Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jim Gatheral
Stanford Financial Mathematics Seminar
February 28, 2003
This presentation represents only the personal opinions of the author and
not those of Merrill Lynch, its subsidiaries or affiliates.
x = sgn( ni ) ni
i =1
Note that both the number of trades N and the size of each trade ni in a
given time interval t are random.
Var [ x ] = 2 t = 2 t E [ n i ]
n
The
n
relationship
0.006
y = 1E-10x
R2 = 0.2613
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
0
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
Volume (Shares)
40,000,000
50,000,000
ln^2(hi/lo)
0.014
0.012
y = 3E-10x
R2 = 0.2895
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
Volume (Shares)
20,000,000
25,000,000
Our simple but realistic model has the following modeling implications
Log returns are roughly Gaussian with constant variance in trading time
(sometimes call intrinsic time) defined in terms of transaction volume
Trading time is the inverse of variance
When we transform from trading time to real time, variance appears to be
random
Consider the distribution of the volatility of IBM in one hundred years time
say. If volatility were not mean-reverting ( i.e. if the distribution of volatility
were not stable), the probability of the volatility of IBM being between 1%
and 100% would be rather low. Since we believe that it is overwhelmingly
likely that the volatility of IBM would in fact lie in that range, we deduce
that volatility must be mean-reverting.
The shape and dynamics of the volatility term structure imply that
volatility must mean-revert i.e. that volatility changes are auto-correlated
The following slides show that this is also true empirically.
0.15
70000000
0.1
60000000
Volume
50000000
0
40000000
-0.05
30000000
-0.1
20000000
-0.15
10000000
01/03/2003
01/03/2002
01/03/2001
01/03/2000
01/03/1999
01/03/1998
01/03/1997
01/03/1996
01/03/1995
01/03/1994
01/03/1993
01/03/1992
01/03/1991
-0.2
01/03/1990
Log Returns
0.05
0.2
25000000
0.15
Volume
0.05
15000000
0
10000000
-0.05
5000000
-0.1
01/03/2003
01/03/2002
01/03/2001
01/03/2000
01/03/1999
01/03/1998
01/03/1997
01/03/1996
01/03/1995
01/03/1994
01/03/1993
01/03/1992
01/03/1991
-0.15
01/03/1990
Log Returns
0.1
20000000
55.00%
50.00%
45.00%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
700
800
900
1,000
1,100
1,200
1,300
1,400
The following slide shows that volatility changes really are anticorrelated with stock price changes
Volatility Change
10.00%
5.00%
-8.00%
-6.00%
-4.00%
0.00%
-2.00%
0.00%
-5.00%
-10.00%
-15.00%
Log Return
y = -1.1066x + 0.0003
R2 = 0.6218
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
dx = dt + v dZ1
dv = ( v ) + v v dZ 2
with dZ1 , dZ 2 = dt .
n
n
n
So far, we have ascertained that the volatility process must be meanreverting and that volatility moves are anti-correlated with log returns.
Can we say anything about the diffusion coefficient?
The following four slides give a sense of the dynamics of the volatility
surface
We see that as volatility increases
50
40
30
20
10
0
Jan-90 Jan-91 Jan-92 Jan-93 Jan-94 Jan-95 Jan-96 Dec-96 Dec-97 Dec-98 Dec-99 Dec-00
5.00%
1.339
y = 0.0954x
4.00%
3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
40%
7%
35%
Put Skew
Oct-01
Aug-01
Jun-01
May-01
Mar-01
Jan-01
Dec-00
Oct-00
Aug-00
Jul-00
May-00
Apr-00
Feb-00
Dec-99
Nov-99
0%
Sep-99
0%
Aug-99
5%
Jun-99
1%
Apr-99
10%
Mar-99
2%
Jan-99
15%
Nov-98
3%
Oct-98
20%
Aug-98
4%
Jun-98
25%
May-98
5%
Mar-98
30%
Jan-98
6%
Note that skew is defined to be the difference in volatility for 0.25 delta
Jim Gatheral, Merrill Lynch, February-2003
0.08
1.6316
y = 0.3774x
2
R = 0.5476
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
3m ATM Volatility
Note that skew is defined to be the difference in volatility for 0.25 delta
Jim Gatheral, Merrill Lynch, February-2003
2
BS ( x, T )
1
x
T
T
with = ( v ) / 2
v v v t Z
n
t Z
2
n
n
This is very intuitive; vols should move around more if the volatility level is
100% than if it is 10%
The regression of VIX volatility vs VIX level gives 0.67 for the SPX
To interpret the result of the regression of skew vs volatility level, we
need to do some more work...
dv ~ v v dZ
at-the-money variance skew should satisfy
v
v
k k = 0
k
Delta is of the form N (d1 ) with d1 =
BS
T
2
k =0
v
BS
= 2 BS
k k = 0
k k =0
Referring back to the regression result, we get = / 2 0.82 . The two
estimates are not so far apart! Both are between lognormal and 3/2.
Once again, we note that the shape of the implied volatility surface
generated by a stochastic volatility model does not strongly depend on
the particular choice of model.
Given this observation, do stochastic volatility models fit the implied
volatility surface? The answer is more or less. Moreover, fitted
parameters are reasonably stable over time.
For very short expirations however, stochastic volatility models certainly
dont fit as the next slide will demonstrate.
Short Expirations
n
1.5
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
We see that the form of the fitting function is too rigid to fit the observed
skews.
Jumps could explain the short-dated skew!
SV versus SVJJ
n
Duffie, Pan and Singleton fitted a stochastic volatility (SV) model and a
double-jump stochastic volatility model (SVJJ) to November 2, 1993
SPX options data. Their results were:
J
J
J
v
J
SV
-0.70
0.019
6.21
0.61
v0
10.1%
SVJJ
-0.82
0.008
3.46
0.14
0.47
-0.10
0.0001
0.05
-0.38
8.7%
= e BS T / 8
2
k =0
2 1
T
du
u Im[T (u i / 2)]
u2 +1 / 4
with T J (u ) = exp iu J T e +
Jim Gatheral, Merrill Lynch, February-2003
/2
1 + J T e
i u u 2 2 / 2
)}
SVJJ
n
T JV (u ) = exp v J T e i u u
2
/2
)}
I (u ) 1
1 T
2 V V D (u ,T )
e z dz
V D (u ,T )
where I (u ) = d t e
=
0
T
p+ p 0
(1 + z / p+ )(1 + z / p )
With parameters
-0.05
SVJJ
SV
-0.075
-0.125
-0.15
10
SV and SVJ skews essentially differ only for very short expirations
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
-0.025
-0.05
-0.075SV
SVJ
-0.1
-0.125
-0.15
SVJJ
0.25
Recall that variance in the Heston model follows the SDE (dropping the
drift term)
dv v dZ
n
2 d dZ
n
So
d
n
dZ
2
t 2%
2
per day.
A more typical fit of Heston to SPX implied volatilities would give 0.80
implying a daily move of around 2.5 annualized volatility points per day.
Historically, the daily move in short-dated implied volatility is around
1.5 volatility points as shown in the following graph.
5.00%
4.00%
3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
05/90
09/91
01/93
06/94
10/95
03/97
07/98
12/99
04/01
09/02
6.00%
4.00%
Log Return
2.00%
-15.00%
-10.00%
-5.00%
0.00%
0.00%
-2.00%
-4.00%
-6.00%
-8.00%
Volatility Change
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
4.00%
Log Return
2.00%
-15.00%
-10.00%
-5.00%
0.00%
0.00%
-2.00%
-4.00%
-6.00%
-8.00%
Volatility Change
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
x =
n
=
ADV
n S
= S
ADV
2
1 2
S
t
K
with S%t S 0 .
S0
1T 2 %
( K , T ) ( St , t ) dt
T 0
33.00%
32.00%
31.00%
30.00%
32.00%-33.00%
31.00%-32.00%
29.00%
28.00%
30.00%-31.00%
29.00%-30.00%
28.00%-29.00%
27.00%-28.00%
26.00%-27.00%
27.00%
25.00%-26.00%
26.00%
20
70
120
3m
6m
9m
12m
15m
18m
21m
24m
27m
30m
33m
36m
39m
42m
45m
48m
51m
54m
57m
60m
25.00%
170
42.00%
41.00%
40.00%
41.00%-42.00%
39.00%
40.00%-41.00%
39.00%-40.00%
38.00%
38.00%-39.00%
37.00%-38.00%
37.00%
36.00%-37.00%
35.00%-36.00%
36.00%
20
70
120
3m
6m
9m
12m
15m
18m
21m
24m
27m
30m
33m
36m
39m
42m
45m
48m
51m
54m
57m
60m
35.00%
170
We see that the shape of the implied volatility surface should reflect the
structure of open delta-hedged option positions.
In particular, if delta hedgers are structurally short puts and long calls,
the skew will increase relative to a hypothetical market with no frictions.
Conclusions
n
References
n
Clark, Peter K., 1973, A subordinated stochastic process model with finite
variance for speculative prices, Econometrica 41, 135-156.
Duffie D., Pan J., and Singleton K. (2000). Transform analysis and asset pricing
for affine jump-diffusions. Econometrica, 68, 1343-1376.
Geman, Hlyette, and Thierry An, 2000, Order flow, transaction clock, and
normality of asset returns, The Journal of Finance 55, 2259-2284.
Gatheral, J. (2002). Case studies in financial modeling lecture notes.
http://www.math.nyu.edu/fellows_fin_math/gatheral/case_studies.html
Heston, Steven (1993). A closed-form solution for options with stochastic
volatility with applications to bond and currency options. The Review of Financial
Studies 6, 327-343.
Leland, Hayne (1985). Option Pricing and Replication with Transactions Costs.