# Tag Info

6

the problem is that the pay-off has discontinuous first derivative. Try a contract with pay-off that is twice differentiable and it will probably work. The problem is that all the value comes from the tiny number of paths within $\Delta S$ of the strike, and these paths have huge value. This is a well-known problem. As the bump size goes to zero, the ...

5

importance sampling is well known to be tricky. See the extensive discussion in Glasserman's book. I presume that you are simply meanshifting and multiply by the ratio of normal densities. For this sort of problem, I'd use a more stratified algorithm instead and force every path to end in the money. To do this I'd compute the uniform that goes to the ...

3

In inflation world, the deal payoff is always based on a certain lag convention. That is, the value $I(T)$ always refers to a published index level several months ago or is interpolated based on those published index levels. For example, for a payoff on July 15, 2015, the indexed level referred is the published index level for May, 2015, based on the 2m ...

3

You can calibrate the model by discretizing in time, and using a forward induction method as originally proposed by Jamishidian in 1991: F.Jamshidian, Forward Induction and Construction of Yield Curve Diffusion Models, J.Fixed Income 6, 62-74 (1991). Although he formulated this induction in the language of the binomial tree, the method is more general, and ...

2

For a swap, we have a sequence of re-setting and payment dates. The # of forward rates corresponding to the # of payment dates. For example, let us assume that we have $n$ payment dates $t_1, \ldots, t_n$, where $0< t_1 < \cdots < t_n$. Then there are $n$ forward rates. During the simulation, for time steps prior to $t_1$, there exist $n$ ...

2

For non-normal asset price models you could look at the theory of Lévy-processes. If we assume that you work in the physical probability measure $P$ and that the random numbers that you have generated are daily log-returns, then you can do the following: Asset $i$ has starting price $S_0^i$ and for the future prices you can put $$S_t^i = S_0^i ... 1 Given two representations:$$ C = E_f[\varphi(X)] = \int \varphi(x) f(x)dx = \int \varphi(x) \frac{f(x)}{g(x)}g(x)dx = E_g[\varphi(X)\frac{f(X)}{g(X)}] $$The difference of the variances of the MC estimators associated with the two expression is$$ Var[\widehat{C}^f_N] - Var[\widehat{C}^g_N] = \frac{1}{N}\int \varphi(x)^2 \left(1 - ...

1

It's a combination of too few sample paths and/or too small an increment. Your estimation error on the price is magnified by the $dS^2$. Try using a larger sample or a larger increment. Alternatively, you can use a multiplier instead of a fixed increment; in my experience, it usually yields better results.

1

Consider an instrument value $f(S_0^1, \ldots, S_0^n)$ that depends on $n$ spot levels. Let $$\overrightarrow{S}_0=[S_0^1, \ldots, S_0^n]^T$$ be an $n$-dimensional vector representing the spot levels. We can approximate the cross gamma \begin{align*} \frac{\partial^2 f\big(\overrightarrow{S}_0\big)}{\partial S_0^i \partial S_0^j} \end{align*} by a finite ...

Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible