The Gatheral SVI parameterization reads $$\sigma^2 = a + b \left[\rho(k-m) + \sqrt{(k-m)^2+s^2}\right]\,.$$ Why is it expressed in terms of variance $\sigma^2$ and not directly in terms of volatility $\sigma$ or in terms of total variance $\sigma^2 T$ ?
-
1$\begingroup$ If you look at Gatheral's paper then it is expressed in terms of total variance, were you looking at Zeliade's paper? $\endgroup$– raptor22Commented Oct 2, 2019 at 15:09
-
$\begingroup$ Which paper are you referring to? It is in terms of variance in his initial presentation in Madrid "A parsimonious arbitrage-free implied volatility parameterization with application to the valuation of volatility derivatives". $\endgroup$– jherekCommented Oct 3, 2019 at 8:25
2 Answers
One main characteristic of the SVI parameterization is to be linear in variance in the wings. It is a desirable property, since the criteria to obeys Lee's Moment Formula for Implied Volatility at Extreme Strikes translates then a simple condition on the asymptotic slopes, that is on $a$ and $b$.
And thus variance becomes the natural scale to find a parameterization. Now between total variance and variance, there is very little difference. The problem with expressing parameters in total variance is the interpretation of those: for very short maturities the numbers end up very small and it is difficult to make any sense of them.
Finally, for traders, other representations, such as SVI-JW (jump wings) detailed in Gatheral and Jacquier paper Arbitrage-free SVI volatility surfaces, with emphasis on at-the-money volatility, slopes and curvature is more natural.
Let $\tilde{a} = at$ and $\tilde{b} = bt$ and you can jump from a parametrization to another. In Gatheral and Jacquier's paper (Arbitrage-free SVI volatility surfaces) https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.0646.pdf they parametrize total variance directly whereas in Zeliade's 2+3 optimization (Quasi-Explicit Calibration of Gatheral’s SVI model) http://www.zeliade.com/whitepapers/zwp-0005.pdf they parametrize for variance.
-
$\begingroup$ The question is not whether you can jump from one to the other, it is more why the choice of variance vs. vol or total variance? $\endgroup$– jherekCommented Oct 3, 2019 at 8:25
-
$\begingroup$ Well the only difference should be in the interpretation of these two parameters. Increasing $a$ translates either the variance (= total variance by $at$) or total variance (=variance by $a/t$) and same for $b$ with the slope of put/call wings (see p. 5 of the linked Gatheral paper). It seems clear that working with total variance is more natural for deriving arbitrage conditions. However I guess that it is easier to interpret the former parametrization. If you look at p. 6/7 they introduce another paramtrization (SVI-JW) of the variance that is more interpretable. $\endgroup$– raptor22Commented Oct 3, 2019 at 8:42
-
$\begingroup$ But in essence it is really the same thing and does not really change anything practically. Using on or the other is imho only a matter of notations. (plus you can compare parameters accross tenors with the variance parametrization). $\endgroup$– raptor22Commented Oct 3, 2019 at 8:46