I currently have a local volatility model that uses the standard Black Scholes assumptions.
When calculating the volatility surface, what causes the difference between the call volatility surface, and the put surface?
Answer
The reason for put and call volatilities to appear different is that the implied vol has been calculated using different drift parameters than those implied by the market.
Let's take everything in the model as given except the interest rate r and the volatility σ. For European options we have the Black-Scholes formula for put and call values VP,C
VP,C=BSP,C(r,σ)
Now, although it is common practice to run this equation backwards to "imply" the volatility σ
σImp=BS−1σ(r,V)
we can see that from a mathematical point of view we could imply r instead
rImp=BS−1r(σ,V).
Obviously, using a different r affect options prices and therefore implied volatilities.
Consider now the consequences of receiving prices from someone using the Black-Scholes model. For concreteness I will take T=1,K=S=100 and no carry cost. Let's say you think r=1%. I give you put and call prices of 7.95 and 11.80. You will get a put vol of 21.3% and a call vol of 28.6%. Seem familiar?
That's because I actually generated those prices using r=4%. If you had used the same drift parameter r as I had employed, you would have computed both volatilities to be 25%.
Generally, risk-free interest rates are not too hard to pin down, but we have other effects on drift where the parameters are not so obvious. This includes dividends, borrow costs and funding costs. Each of these terms is typically treated as a deterministic "carry cost" but even in the simple case of European options it is not necessarily clear what values should be used for them.
So to your answer your question, the difference between put and call volatility surfaces is a symptom of your drift parameters failing to match those of the market.
No comments:
Post a Comment