Tell me more ×
Quantitative Finance Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for finance professionals and academics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am struggling with the following two mathematical statements. The first is from the book "Term-structure Models: A Graduate Course - Damir Filipović" Suppose we have a deterministic function $\lambda(t,T)$ and we assume the Libor rates $L(t,T)$ has a dynamic

$$dL(t,T)=L(t,T)\lambda(t,T)dW_t$$

where $W$ is a Brownian motion. Hence $L(t,T)$ is given as a stochastic exponential, i.e.

$$L(t,T)=L(s,T)e^{\int_s^t\lambda(u,T)dW_u-\frac{1}{2}\int_s^t\lambda(u,T)^2du}$$ for $s\le t\le T$. If we look at $\log{L(T,T)}=\log{L(s,T)}+\int_s^T\lambda(u,T)dW_u-\frac{1}{2}\int_s^T\lambda(u,T)^2du$. Note: I know that $M_t:=\int_0^t\lambda(u,T)dW_u$ is a martingale, it is normal distributed with mean 0 and variance $\int_0^t\lambda(u,T)^2du$. Now it should be true, that $E[\log{L(T,T)}|\mathcal{F}_t]$ should be gaussian with mean $\log{L(t,T)-\frac{1}{2}\int_t^T\lambda(u,T)^2du}$. Plugging the above into this conditional expectation, we get

$$E[\log{L(T,T)}|\mathcal{F}_t]=E[\log{L(s,T)}+\int_s^T\lambda(u,T)dW_u-\frac{1}{2}\int_s^T\lambda(u,T)^2du|\mathcal{F}_t]=\log{L(s,T)}+E[\int_s^T\lambda(u,T)dW_u|\mathcal{F}_t]-\frac{1}{2}\int_s^T\lambda(u,T)^2du$$ since the first term is $\mathcal{F}_t$ measurable and the last term is deterministic. Using that $M_t$ is a martingale, we end up with $$E[\log{L(T,T)}|\mathcal{F}_t]=\log{L(s,T)}+\int_s^t\lambda(u,T)dW_u-\frac{1}{2}\int_s^T\lambda(u,T)^2du$$ If we put $s=t$ we get $$E[\log{L(T,T)}|\mathcal{F}_t]=\log{L(t,T)}-\frac{1}{2}\int_t^T\lambda(u,T)^2du$$ Of course $\log{L(t,T)}$ would be Gaussian but with the wrong mean. How do I end up with the right distribution?

The second one is a more general question. It deals with calculating certain option type. For simplicity take again $L(t,T)$ as above. Suppose we want to calculate the following: $$E[(L(T,T)-K)^+|\mathcal{F}_t]$$ Without conditioning I have no trouble to calculate this, also for constant $\lambda(t,T)$. Assuming $\lambda(t,T)$ again deterministic but not constant, I would write $$E[(L(T,T)-K)^+|\mathcal{F}_t]=E[L(T,T)\mathbf1_{\{L(T,T)\ge K\}}|\mathcal{F}_t]-KE[\mathbf1_{\{L(T,T)\ge K\}}|\mathcal{F}_t]$$ I have absolutely no idea how to simplify these two expression. It is important for me to understand how you actually calculate this. I know the result, but I am interested in the derivation.

I am very thankful for your help, since this two question are bothering me now quite a while.

share|improve this question

1 Answer

up vote 2 down vote accepted

If you are able to derive quantities in the LMM with unconditional expectation as functions of $L(0,T)$ and $\lambda(s,T)$ for $0 \leq s \leq T$ then expression of the time $t$ conditional expectation is exactly the same function in $L(t,T)$ and $\lambda(s,T)$ for $t \leq s \leq T$ - just replace $0$ by $t$. This is due to the fact that the model is Markovian (the state in time $t$ if fully described by the initial value $L(t,T)$.

Put differently: You unconditional expectation is also a conditional, conditioned to $\mathcal{F}_0$.

This applies also to the state dependent option price in the second part of the question: they are just function of $L(t,T)$ and e.g., the integrated instanenous vol from $t to $T$.

share|improve this answer
I am very thankful, that you are answering my questions frequently! However I am not very familiar with the Markov property (MP). I know the following definition of the MP: A process $X$ is said to have the MP if $E[f(X_t)|\mathcal{F}_t]=E[f(X_t)|\sigma(X_s)]$ for bounded and measurable $f$. My first question would be why do you see that easily, that $X_t:=L(t,T)$ satisfies this? Furthermore for the calculation I do not see how this simplifies things: $E[\log{L(T,T)}|\mathcal{F}_t]=E[\log{L(T,T)}|\sigma(L(t,T))]$. Also for the second question. Moreover I really do not see... – hulik Feb 8 at 9:36
...where my mistake is in the derivation of $E[\log{L(T,T)}|\mathcal{F}_t]=\log{L(s,T)}+\int_s^t\lambda(u,T)dW_u-\frac{1}{2}‌​\int_s^T\lambda(u,T)^2dt$ No matter what i put in for $s$, I do not get the right distribution (with the right mean and variance) for $\log{L(T,T)}$ condition on $\mathcal{F}_t$. As I said, this question is bothering me now quite a while ago and I am really interested in understanding it properly. Again thanks for your help and patience. – hulik Feb 8 at 9:41
W.r.t. the Markov property you just have to check: Does the future $T > t$ depend on the past $s < t$ or is the knowledge of your state variables in $t$ enough. In the SDE of the LMM the initial value is L(t), the drift depends on $L(t)$ or $L(\tilde{t})$ for $\tilde{t} > t$ etc., but nothing depends on the past. (There is a little excercise you could try: if you write the LMM as a short rate model, you see that the drift depends not only on $r$, it also depends on that past (to reconstruct the other forward rates). So with respect to $r$ LMM is not Markovian. – Christian Fries Feb 8 at 21:35
Ah I see...thanks for explaining the MP in this context. The thing I really think is wrong in the book is the following: They say $Z:=E[\log{L(T,T)}|\mathcal{F}_t]$ should be Gaussian with mean $\log{L(t,T)} -\frac{1}{2}\int_t^T\lambda(u,T)dW(u)$. The conditional expectation $E[\log{L(T,T)}|\mathcal{F}_t]$ is a r.v. $Z$ and this r.v. should be Gaussian with the right mean $\log{L(t,T)} -\frac{1}{2}\int_t^T\lambda(u,T)dW(u)$. However the mean should be a real number! But here appears a stochastic quantity: $\log{L(t,T)}$. I do not understand what mean should be in this context. – hulik Feb 9 at 8:48
The conditional expectation, conditional to $\mathcal{F}_t$, is a random variable. It is $\mathcal{F}_t$-measurable. It is a real number once you look at this random variable at a specific state, namely the states you know at time $t$. The $\log L(t,T)$ is just that state... (maybe you like to look at the picture on page 18 and the interpretation on page 17 and 18 here: books.google.de/books?id=q7c8Pi6QGFQC ) - - The expectation conditional to $\mathcal{F}_{0} = \{ \emptyset, \Omega \}$ is also a random variable, but it is constant (same for every state =$\mathcal{F}_{0}$-measurable) – Christian Fries Feb 9 at 16:47

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.