From a paper I am reading, it is written enter image description here

These equations do not make any sense. If $s = k$, i.e. if we are pricing ATM options, then this volatility is identically zero, hence useless.

How am I to make sense of these formulas? Even if $s \approx k$, we get a value close to zero, and hence again nonsensical implied volatilities.

  • $\begingroup$ Could you share a link to the paper? $\endgroup$ – Daneel Olivaw Oct 14 '18 at 23:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ See: janroman.dhis.org/finance/SABR/ZABR%20Andreasen.pdf $\endgroup$ – Doe Oct 14 '18 at 23:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ As $s\rightarrow k$ both the numerator and the denominator go to zero. L'hospital rule is probably needed here... $\endgroup$ – noob2 Oct 15 '18 at 1:00
  • $\begingroup$ @noob2 is spot on. By l'Hospital rule, for the first definition: $$ \lim_{s \to k} \nu = \lim_{s \to k} \frac{s-k}{\int_k^s \sigma(u)^{-1} du} = \lim_{s \to k} \frac{1}{\sigma(s)^{-1}} = \lim_{s \to k} \sigma(s) = \sigma(k)$$ $\endgroup$ – Quantuple Oct 15 '18 at 7:31

these 2 equations (one for the normal model and the other for the lognormal model) link the non-observable, local volatility diffusion functional (sigma) to the implied volatility of the observable call/put prices.

As indicated in the comments, those equations are well defined in the limit s->k


Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

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