Processus de Lévy en Finance - Laboratoire de Probabilités et ...
Processus de Lévy en Finance - Laboratoire de Probabilités et ...
Processus de Lévy en Finance - Laboratoire de Probabilités et ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
120 CHAPTER 3. NUMERICAL IMPLEMENTATION<br />
0.5<br />
0.45<br />
simulated<br />
calibrated<br />
0.5<br />
0.45<br />
simulated<br />
calibrated<br />
0.4<br />
0.4<br />
0.35<br />
0.35<br />
0.3<br />
0.3<br />
0.25<br />
0.25<br />
0.2<br />
0.2<br />
0.15<br />
0.15<br />
0.1<br />
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14<br />
0.1<br />
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14<br />
Figure 3.4: Calibration quality (implied volatilities as a function of strike prices) for Kou’s jump<br />
diffusion mo<strong>de</strong>l. Left: no perturbations. Right: 1% perturbations were ad<strong>de</strong>d to the data<br />
The Lévy <strong>de</strong>nsity used in the tests was asymm<strong>et</strong>ric with the left tail heavier than the<br />
right one (α 1 = 1/0.07 and α 2 = 1/0.13). The jump int<strong>en</strong>sity λ was equal to 1 and the last<br />
param<strong>et</strong>er p was chos<strong>en</strong> such that the Lévy <strong>de</strong>nsity is continuous at x = 0. The option prices<br />
were computed using the Fourier transform m<strong>et</strong>hod of Section 1.4. The maturity of the options<br />
was 5 weeks and we used 21 equidistant strikes ranging from 6 to 14 (the spot being at 10). To<br />
capture tail behavior it is important to have strikes quite far in and out of the money. Merton’s<br />
jump diffusion mo<strong>de</strong>l [71] was used as prior.<br />
After g<strong>en</strong>erating s<strong>et</strong>s of call option prices from Kou’s mo<strong>de</strong>l, in the first test, the algorithm<br />
<strong>de</strong>scribed in Section 3.5.3 was applied to these prices directly, and in the second test, to mo<strong>de</strong>l<br />
the pres<strong>en</strong>ce of data errors, random perturbations of or<strong>de</strong>r of 1% of implied volatility were<br />
ad<strong>de</strong>d to the simulated prices. As can be observed from Figure 3.4, in both cases the accuracy<br />
of calibration at the level of implied volatilities is satisfying with only 21 options.<br />
Figure 3.5 compares the non-param<strong>et</strong>ric reconstruction of the Lévy <strong>de</strong>nsity to the true Lévy<br />
<strong>de</strong>nsity which, in this case, is known to be of the form (1.17). It can be observed that ev<strong>en</strong> in<br />
pres<strong>en</strong>ce of data errors we r<strong>et</strong>rieve successfully the main features of the true <strong>de</strong>nsity with our<br />
non-param<strong>et</strong>ric approach. The only region in which we observe a <strong>de</strong>tectable error is near zero:<br />
very small jumps have a small impact on option prices. The gradi<strong>en</strong>t of option’s time value<br />
giv<strong>en</strong> by Equation (3.32) vanishes at zero (i.e. for m = m 0 ) which means that the Lévy <strong>de</strong>nsity