2
$\begingroup$

I am fitting a volatility surface for vanilla call options. I do this by fitting low-degree polynomials (or cubic splines) along the strike dimension per maturity and then linearly interpolating implied variance along iso-moneyness lines. I would like to make a rough guess about how the surface might change if I assume that the volatility of the overall market as displayed by the VIX is going to decrease in the future.

Would it be a bad idea to assume that a given stock's IV surface would change the same way in terms of an absolute shift or a relative scaling of each option's IV?

As far as I understand, an absolute shift will introduce arbitrage, while relative scale of IV might not. What would be simple and not-so-bad approach to model the market shifting into a lower-volatility period or a sudden IV shock?

$\endgroup$
0
6
$\begingroup$

Long story short: yes both might introduce static arbitrage opportunities if performed blindly.

There are 3 types of static arbitrage to consider:

  • Calendar arbitrage: total (implied) variance should be an increasing function of time for fixed (forward) moneyness.
  • Vertical arbitrage (or call spread arbitrage): call spreads should have a positive price
  • Butterfly arbitrage: butterflies should have a positive price

By writing the corresponding conditions under additive/multiplicative transformations of the original IV in (time to maturity, strike) axes:

  • Cal: As long as the shift is positive, one cannot introduce cal arb. For negative shifts however, this needs to be checked (especially on short maturities).
  • Vert: Assuming there is no fly arb, both additive and multiplicative spread will work.
  • Fly: Can theoretically appear as well and should thus be checked. Typically happens for multiplicative spreads that are greater than 1 (does not happen when smaller than 1). For usual additive spreads (unless very negative), does not happen.

So I guess you have two options:

  • Use additive/multiplicative spreads but make sure they do not introduce arbitrage in the first place (depending on the market/underlying you're looking at, you might even show that historically this type of shift never introduced arbitrage, so you can safely "overlook" them).
  • Use an arbitrage-free parametrisation of your IV, which you can easily "bump" to reflect level changes (or term-structure changes). An example would be SSVI. This however adds to your original problem the complexity of fitting such a parametrisation.
$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the detailed answer. By "multiplicative/additive spread", you mean a constant (in K and T) mulitplier (or constant summand respectively) on every IV data point, correct? Could I start by, e.g., multiplying every IV with x and then de-arbing the surface by solving an optimization problem such as "minimize sum of squarde differences to this naively transformed surface while penalizing arbitrage opportunities"? $\endgroup$ – JMC Dec 22 '20 at 13:19
  • $\begingroup$ Yes that's what I meant indeed. Yes you could, but note that the arbitrage conditions are quite bulky to evaluate (you would need to discretise your time x strike grid). Be aware that including these constraints through penalisation will not guarantee the absence of arbitrage (just penalise it). I would definitely first try to see if such a spread lead to arbitrage for the situation you consider: in case the answer is yes in most cases, then think of a smarter procedure, otherwise just go with it :) It really depends on what you plan on doing with your results. $\endgroup$ – Quantuple Dec 22 '20 at 13:25

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.