A.W. van der Stoep
Please Note
3 records found
1
Collocating Volatility
A Competitive Alternative to Stochastic Local Volatility Models
We discuss a competitive alternative to stochastic local volatility models, namely the Collocating Volatility (CV) framework, introduced in [L. A. Grzelak (2019) The CLV framework-A fresh look at efficient pricing with smile, International Journal of Computer Mathematics 96 (11), 2209-2228]. The CV framework consists of two elements, a "kernel process"that can be efficiently evaluated and a local volatility function. The latter, based on stochastic collocation-e.g. [I. Babuška, F. Nobile & R. Tempone (2007) A stochastic collocation method for elliptic partial differential equations with random input data, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 45 (3), 1005-1034; B. Ganapathysubramanian & N. Zabaras (2007) Sparse grid collocation schemes for stochastic natural convection problems, Journal of Computational Physics 225 (1), 652-685; J. A. S. Witteveen & G. Iaccarino (2012) Simplex stochastic collocation with random sampling and extrapolation for nonhypercube probability spaces, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 34 (2), A814-A838; D. Xiu & J. S. Hesthaven (2005) High-order collocation methods for differential equations with random inputs, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 27 (3), 1118-1139]-connects the kernel process to the market and allows the CV framework to be perfectly calibrated to European-type options. In this paper, we consider three different kernel process choices: The Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (OU) and Cox-Ingersoll-Ross (CIR) processes and the Heston model. The kernel process controls the forward smile and allows for an accurate and efficient calibration to exotic options, while the perfect calibration to liquid market quotes is preserved. We confirm this by numerical experiments, in which we calibrate the OU-CV, CIR-CV and Heston-CV frameworks to FX barrier options.
We present in a Monte Carlo simulation framework, a novel approach for the evaluation of hybrid local volatility [Risk, 1994, 7, 18–20], [Int. J. Theor. Appl. Finance, 1998, 1, 61–110] models. In particular, we consider the stochastic local volatility model—see e.g. Lipton et al. [Quant. Finance, 2014, 14, 1899–1922], Piterbarg [Risk, 2007, April, 84–89], Tataru and Fisher [Quantitative Development Group, Bloomberg Version 1, 2010], Lipton [Risk, 2002, 15, 61–66]—and the local volatility model incorporating stochastic interest rates—see e.g. Atlan [ArXiV preprint math/0604316, 2006], Piterbarg [Risk, 2006, 19, 66–71], Deelstra and Rayée [Appl. Math. Finance, 2012, 1–23], Ren et al. [Risk, 2007, 20, 138–143]. For both model classes a particular (conditional) expectation needs to be evaluated which cannot be extracted from the market and is expensive to compute. We establish accurate and ‘cheap to evaluate’ approximations for the expectations by means of the stochastic collocation method [SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 2007, 45, 1005–1034], [SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 2005, 27, 1118–1139], [Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci., 2012, 22, 1–33], [SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 2008, 46, 2309–2345], [J. Biomech. Eng., 2011, 133, 031001], which was recently applied in the financial context [Available at SSRN 2529691, 2014], [J. Comput. Finance, 2016, 20, 1–19], combined with standard regression techniques. Monte Carlo pricing experiments confirm that our method is highly accurate and fast.