+ All Categories
Home > Documents > MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

Date post: 03-Apr-2018
Category:
Upload: ginovainmona
View: 216 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend

of 31

Transcript
  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    1/31

    Markovian projection for equity,

    fixed income, and credit dynamics.

    T. Misirpashaev

    NumeriX

    April 6, 2007

    Financial Mathematics Seminar, Stanford University, 2007

  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    2/31

    NumeriX

    Abstract

    We begin with the classic result of Dupire which shows that any diffusion model

    with stochastic volatility can be reduced to a local volatility model without changing

    the prices of European options. Specifically, the value of the effective local volatility at

    state S and time T is equal to the expectation of the stochastic volatility conditional

    on achieving state S at time T. This leads to a technique of model calibration in

    which the original model without a low-dimensional Markovian representation is

    approximated by a low-dimensional Markovian model. We cite the results for the

    projection on an effective displaced diffusion and Heston models. We then set the goal

    of extending the technique from diffusions to jump processes used for dynamic

    modeling of credit basket loss. We identify the one-step Markov chain as the

    counterpart of the local volatility model and prove the version of the Dupire result

    applicable to jump processes. We conclude by observing that the local intensity of the

    effective Markov chain bears a distinctive signature of credit correlation skew, which

    can be used to predict success or failure of certain models in matching the market of

    CDO tranches.

    1

  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    3/31

    NumeriX

    Outline

    1. Classic Universal Theory of Volatility by Dupire

    2. Modern applicatons: European option pricing by Markovian

    projection

    3. Extensions of the classic theory: Gyongy lemma for multidimensional

    diffusion processes and Markovian projection on stochastic volatility

    models

    4. Extension to jump processes: local intensity model

    5. Applications to credit basket models: signature of correlation skew

    2

  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    4/31

    NumeriX

    Dupires Universal Theory of Volatility (UTV)

    Stochastic volatility model in the martingale measure: dXt = tdWt.

    Local volatility model in the martingale measure: dYt = g(Yt, t)dBt.

    (Note: Wt may have several components, Bt is 1-dimensional. )

    Gyongy (1986) - Dupire (1997) lemma: one-dimensional marginal

    distributions (and therefore European options) for Xt and Yt are

    identical provided X0 = Y0 and

    g2(x, t) = E[|t|2|Xt = x].Dupire gave a formula for g(x, t) in terms of European options

    C(K, T) = E[(XT K)+],

    g2(K, T) =C(K, T)/T

    12

    2C(K, T)/K2

    3

  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    5/31

    NumeriX

    Modern applications of UTV: Markovian

    Projection

    Fast calculation of European options is essential for model calibration.

    Markovian projection helps because European options can be priced in

    an equivalent local volatility model.

    How to compute the conditional expectation E[|t|2

    |Xt = x]?One way is to restrict the space of all local volatility functions g(x, t) to

    a parametric subspace and do a regression, exploiting the minimizing

    property of the conditional expectation

    E[|t|2|Xt = x] = g2(x, t) E[(|t|2 g2(x, t))2] min(For an alternative, see Avellaneda et al. 2002)

    4

  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    6/31

    NumeriX

    Projection on a displaced diffusion

    Choose the subspace

    g(x, t) = (X0 + (t)(x X0))(t)Find (t) and (t) from the minimizing property (Antonov and

    Misirpashaev, 2006)

    |(t)

    |2 = E|t|

    2(t) =

    E|t|2(x(t) X0)

    2E[|t|2] E[(x(t) X0)2]Average the shift parameter (Piterbarg, 2005)

    T =T0

    (t)|(t)

    |2 t

    0 |()

    |2ddtT

    0|(t)|2 t

    0|()|2ddt

    5

  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    7/31

    NumeriX

    Projection on a displaced diffusion (contd)

    Price the European option using the Black-Scholes formula

    E[(XT K)+] = X0TN(d+)

    K+

    X0(1 T)T

    N(d),

    d = ln

    X0/(KT + X0(1 T) V /2V

    , V = 2TT0

    |(t)|2dt.

    6

  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    8/31

    NumeriX

    Examples of projection on displaced diffusion

    All calculations can be completed in the leading order in volatilities for

    the pricing of European options on the following processes

    basket of equities swap rate in a Libor Market Model

    FX rate in a cross-currency Libor Market ModelFor details, see Piterbarg (2006), Antonov and Misirpashaev (2006a,b)

    7

  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    9/31

    NumeriX

    Extending the idea of Markovian projection

    0. Markovian projection of drift (Universal Theory of No Volatility)

    1. Markovian projection for a multi-component process with

    applications to projections onto stochastic volatility models

    2. Markovian projection for a jump process with applications to

    top-down modeling of credit basket loss

    8

  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    10/31

    NumeriX

    Dupires Universal Theory of no Volatility

    (private communication, unpublished)

    A process with stochastic drift dXt = tdt and another process with

    local drift dYt = m(Yt, t)dt have the same marginal distributions

    provided X0 = Y0 and

    m(x, t) = E[t

    |Xt = x]

    The intended application was to model credit basket loss as a continuous

    variable. We will see later how this changes in a framework with discrete

    default events.

    9

  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    11/31

    NumeriX

    Markovian projection with multiple components

    Take an N-dimensional (non-Markovian) process

    X(t) = {X(1)t , , X(N)t } with an SDEdX

    (n)t =

    (n)t dt +

    (n)t dWt

    The process Xt can be mimicked with a Markovian N-dimensional

    process Yt with the same joint distributions for all components at fixed

    t.According to Gyongy, the process Yt satisfies the SDE

    dY(n)t = m

    (n)(Yt, t)dt + g(n)(Yt, t)dWt

    with

    m(n)(x, t) = E[(n)t |Xt = x]g(n)(x, t)g(m)(x, t) = E[(n)t (m)t |Xt = x]

    10

  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    12/31

    NumeriX

    Choice of process components

    The first component is the rate, dSt = tdWt. (We set S0 = 1).

    The second component should be related to |t|2.

    We fix a shift function (t) (for example, from a projection on displaced

    diffusion) and write the equation for the rate in the form

    dSt = (1 + (t)(St 1))tdWtwhere

    t =t

    1 + (t)(St 1)The second equation is for the variance Vt = |t|2,

    dVt = Vt dt +

    Vt dWt

    This completes the SDEs for the non-Markovian pair {St, Vt}.

    11

  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    13/31

    NumeriX

    Projection onto a stochastic volatility model

    Target model

    dSt = (1 + (t)(St 1))ztH(t)dWt

    dzt = (t) (1 zt)dt + zt z(t)dWt, z0 = 1Answer

    |H(t)|2

    = E[Vt](t) =

    d

    dt(log E[Vt]) 1

    2

    d

    dt

    log E[V2t ]

    +

    E[|Vt |2]2E[V2t ]

    |z(t)|2 = E[Vt|Vt |2]

    E[V2t ]E[Vt]

    (t) = z

    t H

    t|Ht | |zt | = E[Vtt

    V

    t ]E[V2t ]E[V(t)|Vt |2]

    where Vt = Vt E[Vt].

    12

  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    14/31

    NumeriX

    From stochastic intensity to local intensity:

    Gyongy-Dupire for counting processes

    Nt has adapted stochastic intensity t

    Mt has local intensity (M, t)

    One-dimensional marginal distributions of Nt and Mt are identical

    provided N0 = M0 and

    (M, t) = E[t|Nt = M].(Lopatin and Misirpashaev, 2007). The counterpart of Dupires formula

    is

    (M, T) = P[NT M]/TP[NT M] P[NT M 1]

    13

  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    15/31

    NumeriX

    Local intensity model (a.k.a. implied intensity

    model and 1-step Markov chain)

    Forward Kolmogorov equation for the density of loss distribution is easy

    to solve

    p(M, t)

    t = (M 1, t)p(M 1, t) (M, t)p(M, t).Local intensity (M, t) is directly related to the loss distribution

    (M, t) = 1p(M, t)

    t

    M

    n=0p(n, t)

    and turns out to bears a clear signature of the correlation skew.

    14

  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    16/31

    NumeriX

    Sketch of intensity averaging formula proof

    P[NT M]T

    =E[1NTM]

    T=

    E[E[1NTM|{}, 0 T]]T

    =E

    Mn=0

    1n!e

    T

    0d

    T0

    dn

    T

    = EMn=0 1n!e

    T

    0dT

    0 dn

    T

    = E

    Te

    T

    0d

    T0

    d

    M

    = E [E [T1NT=M|{}, 0 T]]= E [T1NT=M] = E [T|NT = M] P [NT = M] ,

    15

  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    17/31

    NumeriX

    Application of stochastic intensity counting

    processes to top-down modeling of credit baskets

    Lt is a counting process conditional on an adapted stochastic intensity

    process t. Examples:

    Hawkes process

    dt = ((t) t)dt + dLt

    More general affine process (Errais, Giesecke, and Goldberg, 2007)

    dt = ((t) t)dt +

    tdWt + dLt + dJt

    A minimal non-affine model (Lopatin and Misirpashaev, 2007)

    dt = ((Lt, t)

    t)dt + tdWt

    Calibration problem: how to recognize whether the model is capable of

    producing the correlation skew?

    16

  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    18/31

    NumeriX

    Correlation skew

    3

    6

    9

    12

    22

    0

    10

    20

    30

    40

    50

    60

    0 5 10 15 20 25

    attachment point

    correlation

    Market Skew

    No Skew

    Figure 1: Base correlations skew implied from iTraxx 5y CDO tranches on

    Oct 12, 2005

    17

  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    19/31

    NumeriX

    Relating intensity to skew is not straightforward

    Deterministic intensity (t) produces no correlations (obvious, no default

    clustering).

    Stochastic intensity t can produce positive default correlations, howeverthe intuition about stronger default clustering does not necessarily result

    in a stronger skew.

    A more reliable indicator is needed to predict the ability of the model to

    generate skew.

    18

  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    20/31

    NumeriX

    Signature of correlation skew in local intensity

    0

    5

    10

    15

    20

    25

    30

    0 10 20 30 40

    number of defaults

    loca

    lintensity

    0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

    attachment point

    10% flat

    25% flat

    40% flat

    Market skew

    Figure 2: Local intensity consistent with flat Gaussian correlations or

    market correlations skew for iTraxx 5y (38) on Oct 12, 2005.

    19

  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    21/31

  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    22/31

    NumeriX

    From local intensity to base correlations skew

    0%

    10%

    20%

    30%

    40%

    50%

    60%

    0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

    attachment point

    base

    correlation

    =1+0.1N+0.025N;

    p=6.9%=0.5+0.35N; p=3.3%

    =1+0.1N+0.02N;p=9.5%

    =1+0.5N; p=20.4%

    =1+0.4N; p=14.3%

    =1+0.25N; p=8.7%

    =1; p=4.2%

    Figure 3: Implied base correlations and expected loss from a given local

    intensity. The number of assets is assumed to be 125, maturity 5y.

    21

  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    23/31

    NumeriX

    Local intensity in affine models

    dt = ((t) t)dt + tdWt + dLt + dJt(Jt has intensity h0 + h1t, jump size J)

    E[T|LT = L] = p(,L,T)d

    p(,L,T)d

    =

    u

    ln2

    0

    dw

    2

    eiwLf(0, 0,u,w, 0)|u=0

    f(,L,u,w,t) = E[euT+iwLT |t = , Lt = L]

    f

    t + ( )f

    +1

    2 2

    2f

    2 + [f( + , L + 1, . . . ) f( , L , . . . )]+(h0 + h1) [f( + J , L , . . . ) f( , L , . . . )] = 0.

    22

  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    24/31

    NumeriX

    Local intensity in affine models (contd)

    (Duffie et al (2000); Giesecke and Goldberg, 2006; Errais et al, 2007)

    t T t, f = exp(iwL + a(t) + b(t))

    a(t) = b(t) + h0(eJb(t)1

    ), a(0) = 0,

    b(t) = b(t) + 12

    2b(t)2 + eiw+b(t) 1 + h1(eJb(t) 1), b(0) = u.

    This system is easily solved numerically

    23

    N X

  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    25/31

    NumeriX

    Local intensity: Hawkes process

    0

    10

    20

    30

    40

    50

    60

    70

    80

    90

    0 5 10 15 20 25 30

    Number of defaults

    Localintensity

    Jump 1

    Jump 1.25

    Jump 1.5

    Jump 1.75

    Figure 4: Local intensity of the Hawkes process for different values of the

    intensity jump upon default. Other parameters are = 1, = 0.3, 0=1,

    maturity 5y.

    24

    N iX

  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    26/31

    NumeriX

    Local intensity from stochastic intensity with jumps

    0

    10

    20

    30

    40

    50

    60

    70

    80

    0 5 10 15 20 25 30

    Number of defaults

    Localintensity

    Jump 1

    Jump 1.25

    Jump 1.5

    Jump 1.75

    Figure 5: Local intensity from stochastic intensity for different values of

    the intensity jump upon default. Other parameters are = 1, = 0.3,

    0=1, h0 = 0, h1 = 1, maturity 5y.

    25

    N iX

  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    27/31

    NumeriX

    Applicability of top-down affine models is

    problematic

    Local intensity in affine models typically grows slower than linear, hence

    it will be difficult to count on a good calibration to the tranches.

    We assumed a deterministic loss-given-default (LGD). Stochastic LGD

    might improve the situation only if it is correlated with the loss and

    or/intensity.

    Alternatively, it makes sense to try going beyond the class of affinemodels.

    26

    N iX

  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    28/31

    NumeriX

    A minimal non-affine model (Lopatin and

    Misirpashaev, 2007)

    dt = ((Lt, t) t)dt +

    tdWt

    We now have sufficient freedom to calibrate the entire surface of loss

    distribution by adjusting the free function (L, t) for any volatility .

    (Other forms of the diffusion term are possible, also we could addjumps.)

    Calibration of (L, t) to the surface of loss (and the tranches) can be

    done without simulation.

    Instruments dependent on the dynamics can be computed either by a

    forward simulation or by backward induction.

    27

    N iX

  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    29/31

    NumeriX

    Conclusions

    Dupires theory of effective volatility gave birth to many non-trivial

    applications and extensions, including

    closed-form results for a projection on a displaced diffusion multi-component generalization and projections on stochastic

    volatility models

    projection on a Markov chain in the top-down credit basketmodeling. The counterpart of the local volatility is local intensity,

    (N, t) = E[t|

    Nt

    = N].

    28

    N iX

  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    30/31

    NumeriX

    References

    A. Antonov and T. Misirpashaev (2006a) Markovian Projection onto a

    Displaced Diffusion: Generic Formulas with Applications, available at

    SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=937860.

    A. Antonov and T. Misirpashaev (2006b) Efficient Calibration to FX

    Options by Markovian Projection in Cross-Currency LIBOR Market

    Models, available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=936087.

    M. Avellaneda, D. Boyer-Olson, J. Busca, and P. Friz (2002)

    Reconstructing volatility, Risk, October, 8791.

    B. Dupire (1997) A Unified Theory of Volatility, Banque Paribasworking paper, reprinted in Derivatives Pricing: the Classic Collection,

    edited by P. Carr, Risk Books, London, 2004.

    29

    N iX

  • 7/28/2019 MarkovianProjectionMisirpashaev06Apr2007

    31/31

    NumeriX

    E. Errais, K. Giesecke and L. Goldberg (2007) Pricing credit from the

    top down with affine point processes, working paper, available at

    defaultrisk.com.K. Giesecke and L. Goldberg (2005) A top down approach to

    multi-name credit, working paper, available at defaultrisk.com.

    I. Gyongy (1986) Mimicking the One-Dimensional Marginal

    Distributions of Processes Having an Ito Differential Probability

    Theory and Related Fields, 71, 501516.

    A. V. Lopatin and T. Misirpashaev (2007) Two-Dimensional Markovian

    Model for Dynamics of Aggregate Credit Loss, working paper, available

    at defaultRisk.com

    V. Piterbarg (2005) Time to smile, Risk, May

    V. Piterbarg (2006) Markovian Projection Method for Volatility

    Calibration, available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=906473.

    30