3
$\begingroup$

I did a test about quantitative finance. One of the question was :

What is the probability, in the Black-Scholes world, that the realized volatility is larger the implied volatility ? And why ?

I couldn’t find any answer on the internet. Could you help me please ?

Thank you very much for your help

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I would say that in a black-scholes world the expected variance risk premium is zero. So the ex-ante probability that realized volatility is larger than implied volatility is zero. $\endgroup$ – phdstudent Mar 31 '16 at 19:48
  • $\begingroup$ I do not understand why the probability would be zero. Could you be more specific please ? Can't we use the fact the r_t follows a normal law with mean (µ-vol^2/2)t and variance vol^2*t in order to have the law of r_t^2 and then compute the probability ? $\endgroup$ – unknownhuman Mar 31 '16 at 20:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ How is "realized volatility" defined? If it is just the sample standard deviation then the probability follows a chi-distribution. $\endgroup$ – user9403 Mar 31 '16 at 21:25
  • $\begingroup$ Yes I think the realised volatility is the standard deviation. So, what would be the answer ? and why ? $\endgroup$ – unknownhuman Mar 31 '16 at 22:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In the BS world the implied vol is not greater than the realized, not smaller either, but equal. "In the theory of general relativity what is the probability that $E>M c^2$" LOL! $\endgroup$ – Alex C Mar 31 '16 at 22:35
1
$\begingroup$

I succeeded to have the expected answer, and I was on the right way :

The implied volatility is the ATM IV The realised volatility is defined as the absolute value of the log return

We know that a gaussian random variable is in the range +- 1*sigma with a probability of 68%. So, the correct answer is approximately 32%

Should you have any comment I am interested

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Ex-ante the expected probability is still zero (which is what we care about anyway). Ex-post, your argument is correct. $\endgroup$ – phdstudent Apr 1 '16 at 17:12
  • $\begingroup$ @unkownhuman Your answer does not answer the question. You just adress the change of the stock price from start till maturity 1, that is $\ln(S_1) - \ln(S_0)$. Hence, you omit the variance from $0 \rightarrow 1$ and just concentrate on the first moment. $\endgroup$ – Phun Apr 2 '16 at 23:32
0
$\begingroup$

It's clear that over time $t\rightarrow t+dt$ the (expected) implied variance in the BS world (under the risk-neutral measure $\mathbb{Q}$) is $\sigma^2 dt$.

The realized variance of an arbitrary single log stock path (under the physical measure $\mathbb{P}$) is $$\sum_{i=1}^\infty \sigma^2(W_{i+1}-W_i)^2 \approx \sum_{i=1}^n \sigma^2(W^{(n)}_{i+1}-W^{(n)}_i)^2 \sim \sigma^2 \frac{dt}{n}\chi_n$$ for large $n$ and $W^{(n)}_{i+1}-W^{(n)}_i \sim \mathcal{N}(0,\frac{dt}{n})$ i.i.d.. Now $$ \text{Prob}(\sigma^2 \frac{dt}{n}\chi_n > \sigma^2 dt) = \text{Prob}(\chi_n > n) = \text{Prob}(\gamma(\frac{n}{2},\frac{1}{2}) > n),$$ where $\gamma(\frac{n}{2},\frac{1}{2})$ is the gamma distribution. The last expression can be solved numerically.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ doesn't this imply that for large n, the probability is 1/2 ? $\endgroup$ – dm63 Nov 19 '16 at 13:54

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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