I would like to understand the intuition behind the following question:
Why a certain weighted sum of prices of put and calls is equivalent to the implied variance of an underlying?
A variance swap is replicated with a static basket of calls and puts (I understand that this replicates the implied variances) which are delta-hedged (this replicates the realized variance), but what I find difficult is the intuition behind that.
Answer
Let t0,t1,…,tn be observation dates, where 0=t0<⋯<tn=T, and {St∣t≥0} be the equity price process without dividend payments. Then the realized variance is defined by 252nn∑i=1ln2StiSti−1. Note that, for sufficiently small x, ln(1+x)≈x−12x2. Moreover, ln2(1+x)≈x2≈2x−2ln(1+x). Then n∑i=1ln2StiSti−1≈2n∑i=1Sti−Sti−1Sti−1−2lnSTS0. Assuming that the short interest rate rt is deterministic, E(n∑i=1ln2StiSti−1)≈2n∑i=1E(E(Sti−Sti−1Sti−1∣Sti−1))−2E(lnSTS0)=2n∑i=1E(Sti−1e∫titi−1rsds−Sti−1Sti−1)−2E(lnSTS0)=2n∑i=1(e∫titi−1rsds−1)−2E(lnSTS0)≈2n∑i=1∫titi−1rsds−2E(lnSTS0)=2∫T0rsds−2E(lnSTS0)=2ln(S0e∫T0rsds)−2lnS0−2E(lnSTS0)=−2E(lnSTE(ST)). Note that, for any smooth function f, a>0, and x>0, f(x)=f(a)+f′(a)(x−a)+∫∞a(x−k)+f″(k)dk+∫a0(k−x)+f″(k)dk. See also How to hedge a derivative that pays the reciprocal of the stock price?.
Consider the function f(x)=lnx with x=ST and a=E(ST). We have that lnST=lnE(ST)+ST−E(ST)E(ST)−∫∞E(ST)(ST−k)+k2dk−∫E(ST)0(k−ST)+k2dk. Therefore, E(n∑i=1ln2StiSti−1)≈−2E(lnSTE(ST))=2E[∫∞E(ST)(ST−k)+k2dk+∫E(ST)0(k−ST)+k2dk], which is a weighted sum of prices of put and calls.
For an elementary and intuitive explanation, we consider the Black Scholes setting with a geometric Brownian motion. That is, ST=S0exp((r−12σ2)T+σWT)=E(ST)exp(−12σ2T+σWT), where {Wt∣t≥0} is a standard Brownian motion. Then, we have the variance σ2=2T(σWT−lnSTE(ST)). That is, σ2=−2TE(lnSTE(ST)), which, as demonstrated above, can be approximated by a weighted sum of prices of put and calls.
No comments:
Post a Comment