate. Θ=− ∂V ∂T (10.8) The vega gamma or volga measures second order sensitivity to implied volatility.5) The term kappa. the lambda λ is the percentage change in option value per change in the underlying price. κ.7) Less commonly used. and some trading firms also use the term tau. is sometimes used instead of vega. nu is used instead).Chapter 10 Calibration speed = ∂ 3V ∂S 3 (10. measures sensitivity to volatility. volga = ∂ 2V ∂σ 2 (10.9) 160 . This is the second derivative of the option value with respect to the volatility of the underlying. Θ is the negative of the derivative of the option value with respect to the amount of time to expiry of the option. or λ= It is the logarithmic derivative.
. charm = ∂∆ ∂ 2V = ∂T ∂S ∂T (10. 161 . vanna = ∂ 2V ∂S ∂σ (10. E2 at the point we are studying. we generate a new minimisation curve that will most probably have a different minimisation error. measures the time decay of delta.13) we simply evaluate our product’s price once to obtain price1. colour = ∂ 3V ∂S 2 ∂T (10.12) It is the third derivative of the option value. or charm.10) This can also be interpreted as the sensitivity of delta to a unit change in volatility.11) This can be important when hedging a position over a weekend.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework The vanna measures crosssensitivity of the option value with respect to change in the underlying price and the volatility. This will have an inherent error E1 due to the square mean minimisation used to obtain the solution curve. and then reprice our product. The colour measures the sensitivity of the charm. if we want to calculate: ∂price price1 − price2 ≈ ∂σ Black σ Black1 − σ Black2 (10. or delta decay to the underlying asset price. We must notice that with such a variation. twice to underlying asset price and once to time. For our particular model. The delta decay. To calculate the price2 we slightly shift the market σBlack which we input into our calibration set. Such variations are responsible for the noise generated in the Greeks we obtain.
but at the specific strikes K set by the trader. we can be sure of the results obtained.2 Exact Fit. we shall select the same number of market products as unknown parameters in our model. For example for a model of five parameters. Thus. we seek to have N = M. we would select five products: σBlack Fixed Maturity (t0. 10. we can assure that the value at any of the selected strikes is precise. The difficulty in this procedure is to correctly select the pertinent calibration set – yet this is where the skill of the trader lies. 2nd Method: Despite the fact that the market contains an excess of products. for every maturity T. Exact fit Between points. This is. with this model. whereas the same anomaly would be evened out by the square mean method: 162 .10. the model may or may not be exact. 1st Effect: A further advantage of the best fit method lies in the fact that a real anomaly within market data can be truthfully taken account of in our model.Chapter 10 Calibration 10.3.T) S trike K Fig.
Thus. 10.12. we must include in our calibration set all the sensibilities that we specifically want to take into consideration. not allowing for any form of control over the residual error created. Anomaly in minimum square method 2nd Effect: The use of the minimum squares method introduces noise in the calculation of the Greeks. For example.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework σBlack Fixed Maturity (t0. would produce: σBlack Fixed Maturity (t0. It will only present sensitivities towards the factors included in our calibration set. Anomaly in exact fit The square mean method in contrast.T) S trike K Fig. The best fit method however allows to calculate sensitivities through differentials or finite difference methods.T) S trike K Fig. 10.11. if we want our three 163 .
Time of calculation is of utmost importance in our working environment 10. Its main problems arise when the surface is not smooth.Chapter 10 Calibration parameter calibration to present several sensibilities. The first is not our case. 10.4 Newton Raphson We seek: Model Prices = Market Prices. 3rd Effect: We economise a lot of time by analysing only the pertinent products.13. and we will show that our first guess is generally a good starting approximation. We use the Newton Raphson algorithm to obtain the solution to the above equation. and not an indefinite range of them. with a vanilla at the money. and when the initial point of calculation is far from the final solution. we will not construct it with three identical vanilla products. Each of these will be aimed at bringing into our model a characteristic sensitivities. The algorithm is known to be the fastest among other optimisation algorithms. but instead for example. a risk product and a butterfly. Newton Raphson Iterations 164 . Market Price – M odel Price P1 σ* σ4 σ3 σ2 σ1 Param eter Fig.
a first guess σ1 is used to construct the model price. λ. P1).Market Prices = 0 As seen in the above figure. ∂P where the Newton Raphson ∂λ 165 . Its point of intersection with the horizontal axis provides the next point of calculation. The slope is calculated at this point as m1 = ∂P . but also time consuming. 1st Simplification: The Newton Raphson method can only be used where the slope is smooth.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework The Newton Raphson procedure is simple and well known. 10.1 Simplifications of the algorithm. It seeks Model Prices . something that can result not only difficult numerically. σ 2 = σ1 − The method is easily generalised to M parameters by substituting the slope by the Jacobian: J= ∂P −1 Thus σ 2 = σ 1 − P ⋅ J 1 ∂σ i The difficulty in this procedure lies in the need to calculate the inverse of the Jacobian. If ever ∂P is not smooth. P1. Typical forms ∂σ are: λ = ∫ σ 2 dt or λ = ∫ eσ dt 2 The transformation allows for a smooth algorithm can now be applied successfully. This is used to construct a ∂σ P 1 m1 straight line of equal slope at the point (σ1. we can create what is called a buffer parameter.4.
Market Price – M odel Price σ* …σ6 σ5 σ4 σ3 σ2 σ1 Param eter Fig. This is what we have developed in section 12 and called an analytic approximation. The proof for the fact that the use of an analytic approximation is less time consuming than the calculation of a new Jacobian each time relies on the following logic: 166 . the algorithm transforms into a MonteCarlo approach that nevertheless. Newton Raphson Iterations with a constant Jacobian A further solution would be to use an analytic.Chapter 10 Calibration 2nd Simplification: We do not really need an extremely accurate Jacobian. Making it analytical would render it very rapid. we avoid the time consuming calculation of a new Jacobian at each step. This is. approximate Jacobian at each point. and thus comparatively. for a smooth curve. In fact. still uses the last Jacobian that the analytic approximation calculated. greatly reduce the time of computation.14. and once it arrives at its solution. the analytic approximation calculates an approximate solution using its own approximate Jacobians. we can use a constant initial Jacobian in all iterations to reach the final solution σ*. Although more steps are needed for the algorithm. and would also avoid the need to calculate the numeric Jacobian at each step. 10.
This occurs because we must generate a Jacobian to proceed with the slope method of the Newton Raphson algorithm. Thus we obtain the first row in our Jacobian matrix: ∂Pi P − (Pi + dP ) = i ∂λ1 λ1 − (λ1 + dλ ) (10.14) 167 . 10.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Without an analytic approximation. we must call on the pricer a further n times. each time we go through one whole iteration within the calibration process we must perform the pricing n+1 times: We call on the pricer a first time during the calibration so as to calculate the model price for the n liquid vanilla products based on the first guess model parameters.15. Calibration Jacobian We calculate the Jacobian by varying or ‘bumping’ the first of the n parameters λ1 by a differential amount dλ1. We then go through the pricer again. If we then have to iterate because these model prices do not coincide with the market prices. calculating all the new prices Pi + dPλ1. N Prices P1 P2 P3 … Pi … Pn λ1 λ2 λ3 : λi : λn d Pricei d Param j Jacobian Matrix N Param eters Fig.
θ M arket R ates N liquid vanilla products Recalculate Pi PRICER Bum λ1 p M odify P aram eters N wton R e aphson no Nm arket prices = N m odel prices yes E xport m odel param eters α.With the old prices Pi and parameters λi. σ. 168 . σ. θ Fig. Instead we would use a unique Jacobian and simply require a few more iterations to arrive at the final result.Chapter 10 Calibration M odel P aram eters α. 10. and with the new parameters λi + dλ and prices Pi + dP. With an analytic approximation therefore. we would avoid calling on the pricer n+1 times. the Jacobian is then fully computed.16. γ. Jacobian calculation Iterations We repeat the process n times for each of the parameters λi . γ.
we are now going to present in more detail the iteration’s right hand side: New Parameters j = j +1 λ j+1 i S TAR T n Parameters λji i =0 Market rates NV anilla Products New Raphs ton on PRIC ER Bump Parameters i =0? no yes Market Price = Model Price? yes no λij = λij + ∆ i Price j Price ij − Price 0 ∆λij S tore Model Priceji λi j i = i+1 Export n Parameters λji no yes i= n ? Fig.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 10.5 Iteration Algorithm Recall the initial Calibration flow chart. 10.17. Detailed Calibration Algorithm: Jacobian computation 169 .
where the first guesses are taken. We will not enter the details of the programming algorithm involved in this procedure yet. since the market price for a given vanilla product is a constant. We also hope that any specific cases where our algorithm finds difficulties in converging. as the two are directly related. will become apparent during this phase. For the interested reader. we would have a valid solution for the parameters (σ. or does not converge at all. is to be able to directly observe our (σ. and a direct method to achieve this is by reproducing it graphically.Chapter 11 Graphical Understanding 11.12. we will be able to see where calibration solutions lie. What we achieve through this transformation. The initial idea is to generate the space Ω consisting of all the prices that the HJM model generates for each pair (σ. We develop this idea a step further. We set out to analyse the two strike HJM model. we have a valid solution whenever HJM Model Price – Market Price = 0 Note that as discussed in the Black Scholes Chapter. 11. and set our z axis directly as: HJM Model Price – Market Price This is simply a vertical displacement of the curve along the z axis. That is. Recall that the calibration parameters for such a formulation were simply σ and α. the use of Market prices or of Black volatilities on our vertical axis is indifferent. α). and how directly our algorithm converges towards its solution. We then compare this three dimensional surface with the true market price of the vanilla product. 170 . Graphical Understanding We now seek to truly understand how well our HJM model operates.α). We must also be aware of the fact that each valuation must be made for a product with a defined maturity and a definite strike. refer to the algorithm at the end of this section Fig. Wherever the HJM model price coincides with the market price. for a determined vanilla product. α) solutions as the intersection of our surface with the horizontal plane. By doing so.
1. Its global level varies vertically in price depending on the value of sigma.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Our space Ω will consist in the parameters to calibrate along the horizontal plane. Notice that we can intuitively guess the form that this surface will have. The alpha parameter presents a characteristic convexity. 11. We see that its slope varies depending on the value of alpha. The sigma parameter in the two strike model presents a characteristic curve of the form: Sigma 7 6 k Prices 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 0. 171 .25 Fig.2 0. we are representing price versus model parameters. In previous graphs.15 0. Here. and seeing how our parameters transformed those curves.1 Sigma [% ] Alpha 20 Alpha 0 Alpha 20 Alpha 40 Alpha 60 0. We must not confuse the behaviour of the model parameters in this section with those in the HJM section.05 0. HJM model: sigma vs price dynamics with different alpha parameters It is a monotonously increasing curve. we were analysing prices versus strikes. by analysing the 2 dimensional behaviour of the individual parameters.
100 M d l Pic .3.18 20 0 5 0 20 0. 172 . o e r e ak t r e 80 60 40 0. HJM MonteCarlo model price surface The possible (σ.06 4 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 4 0 0 5 0. we obtain a 3Dsurface Ω of the form: HJM Dynam ics 120 .1 0. therefore where the surface passes through 0.02 Sigm a A lpha Fig.16 Sigma 0.08 sigma 0.12 Sigma 0. α) solutions are those in which Model Price = Market Price. 11.04 Sigma 0. 11.14 0.2. This is depicted above as the limiting curve between the blue and purple regions. HJM model: alpha vs price dynamics with different sigma parameters By combining the two.Chapter 11 Graphical Understanding Alpha 15 k 10 Price 5 65 45 25 0 5 5 Alpha [% ] 15 35 Sigma 0.M r e Pic .2 Fig.
We must therefore perform each calibration in pairs of vanilla products (that have the same time schedules. HJM MonteCarlo two dimensional solution Notice however that we obtain an entire curve of possible solutions.08 0.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework HJM Solution 0. It is left to the trader to decide which specific pair of 173 Sigma . it is clear that we need two equations to fully determine the system.02 0 60 40 20 0 Alpha [% ] 20 40 60 80 K = 3.35% Sigm a Fig.18 0.45% Fig. α) pair from.4.12 0.1 0. but different strike. HJM Solution 0. and different strikes).16 0.06 0.16 0.35% K = 4. α) is that which satisfies both curves.5.06 0.04 0. 11.08 0. thus their intersection.11.12 0. so that the final solution set (σ. meaning that we have an infinite set of possibilities to select our (σ.14 l 0. As in any mathematical problem with two variables to solve.1 0.14 l 0.04 0.02 0 60 40 20 0 Alpha [% ] 20 40 60 80 K = 3.18 0. HJM MonteCarlo two dimensional solution intersection for two vanilla products Notice also that the pair of vanilla products must be selected with the same maturity.
would have to be inserted into our HJM formulation to completely determine the system of 3 equations and 3 unknowns. or will be reproducing a broad slope modelisation. maintaining a more or less constant right end value 174 .1 Dynamics of the curve Increasing the market prices. i. 11. and consequently a third parameter γ – the ‘Volatility of Volatilities’. the trader will be taking into account a tangent to the volatility curve at a specific point. 11. a smile.6. σB σB K K K K K K K Fig. the σBlack results in a downward vertical displacement of the entire surface Ω.e. Depending on his selection. Variation of the strike K in turn appears to be a rescaling of the solution curve. will be unable to do so with the selection of only two strike positions.Chapter 11 Graphical Understanding vanilla products to select at each maturity and tenor. Model implications on taking a) very close strikes b)distant strikes We immediately see here that a trader trying to capture a curvature. so as to model the risk that he seeks. Its effect is to increase the overall size of the curve and shift it towards smaller values of alpha. A third strike would be required. (Not to confuse our HJM model’s sigma with the σBlack that is related to the product price through the Black Scholes formula). or equivalently. According to our z axis definition we are now subtracting a greater amount in the second term of the equation HJM Model Price – Market Price This has the effect on our 2D graph of displacing our solution curves upwards in the sigma axis.
Solution dynamics with a) variation in market price b) variations in strike 11.2 HJM Problematics Of specific interest to us is to analyse the cases in which our HJM algorithm does not find a concrete solution. 175 .A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework σ σBlack1 σ K1 σBlack2 K2 K K Fig. 11. 11.1 Lack of Convergence There exists a solution but the algorithm does not converge properly towards it. We have encountered four main cases of concern.7.2.
2 Duplicity There exists a duplicity of solutions The observant reader will have already noticed this in the previous graph or could have already forecasted this difficulty due to the fact that the alpha has a concave form.04 40 30 20 10 0 A lpha [% ] 10 20 30 40 Fig. b.08 0. This will be one of the driving forces to develop an analytic approximation.2. Increasing the number of MonteCarlo simulations so as to have a more robust convergence towards the true solution.14 0.06 0. each being equally valid. a.Chapter 11 Graphical Understanding Convergence K = 3. 176 . Selecting a first guess which is closer to the initial solution.16 1st Guess 0. Convergence of the algorithm We realise that this problem can be solved easily and directly through two main alternatives.1 0. The only drawback with this alternative is the increased computation time required. We present here a more evident solution duplicity case. 11.8.12 Sigm a l no convergence 0. 11.45% 0.35% K = 3.
16 0. 177 . or we can simply impose a first guess with an alpha within this range.1 0.2 Fig.9. we could approximate our first guess greatly to the valid solution to ensure that the algorithm converges towards it. whereas a second solution sometimes appears that can greatly exceed it. Remember that the alpha represents the weight that we attribute to the normality or lognormality of our model. Thus we expect our set of alpha values to range between [0. (See the analytic approximation in Section 12).08 10 5 0 Alpha [%] 5 10 15 0.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Solution Duplicity K = 4. Solution Duplicity In general we intend our model to have a logical set of parameters. Better still. To impose that our model does not converge towards solutions of the form α = 5.14 Sigma 0.45% l 0. We notice that one of our solutions always lies within this range.35% K = 4.1].18 0.12 0. 11. we could either code a restrictive algorithm.
1 0.14 l 0. No HJM MonteCarlo solution intersection 11.45% K = 4.12 Sigma 0. 11.08 0.06 0.2.16 0.04 0. In other words. α).02 0 50 40 30 20 10 0 Alpha [%] 10 20 30 40 K = 4. 178 .Chapter 11 Graphical Understanding 11. and thus no valid pair of parameters.2. Lack of Intersection 0. the model is never capable of equating its model prices to the real market prices with any possible combination of parameters (σ.2 0.45% Fig. The surface remains asymptotic to the horizontal axis.18 0.10.3 No solution No curve intersection.4 No curve whatsoever This occurs whenever our HJM model is not flexible enough to descend below the horizontal axis.
5 0.11. that are very convex.5 0. 11.e.Market Price 4 3 2 1 0 5.04 2 1 7 0. · Whether the algorithm was incapable of calibrating depending on the particular strike K location where the gradient was calculated i.5 0.11 4 2.18 Sigma Alpha [%] Fig. We analysed two principal cases: · Whether the algorithm was incapable of calibrating due to the magnitude (steepness) of the gradient.3 Attempted Solutions A first idea that we tested to probe the cause of this inability to calibrate was to analyse the gradients. We define the gradient in a σBlack versus strike K graph as ∂σ Black ∂Strike We realize that the model has particular difficulties when trying to calibrate products that are very smile i. or that have strong changes in their slope. whether the 179 ..A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Surface Flexibility . HJM MonteCarlo surface does not descend sufficiently so as to create a solution curve 11.e.Vanilla 2 6 5 Model .
Chapter 11 Graphical Understanding algorithm found it particularly more difficult to calibrate when it was far from the ‘at the money’ strike position. whereas a Swaption has a slope of 2. such as a swaption and a capfloor pair. We have noticed that the joint calibration of swaptions (based on the 1Y LIBOR) and 1Y caplets (based on the 1Y LIBOR). could be solved for by the HJM model. 180 . a swaption pair. The above sparks off two possibilities: The first is an examination of the actual cap market data so as to examine if the caplets are being correctly derived from their cap market quotes. the HJM would be unable to converge to a suitable solution. On average. A possible alternative would be to transform these caplets into an equivalent annual measure. This will be discussed in detail in a later chapter. do yield results. We found that calibrations of similar products. If instead we calibrated different products together. A second option would be to try and normalize the caplet volatility measure. when we try to calibrate the same swaptions with 3 month or 6 month caplets (based on the 6M LIBOR). immediate problems arise. No conclusive evidence was found supporting either of the two suggestions. See [BM]. for example. A second idea tested was to analyse the actual plain vanilla products that we were calibrating. We noticed also that there is a clear difference in slopes between these two types of products.Section 16. However. a capfloor’s slope has a value of around 1. and to calibrate this fictitious annual measure with the swaption measure.
and vertically adjacent. 1. σ) the 3D surface as Model Price(α. We search for the (α. For each of the two products q. Selection of the maturity i at which we will evaluate a particular pair of products 2.4 3D Surface Algorithm We follow 4 main steps in the algorithm that constructs the 3 dimensional surface and that then evaluates the 2 dimensional solutions for α and σ. we check every node on the horizontal mesh and see if its corresponding price difference (z value) experiences a change in sign with respect to any adjacent node. This is where the surface passes through the plane z = 0. For this. 181 .A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 11. σ) – Market Price 4. We check both the horizontally adjacent. we generate for every mesh node (α. σ) solutions. 3. Mesh generation: this is. we define the horizontal plane of α’s and σ’s over which to construct our surface. Any solution found is stored.
LL · ML1.1 ML. Graphic surface generation algorithm 182 .LL1 < 0 no yes LL > 0 ? no L >0 ? no yes Export S tion olu σ + σ LL −1 α L .LL < 0 no yes L >0 ? no yes LL > 0 ? no yes Export S tion olu α L + α L −1 .Chapter 11 Graphical Understanding S TAR T N Products 2 Parameters S elect product pair ‘i’ to calibrate q=2 S Param et eter mesh LL = m σ points L = n α points q>0? yes 3D Matrix σ0 α0 αL αn no Export 3D Matrices q=q1 σLL σm For each point ML. LL 2 yes Fig.1 ML. σ LL 2 αn Next row αL L =L – 1 LL = m Horizontal Check: for each αL cst. 11. S if change in sign in σ row ee σ0 σLL σm αL L =n LL = m Next σ LL LL = LL .LL · ML. S if change in sign in α colu ee mn σ LL α0 αL Next colum σLL n LL = L – 1 L L =n Next αL L =L .12.LL MarketPriceM odelPrice V ertical C heck: for each σLL cs t.
T ) = σ (t . T ) ⋅V (t . T ) log B(t . T ) ⋅ α (t .T) introduces the new term of stochasticity.3) 183 . which we will call the volatility of volatilities. t ) (12. T )] = 1 (12.1) Where V(t. how they all present a direct relationship with the typical normal and lognormal stochastic differential diffusion equations. combined with the new Brownian motion itself.1 Exponential Is one of the most simple stochasticity models that we shall tackle. It involves a unique volatility of volatilities parameter. We have provided their mathematical development below: B(0. The peculiarity of this new component lies in the fact that it is itself stochastic. HJM 3 Strikes The HJM three strike model. T ) Γ(t . We will now proceed to analyse the main alternatives which we experimentally invented and developed here. has its own diffusion dynamics that is governed by a different Brownian motion. T )) log B(0. T ) + (1 − α (t . We will describe several choices of V tried in HJM Santander.2) E P [V (t . as stated initially. We will see that the new parameter.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 12. T ) = eγ (t . aims at being able to capture the smile perceived by the market through the addition of a new parameter.T ) Z t The above is selected in particular so that we ensure (12. they all evolve towards an exponential form. V (t . Notice as we advance. 12. upon integrating. This is why. Z. Z.
5) dVt = β dt + γ t dZ t Vt Let us impose a change in variable (12. T ) = e 1 − γ 2 ( t .10) Assuming γ(t.T ) t + γ ( t . we could extract it from the integral.4) Clearly. as 184 .8) replacing the term in dV with our initial diffusion equation 1 2 dLN (Vt ) = dX = βdt + γ t dZ t − γ t dt 2 and now integrating (12.T ) Z t 2 (12. T ) = βV (t .6) dX = dLN (Vt ) Applying Ito X = LN (Vt ) (12. T )dt + γ (t .9) Vt = V0 e ∫ β − 2γ t 1 2 dt + ∫ γ t dZ t (12. we must solve the second integral using Brownian motion properties. Imagine that we have a dynamics of the form dV (t . recalling chapter 3.Chapter 12 HJM 3 Strikes A logical extension of the presented model would be V (t .7) dX = 1 1 −1 2 2 dVt + 0 + 2 Vt γ t dt Vt 2 Vt (12.11) If we do not make the above assumption. we can obtain the above from a Black formulation of the diffusion for the new Brownian motion. T ) dZ t (12. T )V (t .1. obtaining Vt = V0 e 1 βt − γ t 2t +γ t Z 2 (12.T) to be piecewise constant.
2 Mean Reversion We simply add here a term of mean reversion to the previously developed dynamics in (12.17) 185 . This is to say.15) t dxt = e 0 ∫ β s ds t dVt + β tVt e 0 ∫ β s ds t dt + 0 (12. T ) = β (θ − V (t . For this reason we commonly resorted to piecewise constant assumptions. T ))dt + γ (t .14) xt = Vt e 0 Then by Ito ∫ β s ds (12.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework ∫γ t dZ t = Variance (∫ γ dt ) Zt t = (∫ γ 2 t dt ) Zt (12. that we could always use a more simplistic approach rather than a complete integration. Let (12.16) = e0 ∫ β s ds t (dVt + β tVt dt ) (12. dV (t . Another successful solution to avoid the integral of a squared parameter was to approximate: ∫ γ 2t dt ≈ ( ∫ γ t dt ) 2 12.5). T ) dZ t We now must apply a change in variable to attain the solution. In general we had particular difficulties in implementing the complete integrals.12) Which leaves us with Vt = V0 e ∫ β − 2γ t 1 2 dt + ( ∫ γ dt ) Zt 2 t (12.13) We will see that this procedure is common throughout all the possibilities attempted.
T )dZ t ) (12. we can extract it from the integration.19) Integrating between t and 0 we have ∫ β s ds e 0 (β θdu + γ (u .Chapter 12 HJM 3 Strikes And substituting our diffusion equation in dV we obtain = e0 Leaving ∫ β s ds t (β t (θ − V (t .24) If we assume γ(t. T ) dZ u ) 0 u t (12.T) to be piecewise constant. T ) dZ ) u u ∫ 0 u (12.20) We can substitute now our change in variable for x to return to a formulation in V: ∫ β a da Vt e 0 t − V0 e 0 ∫ β s ds 0 ∫ β s ds = ∫ e 0 (β uθdu + γ (u . T )dZ u (12. T )dZ t + β tVt dt ) (12. thus 186 . then − βt − βt Vt = V0 e +e ∫e 0 t βu βθdu + e − βt ∫e 0 t βu γ (u .18) dxt = e 0 ∫ β s ds t (β tθdt + γ (t . T )dZ ) xt − x0 = ∫ u u 0 u t (12.22) Vt = V0 e − β s ds 0 ∫ t +e − β a da t 0 ∫ t ∫ β s ds e 0 (β θdu + γ (u . T ))dt + γ (t .21) Vt = V0 e − β s ds 0 ∫ t +e − β a da t 0 ∫ t ∫ β s ds e 0 (β θdu + γ (u .23) Let us take βt = β. T )dZ ) u u ∫ 0 u (12.
T )e − β t ∫ e 2 β t γ 2 (t .T) piecewise constant.27) Notice that if we do not consider γ(t. T )dt ⋅ t = ∫ e 2 βt γ 2 (t . T )dZ t (12. T )e − βt ( ) Z 1 2 βt e −1 ⋅ t 2β t ( ) (12. we would have t Z t Z Variance ∫ e βt γ (t . T )e − βt ∫ e βu dZ t Vt = V0 e − βt + e − βt βθ β 0 (12. T ) v(t .28) t Z eβt − 1 Vt = V0 e− β t + e − β t βθ + γ (t . T )dt ⋅ t t t 0 0 Leaving (12. T ))dt + γ (t . We did not finally implement the expression below dv(t .25) Where using the Brownian motion properties we can calculate ∫e 0 t βu dZ t as t Z Variance ∫ e βu dt ⋅ t = t 0 Leaving Z 1 2 βt e −1 ⋅ t 2β t ( ) (12.29) 12.3 Square Root Volatility We simply state the idea of the diffusion for this form.26) Vt = V0 e − βt + θ 1 − e − βt + γ (t . T )dt ⋅ t β 0 t (12.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework t e βt − 1 + γ (t .30) 187 . T ) = β (θ − v(t .
it had only been included in the drift term.35) (12.31) A solution to the above equation was discovered by Dragana Pilipovic as 1 − β dt − γ t 2 dt + γ s dZ s 2 V (t ) = e ∫ 0 t 1 2 t ∫ βds − 2 γ s d s + γ s dZ s 0 βθdu V ( 0) + ∫ e 0 t (12. we will apply Ito as proof.14). T ))dt + γ (t . dV (t .(12. T )V (t . The main difference is simply the inclusion of the stochastic volatility of volatilities term V in the diffusion (second term). T )dZ t (12.4 Pilipovic Notice that the expression below is very similar to the one that we stated in the mean revision section.32) To demonstrate that this is a solution.36) 188 .Chapter 12 HJM 3 Strikes 12. For this we must calculate each term in: dV (t ) = ∂V (t ) ∂V (t ) 1 ∂V 2 (t ) 2 dt + dZ + γ t dt ∂t ∂Z 2 ∂Z 2 (12.34) ∂V (t ) 1 2 = − β V (t ) − γ t V (t ) + βθ ∂t 2 1 1 2 t − ∫ βdt − γ t 2 dt +γ s dZ s ∫ βds− 2 γ s d s +γ s dZ s ∂V (t ) 2 = γ te 0 V (0) + ∫ e 0 βθdu = γ tV (t ) ∂Z t 0 ∂V (t ) 2 = γ tV (t ) ∂Z t t t (12. Previously. T ) = β (θ − V (t .33) We therefore calculate each of the above partial derivatives as: 1 t β − γ s 2 ds +γ s dZ s ∂V (t ) V (0) + e ∫ 2 0 = −β e 0 βθ du − ∫ ∂t 0 t t t t 1 2 1 2 1 2 − ∫ β t − 1 γ t 2 dt +γ s dZ s t ∫ β − 2 γ s ds +γ s dZ s ∫ β ds − 2 γ s ds +γ s dZ s 2 1 2 − ∫ β t − 2 γ t dt +γ s dZ s +e 0 0 0 0 βθ du βθ e − γt e V (0) + ∫ e 2 0 1 − β t − γ t 2 dt + γ s dZ s 2 ∫ t t (12.
5 Logarithmic Note that this is still a very similar format to that which we had in our mean reversion model. and piecewise constant γt .39) dX (t ) = d log(V (t ) ) Then the initial equation is now written as X (t ) = log V (t ) (12. we see that the complex terms cancel out. d log V (t ) = β (θ − log V (t ))dt + γ (t . bringing us back to the original diffusion equation. applying (12.33) and now substituting the above. T )dZ t Let us convert the above to a simpler form through (12.38) where the last term is of particular difficulty.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework By Ito. 1 2 1 2 dV (t ) = − βV (t ) − γ t V (t ) + βθ dt + V (t )γ t dZ + V (t )γ t dt 2 2 = β (θ − βV (t ) )dt + V (t )γ t dZ (12. T )e − βt ∫ e βu dZ t 0 ( ) t (12.37) For a constant β. for a constant β . We have simply replaced the variable V by log V. was (12.our solution would be 1 − βt + γ t 2 t −γ s Z s 2 t 1 βu − γ u 2 u +γ u Z u V (0) + βθ ∫ e 2 du = 0 V (t ) = e =e 1 − βt + γ t 2 t −γ s Z s 2 βt V (0) + βθ e − 1 + 2 2 β γ t − 1 γ t 2t t γ u Z u e 2 − 1 + ∫ e du 0 (12.41) X t = X 0 e − βt + θ 1 − e − βt + γ (t . as we saw previously.42) 189 . and could numerically be approached as ∑ eγ i i Zi (t i − t i −1 ) 12. T ) dZ t For which the solution.40) dX (t ) = β (θ − X (t ))dt + γ (t .
T )) log B(0.47) B(0.45) ( ) Vt = V0e e − βt ⋅e θ 1 − e − β t + γ t e − βt ( ) Z 1 2 βt e −1 ⋅ t 2β t ( ) (12. T )e − βt ∫ e βu dZ t 0 ( ) t (12. t ) x = log B(t . T ) = σ (t .44) Where the integral can be treated as a Brownian term t Z t Z e βu dZ t = Variance ∫ e βu du ⋅ t = ∫ e 2 βu du ⋅ t = ∫ t t 0 0 0 t Z 1 2 βt e −1 ⋅ t 2β t (12.48) Γ(t .Chapter 12 HJM 3 Strikes Now undoing our initial change in variable: dX (t ) = d log(V (t ) ) X (t ) = log V (t ) (12.43) so log Vt = log V0 e − βt + θ 1 − e − βt + γ (t . T ) B (0. T ) = σ tα t ( x − x0 ) + σ t x0 (12. Recall that we had B(0. T ) log B(t . T ) Γ(t . T ) x0 = log we can then rewrite the above as (12.6 Taylor expansion Another alternative that has been examined is the transformation of the curvature into a Taylor expansion.49) 190 .46) 12. T ) + (1 − α (t . T ) α (t . t ) let us note (12.
to attain a unique set of parameters for a given maturity. for the USD. and thus have decided to use the volatility of volatility dynamics method instead. T ) = σ t x0 + α t ( x − x0 ) − γ ( x − x0 ) 2 [ ] (12. yet only until maturities of around 12 years. Visually this is much more complex than before. the curvature approach has been implemented already and appears to work better than the volatility of volatilities approach. as it gives good results for products with longer maturities. It is worthwhile noting that in many of the previous formulations.7 Graphical Note Following our discussion on the two strike model. 12.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework We could imagine a more accurate extension of the above as a second order Taylor expansion Γ(t . it seems evident that in the three strike model.50) The above works relatively well. The behaviour itself depends on the market data. 12. The only way in which it could be represented would be to fix one of the model parameters. We have not pursued this possibility any further. we will now need three vanilla products . For example. An 191 . whose values we have decided to hardcode into our algorithms. calibrated jointly. other than the fact that we need to narrow down our range of alternatives.8 Results We will now proceed to summarize the results obtained by comparing how each of the former expressions for the volatility of volatilities performs. Remember how before. These include for instance the β and θ. Now. and plot the remaining two against a vertical axis consisting of ‘Model Price – Market Price’. We do not have a strong reason to abandon this formulation. we saw several new parameters apart form the volatility of volatilities. we obtained the solution in the intersection of two curves. the solution will be obtained in the unique intersection of three surfaces.
Notice in the following set of results that we have tended to perform a first simplistic approach setting these additional parameters to default values of 0 or 1.8. The results presented below were obtained for 10 pack simulations: this is. We have also included a column β which shows the range of values for this parameter in which the above formula successfully calibrated to the specified date. The more packs we added.05 0. 3Y 14Y. 12.1 Case 1.000 MonteCarlo paths.1 Table 12. 10.14Y Caplet 14Y. Exponential (12. Notice that the column headed limit represents the time span up until which the algorithm successfully calibrated. 15Y Caplet 2Y.1 1 to 0. the more difficult the HJM 3 factor algorithm found it to advance. We have noted these as ‘extended’ results. searching for those for which our calibration works best. 192 .1. For the meantime. we have manually adjusted them. We state that all the formulae were exhaustively tested over 20 year products so as to evaluate at what point the calibration failed.1 to 0. None of the former expressions were capable of successfully completing the calibration process. 15Y Caplet β 0. Mean Reversion Stochastic Volatility Summary This first formulation turned out to be one of the most successful.Chapter 12 HJM 3 Strikes alternative or possible future approach could consist in also calibrating these parameters.2): 1st Case Normal Extended piecewise integration exact integration squared integral Limit 13Y. searching for their optimal values and exploring to what extent they improved the calibration. We have then proceeded to perform a more detailed analysis.
· · The extended version with beta appears much more flexible.8.4.035 0.30) : 3rd Case Limit 2Y. 6Y Limit Table 12.2.8.3 Case 3. The squared integral method allows for the greatest range of parameter alternatives whilst still reaching the same final length (in years) of calibration. 20Y Swaption 15Y.8.2 Case 2. Mean Reversion (12.14): 2nd Case integral squared (integral) squared 2Y. 12. 3Y 5Y.7 to 0. 16Y Caplet 16Y. 17Y Caplet β 1 1.8 to 3 θ 0. 6Y Table 12.39): 5th Case Limit 15Y.4 Case 5. Square Root (12.001 0.03 to 0. 3Y 5Y.02 to 0.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework A more careful analysis of the results obtained confirms the following: · The algorithm seems to fail because the change in the gamma parameter for long products is too drastic. Square Root Stochastic Volatility Summary – 10 and 20 packs 12. Mean Reversion Stochastic Volatility Summary 12.3.5 2. Logarithmic Stochastic Volatility Summary 193 . Logarithmic (12.25 Table 12.
Chapter 12
HJM 3 Strikes
Clearly, this fifth formulation is the one that has been most successful, reaching one or two years further in the calibration than the 1st case formulation. Nevertheless, we were still incapable of calibrating the vanilla products to the final maturity of 20 years. Having reached this point, we began to consider the possibility that perhaps, it was not the ‘Volatility of Volatilities’ expression that was causing the failure to calibrate. We postulated the hypothesis that perhaps the key to the problem could be located elsewhere. Indeed, we found a surprising feature when performing these tests. All the above expressions were obtained from joint calibrations of both Swaptions and Caplets, where the caplets were based on the 1 year EURIBOR. Since we had calibrated up until 16 years, we expected to find that our MonteCarlo would at least be able to calibrate any product under the 15 year mark. Contrary to our expectations, we found that there was a certain range of products that our model was incapable of calibrating, even in the case of shorter maturities. These were, specifically, joint calibrations of Swaptions and Caplets in which the Caplets were not based on the 1 year EURIBOR, but instead, on the 3 month or 6 month EURIBOR. An important problem is the fact that in the cap market, forward rates are mostly semi – annual whereas those entering the forwardswaprate expressions are typically annual rates. Therefore, when considering both markets at the same time, we may have to reconcile volatilities of semiannual forward rates and volatilities of annual forward rates. Otherwise, when we treat them as exact equals, the above calibration problems occur. And perhaps, it is incorrect even to treat the swaptions and caplets both based on the 1 year EURIBOR as equals. This may be the underlying reason why we do not calibrate successfully. This problematic is what gives rise to a deeper study of the joint calibration. We will first analyse a possibility that the caplet market data themselves should be erroneous. This will involve an analysis of how the caplets are stripped from their corresponding cap values. This has been developed in detail in the Caplet Stripping Section 16. Once this has been implemented, we should ideally return to the 3 Strike analysis to see whether any improvements are obtained. If this turns out not to be the true problem, we will perhaps need to somehow normalise the data of both caplets and swaptions. For this we refer the reader to [BM].
194
A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
13. Analytic approximation
What we refer to as an analytic approximation is simply an approximate formulation of the HJM framework. In other words, it is an approximation of the model’s dynamics yielding a price for Swaptions which can be described through an analytical formula that is very simple to implement numerically. The need for an approximate formula arises from the fact that the HJM can be very costly timewise. It generally involves a huge number of path simulations which can weigh heavily on any computer and even on a grid network. As seen in the calibration section, every additional iteration requires n + 1 additional pricings so as to calculate all the elements in the Jacobian. If instead we were to work with an analytical approximation, we would stand in a far stronger position due to the following main reasons:
The HJM model starts off its calibration with an arbitrary first guess for its parameters. As it iterates through a Newton Raphson algorithm, this type of algorithm is characterised by converging badly and very slowly if the first guess is very far from the true solution. A huge leap forward in computation time would be achieved if the analytical approximation were to provide us with a good starting point.
Calculating a numerical Jacobian as is done in the calibration process is extremely costly. We have already seen that we can freeze the model’s Jacobian so as to iterate in more steps but without having to recalculate the Jacobian at each step. We could further reduce calibration time if we were to use an analytical approximation Jacobian that could be calculated mathematically and not through a finite difference ‘bumping’ procedure.
We therefore set out with the aim of deriving an approximate formula of a swaption for the Santander HJM model.
195
Chapter 13
Analytic approximation
As shall be demonstrated, we will start off by making an assumption for the dynamics of the forward swap rate
dS (t ) = σ (t )[α (t ) S (t ) + (1 − α (t )) S (0)]dWt P
(13.1)
We will use this formulation as an analytic approximation to the exact HJM expression. From this approximation we will derive its timedependent parameters α(t), σ(t). The exact expressions for these will cover the central part of our research. We will subsequently need a formula to relate our new approximate expression’s σ(t) and α(t) to the HJM model’s σi(t) and αi(t) (with i = 0, ..., n) Secondly, we will use the technique of “averaging” developed by Piterbarg to convert our time dependent parameters α(t), σ(t) into a diffusion with timeindependent parameters α, σ. This will convert our approximate formula into the form
dS (t ) = σ [αS (t ) + (1 − α ) S (0)]dWt P
(13.2)
We will simply state the formulation to be used in this section, but will not analyse it in any further depth.
13.1 Formula Development
Let us recall two pivotal expressions in our HJM model:
B(0, T ) Γ(t , T ) = σ (t , T ) α (t , T ) log B(t , T ) + (1 − α (t , T )) log B(0, t )
(13.3)
dR(t , T ) = (...)dt + σ (t , T ) α (t , T ) R(t , T ) + (1 − α (t , T )) R f (t , T ) dWt P
(13.4) The first expression implies the second. Indeed, write
[
]
dB(t , T ) = rt dt + Γ(t , T )dWt P B(t , T )
196
(13.5)
A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
B(t , T ) = e − R (t ,T )(T −t )
(13.6)
R(t , T ) =
Applying Ito to R(t,T) we obtain:
log B (t , T ) t −T
(13.7)
dR(t , T ) =
1 t −T
1 1 2 2 −1 −1 (log B )dt B(t , T ) dB(t , T ) + 2 B Γ B 2 dt + (t − T )2
(13.8)
dR(t , T ) =
1 [rdt + ΓdW ] − 1 Γ 2 dt − 1 2 R(t , T )(t − T )dt t −T 2 (t − T )
(13.9)
Separating into temporal and Brownian components
r 1 R(t,T) Γ dt + dR(t,T) = r − Γ2 − dW t −T 2 (t −T) t −T
Replacing the Γ in the Brownian part with (13.3)
(13.10)
dR(t , T ) = (...)dt +
1 B(0, T ) σ (t , T ) α (t , T ) log B(t , T ) + (1 − α (t , T )) log dW t −T B(0, t )
(13.11)
And applying the relationship between bonds and rates in (13.7)
dR (t , T ) = (...)dt +
1 σ (t , T ) α (t , T ) R(t , T )(t − T ) + (1 − α (t , T )) R f (t , T )(t − T ) dW t −T
(13.12)
[
]
where we have decided to call Rf the zero coupon rate forward
f B(0, T ) = e − R (t ,T )(T −t ) B(0, t )
(13.13)
197
Chapter 13
Analytic approximation
13.1.1 Swaption Measure
Let us consider our receiver swaption with strike K and time schedule τ = U0,U1, ...,Un. We are thus left with:
dRi (t ) = (...)dt + σ i (t ) α i (t ) Ri (t ) + (1 − α i (t )) R f i (t ) dWt P
Where
[
]
(13.14)
Ri (t ) = R(t ,U i )
The swaption rate forward of such a swap at time t is:
S (t ) =
B(t ,U 0 ) − B(t , U n )
∑ m B(t,U )
i =1 i i
n
(13.15)
13.2 Step 1
Under its annuity measure S(t) is a martingale. From the previous equation and under the HJM model, S(t) presents the following dynamics:
dS (t ) = ∑
i=0
n
∂S (t ) σ i (t ) α i (t ) Ri (t ) + (1 − α i (t )) R f i (t ) dWt P ∂Ri (t )
[
]
(13.16)
Proof: By applying a multidimensional form of Ito to (13.15) which in turn can be rewritten as
S (t ) =
B(0,U 0 )e− R0 (t ,U 0 )(U 0 −t ) − B(0,U n )e − R (t ,U n )(U n −t )
∑ mi B(0,U i )e− R (t ,Ui )(Ui −t )
i =1
n
(13.17)
through the use of
B(t , T ) = e − (T − t ) R (t ,T )
(13.18)
198
A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
We have thus obtained a multidimensional form of the more simplistic Ito equation
dS (t ) =
∂S ∂S 1 ∂2S 2 σ dt dR + dt + ∂R ∂t 2 ∂R 2
(13.19)
Imposing that St is a martingale, we can say that it follows a driftless process, meaning that all the terms in dt should cancel out. In this way we reach that
dS (t ) =
∂S dR ∂R
(13.20)
Where we have dR from before. Thus, by simply replacing dR and realizing that we have differentiated with respect to each of the Ri that we take from our continuous rate curve, we have
dS (t ) = ∑
i =0
n
∂S (t ) σ i (t ) α i (t ) Ri (t ) + (1 − α i (t )) R f i (t ) dWt P ∂Ri (t )
[
]
Because our HJM model produces a skew, we can make an assumption for our approximation, on the dynamics of the swap rate forward such that:
dS (t ) = σ (t )[α (t ) S (t ) + (1 − α (t )) S (0)]dWt P
This is the approximation of the dynamics of St that we choose to use.
(13.21)
We will now need a formula to relate our new approximate expression’s σ(t) and α(t) to the true HJM model’s σi(t) and αi(t) (with i = 0, ..., n)
Equations (13.16) and (13.21) give us the dynamics for S(t). The first is the HJM formulation and the second is our newly developed approximation. We must therefore find a suitable relationship between them.
199
T ) = e − (T − t ) R (t . In fact.27) 200 . B(0...T )(T −t ) B(0.16) to (13.U 0 ) B(0.U 0 ) − B(0. T ) . n then S(t) = S(0).24) S (t ) = B(0. U n ) ∑ mi B(0. the swaption rate forward dynamics from the HJM and the approximations standpoints: dS (t ) = σ (t )[α (t ) S (t ) + (1 − α (t )) S (0)]dWt P = σ (t ) S (0)dWt P (13. t ) (13.23) Hence B(0. t ) S (t ) = = n n B(0.Chapter 13 Analytic approximation 13.. Suppose Ri(t) = Rfi (t) ∀i ∈ 0. t )i i =1 i =1 By definition (13. T ) = since B(0. we impose two conditions. rewriting our two expressions: i. T ) = e − R (t .1 First Method To get from (13. U n ) B(0.25) So S(t) = S(0) From this first condition we obtain..U ) ∑ mi B(t . t ) B(t . t ) B(0.e. U n ) − B(t .U i ) ∑ mi B(0.21). U 0 ) − B (t .T ) f B(0.22) (13.2. when Ri(t)=Rfi(t) we have B(t .26) σ (t )dS (0) = ∑ i =0 n n ∂S (t ) ∂S (0) σ i (t ) α i (t ) Ri (t ) + (1 − α i (t )) R f i (t ) dWt P = ∑ σ i (t ) R f i (t ) ∂Ri (t ) ∂Ri (t ) i =0 [ ] (13. The first is that the two equations should be equivalent along the forward path.U i ) i =1 n = S ( 0) (13.
∀j .. Having decided that the slope should agree along the forward path as well. at this point.30) Thus.5.29) where in order to be able to solve. as has been seen in the HJM Section 8. we analyse the slope by differentiating: n ∂ (dS (t ) ) = ∂ ∑ ∂S (t ) σ i (t ) α i (t ) Ri (t ) + (1 − α i (t )) R f i (t ) = ∂R j (t ) ∂R j (t ) i = 0 ∂Ri (t ) =∑ i =0 n [ ] ∂ 2 S (t ) σ i (t ) α i (t ) Ri (t ) + (1 − α i (t )) R f i (t ) + ∂Ri (t )∂R j (t ) +∑ i =0 n ∂S (t ) ∂ α i (t ) Ri (t ) + (1 − α i (t )) R f i (t ) ∂R j (t ) ∂R j (t ) (13..A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Both the HJM and the approximate formulation must be equivalent. we must freeze the parameter Ri . It is important to notice that we will use the techniche of freezing the Ri to its Rfi value in this and all subsequent approximation alternatives. We proceed now to calculate an expression for α(t). We intuitively identify α(t) with the slope or skew of our HJM model. We can equate them.. Thus. n q i (t ) = ∂S (0) R f i (t ) ∂Ri (t ) S (0) (13. this is Ri = Ri f And where i = 1. we have achieved an expression for our approximate σ(t) that is a function of parameters that are all known at present.31) 201 .. and solve for our approximation’s σ(t): σ (t ) S (0) = ∑ i =0 n ∂S (0) σ i (t ) R f i (0) ∂Ri (t ) (13.28) Which we write in a simplified manner as σ (t ) = ∑ i =0 n n ∂S (0) R f i (t ) σ i (t ) = ∑ q i (t )σ i (t ) ∂Ri (t ) S (0) i=o (13.2.
we analyse the same slope in our approximate formulation.Chapter 13 Analytic approximation where there exists a derivative for ∂S (t ) α i (t ) Ri (t ) only when i=j.33) σ does not differentiate with respect to R as it is made up of terms at time 0.34) Equating the HJM model’s slopes and the approximation formula’s slopes along the forward path. and terms in Rf σ = σ i (t )q i (t ) = ∂S (0) R f i (t ) σ i (t ) ∂Ri (t ) S (0) (13.37) 202 .36) σ j (t )α j (t ) = σ (t )α (t ) (13. We have ∂ ∂S (t ) σ (t )[α (t ) S (t ) + (1 − α (t )) S (0)] = σ (t )α (t ) ∂R j (t ) ∂R j (t ) (13.32) [ ] And separately. we obtain ∀j ∑ ∂R (t )∂R (t ) σ (t ) R i =0 i i j n ∂ 2 S (0) f i (t ) + ∂S (0) ∂S (0) σ j (t )α j (t ) = σ (t )α (t ) ∂R j (t ) ∂R j (t ) (13.35) Version 1 Ignoring the second order derivatives and thus just taking a first order approach σ j (t )α j (t ) Thus ∂S (0) ∂S (0) = σ (t )α (t ) ∂R j (t ) ∂R j (t ) (13. Thus in the ∂Ri (t ) last term we eliminate the “i” index and replace by a “j”: =∑ i=0 n ∂ 2 S (t ) ∂S (t ) σ i (t ) α i (t ) Ri (t ) + (1 − α i (t )) R f i (t ) + σ j (t )α j (t ) ∂Ri (t )∂R j (t ) ∂R j (t ) (13.
43) These equations should also agree along the path forward at Ri(t)=Rfi (t) and S(t) = S(0). We reformulate it in the leastsquare sense: finding α(t) such that: α (t ) min ∑ (σ n i =0 j (t )α j (t ) − σ (t )α (t ) ) 2 (13. does not have a solution. Solving the above equations.40) and dS (t ) = σ (t )[α (t ) S (t ) + (1 − α (t )) S (0)]dWt P (13.41) then equating the lognormal and normal components σ (t )α (t ) S (t ) = ∑ i=0 n ∂S (t ) σ i (t )α i (t ) Ri (t ) ∂Ri (t ) (13.39) 13.42) σ (t )(1 − α (t )) S (0) = ∑ i =0 n ∂S (t ) σ i (t )(1 − α i (t )) R f i (t ) ∂Ri (t ) (13.44) 203 . we obtain: σ (t ) = ∑ i =0 n n ∂S (0) R f i (t ) σ i (t ) = ∑ q i (t )σ i (t ) ∂Ri (t ) S (0) i=o (13.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Version 2 =∑ i=0 n ∂ 2 S ( 0) ∂S (0) ∂S (0) σ i (t ) R f i (t ) + σ j (t )α j (t ) = σ (t )α (t ) ∂Ri (t )∂R j (t ) ∂R j (t ) ∂R j (t ) (13. This means that as we have dS (t ) = ∑ i=0 n ∂S (t ) σ i (t ) α i (t ) Ri (t ) + (1 − α i (t )) R f i (t ) dWt P ∂Ri (t ) [ ] (13.38) This problem with second order considerations normally.3 Second Method To equate the approximation and the HJM model. we impose two conditions: that the lognormal and normal terms should both independently be equal.
Note that another possible approach would have been to equate the terms in α(t) and those independent of α(t).47) the first equation yields the same solution for σ(t) as in all the previous cases.Chapter 13 Analytic approximation α (t ) = ∑ ∂R (t ) R (t )σ i=0 i i n n ∂S (0) i (t )α i (t ) (13. but the second term gives a problem of a division by 0 when S(t) = S(0) α (t ) = ∑ i =0 n ∂S (t ) σ i (t )α i (t ) R f i (t ) − Ri (t ) ∂Ri (t ) σ (t ) ( S (t ) − S (0)) (13. We immediately encounter a problem if we pursue this approach.46) σ (t )α (t )( S (t ) − S (0)) = ∑ i=0 n ∂ S (t ) σ i (t )α i (t )( R f i (t ) − Ri (t )) ∂ Ri ( t ) (13.45) ∂S (0) ∑ ∂R (t ) R f i (t )σ i (t ) i =0 i Note that the formula for σ(t) is the same as the one derived from the first method. 204 . α(t) is now a weighted composition of all the αi(t).48) We will see in the results section that the final formulation we retain for our algorithm is that which is provided by the second method. for we obtain σ (t ) S (t ) = ∑ i =0 n ∂S (t ) σ i (t ) Ri (t ) ∂Ri (t ) (13.
53) For σ.50) How to choose w(t) is crucial.51) ∫v 0 2 (t )σ (t )dt 2 With v 2 (t ) = ∫ σ 2 ( s)ds 0 t (13.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 13.52) Another test may be for example: α= 1 tα (t )dt 2 T /2∫ 0 T (13. Piterbarg suggest that w(t ) = v 2 (t )σ 2 (t ) T (13. we have: α = ∫ w(t )α (t )dt 0 T (13.54) 205 . we always choose the following: σ2 = 1 σ 2 (t )dt T∫ 0 T (13.4 Step 2 Following Piterbarg (and we will give no further details).49) Where T ∫ w(t )dt = 1 0 (13.
56) If we take N (t ) = ∑ mi B(t .U ) i =1 i i n (13.U 0 ) − B(t .Chapter 13 Analytic approximation 13. We will make our derivation as generic as possible so that any of the two specific methods for the σ(t) and α(t) parameters derived can be equally applied.58) X (t ) = S (t ) + (1 − α ) S (0) α We have dX (t ) = dS (t ) Which we can replace for 206 .U i ) as the numeraire.55) Where S (t ) = B(t .U i )mi − B(t .57) Under its annuity measure. We shall see how we simply convert our approximation dynamics into a geometric Black Scholes form which we will then be able to solve for in a straightforward manner.U 0 ) + B(t .U i ) E [ ( K − S (t )] i =0 n −1 + (13.U n ) = (∑ B(t . our approximate formula yields dS (t ) = σ [αS (t ) + (1 − α ) S (0)]dWt P Performing a change in variable (13. S(t) will be a martingale i =1 n under this probability.U i )mi )[( K − S (t )] i =0 i =0 n n (13. So we have that the price of a receiver swaption is: Swaption0 = ∑ mi B (0. A receiver swaption can be expressed as: Vt ( K ) = K ∑ B(t . U n ) ∑ m B(t.5 Swaption Valuation We will now analyse how to adapt our approximate formulation to the valuation of a simple receiver swap.
U i ) E P [( K '− X (t )] i =0 n −1 + (13.63) where 2 2 X ( 0) σ α ⋅ T Ln + 2 K' d1 = σα ⋅ T (13. One strike calibrations build on 207 .A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework dX (t ) = dS (t ) = σ [αS (t ) + (1 − α ) S (0)]dWt P and again replacing S(t) we obtain (13.61) We have thus arrived at a simple geometric standard differential equation to which we can directly apply the Black Scholes Formula Swaption0 = ∑ mi B (0.62) with .U i )[( K ' N (−d 2 ) − X (0) N (−d1 )] i =0 n −1 (13. we have: Swaption0 = ∑ mi B(0.65) 13.59) (1 − α ) S (0) P dX (t ) = σ α X (t ) − + (1 − α ) S (0) dWt α Leaving (13.000 simulations. K'= K + (1 − α ) S (0) α Applying the Black Scholes formula.64) And d 1 = d 2 − σα ⋅ T (13.60) dX (t ) = σαX (t )dWt P (13.6 Approximation Conclusion We have implemented and tested the two methods extensively dor up to 25 year calibrations with a maximum of 100.
t )i i =1 then (13.U 0 ) B(0.always ‘at the money’. we had arranged for S(t) = S(0). The difference between the two methods lies therefore in the α(t) implementation. t ) B(0. Previously.67) − (U i − t ) R f i ( t ) Imagine that we search for Ri (t )* = Ri f (t ) R0 (t )* = R0f (t ) + ε B (0.U n ) − B(0. its formulas for σ(t) and α(t) are very simple.U ) ∑ mi B(0.Chapter 13 Analytic approximation the same form for σ(t).66) − (U i − t ) Ri ( t ) S ( 0) = B(0. Despite giving good Jacobians. provided that the HJM model also finds a solution. Furthermore.7 Alternative point of Calculation We now attempt to calculate our approximate formula at a different point from the original idea of taking Ri(t) = Rfi(t). We had: S (t ) = B(t . The second method proves much more robust. it requires many MonteCarlo iterations.U 0 ) − B(0. The line of research followed to this point in the development of an approximate formulation seems to be completely compatible with an extension to the 3 Strikes model. The first approach presents difficulties with certain calibrations.U ) i =1 i i n = e − (U 0 −t ) R0 (t ) − e − (U n −t ) Rn (t ) ∑m e i =1 i n (13. which always works well. U n ) ∑ m B(t .U n ) ∑ m B(0.U ) i =1 i i n = e − (U 0 −t ) R n i =1 f 0 (t ) − e − (U n − t ) R f n (t ) ∑m e i (13. 13.U 0 ) − B(t . t ) S (t ) = n B(0. We fancy them in particular because they both seem to be weighted averages of the σi(t) and αi(t).68) 208 . We now will examine the possibility of imposing this equality at a different point.
209 .U 0 )e − (U 0 − t )ε − B(0. 13.U 0 ) + 1 − S ( 0) S ( 0) (13. We will show in the results section that this approximation method in ε yields optimal results for calibrations that are performed at the money.U n ) S ( 0) e − (U 0 −t )( R 0 (t )) − e − (U n −t ) R n (t ) = − (U − t )( R f (t ) +ε ) = * − (U n − t ) R f n ( t ) 0 0 S (t ) e B(0.U n ) 1 LN S (0) + 1 − S (0) B(0. and so calibrating it at any other point S*(t) does not seem as appropriate.71) Note that if we take S(t)* = S(0). which brings us back to the model we had initially.U ) (t − U 0 ) 0 (13.U 0 )e − (U 0 −t )ε = S * (t ) S * (t ) B(0. this model yields ε = 0.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Imagine that we now want S(t) = S*(t) Then by dividing the previous equations we obtain B(0.U 0 ) − B(0. This appears to be quite logical.70) ε= S * (t ) S * (t ) B(0. as the general level of volatility σ is best defined at the money. Its HJM formulation is expressed as dS (t ) = =∑ i =0 n ∂S (t ) σ i (t ) α i (t ) Ri (t ) + (1 − α i (t )) R f i (t ) (sin θ i (t )dW1P (t ) + cos θ i (t )dW2P (t )) ∂Ri (t ) (13.U n ) −e f f (13.69) B(0.8 Two Factors The development of an analytic approximation for the two factor HJM model is completely analogous to the one factor case.U n ) B(0.72) Notice that the only real difference with respect to the one factor model are the sine and cosine coefficients which have been included at the end of the expression with respect to the two different Brownian motions.
75) and (13.Chapter 13 Analytic approximation Because our model produces a skew. we obtain: n ∂S ( 0 ) R f i ( t ) n ∂ S ( 0 ) R f i (t ) σ (t ) = ∑ σ i (t ) cos θ i (t ) + ∑ ∂R (t ) S (0) σ i (t ) sin θ i (t ) i =0 i i = 0 ∂Ri (t ) S (0) (13.77) σ (t )α (t )( S (t ) − S (0)) cos θ (t ) = ∑ i =0 n ∂S (t ) σ i (t )α i (t )( Ri (t ) − R f i (t )) cos θ i (t ) ∂Ri (t ) (13. (once again.75) σ (t ) S (t ) cos θ (t ) = ∑ i =0 n ∂S (t ) σ i (t ) Ri (t ) cos θ i (t ) ∂Ri (t ) (13.73) Solving the above equations by freezing Ri(t) = Rfi (t) and S(t) = S(0).76) σ (t )α (t )( S (t ) − S (0)) sin θ (t ) = ∑ i =0 n ∂S (t ) σ i (t )α i (t )( Ri (t ) − R f i (t )) sin θ i (t ) ∂Ri (t ) (13. dS (t ) = σ (t )[α (t ) S (t ) + (1 − α (t )) S (0)](sin θ (t )dW1P (t ) + cos θ (t )dW2P (t )) (13. and simply add sine and cosine coefficients with respect to the two different Brownian motions. we can make an assumption for the dynamics of the swap rate forward.74) The above can also be attained by following a parallel approach: Separation of αdependent and αindependent terms gives 2 2 σ (t ) S (t ) sin θ (t ) = ∑ i =0 n ∂S (t ) σ i (t ) Ri (t ) sin θ i (t ) ∂Ri (t ) (13.76) 210 .78) and by applying trigonometry to the first two equations (13. analogous to what had been previously developed).
it involves a division by (S(t)S(0)) in the denominator.83) 211 . as we already did before. Further this is impossible to solve for as S(t) is stochastic n ∂S (t ) σ i (t )α i (t )( Ri (t ) − R f i (t )) sin θ i (t ) ∑ i = 0 ∂Ri (t ) + α 2 (t ) = 2 2 σ (t )( S (t ) − S (0)) n ∂S (t ) σ i (t )α i (t )( Ri (t ) − R f i (t )) cos θ i (t ) ∑ i = 0 ∂Ri (t ) + σ 2 (t )( S (t ) − S (0)) 2 2 2 (13.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework n ∂S (0) R f i (t ) n ∂S (0) R f i (t ) σ (t ) = ∑ σ i (t ) cosθ i (t ) + ∑ σ i (t ) sin θ i (t ) ∂R (t ) S (0) ∂R (t ) S (0) i =0 i i=0 i (13.81) We seek now to find alpha through a different approach: If we proceed as in the one factor case. However. via their normality and lognormality: σ (t )α (t ) S (t ) sin θ (t ) = ∑ i =0 n ∂S (t ) σ i (t )α i (t ) Ri (t ) sin θ i (t ) ∂Ri (t ) ∂S (t ) σ i (t )α i (t ) Ri (t ) cos θ i (t ) ∂Ri (t ) (13.82) σ (t )α (t ) S (t ) cos θ (t ) = ∑ i=0 n (13. and secondly. we can firstly equate our two expressions through their Brownian motions.77) and (13.79) Dividing the first two equations we also obtain 2 2 tan θ (t ) = ∑ ∂R (t ) σ (t )α (t ) R (t ) sin θ (t ) ∂S (t ) ∑ ∂R (t ) σ i (t )α i (t ) Ri (t ) cosθ i (t ) i =0 i i =0 n i i i i i n ∂S (t ) (13.78) to eliminate sines and cosines. we can equate them further. which yields 0 for S(t)=S(0) and thus makes the ratio explode towards infinity. Here we will be faced with the same problem. Squaring the last two equations (13.80) Recall however that this methodology provided a difficulty when solving for alpha in the one factor case. the expression obtained can be solved for α(t).
83). α(t).Chapter 13 Analytic approximation σ (t )(1 − α (t )) S (0) sin θ (t ) = ∑ i=0 n ∂S (t ) σ i (t )(1 − α i (t )) R f i (t ) sin θ i (t ) ∂Ri (t ) (13.86) The system is clearly overdetermined.84) σ (t )(1 − α (t )) S (0) cos θ (t ) = ∑ i=0 n ∂S (t ) σ i (t )(1 − α i (t )) R f i (t ) cos θ i (t ) ∂Ri (t ) (13.87) ∂S (t ) ∑ ∂R (t ) σ i (t )α i (t ) Ri (t ) cos θ i (t ) α (t ) = i = 0 n i ∂S (0) ∑ ∂R (t ) R f i (t )σ i (t ) cosθ i (t ) i =0 i The problem is that we do not know which one of the two to use.82) and (13. We add sin 2 θ (t ) + cos 2 θ (t ) = 1 (13. and a preferential choice of one combination of solutions over another is not evident. We proceed to derive a range of alternatives which we have subsequently tested for. We could solve for alpha in the first two equations (13. We could attempt some sort of mean: 212 . obtaining α (t ) = Or ∑ ∂R (t ) σ (t )α (t ) R (t ) sin θ (t ) i =0 i i i i i n ∂S (t ) ∑ ∂R (t ) R i =0 i n n ∂S (0) f i (t )σ i (t ) sin θ i (t ) (13. The addition of a fifth trigonometric relationship must be approached carefully as it involves squares and roots that enforce the sign on some of our parameters. and θ(t) to solve with four equations.85) The main problem that we encounter at this stage is the fact that we have three variables σ(t).
89) 2 2 n ∂S (t ) n ∂S (t ) σ i (t )α i (t ) Ri (t ) sin θi (t ) + ∑ σ i (t )α i (t ) Ri (t ) cos θi (t ) ∑ i = 0 ∂Ri (t ) i = 0 ∂Ri (t ) α (t ) = 2 2 n ∂S (0) f n ∂S (0) f R i (t )σ i (t ) cos θi (t ) + ∑ R i (t )σ i (t ) sin θ i (t ) ∑ i =0 ∂Ri (t ) i = 0 ∂Ri (t ) (13. this expression for alpha proved extremely effective. we found that.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework n n ∂S (t ) ∂S (t ) σ i (t )α i (t ) Ri (t ) sin θ i (t ) ∑ σ i (t )α i (t ) Ri (t ) cos θ i (t ) ∑ ∂R (t ) ∂R (t ) 1 α (t ) = i = 0 n i + i =0 n i ∂S (0) f ∂S (0) f 2 R i (t )σ i (t ) sin θ i (t ) ∑ ∑ ∂R (t ) R i (t )σ i (t ) cosθ i (t ) i =0 i i =0 ∂Ri (t ) (13.83) through trigonometry α (t ) = n ∂S (t ) n ∂S (t ) 1 = σ i (t )α i (t ) Ri (t ) sin θ i (t ) + ∑ σ i (t )α i (t ) Ri (t ) cos θi (t ) ∑ S (t )σ (t ) i =0 ∂Ri (t ) i = 0 ∂Ri (t ) (13. an expression that would be theta independent. If instead we relate (13. 2 2 We also attempted to use the expression for alpha that was developed in the one factor case (13.90) We find that the main problem with this approach is the fact that the root constrains our solutions of α to a positive plane. 213 . that is.91) ∂S (0) ∑ ∂R (t ) R f i (t )σ i (t ) i =0 i Surprisingly enough.88) But this proves not to work too well.45).82) and (13. α (t ) = ∑ ∂R (t ) R (t )σ i =0 i i n n ∂S (0) i (t )α i (t ) (13. whereas we have seen in the one factor model that α can be both positive and negative. although inconsistent with the two factor formulas developed.
93) Indeed the former proves to be one of our favourite candidates for the analytic approximation. This means that an extension of the analytic approximation to the three strike scenario would rely more on the insight of the quant to come up with an appropriate mean for alpha. Its main drawback clearly being the fact that it cannot be derived from the initial equations. that as in the one factor case.94) 2 2 214 . We therefore decide to persist with our search for a more logical expression. α turns out to be a mean of all the αi. than a logic followthrough of mathematical formulas.84) and (13. such as: n ∂S (t ) n ∂S (t ) ∑ σ i (t )α i (t ) Ri (t ) sin θ i (t ) + ∑ ∂R (t ) ∂R (t ) σ i (t )α i (t ) Ri (t ) cos θ i (t ) i =0 i i =0 i α (t ) = n ∂S (0) f n ∂S (0) f ∑ R i (t )σ i (t ) cos θ i (t ) + ∑ ∂R (t ) R i (t )σ i (t ) sin θ i (t ) i =0 ∂Ri (t ) i =0 i (13. We could therefore attempt to use other averages which cannot be derived mathematically from the above equations.Chapter 13 Analytic approximation We do realize however. we would find: σ 2 (t )(1 − α (t )) 2 S 2 (0) = n ∂S (t ) n ∂S (t ) = ∑ σ i (t )(1 − α i (t )) R f i (t ) cos θi (t ) + ∑ σ i (t )(1 − α i (t )) R f i (t ) sin θi (t ) i =0 ∂Ri (t ) i =0 ∂Ri (t ) (13. If we decide instead to take the last two equations (13.92) We have found that we obtain even better results with an expression of the form n ∂S (t ) n ∂S (t ) ∑ ∂R (t ) σ i (t )α i (t ) Ri (t ) sin θ i (t ) + ∑ ∂R (t ) σ i (t )α i (t ) Ri (t ) cosθ i (t ) 1 i =0 i i =0 i α (t ) = 2 2 2 n ∂S (0) f n ∂S (0) f ∑ ∂R (t ) R i (t )σ i (t ) cosθ i (t ) + ∑ ∂R (t ) R i (t )σ i (t ) sin θ i (t ) i =0 i i =0 i (13.85).
something which we have seen in the one factor case that does not always hold true. forcing them to be smaller than one.85) σ 2 (t )(1 − α (t )) 2 S 2 (0) = σ 2 (t )(α (t ) 2 − 2α (t ) + 1) S 2 (0) = n ∂S (t ) n ∂S (t ) = ∑ σ i (t )(1 − α i (t )) R f i (t ) cos θi (t ) + ∑ σ i (t )(1 − α i (t )) R f i (t ) sin θi (t ) = i =0 ∂Ri (t ) i =0 ∂Ri (t ) 2 2 =E +F (13. Let us start by developing the above expression (13.84) and (13.94) concerning the last two equations (13.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework α (t ) = n ∂S (t ) n ∂S (t ) σ i (t )(1 − α i (t )) R f i (t ) cos θi (t ) + ∑ σ i (t )(1 − α i (t )) R f i (t ) sin θi (t ) ∑ i =0 ∂Ri (t ) i =0 ∂Ri (t ) = 1− σ (t ) S (0) (13. and that is not ‘intuitively’ guessed and constructed by the quant as a mean.97) Let us recall that a similar approach with the first two equations gave 2 2 215 . We finally come across the best solution: that which attempts to encompass all four of the initial equations.95) n ∂S(t) n ∂S(t) σi (t)Rf i (t)cosθi (t) +∑ σi (t)Rf i (t)sinθi (t) ∑ i=0 ∂Ri (t) i=0 ∂Ri (t) n ∂S(t) σi (t)Rf i (t)cosθi (t) ∑ ∂Ri (t) i=0 2 2 2 2 2 = n ∂S(t) σi (t)Rf i (t)sinθi (t) +∑ ∂Ri (t) i=0 2 2 − n ∂S(t) σi (t)(1−αi (t))Rf i (t)cosθi (t) ∑ ∂Ri (t) i=0 n ∂S(t) +∑ σi (t)(1−αi (t))Rf i (t)sinθi (t) ∂Ri (t) i=0 2 2 n ∂S(t) n ∂S(t) σi (t)Rf i (t)cosθi (t) +∑ σi (t)Rf i (t)sinθi (t) ∑ i=0 ∂Ri (t) i=0 ∂Ri (t) 2 (13. this method restricts our values of α.96) However.
98) 2 2 Therefore − 2α (t )σ 2 (t ) = E2 + F 2 E 2 + F 2 C 2 + D2 − α (t ) 2 σ 2 (t ) − σ 2 (t ) = 2 − 2 − σ 2 (t ) S 2 ( 0) S (0) S (0) (13. 216 .Chapter 13 Analytic approximation σ 2 (t )α 2 (t ) S 2 (t ) = n ∂S (t ) n ∂S (t ) = ∑ σ i (t )α i (t ) Ri (t ) sin θ i (t ) + ∑ σ i (t )α i (t ) Ri (t ) cos θi (t ) = i = 0 ∂Ri (t ) i = 0 ∂Ri (t ) 2 2 =C +D (13.101) The above simplifies to α (t ) = CA + DB A2 + B 2 (13.100) Leaving α (t ) = E 2 + F 2 C 2 + D 2 A2 + B 2 − 2 − 2 2σ 2 (t ) S 2 (0) S ( 0) S ( 0) 1 (13. in order to solve we must freeze Ri to Rfi.102) Or in its extended full version. where as always.99) Remember that we had taken a different expression for σ σ (t ) = n ∂S (0) f n ∂S (0) f 1 = R i (t )σ i (t ) cos θi (t ) + ∑ R i (t )σ i (t ) sin θi (t ) ∑ S (0) i = 0 ∂Ri (t ) i =0 ∂Ri (t ) 1 = A2 + B 2 S (0) 2 2 ( ) (13.
we have always been considering joint calibrations of two vanilla products at a time. this last expression resulted in being that which was fastest in calibrations. and always calibrated whenever there also existed a solution through MonteCarlo simulations for the HJM. A ‘no split’ process is a bulk calibration procedure. We no longer calibrate the vanilla products by pairs of equal maturity. 13. That is to say. this was necessary so as to obtain an intersection of the two solution curves. As examined previously.9 Use of ‘No Split’ To this point we have always been considering split processes. And the more surprising fact is that if we use the analytic approximation’s solution as a first guess to then perform a no split 217 . was consistent with the mathematical developments.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework α (t ) = n ∂S (t ) n ∂S (0) f σ i (t )α i (t ) Ri (t ) sin θi (t ) ∑ R i (t )σ i (t ) sin θi (t ) ∑ ∂Ri (t ) ∂Ri (t ) i=0 i =0 + 2 2 n ∂S (0) f n ∂S (0) f R i (t )σ i (t ) cos θ i (t ) + ∑ R i (t )σ i (t ) sin θ i (t ) ∑ i = 0 ∂Ri (t ) i = 0 ∂Ri (t ) n ∂S (t ) n ∂S (0) f σ i (t )α i (t ) Ri (t ) cos θ i (t ) ∑ R i (t )σ i (t ) cos θ i (t ) ∑ ∂Ri (t ) ∂Ri (t ) i =0 i =0 + 2 2 n ∂S (0) f n ∂S (0) f R i (t )σ i (t ) cos θ i (t ) + ∑ R i (t )σ i (t ) sin θi (t ) ∑ i = 0 ∂Ri (t ) i =0 ∂Ri (t ) (13. but instead take the entire range of maturities and calibrate them together. This procedure results much more time consuming computationalwise. as it is much more difficult for the algorithm to converge with so many parameter considerations at once.103) From all the alternatives. The analytic approximation however is capable of arriving at a rapid solution when it deals with so many products at once.
we are capable of solving calibrations performed exclusively on caplets. We have further noticed that there are specific cases in which with the no split and analytic approximation. by this new procedure in which no split MonteCarlos start from a no split approximation solution. before MonteCarlo no split was extremely tedious on its own. 218 . Identical calibrations using the split method find no solution: refer to the Analytic Approximation Results Section 14 in the Calibration Set interpolation matrix section. In other words. we achieve much more rapid results than the equivalent split approximation followed by a split MonteCarlo. Now. we find that the calibration now becomes much faster.Chapter 13 Analytic approximation calibration through the HJM MonteCarlo process.
the first approach for alpha rapidly ceases to calibrate past the 5 to 10 year maturity mark. whenever the HJM MonteCarlo is also capable of converging for a given set of data. We proceed to compare the HJM MonteCarlo solutions with the analytic approximation solutions to confirm their similarity. Therefore. many times the analytic approximation still provides us with a result. and will strengthen our understanding on how it works. Both of the proposed methods in the previous section work well on a wide range of tests. having decided on the second method as our final expression for alpha and sigma for our analytic approximation. Our great achievement lies in the fact that the second approximation proves to always be capable of calibrating. we will find that even so. If the exact solution by MonteCarlo does not exist.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 14.1 1 Factor Model We now proceed to analyse the results obtained from the tests performed on the analytic approximation. Thus we will verify that the analytic approximation solution is a very good first guess for the HJM. This will give us good visual confirmation of how the analytic approximation is performing. However. Analytic Approximation Results 14. we continue to use the graphical analysis tool developed earlier in the project. 219 .
1. We note firstly that the analytic approximation acts more or less as a tangent to the real HJM MonteCarlo solution curve. 14.05 Sigma 0. We therefore tested how it reacted at different maturities and at different strikes. the analytic approximation always shows a monotonous behaviour.1 Testing The analytic approximation was submitted to an exhaustive series of tests. Approximation at High Strikes 0.09 0. whereas the MonteCarlo solution clearly does not.052 0. making it therefore useful for our study as it adapts well to the MonteCarlo simulation.05 Approximation K = 0.21 MC K = 0.1. we attempted to make sure that the analytic approximation responded correctly to any possible scenario.17 0. 220 .05 2 0 2 4 6 8 Alpha [%] Fig.Chapter 14 Analytic Approximation Results 14. In these.25 MC K = 0. Analytic approximation at high strikes The first important thing to notice therefore is that the analytic approximation acts as a tangent in the region where the final specific solution is achieved.052 Approximation K = 0.13 0. Further.
Notice in the above graph how it adapts well to either side of the HJM’s MonteCarlo hump.13 0.03 MC K = 0.05 2 0 2 Alpha [% ] 4 6 8 MC K = 0. as would be the case of a real tangent. However.03 Analytic Approximation K = 0. for the maximum point of the MonteCarlo solution curve in the below graph. for ‘at the money’ values.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Analytic Approximation Dynamics 0.23 0.15 Sigma 0. Instead.2.21 l 0.06 Fig. Analytic approximation at distant strikes Now the next thing we must state is that the analytic approximation is not always a perfect tangent. 14.11 0. this is. the tangent should be flat.07 0. its gradient is not unique. the analytic approximation acts more or less as a tangent and not as a curve with a unique point of contact. Further.25 0.19 0.09 0.17 0. 221 .06 Analytic Approximation K = 0.
1 2 0 2 4 6 8 Alpha [%] Fig. Despite the difference in slopes. (as can be seen in the figure below).2 0.18 0.3% Approximation ATM K = 4. Note that we proceed to investigate other possibilities simply to see if any further optimisation can be achieved. because the analytic approximation’s gradient is much more pronounced. Analytic approximation acting as a tangent ‘at the money’ The need to perform tests for further approximations arises explicitly because the visual similarity between the analytic approximation and the HJM MontreCarlo curves is not exact.3.Chapter 14 Analytic Approximation Results Approximation Tangent 'at the money' 0. But we must state confidently that the approximation at this level already calibrates extremely rapidly. For certain strikes that are very far from ‘at the money’. 14. the two solutions. despite the slope difference. 222 . continue to be extremely close together.3% Sigma 0. it actually converges more rapidly towards the final solution than other better fitted alternatives.16 MC ATM K = 4. the analytic approximation can visually be quite different.22 0. (MonteCarlo and analytic approximation).2% Approximation ATM K = 4.2% MC ATM K = 4.12 0. Further.14 0.
as it settles a very good average value for the volatility level. 223 .03 0.09 0.04 Approximation K = 0. This is because.03 Approximation K = 0. Furthermore. and proves to generate very good results. As stated in the previous chapter. we can conclude the following: Calibrating at the money is a consistent. as we have to calibrate two products at different strikes. the epsilon approximation allows to alter the point of study. 14. with the tests performed on both epsilon adjusted and non adjusted formulations. The logical next approach would be to calibrate at a fixed intermediate point between the two products’ strike. This is a source of instability.17 Sigma 0. However. However the improvement over calibrating ‘at the money’ is not substantial. instability can still arise because the calibration set can still have different pairs of strikes for different pairs of products. robust approach.4.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Approximation at Distant Strikes 0. Analytic approximation presents difficulties in adjusting to the curve at distant strikes 14. on calibrating we must continually jump from one of their strikes to the other’s.2 Use of the Epsilon Approximation.13 0.1.21 MC K = 0.05 2 0 2 Alpha [%] 4 6 8 Fig. Having a fixed position reduces instability.04 0.25 MC K = 0. Calibrating at the precise strike under consideration is very unstable.
We therefore decide to maintain the calculations performed ‘at the money’ and so do not pursue the epsilon approach any further.21 MC K = 0. introducing instability and resulting in a difficulty for the calibration process. We found that inserting factors in front of the alpha expression added no further improvements.3 Sigma and Alpha adjusting Further corrections were performed on the alpha and the sigma parameters.05 2 0 2 4 6 8 Alpha [% ] 224 . Indeed.13 0. See below how a constant factor could greatly improve fits for large strikes.Chapter 14 Analytic Approximation Results This is.25 0.06 Approximation K =0.17 0. more than that of trial and error. this adjustment factor only needed to be extremely small to produce a noticeable visual difference on the analytic approximation results. 14. These were hardcoded and simply tested for manually without any logic behind them.03 Sigma 0. Epsilon Correction at High Strikes 0.06 MC K = 0. at different maturities the average strike also fluctuates. but at the same time impoverish the adjustment at low strikes.09 0. and visually seeing if the graphical output resembled the MonteCarlo.1. Adjustments in the sigma on the other hand could improve the fit.03 Approximation K =0.
99 + 0.21 Approximation K = 0. Analytic approximation corrected in sigma for low strikes A constant factor could not be used.4 Global adjustment: Factor: σ * = σ ⋅ 0.17 0.13 0. and thus we created a factor that varied with strikes.06 Approximation K = 0.1.03 Sigma 0. 14.06 MC K = 0.03 0.5.25 MC K = 0. 14.09 0. The main thing to notice here is the fact that we now obtain a very good fit at both high and low strike values. but would then lose accuracy at high strikes: Epsilon Correction at Low Strikes 0.05 2 0 2 4 6 8 Alpha [% ] Fig.6. the adjustment is slightly enhanced.1) The above is an example of a good adjustment factor for the calibration set that we were considering. 225 .04 ⋅ FWD − K FWD (14. 14. See below how visually. modifying this factor we could obtain a good adjustment at low strikes.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Fig. Analytic approximation corrected in sigma at high strikes Similarly.
The computational time difference between using the plain analytic approximation and this improved method is very slight.25 MC K = 0.03 Approximation K = 0. forward) 226 . The subsequent HJM iteration counts are generally equal between the two methods (recall that it is these HJM iterations that account for the principal time consumption in the process).17 0. amounting to a difference of only one or two analytic approximation iterations.05 2 0 2 4 6 8 Alpha [% ] Fig. maturity.Chapter 14 Analytic Approximation Results Sigma Factor Varying with Strike 0. Analytic approximation with a varying sigma correction Despite the evident visual improvement.06 Approximation K = 0. we must state the following.7. The improvement factor is specific for a given maturity. 14. strike. the final factor would therefore necessarily have to be a function of F(fixing. If this were to be pursued further. There is a further statement that we must clearly point out in case any future developments are pursued along this line.06 0. This is. the close to perfect fit that we have achieved with the above formulation is specific to a caplet fixing 6 years after settlement and expiring three months after that.09 0.13 0. Tests performed on products with different maturities turned out to require slightly different sigma adjustment factors.21 MC K = 0.03 Sigma 0.
97 and 1. Recall that one of the aims of our analytic approximation was to be able to use its analytical Jacobian instead of having to recalculate it numerically through the HJM calibration process.2 Analytic Approximation Jacobian Another important factor to take into account at this stage is the Jacobian. According to the final formula we saw previously in (14.5) Now the alpha term is an exact average but we see that the sigma is not.1) that these values would typically range between 0.e. Furthermore. the slopes that the analytic approximation generates.5 Use of the qi normalisation approach. We attempted a final approximation that initially appeared reasonable.2) α (t ) = ∑ pi (t )α i (t ) i=0 n p i (t ) = ∑q i=0 n (14.3) i (t )σ i (t ) ∑ q (t ) ≈ 1 i =0 i n (14. recalling its expression from the previous section: σ (t ) = ∑ q i (t )σ i (t ) i =0 n qi (t ) = ∂S (0) Ri f (t ) ∂Ri f (t ) S (0) qi (t )σ i (t ) (14. 14.1. This would greatly 227 .6) ∑ q (t ) Results conclusively signalled that this approach worsened calibrations. we realised that the sigma factor was not an exact weighting.01.i.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 14. This is.4) ∑ p (t ) = 1 i =0 i n (14. We therefore decided to normalise all sigma terms using the following expression: q i (t ) = ∑ q (t )σ i=0 i n i=0 i n i (t ) (14. Notice how we have always been altering the sigma factor by minimal amounts.
1 7 0.04 8 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 Alpha [%] 3 4 solution curve Fig. around the solution curve. HJM MonteCarlo Slopes 3 2 1 0 Model .16 Sigma 0.22 0. that is. 14.Chapter 14 Analytic Approximation Results reduce computation times.8. However. is actually very similar. straightforward method to confirm the similarity in Jacobians is by comparing the slopes graphically. Note that the analytic approximation’s solution is monotonous whereas the HJM has a more peculiar form.Market Price 1 2 0. From a distant perspective we can see below that the behaviour of the two surfaces can appear to be quite different. A first. the similarity of the slopes in the region that is of our interest. HJM MonteCarlo slopes and solution curve 228 .
14.10.16 Sigma 0.12 4 2.Market Price solution curve 1 2 3 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Alpha [%] Fig.2 0.16 1 Sigma 0.9.Market Price 1 0 0.24 0. we would find something of the following form: HJM MonteCarlo Slopes 2 Model .22 0.04 5. Closeup on HJM MonteCarlo’s slopes and solution curve 229 .1 1 0.04 2 Alpha [%] Fig.5 3 4 2 Model .A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Analytic Approximation Slopes 3 solution curve 2 1 0 1 2 0.5 0.08 7 0. 14.5 0. Analytic approximation slopes and solution curve If we were to make a closer inspection of the region of interest where the final solution occurs.
3 2 Factor Analytic Approximation We set out in our analysis to test all of the possible alternatives for alpha. with the 3 dimensional view. Nevertheless.04 2 Sigma 2 Alpha [%] Fig. Closeup on analytic approximation’s slopes and solution curve We see that our well known solution curves are still the intersection of the surface of prices with the horizontal axis.24 0. Yet now. The remaining candidates were thus: 230 . we distinguish the analytic approximation as the tangent of the HJM MonteCarlo curve.Chapter 14 Analytic Approximation Results Analytic Approximation Slopes 2 solution curve 1 Model . Once again. 14.14 3 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0. and the HJM solution flattens out below the horizontal axis much sooner than the analytic approximation.Market Price 0 1 0. 14.19 0.11. Recall that the expression for sigma was the same in all cases. the similarity is sufficient to enable us to use the analytic approximation’s Jacobian as the HJM model’s Jacobian in any iteration process within the specified region. Many of the candidates dropped out straight away because they were unable to advance at all in any given calibration. we are capable of appreciating the differences between the slopes: there is a slight difference in concavity.09 0 1 0.
8) α(t) = n ∂S(t) n ∂S(t) σi (t)R f i (t)cosθi (t) + ∑ σi (t)R f i (t)sinθi (t) ∑ i=0 ∂Ri (t) i=0 ∂Ri (t) 2 2 2 = n ∂S(t) n ∂S(t) σi (t)R f i (t)cosθi (t) + ∑ σi (t)R f i (t)sinθi (t) ∑ ∂Ri (t) ∂Ri (t) i=0 i=0 2 2 − − n ∂S(t) n ∂S(t) σi (t)(1− αi (t))R f i (t)cosθi (t) + ∑ σi (t)(1−αi (t))R f i (t)sinθi (t) ∑ i=0 ∂Ri (t) i=0 ∂Ri (t) n ∂S(t) n ∂S(t) σi (t)R f i (t)cosθi (t) + ∑ σi (t)R f i (t)sinθi (t) ∑ i=0 ∂Ri (t) i=0 ∂Ri (t) 2 2 2 (14.7) n ∂S (t ) n ∂S (t ) ∑ σ i (t )α i (t ) Ri (t ) sin θ i (t ) + ∑ ∂R (t ) ∂R (t ) σ i (t )α i (t ) Ri (t ) cosθ i (t ) 1 i =0 i i =0 i α (t ) = 2 2 2 n ∂S (0) f n ∂S (0) f ∑ R i (t )σ i (t ) cosθ i (t ) + ∑ ∂R (t ) ∂R (t ) R i (t )σ i (t ) sin θ i (t ) i =0 i i =0 i (14.9) and (14.9) α (t ) = ∑ ∂R (t ) R (t )σ i=0 i i n n ∂S (0) i (t )α i (t ) (14. To differentiate which of the candidates we would finally select. already proved to be much faster than the rest. The third was capable of calibrating without splitting. the third and fourth of the above formulas.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework n ∂S (t ) n ∂S (t ) ∑ σ i (t )α i (t ) Ri (t ) sin θ i (t ) + ∑ ∂R (t ) ∂R (t ) σ i (t )α i (t ) Ri (t ) cos θ i (t ) i =0 i i =0 i α (t ) = n n ∂S (0) f ∂S (0) f ∑ ∂R (t ) R i (t )σ i (t ) cos θ i (t ) + ∑ ∂R (t ) R i (t )σ i (t ) sin θ i (t ) i =0 i i =0 i (14. When testing on 18 year calibrations with 34 Swaptions and 15 correlations. in 4 231 .10).10) ∂S (0) ∑ ∂R (t ) R f i (t )σ i (t ) i =0 i These four alternatives were all capable of calibrating with relative ease any small set with maturities reaching 15 years. (14. we were thus forced to submit them to more extreme calibrations.
In this final test. only the third expression and the fourth expression were capable of performing the calibration. Notice that the first two alternatives were yielding up to 17 iterations. we decided to select the third expression for two principal reasons: • It performed faster by two to three iterations in all tests performed. although in 5 iterations We made a critical final test that proved extremely difficult to calibrate. 1 Factor: Calibration Set: 56 Swaptions HJM M ontecarlo Analytic approximation + HJM M onteCarlo Analytic approximation + HJM M onteCarlo without Split: with Split: 94s 56s 17s Table 14. It was mathematically consistent with the formulae derived for the analytic approximation.4 Final Considerations on the Analytic approximation So far we have seen graphical and numerical comparisons between the HJM and our analytic approximation and confirmed their similarities. The fourth expression was discovered to also be capable of calibrating. Approximation increases calibration speed by a factor of 5 232 . • 14. As we found no further difference between the two.Chapter 14 Analytic Approximation Results iterations. The critical analysis that remains therefore is to determine whether we really do achieve the principal goal of our project. and so did not rely on a quant’s intuitive mean weighting approach. this is.1. It involved 66 Swaptions and 15 correlations. therefore resulting much more time consuming. whether we really do significantly reduce calibration times.
Initially. These results are truly extraordinary.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 2 Factors: Calibration Set: 66 Swaptions. It reduces calibration times by a factor of 3 to 10. Recall that the alpha was a weighting parameter that allowed us to choose between a lognormal (α = 1) and a 233 . Future developments must centre on an analytic approximation for the 3 strike model. 15 Correlations HJM Montecarlo: Analytic approximation + HJM MonteCarlo: 9mins 53s 1min 12s Table 14. this would appear to involve a relatively intuitive extrapolation of the two strikes analytic approximation methods presented above. We find in contrast that the analytic approximation. it always selected the solution with an alpha closest to the [0. We would like to note that the analytic approximation has already successfully been implemented within the Banco Santander. Approximation increases calibration speed by a factor of 8 14.1] interval. We found that when these situations arised during calibrations with our analytic approximation always selected the correct solution. The first problem stated in this document was the duplicity of solutions encountered.2. 14. because it is monotonous. because of its characteristics and in particular. This is. and is being used on a daily basis by the interest rate traders. manages to surmount these difficulties.5 Conclusions and Further Developments The analytic approximation appears to work extremely well.6 Analytic approximation Peculiarities Recall that there existed three cases in which the HJM MonteCarlo failed to produce results.
Solution Duplicity 0.05 0 2 0 2 Alpha [%] 4 6 8 Fig. Another of the problems which we had encountered was the case in which the HJM MonteCarlo solution curves were encompassed one inside the other. It therefore seems unreasonable that we should select a value of 6 for alpha.2 0. This would imply something of the form: “we are six times a lognormal model”. 14.15 Sigma 0.e.5% MC K = 6. This inevitably lead to an inexistent intersection. 234 . by using the analytic approximation as a first guess.25 MC K = 2.5% Approximation K = 6. no valid pair of model parameters that could simultaneously satisfy both conditions imposed by the two vanilla products. In this way we avoid the possibility that it erroneously converges to the alternative solution. HJM MonteCarlo versus analytic approximation solving solution duplicities Therefore.Chapter 14 Analytic Approximation Results normal model (α = 0). we condition the HJM MonteCarlo to start very close to the desired solution.5% 0.12.5% Approximation K = 2.1 MC and analytic approximation solution second MC solution 0. thus meaning that there was no valid solution i.
5% Approximation K = 3% 0.1 0.5 % MC K = 3% Approximation ATM K = 4. 14.2 MC K = 3% Sigma 0.14.2 MC ATM K=4. 14.25 MC ATM K = 4.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework HJM MonteCarlo Solution Curves 0.15 0.15 Sigma 0.25 analytic approximation solution 0. Analytic approximation solving a case with no HJM MonteCarlo solution intersection 235 .5% 0.13.1 0.05 0 2 0 2 Alpha [%] 4 6 8 Fig. we do find an intersection of its solutions: Solution Curves 0. HJM MonteCarlo presents no solution curve intersection Because the analytic approximation is monotonous.05 0 2 0 2 4 6 8 Alpha [% ] Fig.
Whichever of the two we finally decide upon.5 0.04 2 solution curve 1 7 0. HJM MonteCarlo first vanilla presenting a solution curve 236 . The fact that it is incapable is a problem we must examine further.11 4 2.18 Sigma Alpha [%] Fig. as it should be able to calibrate given a reasonable set of input data. the HJM model clearly still needs further corrections.Market Price 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 5.Chapter 14 Analytic Approximation Results We are yet unclear about whether the solutions provided by the approximate model should be considered as valid and thus revise our HJM model. Recall now the final problematic encountered with HJM calibrations. 14. There were situations in which the HJM MonteCarlos price surface was incapable of descending below the horizontal axis.5 0. or whether they too are incorrect.5 0.15.Vanilla 1 8 7 Model . We can analyse this situation more in depth at this point in our study: Surface Flexibility . This lack of flexibility implied that we were never capable of equating the model and market prices.
11 4 2.16.Market Price 4 3 2 1 0 5. 14. we find the following: 237 .5 0.Vanilla 2 6 5 Model .18 Sigma Alpha [%] Fig.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Surface Flexibility . the price surface does descend sufficiently.5 0. and although with one of the products. HJM MonteCarlo second vanilla does not descend sufficiently Realise that we continue calibrating in pairs.5 0. When we continue with this scenario onto an analytic approximation calibration. No solution curve is achieved.04 2 1 7 0. in the other product this surface remains asymptotic to the horizontal axis.
11 0.22 0 0.1 solution curve Alpha [%] Fig. Analytic approximation presents a solution for the first vanilla Analytic Approximation Vanilla 2 3 2.04 Sigma Alpha [%] Fig.5 Model .Chapter 14 Analytic Approximation Results Analyticv Approximation .5 1 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 solution curve 0.5 1 8 7 3 2 1 0 0.5 1 0.18 0.16 Sigma 0.Market Price 2 1. Analytic approximation also presents a solution for the second troublesome vanilla 238 .Vanilla 1 2 1.04 1 2 6 5 4 0.17.5 Model . 14.Market Price 1 0. 14.18.5 0 0.5 0.
14. HJM MonteCarlo versus analytic approximation for a two dimensional view of the previous cases Where we have included the single HJM MonteCarlo vanilla product that we managed to calibrate. this is equivalent to: Solution Curves 0.19.09 0.14 MC ATM K = 4% Approximation ATM K = 4% Approximation K = 1% 0.04 2 0 2 4 6 8 Alpha [% ] Fig.24 0. On a two dimensional plane.19 analytic approximation solution Sigma 0. 239 .A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Surprisingly we find a solution with both vanilla products.
that we had by now grown so accustomed to. Calibration Set Interpolation Matrix We explore this section in the search of a possible solution to two main problems presented during our calibration tests: • The failure to calibrate when our calibration set was solely composed of caplets.4) that the specific interpolation process that we may decide for our matrix can have a powerful impact on the convergence of the calibration itself. The failure to calibrate when using a joint set of caplets and swaptions. This peculiarity has edged us to seek for the best possible solution.1 1 Factor: (only Caplets) In the 1 factor scenario the data is not interpolated but instead extrapolated constantly from the Target Parameters.2 15. we were performing a horizontal linear interpolation within the triangle defined by the Target Parameters.1 Initial Data We have discovered (as is presented in the results of this section. 15.Chapter 15 Calibration Set Interpolation Matrix 15. • 15.2. and linear outside it. 15. Further. 240 .2 Former approach analysis Initially. Recall what was discussed in Section 10. the extrapolation of our calibration set can even transform our solution surface .
irrespective of whether B is vertical or horizontal. we proceeded to implement: a horizontal interpolation within the Target Parameter triangle.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework U0 T0 Ui UN A Ti TN B Fig. the one factor model with vertical extrapolation is in this way now capable of successfully calibrating caplets. we have concluded that the data above the diagonal is the most influential to our calibration process. the data was formerly being interpolated horizontally within the Target Parameter triangle and extrapolated horizontally outside it. 241 . and due also to the fact that the current approach was proving incapable of calibrating caplets. This calibration works best when the interpolation is performed vertically in this region A.1. Thus. with three month caplets and with a frequency of 3 months. We proceed to the two factor scenario taking both A and B vertically.2. Following on with the improvement in caplet calibration achieved through the vertical extrapolation. 15. 15. and a vertical extrapolation outside this. 15. Other less drastic scenarios with fewer fixings and 6 month or 1 year caplets were also successfully overcome.2 Tests performed The one factor calibration was tested successfully up to maturities of 20 years.3 2 Strikes In the 2 strikes scenario. Strike Interpolation From the tests performed.
3511 2.03141 1.19095 2.38082 2. as each entire row of the matrix is used to compute the subsequent row.11781 6. regarding whether we were capable of calibrating or not: The improvement obtained through vertical extrapolation is extremely clear from the below table.39025 0.19487 2.26662 1.82583 3.14651 7.36438 3.884945 0.82583 3.3176 1.81252 10.37808 3.27997 2.37808 3.00457 1.1 Horizontal interpolation. A variation in any of the components in the row therefore has an effect on the following one.44481 3. This occurs because the extrapolated data has a slight influence on the interpolated data.88026 2.03141 1.56306 3. 15.12055 5.82583 2.18966 2.1315 2.836424 Table 15.11781 3.72058 3.82583 3.01385 1.982652 0.0092 1.38082 2.34291 1.19095 2.34165 10.29194 1. vertical extrapolation We obtain slightly different results compared to the formerly implemented interpolation method. Strike Interpolation 0 1.21627 1.Chapter 15 Calibration Set Interpolation Matrix U0 T0 Ti TN extrapolate Ui interpolate UN Fig.00457 0.39025 0.2769 9.21126 8.66615 2.934131 0.27997 2.82712 2.82583 3.11507 4.44481 3.36986 3.58785 2.94742 2.01851 1.08194 6.36712 3.37808 3.02324 1. We found the following main results.02791 1.36192 1.19095 2.24137 1.82583 3.82583 3.36192 1.34725 3.82583 1.19095 4.03778 2.34725 2.82583 3.982652 0.06937 2.11233 2.70715 2.80022 1.82583 3.82583 3.36712 2.11507 3.1753 2.34725 2.34725 2.50862 2.34725 2.2.00457 5.82583 3.46755 2. 242 .
as here. However. that is greatly accelerated through the use of the analytic approximation developed. we clearly see two main difficulties in the above. Calibrations with three strikes and ‘no split’ will be extremely slow. the joint calibration of caplets and swaption remains an unresolved problem. it poses important difficulties if we are to extend the approach to the three strike model. the new interpolation method proves to solve many of the problems that were previously encountered in any caplet calibration. horizontal extrapolation.that is. taking the entire set of vanilla products and calibrating them together at once.2 Summary table of the differences between vertical. there is yet no analytic approximation to speed up the calculations. Secondly. However.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework C alibrates? V anilla Product Caplet Strike 1K Split Split Proxy / MC V ertical H orizontal Proxy + M C M C M C no yes yes yes very slow no no no no No Split Proxy + M C 2K No Split Proxy + M C yes M C yes very slow Split Proxy + M C M C no no yes M C fails no no no no yes fails Caplet + Sw aption 1K 2K Table 15. This requires an extremely long and tedious computation process. we realize that it is only effective when it operates as a ‘no split process’. split and no split However. 243 . Firstly.
Vertical extrapolation no longer flat This deformation becomes increasingly drastic. where before it was almost horizontally asymptotic here.2 0.1 0.15 9 0. We now obtain a different form for that same surface. 15.3. Recall the graphical surface created.05 15 0 100 50 0 50 0. one that tips upwards again at the left end of the below graph.25 Sigma Fig. the intersection solution with the horizontal axis has actually evolved towards a circular form.4 Graphical representation We observe further consequences when changing the form of interpolation used. Vertical Extrapolation 250 200 150 15 9 3 3 Alpha [%] 0. 244 . Note that now.Chapter 15 Calibration Set Interpolation Matrix 15.
1 0. Swaptions Vertical Extrapolation 18 16 14 Model .4.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Horizontal Extrapolation 10 8 ModelMarket price 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 0 0. 15.6 0.05 Sigma .5. Swaption Vertical Extrapolation stays the same 1.2 0.122 1 Sigma Alpha [%] Fig.4 0. Surface Deformation in Horizontal Extrapolation We note that this is exclusively a caplet characteristic.13 0.2 0.2 245 . When we use the same vertical interpolation approach to calibrate swaptions.Market Price 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 16 2 10 4 2 8 14 0 20 0.138 0. the well known surface appears once again. Alpha [%] Fig.8 0. 15.15 0.
6.8 1 1. Vertical Extrapolation 0. 246 . This implies that on calibrating two caplets.Chapter 15 Calibration Set Interpolation Matrix The transformation of the model price space brings with it a first important consequence.125 0.14 Sigma 0. The fact that the solution curve is no longer a curve with a ‘hump’ but has now evolved towards a spherical form.12 0 0.2 0.15% K = 3% 0. 15.135 0. The same question however is still omnipresent: which is the correct solution? The change in the model price surface has two further implications. this time in sigma whereas previously it was only existent in alpha. the intersection of these circles will always generate a duplicity of solutions except for the particular case in which one circle is perfectly tangent to another. New Circular Solution Intersection Thus the method introduces a new duplicity of solutions.145 K=4.6 0.2 1.4 Alpha [%] Fig.4 0.13 0.
116056 0.233 171.465 0.205302 579. Theoretically. we would like to state something important: The HJM ends its calibration process when the error between its model value and the market value is below a certain level.511 0.27304 MarketPrice ModelPrice Relative error 1 2 579.206877 0. there is sufficient margin for a noticeable variation in the alpha parameter.see the relative error.157482 OK OK Table 15.233 Value 0. It simply implies that perhaps one further iteration in the vertical extrapolation method should be considered before submitting a final parameter value.045526 0.1 Vertical Extrapolation IT ERATION 0 : 1 2 T ype SIGMA ALPHA T 145. the parameter generating a smaller error is more accurate.e. despite the fact that the HJM accepts both solutions. The alpha parameter in particular is substantially different (30% difference).479 145. We realize that perhaps this level should be decreased somewhat further. The reason is the fact that within the range of currently admitted model errors. 15. Secondly.4.479 U 171.3 Results obtained through vertical extrapolation 247 .A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Firstly. See below a comparison between the two valid solutions. This does not mean that the horizontal extrapolation is better. the same bottom pit of the convexity. one of which has been obtained through the new caplet surface and the other obtained through the traditional horizontal extrapolation. the convergence of a Newton Raphson algorithm in this type of surface is always much more direct as all lines of greatest slope head directly towards the minimum value i.
114 0.726 U 145.021235 OK OK Table 15.726 119.107367 0.004044 0.10758 495.4.Chapter 15 Calibration Set Interpolation Matrix 15.753 145.118 0.115939 0.2 Horizontal Extrapolation IT ERATION 0 : 1 2 T ype SIGMA ALPH A T 119.4 Results obtained through horizontal extrapolation 248 .34993 MarketPrice ModelPrice Relative error 1 2 495.753 Value 0.
A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
16. Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes
16.1 Introduction.
This section describes how to create a set of caplet volatilities that are to be derived from the market quoted cap volatilities. We will analyse two principal approaches. The first involves an interpolation between cap prices to then extract the caplet volatilities. The second method involves a direct interpolation amongst the caplets themselves.
The input data which we require are the interest rate curve, the cap volatility matrix, and future option prices. With these, we must be able to compute the caplet forward volatilities for any given tenor (according to the market conventions, 3M in the USD dollar, 6M in the Eurozone, etc.) and any given strike. The study is of particular interest because the caplet volatilities are critical in the calibration of exotic products. We present below the market quoted caps that are typically used as inputs when deriving the corresponding caplets.
Fig. 16.1. Market Cap Quotes
249
Chapter 16
Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes
We generally follow the subsequent procedure: taking the market cap volatilities, we firstly interpolate along the strike direction so as to create all the strike values that are necessary for our calibration. After this, for each strike we then interpolate along the maturity direction, (interpolating either in cap volatilities or caplet volatilities depending on the approach) thus creating values for the already mentioned 6 month regular intervals.
In general, we can use linear cap or constant caplet volatility interpolation as a first approach before continuing onto the more complex functional form optimisations. A further step is to fit the sets of volatilities that have been calculated to a given type of smile interpolator. This will require that we carry out the strike interpolation at the end of the process rather than at the beginning so as to achieve an optimal smile behaviour.
There are two principal methods of interpolation which we must firstly distinguish:
1. Functional Form:
we use a simple deterministic function to interpolate between points. We can further distinguish two variations here:
Global interpolation: These methods rely on constructing a single equation that fits all the data points. The equation is usually a high degree polynomial equation that results in a smooth curve. However, they are usually not well suited for engineering applications, as they are prone to severe oscillations and overshoots, which we attempt to avoid specifically here.
250
A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
Piecewise interpolation. These methods rely on constructing a polynomial of low degree between each pair of known data points. If a first degree polynomial is used, it is called linear interpolation. Second and third degree polynomials are called quadratic and cubic splines respectively. The higher the degree of the spline, the smoother the resulting curve. Splines of degree m will have continuous derivatives up to a degree of m1 at the data points.
2. Stochastic Form:
This is the second possible form of interpolating. It implies using a stochastic model such as CEV or SABR. We will enter the details of the SABR approach later
16.1.1 Strike Interpolation:
The first, ‘non smile’ interpolation between strikes is performed as simple as possible. This is directly a linear interpolation as our first step in the previously described process.
V =
Vi ( K i +1 − K ) + Vi +1 ( K − K i ) K i +1 − K i
16.2 Stripping Caplet Volatility Methods
It may be useful at this point to refer back to the financial product description of a cap Section 6.7. Recall that a cap is constructed as a sum of caplets. The price of a cap on the 6 month EURIBOR starting at T and maturing at U is given by the market by means of a unique flat caplet volatility. This means that the price of the cap must be computed as the sum of the prices of all 6 month caplets between T and U, whose volatility must be set as the unique flat caplet volatility specified by the market.
251
Chapter 16
Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes
However, these flat caplets are simply a construction mechanism to obtain the market’s cap value easily. The former does not mean that the true caplets in the specified time period should all have flat volatilities. Instead, it simply imposes that the sum of all the caplets in the interval should yield the same price as the sum of all the flat caplets in that interval. Thus there is a great degree of freedom when we try to analyse the true market of caplets. We have the liberty of imposing any price we wish on the given group, so long as their sum equals the market cap. For calibration purposes, we will seek to construct these caplets so that their volatilities combine to produce a monotonous, smooth curve.
16.3 Previous Santander Approach for 6 month caplets
The main problem in any Caplet Stripping method lies in the fact that there is not enough information to be able to extract a unique caplet volatility. Ideally, if we had two adjacent market cap quotes that were 6 months apart, then we could construct
cap (t , T ,U 2 ) − cap (t , T ,U1 ) = forwardcap (t , U1 ,U 2 ) = caplet (t , U1 ,U1 + δ )
(16.1) Where δ= 6months
16.3.1 TYPE I
Cap(t,T,U1)
Cap(t,T,U2)
CapF ard(t,U1,U ) orw 2 = Caplet(t,U1,U ) 2
t
T
U1
U2
Fig. 16.2. Cap decomposition into other caps and capforwards
252
A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework
In this way, the resulting forward cap would be exactly equal to the caplet, so would also have the same price. Applying the Black Scholes formula, we would be able to extract the caplet’s volatility from its known price.
However, this is not generally the case. More commonly, two adjacent cap quotes are separated in maturities by more than six months. In addition, the separation between cap quotes for LIBOR markets ranges between 12 months and 5 years. In these cases, the difference between the cap prices (i.e. the forward cap) is equal to the sum of at least two or more different caplets.
cap (t , T ,U1 ) − cap (t , T , U 2 ) = forwardcap (t ,U1 , U 2 ) = ∑ capleti (t ,U i ,U i + i ⋅ δ )
i =1
n
(16.2) There is no additional equation to determine the price to be attributed to any individual caplet, only to their sum. Therefore, a hypothesis must be made at this stage so as to decide on how these prices should be distributed among the caplets.
16.3.2 TYPE II
Cap(t,T,U1)
CapForw ard(t,U1,U ) 2 Caplet (t,U1,U + δ) 1 Caplet (t, U + δ, U2) 1
Cap(t,T,U2)
t
T
U1
U1+δ
U2
Fig. 16.3. Capforward decomposition into two unknown caplets We see clearly in the above that there is no additional information available to choose a specific price for any of the caplets that combine to form the capforward.
253
Chapter 16
Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes
16.4 Linear Cap Interpolation
In the Banco Santander Model, to ease calculations, a first approach was simply to linearly interpolate the market cap volatilities so as to always fall within the first case situation. This is, given the below example where there would be an excess of caplets to determine, we linearly create the necessary caps that will enable us to return to a simple situation as in TYPE I.
Capσ1 Capletσ1 T Capσ2 U1 U1+δ U1+2δ
Capletσi
U1+3δ
U2
Fig. 16.4. Each cap is made up of a number of caplets of unknown volatility We construct each cap by linearly interpolating the volatility
σ cap (t , T , U 1 + i ⋅ δ ) = σ cap (t , T , U 1 ) +
σ cap (t , T ,U 2 ) − σ cap (t , T ,U 1 ) (U 1 + i ⋅ δ − U 1 ) U 2 − U1
(16.3)
Thus we only have
Capσ1 Capletσ1
T
Capσ2 interpolated
U1
U1+δ
Fig. 16.5. 2 Cap Interpolation Then we can easily solve each caplet as was stated in the TYPE I approach:
cap(t , T ,U 1 + i ⋅ δ ) − cap(t , T ,U 1 + (i − 1) ⋅ δ ) = caplet (t ,U 1 + ⋅(i − 1)δ ,U 1 + i ⋅ δ )
(16.4)
254
T LN ± K 2 = σ cap (t .U 1 ) L(t . with d 1T.5) that we seek σ cap (t . cap(t . T .9) 1 d1U2 .6) is the market cap. The second term in (16. T . T . T .5) has had its volatility interpolated so that the timespace between the newly interpolated cap and the previous market cap is exactly equal to the single caplet we seek. and We would then have δ = m6 M . U 1 + δ ) − cap(t . T .T . U 1 ) σ cap (t . T . and is a sum of caplets with the cap’s flat market quoted volatility.U1 ) + σ cap (t .U1 ) ⋅ δ t .U 1 .U1 ) ⋅δ U 2 − U1 (16.U1+δ ) ⋅ δ 6 M 2 (16.8) Thus we have the expression for the cap as T cap(t .U i ' . This interpolation has been done as: σ cap (t .U1 + δ ) = σ cap (t . We will now specify how each of the above terms are obtained. the cap is directly equal to the caplet.10) 255 .5) T cap(t . As we only have i = 1.U 2 ) − σ cap (t . T .7) The first term in the equation (16.U 1 + δ ) = ∑ mB(t .A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Let us specify the above calculations for the case in which i = 1. T . T .U 1 + δ ⋅ i ) L(t .U 1 + δ ) Where the only unknown is the caplet volatility (16.U1 ) ⋅ δ t . T .T 2 (16.U1 +δ ) ⋅ δ 6 M LN ± K 2 = σ cap (t .U i ' + δ ) σ cap (t . T . T .U 1 ) = caplet (t .U 1 + δ ) to calculate. U 1 ) = mt .U 1 + δ ⋅ i ) N (d 1Ti ) − KN (d 2 i ) i=0 n −1 [ ] (16.T .T .T B(t . 2 L(t . L(t . U 1 ) N (d1Ti ) − KN (d 2 i ) [ ] (16.T .
U1 +δ ) ⋅ δ 6 M 2 (16.U 1 + δ ) σ caplet (t .U1 +δ ) ⋅ δ 6 M LN ± K 2 = σ caplet (t . T . We will need to solve the black volatility for this caplet. T .13) And analogously for the rest.U1 . U 1 .5) verifies T caplet (t . 2 L(t . U 1 + δ ) = mB(t . For the second caplet we would construct cap(t . A smoother fit is consequently required. 256 . T . The ‘bumps’ present an important difficulty for calibration algorithms that operate on these caplet volatilities.U 1 + 2 ⋅ δ ) − cap(t .12) The only element we do not know from all the above equations is the 2 σ caplet ( t .U 1 + δ ) L(T .U 1 + δ ) Finally. 18.U .11) d 1T. U 1 + δ ) N (d1Ti ) − KN (d 2 i ) [ ] (16. U 1 + δ .U +δ ) .U1 .typically via 1 1 Newton Raphson iterations. The problem with this form of stripping is that the resulting values for σcaplet i produce a curve with respect to their maturities that is not smooth at all.U 1 . U 1 .Chapter 16 Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes The interpolated cap is therefore the sum of the previous cap and an additional caplet with the interpolated flat volatility σ cap (t . (See Fig. U 1 + 2 ⋅ δ ) (16. U 1 + δ ) = caplet (t . the last term in the equation (16.2).
This is.17) 16. Once again we are going to interpolate between two known market quotes so as to obtain an intermediate cap volatility from which we can easily extract the caplet we are searching for.a condition of the form: fj’(Ti1) = fj1’(Ti).14) A= ( f i −1 − f i ) ( f i − f i −2 ) − (Ti −1 − Ti − 2 )(Ti −1 − Ti ) (Ti − Ti −2 )(Ti −1 − Ti ) B= (16. Another approach is to use this degree of freedom to impose a continuity in the function’s slopes. we use: f (T ) = AT 2 + BT + C with coefficients (16. we decide therefore that it is more useful to take our third point as the volatility σi2. Our only difference is that now we interpolate between caps using cubic functions.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 16.15) ( f i − f i −1 ) ( − A Ti + Ti −1 ) (Ti − Ti −1 ) (16. For the first method. We use up two degrees of freedom by setting the parabola to pass through the two known points (σi and σi1) defined by the market quoted flat cap volatilities. A quadratic fit requires three parameters to completely define the parabola. We have absolute freedom to impose the third point. The motor cause behind this decision is the fact that using quadratic functions provides concavities and convexities to which our caplet transformation is very sensitive.5 Quadratic Cap Interpolation The procedure that we will follow is completely analogous to the former one.16) C = f i −1 − AT 2 i −1 − BTi −1 (16. we have a set of market quoted caps constructed on flat cap volatilities. Indeed.6 Cubic Spline Interpolation The idea behind this method remains the same as before. As we have a greater density of information at the beginning of the curve. despite the 257 .
n1..yi). xn] 258 . 2.2). we note that their subsequent caplet models show enhanced irregularities wherever two parabolas or straight lines join (see Fig. The mathematical spline is similar in principle.1). 18.. s 'i ( x) = 3ai ( x − xi ) 2 + 2bi ( x − xi ) + ci s ''i ( x) = 6ai ( x − xi ) + 2bi The curve must verify the following four conditions: for i= 1. 1.. are numerical data. The fundamental idea behind cubic spline interpolation is based on the engineer’s tool used to draw smooth curves through a number of points. This is further enhanced the more different the slopes are at that point. As its name indicates. resulting in a pleasingly smooth curve. 2. The piecewise function S(x)will interpolate all data points (xi. n1. S(x)will be continuous on the interval [x1.. with the stipulation that the curve obtained be continuous and appear smooth. . in this case.. These coefficients ‘bend’ the line so that it passes through each of the data points without any erratic behaviour or breaks in continuity. we fit a series of unique cubic polynomials between each of the data points. 2. The points. 18.. We fit a piecewise function of the form s1 ( x) s ( x) S ( x) = 2 sn −1 ( x) if if x1 ≤ x < x2 x 2 ≤ x < x3 xn −1 ≤ x < xn M if where si(x) is a third degree polynomial defined by si ( x) = ai ( x − xi )3 + bi ( x − xi ) 2 + ci ( x − xi ) + di The first and second derivatives of these n1 equations are for i= 1. . The weights are the coefficients on the cubic polynomials used to interpolate the data. which is where the method derives its name from.Chapter 16 Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes fact that any of the two previous methods apparently produce very smooth flat cap volatility curves (see Fig. We thus attempt to solve this problem by means of a cubic fit. This spline consists of weights attached to a flat surface at the points to be connected. A flexible strip is then bent across each of these weights.
. ..18) d i = ai −1 ( xi − xi −1 ) 3 + bi −1 ( xi − xi −1 ) 2 + ci −1 ( xi − xi −1 ) + d i −1 for i= 1. 2.19) s'i −1 ( xi ) = s 'i ( xi ) so s'i −1 ( xi ) = 3ai −1 ( xi − xi −1 ) 2 + 2bi −1 ( xi − xi −1 ) + ci −1 (16. S’’(x)will be continuous on the interval [x1..1 Analysing the slopes s'i ( x) = 3ai ( x − xi ) 2 + 2bi ( x − xi ) + ci s'i ( xi ) = 3ai ( xi − xi ) 2 + 2bi ( xi − xi ) + ci s ' i ( xi ) = ci Applying the third condition of continuous slopes. . we can conclude that S ( xi ) = y i y i = ai ( xi − xi ) 3 + bi ( xi − xi ) 2 + ci ( xi − xi ) + d i yi = d i Because property 2 imposes that the function be continuous.. we also have (16. then at the junction of two piecewise cubic curves we have for each i= 1. si −1 ( xi ) = si ( xi ) = d i we also know that si −1 ( xi ) = ai −1 ( xi − xi −1 )3 + bi −1 ( xi − xi −1 )2 + ci −1 ( xi − xi −1 ) + di −1 so we have (16. xn] Since the piecewise function S(x) will interpolate all of the data points. S’(x)will be continuous on the interval [x1. 16.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 3. xn] 4.6.. 2. n1.20) 259 .. n1.
let us imagine that we (16. n1.Chapter 16 Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes ci = 3ai −1 ( xi − xi −1 ) 2 + 2bi −1 ( xi − xi −1 ) + ci −1 Now considering the second derivatives: for i= 1. ..23) ci +1 = 3ai ( xi +1 − xi ) 2 + 2bi ( xi +1 − xi ) + ci y i + 2 − y i +1 s ' ' i + 2 −2 s ' ' i +1 s' ' −2 s ' 'i y − y i s ' 'i +1 −2 s ' 'i − ∆x = 3 i +1 ∆x 2 + β i ∆x + i +1 − ∆x ∆x 6 6 ∆x 6 Which we can simplify to s' ' i +4 s ' ' i +1 + s' ' i + 2 = 6 ⋅ y i − 2 y i +1 + y i + 2 ∆x 2 for i= 1. s' 'i ( x) = 6ai ( x − xi ) + 2bi s' 'i ( xi ) = 6ai ( xi − xi ) + 2bi s' 'i ( xi ) = 2bi And since the second derivatives must also be continuous. 2. taking equation (16.21) s' 'i −1 ( xi ) = s' 'i ( xi ) = 2bi s' 'i −1 ( xi ) = 6ai −1 ( xi −1 − xi ) + 2bi −1 2bi = 6ai −1 ( xi −1 − xi ) + 2bi −1 for simplification. have constant intervals ∆x = ( xi −1 − xi ) and let us note s' ' i ( xi ) = s ' 'i = 2bi Then we can rewrite all the coefficients in terms of these parameters as: s ' ' i +1 − s ' 'i 6∆x s' ' bi = i 2 y i +1 − y i s' ' i +1 −2 s ' 'i ci = − ∆x ∆x 6 d i = yi ai = Therefore. . n1. n1. 260 ... .22) for i= 1.... 2.... 2. we impose (16.
This results in a n2 by n2 matrix.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Which leads to a matrix formulation: 1 0 0 M 0 0 0 4 1 0 L 0 0 0 1 4 1 L 0 0 0 0 1 4 L 0 0 0 M M M O 0 0 0 L 0 0 0 L 0 0 0 L M M M 4 1 0 1 4 1 0 1 4 s' '1 0 s ' ' 2 y1 − 2 y 2 + y 3 y − 2y + y s' ' 0 3 2 3 4 y3 − 2 y 4 + y5 0 s ' ' 3 6 M M M = 2 ⋅ ∆x y n − 4 − 2 y n −3 + y n − 2 0 s ' ' n − 3 0 s ' ' n − 2 y n−3 − 2 y n − 2 + y n −1 y − 2y + y 1 s' ' n−1 n −1 n n−2 s' ' n Note that this system has n 2 rows and n columns. two other conditions must be imposed upon the system. 261 .7 Natural splines This first spline type includes the stipulation that the second derivative be equal to zero At the endpoints s’’ 1 = s’’n = 0. the most commonly used boundary conditions have been: 16. which will determine the remaining solutions for s’’2 through s’’ n1. In order to generate a unique cubic spline. as they correspond to s’’1 = s’’n = 0. This results in the spline extending as a line outside the endpoints. Historically. and is therefore underdetermined. Therefore. the first and last columns of this matrix can be eliminated. The spline is now unique.
Chapter 16 Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes 1 0 0 M 0 0 0 4 1 0 L 0 0 0 1 4 1 L 0 0 0 0 1 4 L 0 0 0 M M M O M M M 0 0 0 L 4 1 0 0 0 0 L 1 4 1 0 0 0 L 0 1 4 s' ' 0 2 y1 − 2 y 2 + y 3 y − 2y + y s' ' 0 2 3 4 3 y3 − 2 y4 + y5 0 s ' ' 3 6 M M M = 2 ⋅ ∆x y n − 4 − 2 y n −3 + y n − 2 0 s ' ' n − 3 0 s ' ' n − 2 y n−3 − 2 y n − 2 + y n −1 y − 2y + y 1 s' ' n−1 n −1 n n−2 16. 5 1 0 L 0 0 0 1 4 1 L 0 0 0 0 1 4 L 0 0 0 M M M O M M M 0 0 0 L 4 1 0 0 0 0 L 1 4 1 0 0 0 L 0 0 5 s' ' y1 − 2 y 2 + y 3 2 y − 2y + y s' ' 2 3 4 3 y3 − 2 y 4 + y5 s' '3 6 M M = ∆x 2 ⋅ y n − 4 − 2 y n −3 + y n − 2 s ' ' n −3 y n −3 − 2 y n − 2 + y n−1 s' ' n− 2 y − 2y + y s' ' n −1 n −1 n n−2 262 .8 Parabolic Run out Spline The parabolic spline imposes the condition on the second derivative at the endpoints that s’’1 = s’’2 s’’ n =s’’ n1 The result of this condition is a curve that becomes parabolic at the endpoints. This type of cubic spline is useful for periodic and exponential data.
16.24) 263 . the proposed constrained cubic splines are constructed according to the previous equations. 6 1 0 L 0 0 0 1 4 1 L 0 0 0 0 1 4 L 0 0 0 M M M O M M M 0 0 0 L 4 1 0 0 0 0 L 1 4 1 0 0 0 L 0 0 6 s' ' y1 − 2 y 2 + y 3 2 y − 2y + y s' ' 2 3 4 3 y3 − 2 y 4 + y5 s ' '3 6 M M = ∆x 2 ⋅ y n − 4 − 2 y n −3 + y n − 2 s ' ' n −3 y n −3 − 2 y n − 2 + y n−1 s' ' n−2 y − 2y + y s' ' n −1 n n −1 n−2 For our particular occasion. we have decided to implement a modified spline method. It assigns s’’1 = 2s’’ 2 s’’ 3 s’’n = 2 s’’ n1 s’’ n2. rather than two separate functions.10 Constrained Cubic Splines The principle behind the proposed constrained cubic spline is to prevent overshooting by sacrificing smoothness. Thus. but substituting the second order derivative with a specified fixed slope at every point. similar to traditional cubic splines. This is achieved by eliminating the requirement for equal second order derivatives at every point (condition 4) and replacing it with specified first order derivatives.9 Cubic Run out Spline This last type of spline has the most extreme endpoint behaviour. s 'i −1 ( xi ) = s 'i ( xi ) = s '( xi ) (16.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 16. This causes the curve to degrade to a single cubic curve over the last two intervals.
27) As the slope at each point is known. Thus we will use: si ( x) = a i x 3 + bi x 2 + ci x + d i Applying a natural spline constraint of the form s’’ 1 = s’’n = 0 We obtain (16. s' ' i ( xi −1 ) = − 2(2 s 'i ( xi ) − s 'i ( xi −1 ) ) 6( y i − y i −1 ) + s' ' i ( xi ) = − (xi − xi −1 ) (xi − xi −1 )2 2(s ' i ( xi ) − 2 s 'i ( xi −1 ) ) 6( y i − y i −1 ) + (xi − xi −1 ) (xi − xi −1 )2 (16..25) for i =1. and should approach zero if the slope of either line approaches zero or changes sign. We shall construct here a generic approach this time where the intervals ∆x need not be constant any longer.26) s'1 ( x0 ) = 3( y n − y n−1 ) s ' ( x n −1 ) s' n ( x n ) = − 2( x n − x n −1 ) 2 3( y1 − y 0 ) s' ( x0 ) − 2(x1 − x0 ) 2 (16.. n 1 For the boundary conditions. Intuitively we know the slope will lie between the slopes of the adjacent straight lines.. 2.Chapter 16 Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes The calculation of the slope becomes the key step at each point. it is no longer necessary to solve a system of equations.28) 264 . we must impose two further conditions. Each spline can be calculated based on the two adjacent points on each side. 2 x −x x −x i +1 i + i i −1 yi +1 − yi yi − yi −1 s '( xi ) = = 0 if the slope changes sign at xi (16. .
Their principal difference respect the previous method lies in the fact that the interpolation here is performed between caplet volatilities. ci and di) for each of the cubic spline equations can still be calculated. 16. 265 . Interpolated values can be calculated directly without solving a system of equations. This permits an analytical integration of the data. whereas the previous approach interpolated between cap volatilities. The main benefits of the proposed constrained cubic spline are: • It is a relatively smooth curve. It never overshoots intermediate values.11 Functional Interpolation We present here the following most direct approaches to caplet volatility stripping. • • • The actual parameters (ai.29) d i = y i −1 − ci xi −1 − bi x 2 i −1 − ai x 3 i −1 This modified cubic spline interpolation method has been implemented in our flat cap volatility interpolation. bi.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework ai = bi = ci = s ' ' i ( xi ) − s' ' i ( xi −1 ) 6( xi − xi −1 ) xi s' ' i ( xi −1 ) − xi −1 s ' ' i ( xi ) 2( xi − xi −1 ) 2 2 ( yi − yi −1 ) − bi (x i − x i −1 ) − ai (x (xi − xi −1 ) 3 i −x 3 i −1 ) (16.
. We will always use either this method or the previous cap linear interpolation as our first guess in our optimisation algorithm when proceeding to use more complex interpolation methods.e. 2 (16. We have the same formula as we had before. t j )[FN (d 1 ) − KN (d 2 )] 2 F Σ ⋅ t j −1 LN ± 2 K = Σ ⋅ t j −1 (16.Chapter 16 Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes 16.Ti ) (Σ i . This is the most basic approach for stripping cap volatilities.t j B (0. • Let m i caplet i =1 } be the constant caplet volatilities that we are trying to calculate.t j ) (Σ) j =1 n (16. We perform the stripping by what is commonly known as a bootstrapping mechanism. Note that the algorithm we will construct here requires a simple one dimensional root solver.31) d 1.i.32) We are now noting the forward LIBOR rate as F for simplicity. i −1 ) = cap ( 0.12 Constant Caplet Volatilities.30) and where we construct each caplet as caplet (t j −1 .Ti ) (Σ) = ∑ caplet i (t j −1 .Ti ) (Σ i ) − cap ( 0.Ti −1 ) (Σ i −1 ) (16. it can be simply solved by a one dimensional Newton Raphson for example.33) 266 . We can compute the forward caps as: forwardcap (Ti −1 . where each cap price “i” is constructed as a sum of caplet prices with the flat cap volatility: cap( 0. • Let {Σ } {σ n i cap i=1 be the set of market quoted caps for a given strike K. t j ) = mt j −1 .
i1) Cap(0.i −1 ) = ∑ caplet i (t j −1 . T i)( Σ i .13 Piecewise Linear Caplet Volatility Method i σ caplet for We now no longer use a constant the group of caplets that form the capforward. 267 . as a line is entirely defined by two of its points. we are left with just one free parameter to fit.34) 16. j σ caplet ) coincide with the starting node ( σ caplet ) of the first caplet that forms the following capforward(i).Ti ) (Σ i . we impose a linear relationship between them. we start by imposing that the end node of the caplets forming one capforward(i1) (value of i. Instead. 16.T i)( Σi ) CapForward(T i1.T i1)( Σ i 1) Caplet1 Caplet 2 t T U1 U1+δ U2 Fig. Forward caps related to the caplets So as to find the piecewise constant volatilities.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Remember that the problem with these forward caps was the fact that they could encompass several caplets of unknown volatility Cap(0. constant i σ caplet forwardcap( 0. Our constraint is still that the caplets in a given interval sum to give the capforward price derived from the market caps. we need to solve the following equation for a unique. these caplets that we construct are now related linearly. Because we seek a smooth curve. As we have N cap volatilities and only N+1 degrees of freedom.6.t j ) (σ i ) j =1 n (16.0 i −1. This really only gives us one more degree of freedom. However.
We are therefore giving up precision at the expense of greater smoothness in the curve. and minimize at the same time the difference between each Capforward price and the sum of each set of caplet prices.i −1 ) = forwardcap(Ti −1 . in which we would seek to smoothen the curve at the expense of allowing for small differences in the previous equation.37) We can take for example λ = 104 and wi = 1/Ti.t j ) (σ i ..Chapter 16 Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes We can impose an exact fit. We will note the slopes as βi = F (σ 0 . i. we satisfy the condition 1. impose the first volatility.36) = ∑ wi forwardcap(Ti −1 . This is..2. j ) i =1 N ( ) 2 + λ ∑ ( βi −1 − β i ) i =2 N −1 2 (16. j ) j =1 n (16. 268 . j ) = ∑ caplet i (t j −1 .Ti ) (σ i . We would like to point out at this stage that an inexact fit implies that the resulting prices that we will obtain for the caplets will not sum to give the market quoted cap values.e. not smooth at allsee Fig.. each interval.. that is. We do not believe therefore that an inexact fit method should be pursued if we are attempting to accurately portray the market. we seek to minimize the difference between successive changes in slopes. We could instead consider a non exact fit.Ti ) (Σ i .i −1 ) = forwardcap(Ti −1 .35) As a result we obtain a very unstable functional form.. 0 σ caplet .Ti ) (Σi . 18.Ti ) (σ i . such that at forwardcap(Ti −1 . σ N ) = σ i − σ i −1 Ti − Ti −1 (16.
we impose that the last caplet volatility in each quadratic function coincides with the first caplet volatility of the following quadratic function. We therefore have N cap volatilities. We will characterise each of these functional forms with the values at the end points. for continuity.5 ⋅ C1 (Ti − Ti −1 ) + 0. we have an extra midpoint to calculate at each interval. This is useful as the mid point normally coincides with the value of a specific caplet that we have to calculate.14 Piecewise Quadratic The approach is very similar to the previous one. we now impose a quadratic relationship between all the caplets instead of a linear relationship. given a capforward lasting one year. Another reason is the fact that we will need the mid point anyway for the computation of the slopes in each interval. Evidently. In addition. As we said.25 ⋅ C 2 (Ti − Ti −1 ) 2 Where we have (16. For example. and 2N+1 degrees of freedom among the midpoints ‘m’ and end points ‘i’ in the quadratic curve.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 16.38) C2 = f i −1 ) C1 = − C 2 (Ti − Ti −1 ) (Ti − Ti −1 ) And where the slopes are now ( fi − 2( f i − f i −1 ) − 4( f m − f i −1 ) (Ti − Ti −1 ) 2 (16. meaning that one of them will coincide with the mid point 6 month caplet that we must calculate anyway. with the only difference that at each interval where a capforward is calculated. we will have to divide it into two equal 6 month caplets. for continuity the two points that we must define at each interval are related to the previous point via a quadratic function f i = f i −1 + C1 (Ti − Ti −1 ) + C 2 (Ti − Ti −1 ) 2 f m = f i −1 + 0.39) 269 . and with the mid point of each interval.
Chapter 16 Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes β im = βi = σ im − σ i −1 Tm − Ti −1 Ti − Tm . σ N ) = 2 N +1 i =2 ∑ (β i −1 − βi ) 2 (16. σ N ) = = ∑ wi forwardcap(Ti −1 .. j ) i =1 N ( ) 2 + λ ∑ ( βi −1 − βi ) i =2 2 N +1 2 (16.. this is F (σ 0 . Otherwise... we can impose an exact fit in which we only minimize the difference between slopes.Ti ) (σ i . This would yield: F (σ 0 . ...40) σ i − σ im As with the linear fit we can also perform an inexact fit..Ti ) (Σi .i −1 ) = forwardcap(Ti −1 .41) where we allow for differences between the forward cap and its corresponding sum of caplets..42) 270 . (16.
16.FWDCappicaplets)2 S lopes βi λ Quadratic error Σ(βi.7.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 16. Optimisation algorithm for interpolation in maturities 271 .βi1)2 w Acceptable combined Error yes Export σCaplets no Optimisation Fig.15 The Algorithm S trikes K Maturities T S trike Interpolation For every strike K Market Flat Market Flat σCaps σCaps 1s G t uess σCaplets σCaplets Forw ardCaps Price from σcaplets Forw ardCaps Price from σflat modify 1s guess t Quadratic error Σ(FWDCapiflat.
5 1. we have to obtain from the 3 month quotes the equivalent six month caplet starting on the sixth month so as to be consistent with the rest of the data.8 23.e.2 23.3 23.6M). (i.1 21.8. Note moreover that the starting date of our data is no longer always six months past the valuation date.16 About the problem of extracting 6M Caplets from Market data. Cap market quotes: flat cap difference under 2 year barrier Further. This means for example that the first market data quoted with a maturity of one year is really constructed from three caplets.2 21.1 Table 16.5 30.8 2 21.5 2 3 4 5 6 1. the data that we have available is constructed over the three month LIBOR for quoted caps with a maturity of up until two years.9 24. 16. (6M.4 24.1.Chapter 16 Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes 16.1 22.4 20.75 26. with maturities less than 2 years) the starting date is the third month after the value date.4 23.6 27 26. for the data quoted over the 3 month LIBOR. Now however. 272 . Cap market quotes: flat cap difference under 2 year barrier The caps that are available to us directly from the market are not constructed over the same underlying forward LIBOR rates.6 25. with starting and end dates: (3M.3 25. (9M. More specifically. Maturity FlatCaplets On 3M EURIBOR 0 3M 6M 9M 12M 1Y3M 1Y6M Fig.1Y).1 21.4 20.4 23. This is still the case for caps whose maturities last more than 2 years.9M). and all subsequent caps quoted with longer maturities are constructed over the six month LIBOR forward rate.3 21. Strike 1 1.
U) are each separated by three month intervals.10.44) Consider three instants of time. Decomposition of a six menthe caplet into two 3 month caplets · Where we have noted F as the forward rate applicable to each caplet. 16. T. Mathematically this would mean: cap 3 M ( 0. Note that both F1 273 . t j ) (Σ i ) (16. 16. Caplet6M (F) Caplet3M(F1) (F ) t S T U Caplet3M Fig. 0 < S < T < U.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework Sought for Caplets on 6M EURIBOR 0 3M 6M 12M 1Y6M 2Y Fig. Assume also that we are dealing with a ‘Swaption x 1’ and with S and T expiry six month caplets.Ti ) (Σ i ) = ∑ capleti j =1 n 3M ( t j −1 . The most direct approach would be to assume that the volatility of the six month cap is equivalent to the σflat(L3M).Ti ) (Σ 6 M i ) which is clearly wrong.Ti ) (Σ 3 M i ) = cap 6 M ( 0. and where (S. Instead. Creation of the 6 month caplets from 3 month Cap market quotes: flat cap difference under 2 year barrier We shall try to develop a method to extract a measure of the six month caplets from the 3 month data.43) But we would be then using cap 3 M ( 0. all sixmonths spaced. we decide to construct a cap6M using the following procedure: (16.9.
T ) − 1 1 2 B(t . S ) 1 B(t .50) 1 F 1 F dF (t ) = (.Chapter 16 Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes and F2 are related to the three month LIBOR. whereas we are trying to construct an F related to the six month LIBOR rate.46) B(t .) dt + σ 1 ( t ) F1 ( t ) dZ 1 ( t ) dF 2 ( t ) = (. S ) B(t . T ) F1 + F2 F1 F2 F = B(t . B(t .. F1 and F2 is easily derived expressing all forward rates in terms of zerocouponbond prices.. By differentiation (16..51) 274 .45) (16. S ) 1 F = B(t .48) Let us now apply Ito to the formulae for F1 and F2.47) B(t .49) dF (t ) = 2 ∂F ∂F 1 2 ∂2F dt + ∑ dFi + ∑ 2 σ i dt ∂t 2 i =1 ∂Fi i =1 ∂Fi (16.)dt + σ 1 (t ) F1 (t )dZ1 (t ) ⋅ + 2 + σ 2 (t ) F2 (t )dZ 2 (t ) ⋅ + 1 2 4 2 4 (16..U ) − 1 = 2 + 4 (16.. S ) 1 F1 = B(t .U ) − 1 1 2 (16. The algebraic relationship between F.) dt + σ 2 ( t ) F 2 ( t ) dZ 2 ( t ) dZ 1 ( t ) dZ 2 ( t ) = ρ dt The quantity ρ is the ‘infra correlation’ between the ‘inner rates’ F1 and F2.U ) − 1 1 = B(t .. T ) 1 F2 = B(t . T ) ⋅ B(t .U ) − 1 1 Notice that we can rewrite the latter in terms of the previous two: (16. where we are only really concerned with the Brownian terms: dF 1 ( t ) = (.
A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework F F F F F F dF (t ) = (.52) Taking variances on both sides of the above.. whose (squared) Black’s swaption volatility is therefore v 2 Black = 1 2 σ approx (t )dt = S∫ 0 S S S 1 2 2 u1 (0) ∫ σ 12 (t )dt + u2 (0) ∫ σ 2 2 (t )dt + 2 ρ u1 (0)u2 (0) ∫ σ 1 (t )σ 2 (t )dt S 0 0 0 S = (16.)dt + σ 1 (t ) ⋅ 1 + 1 2 dZ1 (t ) + σ 2 (t ) ⋅ 2 + 1 2 dZ 2 (t ) 4 4 2 2 (16.55) We decide to introduce a deterministic approximation by freezing all F’s (and therefore u’s) at their timezero value: 2 σ 2 approx (t ) = u12 (0)σ 1 2 (t ) + u 2 (0)σ 2 2 (t ) + 2 ρσ 1 (t )σ 2 (t )u1 (0)u 2 (0) (16. conditional on the information available at time t we have σ 2 (t ) ⋅ F 2 (t ) = σ 12 (t ) ⋅ F1 (t ) F1 (t ) F2 (t ) F2 (t ) F1 (t ) F2 (t ) 2 + + σ 2 (t ) ⋅ 2 + + 2 4 4 F1 (t ) F1 (t ) F2 (t ) F2 (t ) F1 (t ) F2 (t ) +2 ρσ 1 (t )σ 2 (t ) ⋅ + ⋅ 2 + 4 4 2 2 2 (16.53) Let us name u1 (t ) = 1 F1 (t ) F1 (t ) F2 (t ) + F (t ) 2 4 1 F2 (t ) F1 (t ) F2 (t ) u 2 (t ) = + F (t ) 2 4 We can then rewrite the former as 2 σ 2 (t ) = u12 (t )σ 12 (t ) + u 2 (t )σ 2 2 (t ) + 2 ρσ 1 (t )σ 2 (t )u1 (t )u 2 (t ) (16.57) 275 ..56) Now recall that F is the particular (oneperiod) swap rate underlying the ‘S x 1’ swaption.54) (16.
58) The second and third integrals in contrast require some form of parametric assumption on the instantaneous volatility structure of rates in order to be computed.60) 2 σ 2 approx (t ) = u12 (0)vS _ Caplet 2 (t ) + u 2 (0)vT _ Caplet 2 (t ) + 2 ρvS _ Caplet (t )vT _ Caplet (t )u1 (0)u 2 (0) (16. The simplest solution is to assume that forward rates have constant volatilities. v 2 S _ Caplet = 1 σ 12 (t )dt S∫ 0 S (16.Chapter 16 Interest Rate Volatilities: Stripping Caplet Volatilities from cap quotes The first integral can be inputted directly as a market caplet volatility.59) 1 1 ∫ σ 1 (t )σ 2 (t )dt ≈ S ∫ vT _ Caplet vS _ Caplet dt = vT _ Caplet vS _ Caplet S0 0 Under this assumption we finally get: S S (16.61) 276 . In such a case 1 1 2 2 ∫ σ 1 (t )σ 2 (t )dt ≈ S ∫ v T _ Caplet dt = v T _ Caplet S0 0 The third integral becomes: S S (16.
00 14.10 22.90 7.90 17. SABR At this point in our study.60 15.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 17.10 20.10 21.80 23. this is.80 19.80 22.50 20.50 24.50 15.00 4.50 19.50 16.70 18.50 17.20 14.90 19.60 17.40 19.50 18.90 24.20 14.40 23.50 2.70 17. we have solved the irregularities in the term structure of our caplet volatility surface.70 18.00 25.10 1.90 23.80 19.30 16.30 23.60 22.00 21.90 16.60 17.60 27.90 16.90 19. and possibly more recognisable visually.00 21.30 18.40 17.00 7.80 20.80 23.00 20.00 16.10 18.50 Table 17.70 20.00 23.40 23.20 23.20 17.10 16.30 14. In fact.60 27.80 16.70 l 1.00 12.70 17.00 16.20 24.40 15. More specifically.50 19.70 21.60 18.90 19.40 17.50 21.00 3.50 18.70 14.00 30.50 17.40 17.20 13.00 20.00 26.00 15. Shows the different dates and strikes with which to model products with similar needs to the HJM Maturity [years] This does not mean however that our curve will be smooth along a horizontal strike direction.50 17.00 19.80 17.30 13.00 20.90 2.40 22.10 17.80 20.20 21.60 22.90 17.90 17.40 24.30 19.50 17.10 22.20 18.70 14.70 18.00 17.60 21.40 23.90 18.90 18.00 25.10 26.20 22.40 19.1.10 20.20 19.40 20.00 17.90 14.80 2.10 18.70 16.60 19.20 20.30 19.40 12.30 21.20 21.40 20.90 17.60 20.00 15.20 22.40 22.10 18.70 14.30 19.60 17.40 21.10 21.60 23.80 6.00 15.90 18.80 17.10 26.30 18.10 21.00 6.00 22.90 18.00 9.90 19.20 16.90 15.60 25. we have effectively smoothened our curve along the maturity direction.30 17.20 16.40 17.90 20.00 14.90 17. and therefore obtain market derived smile volatilities that can be extremely irregular: 277 .50 12.40 19.20 16.70 20.75 26.50 10.80 14.40 17.00 10.20 5.30 21.50 1.90 19.20 15.30 17.10 21.90 19.00 1.50 17.70 15.30 25. we have interpolated along the vertical direction in the market quoted matrix: Strikes [% ] 3.50 18.70 18.00 18. we have not modified these values at all with respect to the original market values.30 18.30 18.00 5.90 18.00 8.40 17.30 19.80 21.90 17.60 17.80 18.30 18.10 18.90 17.80 14.00 3.60 20.00 17.10 16.10 19.80 19.10 15.70 20.25 15.40 15.60 16.20 22.30 15.50 14.00 2.20 18.30 19.40 20.70 14.00 17.00 19.30 8.20 15.00 20.40 19.10 24.70 15.80 18.00 17.70 19.00 15.00 23.50 21.00 30.00 10.20 21.60 18.60 4.
50 2.000% 20.Chapter 17 SABR Caplet Smiles with Maturity 30.50 4. Caplet current market behaviour The requirement of a smooth smile is essential for calibration.000% 1.000% Maturity 28 years 10. It is inexact because we will modify slightly the market values in exchange for an increase in smoothness.00 6.5 years Maturity 8 years 15.000% l 25.00 5.00 9.00 8.5 years Maturity 1.00 Strike K [% ] Fig. 17.1. As is done with the market swaption matrix.00 7. Of particular importance is the small peak observed for very short maturities around the ‘at the money’ value (strike = 3%).50 3.000% Sigma Black Maturity 0.000% 5. 278 .00 3. we decide to execute an inexact SABR interpolation along strikes to smoothen the curve.00 2.
using: α (0) = α (17.. The SABR model uses the price of a European option given by Black’s formula: Vcall = B(t set ) ( f ⋅ N (d1 ) − K ⋅ N (d 2 ) ) V put = Vcall + B(t set ) ( K − f ) (17.2) σ0 = α There are four parameters in the model.2 2 f σ ⋅ (t ) log ± B ex 2 K = σ B ⋅ tex (17. ρ.1 Detailed SABR The SABR method is a stochastic interpolation method to model LIBOR forward rates. ν). (α.3) T d1. The fit is done in the ˆ ˆ dF = α F β dW1 dα = να dW2 ˆ F (0) = f sense of the nonlinear least squares. The model takes a given vector of strikes volatilities n {Ki }i =1 and n a vector of Black {σ i }i =1 i. although we will soon see that two of these can be set beforehand. but simply state the expressions: 279 . We will not enter the specifics here. β.1) dW1dW2 = ρ dt (17.e. where the implied volatility σB(f. a horizontal row from the above matrix.A Practical Implementation of the Heath – Jarrow – Morton Framework 17.4) It then derives the below expression.K) is given by singular perturbation techniques.
6) 1 − 2ρ z + z2 + z − ρ x ( z ) = log 1− ρ (17. ⋅ + + 1 + 2−2 β 1− β 4(f) 24 (f) 24 (17. for example. The function being minimised in this procedure is ∑ w ( blackToNormal(σ . Omitting the last line of (17.K ) ) i =1 i i i i n 2 (17. f ) = f (1− β ) α (1 − β )2 α2 1 ρβνα 2 − 3ρ 2 2 ν tex + . 1− β (1− β ) / 2 4 ( f ⋅K) 24 ( f ⋅K) 24 (17..β .Chapter 17 SABR σB (K. Although this error term seems small. f ) = = ( f ⋅ K )( 1− β ) / 2 (1 − β ) 1 + 24 2 z ⋅ ⋅ (1 − β ) 4 f x( z ) 2 f log + log + .. much smaller. can result in a relative error that exceeds three per cent in extreme cases.5) Where z= and ν f 1− β / 2 ( f ⋅ K )( ) log α K (17.8) Implementing the SABR model for vanilla options is very easy.. The complexity of the formula is needed for accurate pricing. The omitted terms “+ ” are much..9) 280