Ciao, I was studying Vibrato Montecarlo methods and I came up with a very simple question: what is an real application of this method? Let me explain.
In short the main idea of the method is the following: suppose you want to compute the sensitivities of a derivative with a discontinuous payoff then you should try the following:
- Discretize time with pillars t1,…,tN.
- Suppose you know the value of the stock at time tN−1 and, by knowing it, analitically integrate the payoff function as V(SN−1)=E[f(SN)|SN−1]
- V(SN−1) is still a stochastic quantity depending on SN−1 but know it is a differentiable function (essentially the integration works as molllification of the starting discontinuous payoff). At this point you can compute the sensitivity w.r.t. parameter λ by using classical finite difference and Montecarlo methods applied to V(SN−1) simulating trajectory SN−1: ∂λV(λ)=V(λ+h,SN−1)−V(λ,SN−1)h
The procedure is quite smart and it works from a numerical point of view, but I do not understand how it could be usefull. In fact, usually, if you can integrate from tN−1 to tN, i.e. the step 2, you can integrate starting from t0 so that is does not make sense to use Montecarlo and finite difference.
This is evident for example for a Call option.
My question is then:
Can you present me a case in which the fully integrability is not possible (or too difficult) but the partial one (i.e. from tN−1 to tN is easy to do (so that the Vibrato Montecarlo technique makes sense in such case)?
Thank you for help!!
Ciao ciao!
AM
Answer
To keep notations uncluttered assume zero funding costs and consider a European contingent claim priced as V=E0[h(SN)]
The PS method requires the payout function to be differentiable, which may not always be the case. Think of digital option, differentiating an indicator function would yield a Dirac meaning that only simulated paths that end right on the strike price will matter, i.e. not practical.
The first is OK as long as the risk-neutral distribution of SN is tractable under the model at hand, which may not always be the case (think local volatility for instance). But when simulating the SDE the distribution of SN|SN−1 will be tractable so that the LR method is often rewritten as E0[h(SN)N∑n=1∂lnq(Sn|Sn−1)∂θ]
It is easily illustrated in the case of a digital option, which does not have a differentiable payout function so tranditional PS method cannot be applied. The idea is that conditionally on SN−1 the distribution of SN is tractable. So we shall use the LR method on the last time step. The parameters of the latter distribution will emerge as functions of θ. To obtain the sensitivities of these parameters to θ, we use the PS method.
So Vibrato in that case boils down to applying PS method for t∈[0,tN−1[ to obtain the sensitivity of the parmaeters of the conditional distribution q(SN|SN−1) to θ. Then, for each generated path, use the LR method over the last time step. Note that this gives rise to some kind of "nested" Monte Carlo step (which can be done analytically for vanilla and digital payouts) but not at all to using 'Finite Differences' as you suggest?
No comments:
Post a Comment