6
$\begingroup$

I am implementing my local volatility pricer using the finite difference method in MATLAB. I parametrise the implied volatility surface using the SSVI parametrisation (Gatheral & Jacquier), which allows me to obtain a pretty smooth local volatility surface:

enter image description here

I use Dupire's formula in terms of total implied variance $w(k,T)$, where $k=\log(K/F_{0,T})$ and interpSsviStineman is responsible for interpolating the ATMF total variance curve and return the implied total variance level for any arbitrary $k$ and $T$:

delta_k = 0.0001;
delta_t = 1e-6;
w_k_t = interpSsviStineman(k, t_, ssvi_param_);
w_k_tm = interpSsviStineman(k, t_-delta_t, ssvi_param_);
w_k_tp = interpSsviStineman(k, t_+delta_t, ssvi_param_);
dwdt = (w_k_tp-w_k_tm)/(2*delta_t);
w_km_t = interpSsviStineman(k-delta_k, t_, ssvi_param_);
w_kp_t = interpSsviStineman(k+delta_k, t_, ssvi_param_);
dwdk = (w_kp_t-w_km_t)/(2*delta_k);
d2wdk2 = (w_kp_t+w_km_t-2*w_k_t)/(delta_k^2);
[kg, ~] = ndgrid(k, t_);
local_var = dwdt./(1-kg./w_k_t.*dwdk+1/4*(-1/4-1./w_k_t+...
    kg.^2./w_k_t.^2).*(dwdk).^2 + 1/2*d2wdk2);
local_vol = sqrt(local_var);

To validate my implementation I am repricing the vanilla options that I used to calibrate the volatility surface in the first place. If my implementation were to be correct, I would expect to be able to back out the same implied volatilities used to generate the local volatility surface. This is not the case and I seem to be able to match only the prices of AMTF options while my implementation is overpricing the options in the wings:

enter image description here

I would be grateful for any suggestion that can point me to the mistake.

Cheers!

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Can you show the code, please? $\endgroup$ – Lisa Ann Jul 31 at 20:53
  • $\begingroup$ Does it work if you set the implied volatility surface flat 10%? How about flat 40%? $\endgroup$ – Peter A Aug 1 at 8:20
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, both with flat 10% and 40% flat vol I am backing out the same IVs. $\endgroup$ – ffbzona Aug 1 at 8:49
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Your LV formula seems fine at first sight, maybe a problem in the PDE (which one are you solving) or the solver? Running a quick MC simulation should be enough to determine whether you have a problem in the PDE or the LV surface itself. Do exactly as you would in the BS case (e.g. Euler on log-returns) and just interpolate the instantaneous volatility from the local vol surface. Then price an OTM option and check the result. $\endgroup$ – Quantuple Aug 3 at 7:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot for the suggestion @Quantuple. The MC implementation shows indeed that I have a bug in the PDE solver. $\endgroup$ – ffbzona Aug 3 at 20:13
1
$\begingroup$

The bug I had in my PDE solver was that for approximating the option value at time $t$ in the backwards algorithm, I was sampling the local volatility for the time to expiry $t$ instead of $T-t$.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

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.