Calculation of the convexity adjustment to the forward rate in the Vasicek model for the forward exotic contracts
Calculation of the convexity adjustment to the forward rate in the Vasicek model for the forward exotic contracts
Аннотация
Код статьи
S042473880021701-0-1
Тип публикации
Статья
Статус публикации
Опубликовано
Авторы
Куликов Александр Владимирович 
Аффилиация: Физтех-школа прикладной математики и информатики, Московский физико-технический институт
Адрес: Долгопрудный, Российская Федерация
Малых Николай Олегович
Аффилиация: Физтех-школа прикладной математики и информатики, Московский физико-технический институт
Адрес: Российская Федерация
Постевой Иван Сергеевич
Аффилиация: Физтех-школа прикладной математики и информатики, Московский физико-технический институт
Адрес: Российская Федерация
Выпуск
Страницы
115-128
Аннотация

In the following article, we consider forward contracts, which are financial instruments used to buy or sell some assets at a certain point moment in the future, and at the fixed price. Such contracts are customizable and traded over-the-counter, unlike futures, which are standardized contracts traded at exchanges. Particularly, we focus on in-arrears interest rate forward contracts (in-arrears FRA). The difference from the vanilla FRA: floating rate is immediately paid after it is fixed. We calculate the convexity adjustment to the forward simple interest rate in the single-factor Vasicek stochastic model for such contracts with different payment dates. With the help of the no-arbitrage market condition it is shown that such adjustments should be non-negative when payments occur before the end of accrual period and should be negative when payments occur after accrual period. We also studied in-arrears forward and option contracts, where fixed interest rate and principal, on which this rate is accrued, are denominated in different currencies (so called quanto in-arrears FRA and quanto in-arrears options). We checked that quanto in-arrears FRA equals in-arrears FRA in case when rates and principal are from the same currency market, and that quanto in-arrears option contract prices are greater than those of vanilla options.

Ключевые слова
convexity adjustment; forward rate agreement (FRA); Vasicek model; no-arbitrage market; in-arrears FRA; iFRA; quanto FRA; LIBOR; MOSPRIME
Классификатор
Получено
17.04.2022
Дата публикации
22.09.2022
Всего подписок
11
Всего просмотров
668
Оценка читателей
0.0 (0 голосов)
Цитировать   Скачать pdf
1 1. Introduction
2 Forward contracts are widely used financial instruments used for purchase/sell of some asset at a certain date in future at the specified fixed price.
3 An example of forward contract is a forward rate agreement (FRA) on interest rate as an underlying asset, which we define in the next section.
4 FRA is a cash settled contract with the payment based on the net difference between the floating interest rate and the fixed rate (Hull, 2017). Fixed rate makes the initial price of the FRA being equal to 0 is called forward rate.
5 There is an exotic in-arrears contract which is settled at the beginning of the forward period — not at the end. The forward rate of an in-arrears contract is greater than the forward rate of a vanilla contract and the difference between these two rates depends on stochastic model used to simulate financial processes and is called convexity adjustment.
6 Studies on this topic may be found in (Mcinerney, Zastawniak, 2015), where LIBOR in-arrears rate was considered. The adjustment was calculated using the replication strategy and solving stochastic differential equation in the LIBOR market model. Another approach using the change of measure was studied in (Palsser, 2003), where simple lognormal stochastic model was chosen to calculate an in-arrears forward LIBOR rate. In (Gaminha, Gaspar, Oliveira, 2015), authors explored the Vasicek and Cox–Ingersoll–Ross models within LIBOR in-arrears rate. The authors obtained the adjustment from stochastic differential equation (SDE) numerical solution of convexity term SDE and found the partial closed-form solution for Vasicek model. There are also researches on in-arrears options – caps and floors (Hagan, 2003) where prices of options were found using the replication strategy for option-like pay-off. Finally, in the previous paper, written by two authors of this article, (Malykh, Postevoy, 2019), pricing of in-arrears FRA and in-arrears interest rate options using change of measure were considered.
7 There is also another kind of exotic forward contracts – quanto FRA, in which the notional principal amount is denominated in a currency other than the currency in which the interest rate is settled.
8 Such contracts were studied in (Lin, 2012), where author used forward measure pricing methodology to derive the valuation formulas within the Heath–Jarrow–Morton interest rate model. Research on quanto interest rate options may be found in (Hsieh, Chou, Chen, 2015), where authors also adopted martingale probability measure to obtain options pricing in the cross-currency LIBOR market model.
9 In this article we are going to continue our previous work and expand change of measure method in a single-factor Vasicek stochastic model (Vasicek, 1977) to consider cases, when the payment in FRA occurs in other dates, — not only at the beginning or at the end of the forward period. We prove that the convexity adjustment is negative when the settlement date takes place after the forward period. We also apply it to explore quanto FRA. Moreover, we combine it with the in-arrears FRA and come to the in-arrears quanto FRA. At the end, in-arrears quanto options are briefly considered.
10 2. Definitions
11 Let us introduce definitions which we use further in this paper.
12 Definition 1. Zero-coupon bond (ZCB) with maturity T is a security which promises to pay owner 1currency unit at T. We denote ZCB price at the moment t by P(t,T) , where P(t,T) is an Ft -measurable function and P(T,T)=1 .
13 LIBOR is the indicative rate on which banks are willing to lend money each other, LIBID is the indicative rate on which banks are willing to borrow money. We assume equivalence of LIBID and LIBOR. MOSPRIME is a Russian analogue of the LIBOR rate, i.e. MOSPRIME is the indicative rate on which banks are willing to lend money to each other in rubles. We also make standard “Black–Sholes–Merton model” assumptions: no transaction costs; no default risk; no funding risk; no liquidity risk.
14 Now we define LIBOR rate and forward rate agreement more precisely.
15 Definition 2. We denote LIBOR spot rate at the moment t for a time period α>0 by L(t,t,t+α) . Bank can lend (or borrow) N currency units at the time t for a period α and get (return) N(1+αL(t,t,t+α)) currency units at the moment t+α . Technically, MOPSRIME rate definition is similar to the LIBOR one, i.e. it is a spot rate with simple compounding. We use the LIBOR and MOSPRIME terms interchangeably through the article.
16 Definition 3. Forward rate agreement (FRA) is an over-the-counter contract for the exchange of two cash flows at a certain date in future. Floating reference rate is fixed at T1 . Buyer of this contract at tT1 with maturity T2 , fixed rate K and principal N, agrees on following obligation between counterparties at T2 :
17
  1. pay (T2-T1)KN currency units to contract counterparty,
  2. receive (T2-T1)L(T1,T1,T2)N currency units from contract counterparty.
18 The price of the FRA at T2 is equal to (T2-T1)(L(T1,T1,T2)-K)N .
19 For simplicity, we assume that principal amount N=1 .
20 Definition 4. Forward rate L(t,T1,T2) is the fixed rate K which makes price of the FRA contract at t equal to 0 for tT1T2 .
21 It can be shown (Hull, 2017), that L(t,T1,T2)=P(t,T1)-P(t,T2)(T2-T1)P(t,T2) .
22 Now, we consider exotic in-arrears FRA: this contract is settled at time T1 .
23 Definition 5. In-arrears FRA (iFRA) is an over-the-counter contract for the exchange of two cash flows at a certain date. Floating reference rate is fixed at T1 . Buyer of this contract at tT1 with maturity T1 , fixed rate K and principal N, agrees on following obligation between counterparties at T1 (not T2 ):
24
  1. pay (T2-T1)KN currency units to counterparty,
  2. receive (T2-T1)L(T1,T1,T2)N currency units from counterparty.
25 The price of the iFRA at T1 is equal to (T2-T1)(L(T1,T1,T2)-K)N .
26 We denote K which gives iFRA a 0 (zero) price at t by iL(t,T1,T2) .
27 A portfolio of assets is called self-financed if its value changes only due to changes in the asset prices.
28 Definition 6. Self-financed potrfolio A is called an arbitrage portfolio on some probability space (Ω,F,P) if its price (value) at the time t is VA(t)0 and T>t: P(VA(T)0)=1 and P(VA(T)>0)>0 .
29 We use the assumption of absence of any arbitrage portfolio on the market.
30 3. In-arrears FRA
31 It was shown (Malykh, Postevoy, 2019) the that convexity adjustment (CA) for in-arrears FRA under single-factor Vasicek model is:
32 CA(t,T1,T2)=1T2-T1×P(t,T1)P(t,T2)(eI-1),
33 where
34 I=σ2a212a-12ae-2a(T1-t)-1ae-a(T2-T1)+12ae-2a(T2-T1)+1ae-a(T1+T2)+2at-12ae-2a(T2-t),
35 P(t,T)=A(t,T)e-B(t,T)r(t),
36 B(t,T)=1-e-a(T-t)/a,
37 A(t,T)=expB(t,T)-(T-t)θa-σ22a2-σ2B(t,T)24a,
38 where θ and a are constant parameters in this model, which is given by the following SDE for instantaneous interest spot-rate: dr(t)=(θ-ar(t))dt+σdW(t). Now we are going to study other exotic FRAs in this model.
39 4. Exotic FRA with different payment time options
40 Along with the in-arrears contracts we can construct a FRA with payment date Tpay such as t<Tpay<T1 , T1<Tpay<T2 , or T2<Tpay . We consider each of these contracts using the same change of measure technique described in (Geman, Karoui, Rochet, 1995).
41 Let us denote exotic forward LIBOR rate by iL . Forward rate is the expected value of the future rate under appropriate forward measure (Privault, 2012). Then
42 iL(t,Tpay,T1,T2)=EQTpayL(T1,T1,T2)|Ft (1)
43 ( EQTpay — conditional expectation value).
44 Theorem 1. In a single-factor Vasicek model we have
45 iL(t,Tpay,T1,T2)=L(t,T1,T2)+L(t,T1,T2)P(t,T2)1TpayT2-P(t,Tpay)P(t,Tpay)++P(t,T2)P(t,Tpay)τP(t,T1)P(t,T2)P(t,Tpay)P(t,T2)eI-P(t,T1)P(t,T2)-11TpayT2-P(t,Tpay)P(t,T2), (2)
46 where
47 I=σ2a3e-a|T1-Tpay|-e-a(T1+Tpay-2t)-e-a(T2-min(T1,Tpay))+e-a(T2-2t+min(T1,Tpay))-e-a(T2+max(T1-2Tpay,Tpay-2T1))++e-a(T2-2t+max(T1,Tpay))+e-2a(T2-min(T1,Tpay))-e-2a(T2-t)
48 ( 1TpayT2 — indicator function).
49 The case Tpay=T1 is considered in (Malykh, Postevoy, 2019). Now we consider other cases.
50 4.1. t<Tpay<T1
51 Using results from (Privault, 2012), we change the measure to QT2 in (1).
52 iL(t,Tpay,T1,T2)=P(t,T2)P(t,Tpay)EQT2L(T1,T1,T2)1P(Tpay,T2)Ft==P(t,T2)P(t,Tpay)EQT2L(T1,T1,T2)1+(T2-Tpay)L(Tpay,Tpay,T2)|Ft==P(t,T2)P(t,Tpay)L(t,T1,T2)+(T2-Tpay)EQT2L(T1,T1,T2)L(Tpay,Tpay,T2)|Ft.
53 Using the tower property of conditional expectation:
54 EQT2L(T1,T1,T2)L(Tpay,Tpay,T2)|Ft=EQT2EQT2L(T1,T1,T2)L(Tpay,Tpay,T2)|FTpay|Ft==EQT2L(Tpay,T1,T2)L(Tpay,Tpay,T2)|Ft.
55 Next we find dynamic of the following process under QT2 -measure:
56 L(Tpay,T1,T2)L(Tpay,Tpay,T2)==1(T2-T1)(T2-Tpay)P(Tpay,T1)P(Tpay,Tpay)P(Tpay,T2)P(Tpay,T2)-P(Tpay,T1)P(Tpay,T2)-P(Tpay,Tpay)P(Tpay,T2)+1.
57 The 2nd and the 3rd terms are the martingales under QT2 -measure. We need to know dynamic of the 1st term.
58 dP(t,T1)P(t,Tpay)P(t,T2)P(t,T2)==P(t,T1)P(t,Tpay)P(t,T2)P(t,T2)(ζTpay(t)+ζT1(t)-2ζT2(t))dWT2(t)+(ζTpay(t)-ζT2(t))(ζT1(t)-ζT2(t))dt,
59 where ζTi(t)=σB(t,Ti) . So,
60 P(Tpay,T1)P(Tpay,Tpay)P(Tpay,T2)P(Tpay,T2)=P(t,T1)P(t,Tpay)P(t,T2)P(t,T2)exptTpay(ζTpay(t)+ζT1(t)-2ζT2(t)dWT2(t)++ζTpay(t)-ζT2(t)ζT1(t)-ζT2(t)-0.5ζTpay(t)+ζT1(t)-2ζT2(t))2dt.
61 Now we find expectation under QT2 -measure:
62 EQT2P(Tpay,T1)P(Tpay,Tpay)P(Tpay,T2)P(Tpay,T2)|Ft=P(t,T1)P(t,Tpay)P(t,T2)P(t,T2)eI,
63 where
64 I=tTpay(ζTpay(t)-ζT2(t))(ζT1(t)-ζT2(t))dt=σ22a3e-a(T1-Tpay)-e-a(T1+Tpay-2t)--e-a(T2-Tpay)+e-a(T2+Tpay-2t)-e-a(T1+T2-2Tpay)+e-a(T1+T2-2t)+e-2a(T2-Tpay)-e-2a(T2-t).
65 Putting it all together we can write
66 iL(t,Tpay,T1,T2)=L(t,T1,T2)+L(t,T1,T2)P(t,T2)-P(t,Tpay)/P(t,Tpay)++P(t,T2)P(t,Tpay)(T2-T1)P(t,T1)P(t,Tpay)P(t,T2)P(t,T2)eI-P(t,T1)P(t,T2)-P(t,Tpay)P(t,T2)+1.
67 4.2. T1<Tpay<T2
68 Under QT2 -measure:
69 iL(t,Tpay,T1,T2)=P(t,T2)P(t,Tpay)EQT2L(T1,T1,T2)1P(Tpay,T2)|Ft==P(t,T2)P(t,Tpay)EQT2L(T1,T1,T2)1+(T2-Tpay)L(Tpay,Tpay,T2)|Ft==P(t,T2)P(t,Tpay)L(t,T1,T2)+(T2-Tpay)EQT2L(T1,T1,T2)L(Tpay,Tpay,T2)|Ft==P(t,T2)P(t,Tpay)L(t,T1,T2)+(T2-Tpay)EQT2L(T1,T1,T2)L(T1,Tpay,T2)|Ft.
70 Using the same technique as in Section 4.1, we can find the solution for this contract:
71 iL(t,Tpay,T1,T2)=L(t,T1,T2)+L(t,T1,T2)P(t,T2)-P(t,Tpay)/P(t,Tpay)++P(t,T2)P(t,Tpay)(T2-T1)P(t,T1)P(t,Tpay)P(t,T2)P(t,T2)eI-P(t,T1)P(t,T2)-P(t,Tpay)P(t,T2)+1,
72 where
73 I=tT1(ζTpay(t)-ζT2(t))(ζT1(t)-ζT2(t))dt=σ22a3e-a(Tpay-T1)-e-a(T1+Tpay-2t)--e-a(T2-T1)+e-a(T1+T2-2t)-e-a(T2+Tpay-2T1)+e-a(T2+Tpay-2t)+e-2a(T2-T1)-e-2a(T2-t). (3)
74 4.3. T2<Tpay
75 Forward LIBOR rate has the following formula in this time payment case:
76 iL(t,Tpay,T1,T2)=P(t,T2)P(t,Tpay)(T2-T1)P(t,Tpay)P(t,T1)P(t,T2)P(t,T2)eI-P(t,Tpay)P(t,T2),
77 where I is taken from (3), as both cases take place after T1 .
78 In the case when payment occurs after accrual period, we can prove that adjustment should be always nonpositive similarly to what we did in (Malykh, Postevoy, 2019) for payments before the end of accrual period.
79 Theorem 2. Suppose that P(L(T1,T1,T2)L(t,T1,T2))>0 under real-word measure. Then the forward rate iL(t,Tpay,T1,T2) < forward rate L(t,T1,T2) , t<T1T2<Tpay .
80 Proof. We can prove it by contradiction assuming opposite and constructing an arbitrage portfolio.
81 Assume that there is a forward rate on the market and iL(t,Tpay,T1,T2)L(t,T1,T2) . Without loss of generality let (T2-T1)=1 year. Without loss of generality let (T2-T1)=1 year. Consider the following strategy:
82 1) time t: buy FRA with K=L(t,T1,T2) , N=1 and sell iFRA with payment date Tpay , K=iL(t,Tpay,T1,T2) and N=P(t,T1)/P(t,T2) . Portfolio value Vt=0 ;
83 2) T1 : LIBOR rate is fixed and we enter into forward contract to buy (L(T1,T1,T2)-L(t,T1,T2))P(T1,T2)/P(T1,Tpay) number of zero-coupon bonds (ZCB) with maturity Tpay at time T2 . It costs us F=L(T1,T1,T2)-L(t,T1,T2) ;
84 3) T2 : FRA settlement occurs. Portfolio value is
85 VT2=L(T1,T1,T2)-L(t,T1,T2)-F+L(T1,T1,T2)-L(t,T1,T2)P(T2,Tpay)P(T1,T2)/P(T1,Tpay);
86 4) Tpay : iFRA settlement occurs
87 VTpay=L(T1,T1,T2)-L(t,T1,T2)P(T1,T2)P(T1,Tpay)+P(t,T1)P(t,T2)iL(t,T1,T2)-L(T1,T1,T2).
88 We use the fact that (T2-T1)L(t,T1,T2)=P(t,T1)/P(t,T2)-1 and that P(t,T1)P(t,T2) tT1T2 . Now we can rewrite out portfolio value:
89 VTpay(L(T1,T1,T2)-L(t,T1,T2))P(T1,T2)P(T1,Tpay)-P(t,T1)P(t,T2)==P(T1,T1)P(T1,T2)-P(t,T1)P(t,T2)××P(T1,T2)P(T1,Tpay)-P(t,T1)P(t,T2)=(P(T1,T1)P(t,T2)-P(T1,T2)P(t,T1))(P(T1,T2)P(t,T2)-P(T1,Tpay)P(t,T1))P(T1,T2)P(t,T2)P(T1,Tpay)P(t,T2)P(T1,T2)P(T1,Tpay)(P(t,T2)-P(t,T1))2P(T1,T2)P(t,T2)P(T1,Tpay)P(t,T2)0.
90 It’s worth noting that P(VTpay>0)>0 , because of our assumption, that P(L(T1,T1,T2)L(t,T1,T2))>0 . We managed to construct an arbitrage portfolio which contradicts to our assumption of no-arbitrage. Hence, iL(t,Tpay,T1,T2)<L(t,T1,T2) .
91 5. In-arrears FRA behavior
92 Using results from Section 4.1–4.3 we proved the common formula (2). We can also find the limit of adjustments when T1 . We denote τ1=T2-T1 , τ2=T1-Tpay , τ3=T2-Tpay . Then
93 limT1CA=1τ1expθa-σ22aτ1eJ-1,
94 Where
95 J=σ2/2a3e-a|τ2|-e-a((τ3)1τ2>0+τ11τ20)+e-2a((τ3)1τ2>0+τ11τ20)-e-a(|τ2|+τ3+(-τ2)+).
96 Using these properties convexity adjustment with different payment date properties is given in fig. 1.
97

Fig. 1. Comparison of adjustments: CA (convexity adjustment) for forward LIBOR rate with

t=0 ;

θ=0.035 ;

τ=0.5 ;

r(t)=5% (bps — 1 basis point is equivalent to 0.01% (1/100th of a percent) or 0.0001 in decimal form)

98

6. Quanto in-arrears FRA

99 We consider another exotic modification of FRA — quanto FRA.
100 Definition 7. Quanto FRA is a forward contract, where buyer of this contract at tT1 with maturity T2 , fixed rate K in d-currency (domestic) units and principal N in f-currency (foreign) units, agrees on following obligations with counterparties at T2 :
101
  1. byuer pay (T2-T1)KN f-currency units;
  2. receive (T2-T1)L(T1,T1,T2)N f-currency units, where L — LIBOR rate in d-currency units.
102 Definition 8. Quanto in-arrears FRA (iqFRA) is a forward contract, where buyer of this contract at tT1 with maturity T2 , fixed rate K in d-currency units and principal N in f-currency units, agrees on following obligations with counterparties at T1 :
103
  1. byuer pay (T2-T1)KN f-currency units,
  2. receive (T2-T1)L(T1,T1,T2)N f-currency units, where L — LIBOR rate in d-currency units.
104 Let N = 1.
105 By iqL we denote forward rate of iqFRA contract. Notation EQT1f means mathematical expectation by forward measure T1 of payments in f-currency. Then iqL(t,T1,T2)=EQT1f[L(T1,T1,T2)|Ft].
106 We need to change measure to QT1d for payments in d-currency. Radon–Nikodym derivative is
107 dQT1ddQT1f=Pd(T1,T1)Pd(t,T1)Pf(t,T1)X(t)Pf(T1,T1)X(T1),
108 where X(t) — spot exchange rate at time t . Then
109 iqL(t,T1,T2)=EQT1dL(T1,T1,T2)dQT1fdQT1d|Ft=Pd(t,T1)Pf(t,T1)X(t)EQT1dL(T1,T1,T2)Pf(T1,T1)Pd(T1,T1)X(T1)|Ft. (4)
110 We use the fact that the forward exchange rate with maturity T is XT(t)=Pf(t,T)X(t)/Pd(t,T). Then iqL(t,T1,T2)=XT1(t)-1EQT1dXT1(T1)L(T1,T1,T2)|Ft.
111 To calculate this expectation we need to:
112
  1. find SDE for process XT1(t) in forward measure QT1d ;
  2. find joint distribution of XT1(T1)L(T1,T1,T2) in forward measure QT1d .
113 First, write SDE of major processes:
114 dPd(t,T)Pd(t,T)=rd(t)dt+σPdBPd(t,T)dWd,PdQ(t), dPf(t,T)Pf(t,T)=rf(t)dt+σPfBPf(t,T)dWf,PfQ(t),
115 dX(t)X(t)=(rd(t)-rf(t))dt+σXdWXQ(t).
116 Wd,PdQ means wiener process for process Pd in measure Q in currency d . To find SDE of XT1(t) in risk-neutral measure Q we need to write Pf(t,T) in currency d . Changing the measure we get dPf(t,T)Pf(t,T)=(rf(t)-ζPfT(t)σXρPf,X)+ζPfT(t)dWd,PfQ(t), where ζPfT(t)=σPfBPf(t,T) and ρPf,X  — correlation between Pf and X . Now write SDE of XT1(t) :
117 d(XT1)=XT1PddPd+XT1PfdPf+XT1XdX+0.52XT1Pd2(dPd)2+2XT1PdPf(dPd)(dPf)++2XT1PdX(dPd)(dX)+2XT1Pf2(dPf)2.
118 Switching to QT1 -measure:
119 d(XT1)/XT1=-ζPdT1(t)dWd,PdT1(t)+ζPfT1(t)dWd,PfT1(t)+σXdWd,XT1(t),
120 dln(XT1)=-ζPdT1(t)dWd,PdT1(t)+ζPfT1(t)dWd,PfT1(t)+σXdWd,XT1(t)--0.5-ζPdT1(t)dWd,PdT1(t)+ζPfT1(t)dWd,PfT1(t)+σXdWd,XT1(t)2,
121 XT1(T1)=XT1(t)exptT1-ζPdT1(t)dWd,PdT1(t)+ζPfT1(t)dWd,PfT1(t)+σXdWd,XT1(t)--0.5tT1-ζPdT1(t)dWd,PdT1(t)+ζPfT1(t)dWd,PfT1(t)+σXdWd,XT1(t)2.
122 Now we need to get L(t,T1,T2) in QT1-measure Remember that L(t,T1,T2)=Pd(t,T1)/Pd(t,T2)-1/T2-T1 . Then, recall that:
123 dPd(t,T1)Pd(t,T2)=Pd(t,T1)Pd(t,T2)ζPdT1(t)-ζPdT2(t)dWd,PdQ(t)-ζPdT2(t)dt.
124 Changing measure to QT1 :
125 dPd(t,T1)Pd(t,T2)=Pd(t,T1)Pd(t,T2)ζPdT1(t)-ζPdT2(t)dWd,PdT1(t)+ζPdT1(t)-ζPdT2(t)2dt,
126 dlnPd(t,T1)Pd(t,T2)=ζPdT1(t)-ζPdT2(t)dWd,PdT1(t)+0.5ζPdT1(t)-ζPdT2(t)2dt,
127 Pd(T1,T1)Pd(T1,T2)=Pd(t,T1)Pd(t,T2)exp12tT1ζPdT1(t)-ζPdT2(t)2dt+tT1ζPdT1(t)-ζPdT2(t)dWd,PdT1(t).
128 So,
129 XT1(T1)Pd(T1,T1)Pd(T1,T2)=XT1(t)Pd(t,T1)Pd(t,T2)exp0.5tT1-2ζPdT1(t)ζPdT2(t)+ζPdT2(t)2+2ζPdT1(t)ζPfT1(t)ρPd,Pf--ζPfT1(t)2+2ζPdT1(t)σXρPd,X-2ζPfT1(t)σXρPf,X-σX2dt+tT1-ζPdT2(t)dWd,PdT1(t)+tT1ζPfT1(t)dWd,PfT1(t)+tT1σXdWd,XT1(t).
130 Using Cholesky decomposition, we decompose correlated wiener processes on independent ones:
131 dWd,PdT1(t)=a11dB1(t)+a12dB2(t)+a13dB3(t), dWd,PfT1(t)=a21dB1(t)+a22dB2(t)+a23dB3(t),
132 dWd,XT1(t)=a31dB1(t)+a32dB2(t)+a33dB3(t),
133 where dB1(t) , dB2(t) , and dB3(t) – uncorrelated Wiener processes in QT1 -measure, aij are the elements of the covariance matrix square root. So, expectation of lognormal random variable:
134 EQT1dXT1(T1)Pd(T1,T1)Pd(T1,T2)|Ft=XT1(t)Pd(t,T1)Pd(t,T2)eI,
135 where
136 I=0.5tT1(-2ζPdT1(t)ζPdT2(t)+ζPdT2(t)2+2ζPdT1(t)ζPfT1(t)ρPd,Pf-ζPfT1(t)2+2ζPdT1(t)σXρPd,X--2ζPfT1(t)σXρPf,X-σX2)dt+0.5tT1(-ζPdT2(t)a11+ζPfT1(t)a21+σXa31)2dt++0.5tT1(-ζPdT2(t)a12+ζPfT1(t)a22+σXa32)2dt+0.5tT1(-ζPdT2(t)a13+ζPfT1(t)a23+σXa33)2dt.
137 Calculating this expression, we get the equation for the in-arrears quanto FRA:
138 iqL(t,T1,T2)=1T2-T1Pd(t,T1)Pd(t,T2)eI-1XT1(t),
139 where calculation of I is given in Appendix
140 Convexity adjustment for this exotic forward contract is iqCA(t,T1,T2)=iqL(t,T1,T2)-L(t,T1,T2). Fig. 2–3 show iqCA(t,T1,T2) with different parameters.
141

Fig. 2. Convexity adjustment for quanto in-arrears FRA with te following parameters:

t=0 ;

σd=σf=10% ;

T2-T1=0.5 ;

θf=θd=0.035 ;

rd(t)=5% ;

rf(t)=10% ;

ρPd,Pf=ρPd,X=ρPf,X=0.3 ;

X(t)=1

142

Fig. 3. Convexity adjustment for quanto in-arrears FRA with the following parameters:

t=0 ;

σd=σf=10% ;

θ=0.035;

T2-T1=0.5 ;

a=0.7 ;

r(t)=5% ;

ρPd,X=ρPf,X=0 ;

ρPd,Pf=1 , both rates are identical

143 In case when both rates are from the same currency market, adjustment term is similar to the in-arrears one, which is shown in the fig. 3.
144

7. Quanto in-arrears options

145 As a part of our study of quanto in-arrears contracts we also consider quanto in-arrears options on interest rate – caplet and floorlet.
146 Definition 9. An in-arrears quanto caplet (floorlet) is a European-style call (put) option on interest rate which is fixed at T1 . Buyer of this option at tT1 with maturity T1 , strike K and principal amount N is offered with the following rights at time T1 :
147
  1. pay (receive) (T2-T1)KN f-currency units;
  2. receive (pay) (T2-T1)L(T1,T1,T2)N f-currency units, while L and K are set in d-currency units.
148 Formulas for option prices are given below:
149  qCpl (t,T1,T2,K)=(T2-T1)Pf(t,T1)EQT1fL(T1,T1,T2)-K+|Ft,
150  qFl (t,T1,T2,K)=(T2-T1)Pf(t,T1)EQT1fK-L(T1,T1,T2)+|Ft.
151 First, we find price of qCpl. We switch to d-currency — as in Section 6:
152 EQT1f(L(T1,T1,T2)-K)+|Ft=EQT1dL(T1,T1,T2)-K+Pf(T1,T1)Pd(T1,T1)X(T1)|FtPd(t,T1)Pf(t,T1)X(t)==EQT1dXT1(t)L(T1,T1,T2)-K+XT1(T1)|Ft==EQT1dXT1(t)Pd(T1,T1)Pd(T1,T2)XT1(T1)1Pd(T1,T1)Pd(T1,T2)>1+(T2-T1)K|Ft-EQT1dXT1(t)1+(T2-T1)KXT1(T1)1Pd(T1,T1)Pd(T1,T2)>1+(T2-T1)K|Ft.
153 Calculating both mathematical expectations, we come to the analytical formula of the quanto in-arrears option price:
154  qCpl (t,T1,T2,K)=Pf(t,T1)Pd(t,T1)/Pd(t,T2)exp0.5J0exp0.5(J1+J2+J3)××N(J1-l)N(J2-l)N(J3-l)-1+(T2-T1)Kexp-0.5Q0××exp0.5(Q1+Q2+Q3)N(Q1-l)N(Q2-l)N(Q3-l),
155 Where
156 J0=tT1(-2ζPdT1(t)ζPdT2(t)+ζPdT2(t)2+2ζPdT1(t)ζPfT1(t)ρPd,Pf-ζPfT1(t)2+2ζPdT1(t)σXρPd,X-2ζPfT1(t)σxρPf,X-σX2)dt,
157 J1=tT1(-ζPdT2(t)a11+ζPfT1(t)a21+σXa31)2dt, J2=tT1(-ζPdT2(t)a12+ζPfT1(t)a22+σXa32)2dt,
158 J3=tT1(-ζPdT2(t)a13+ζPfT1(t)a23+σXa33)2dt,
159 Q0=tT1(ζPdT1(t)2-2ζPdT1(t)ζPfT1(t)ρPd,Pf-2ζPdT1(t)σXρPd,X+ζPfT1(t)2+2ζPfT1(t)σXρPf,X+σX2)dt,
160 Q1=tT1(-ζPdT1(t)a11+ζPfT1(t)a21+σXa31)2dt, Q2=tT1(-ζPdT1(t)a12+ζPfT1(t)a22+σXa32)2dt,
161 Q3=tT1(-ζPdT1(t)a13+ζPfT1(t)a23+σXa33)2dt,
162 calculations of which are given in Appendix.
163 We will find the floorlet price using put-call parity of European options:
164  qFl (t,T1,T2,K)= qCpl (t,T1,T2,K)-(T2-T1)Pf(t,T1)(iqL(t,T1,T2)-K).
165 Fig. 4–5 show differences in quanto in arrears and standard caplet and floorlet prices with different parameters.
166

Fig. 4. Quanto in-arrears caplet price vs. Standard caplet price with the following parameters:

t=0 ;

σd=σf=10% ;

Ti+1-Ti=0.5 ;

θf=θd=0.035 ;

rd(t)=5% ;

rf(t)=10% ;

ρPd,Pf=ρPd,X=ρPf,X=0.3 ;

X(t)=1

167

Fig. 5. Quanto in-arrears floorlet price vs. Standard floorlet price with the following parameters:

t=0 ;

σd=σf=10% ;

Ti+1-Ti=0.5 ;

θf=θd=0.035 ;

rd(t)=5% ;

rf(t)=10% ;

ρPd,Pf=ρPd,X=ρPf,X=0.3 ;

X(t)=1

168 8. Conclusion
169 We derived the formula for calculating the forward LIBOR rate in FRA when payment is settled at different dates. It was proved that the convexity adjustment to the vanilla forward rate should be negative when payment takes place after forward period. Next, we studied quanto in-arrears FRA and checked, that it equals in-arrears FRA in case when rates and principal are from the same currency market, which is shown in the fig. 3. Finally, we briefly studied quanto in-arrears option contracts and found that their prices are greater than those of vanilla options.
170 Appendix
171 Here is the calculation of the integral from the Section 6: I=I0+...+I3, where calculations of Ii, i=0,  ...,  3 , are given below:
172 I0=0.5σPd/aPd2T1-t-exp-aPd(T2-T1)aPd+exp-aPd(T2-t)aPd-1aPd+exp-aPd(T1-t)aPd++exp-aPd(T2-T1)2aPd-exp-aPd(T2+T1-2t)2aPd+σPd/aPd2T1-t-2exp-aPd(T2-T1)aPd++2exp-aPd(T2-t)aPd+exp-2aPd(T2-T1)2aPd-exp-2aPd(T2-t)2aPd++2ρPd,PfσPdσPfaPdaPfT1-t-1aPf+exp-aPf(T1-t)aPf+1aPd+exp-aPf(T1-t)aPd+1aPd+aPf--exp-aPd+aPf(T1-t)aPd+aPf-σPf/aPf2T1-t-2aPf+2exp-aPf(T2-t)aPf+12aPf--exp-2aPf(T1-t)2aPf+2σXρPd,XσPdaPdT1-t-1aPd+exp-aPd(T1-t)aPd--2σXρPf,XσPfaPfT1-t-1aPf+exp-aPf(T1-t)aPf-σX2T1-t,
173 Ii=0.5σPda1i/aPd2T1-t-exp-aPd(T2-T1)aPd+2exp-aPd(T2-t)aPd+exp-2aPd(T2-T1)aPd+-exp-2aPd(T2-t)2aPd-2a1ia2iσPdσPfaPdaPfT1-t-1aPf+exp-aPf(T1-t)aPf-exp-aPd(T2-T1)2aPd++exp-aPd(T2-t)2aPd+exp-aPd(T2-T1)aPd+aPf-exp-2aPd(T2-t)-aPf(T1-t)aPd+aPf-2a1ia2iσXσPdaPd××T1-t-exp-aPd(T2-T1)aPd+exp-aPd(Td-t)aPd+σPdaPda2i2T1-t-2aPf+2exp-aPf(T1-t)aPf++12aPf-exp-2aPf(T1-t)2aPf+2a2ia3iσXσPfaPfT1-t-1aPf+exp-aPf(T1-t)aPf+σX2a3i2T1-t,i=1,2,3.
174 Below are the calculations of the integrals from the Section 7:
175 J0=-2σPd/aPd2T1-t-exp-aPd(T2-T1)aPd+exp-aPd(T2-t)aPd-1aPd+exp-aPd(T1-t)aPd++exp-aPd(T2-T1)2aPd-exp-aPd(T2+T1-2t)2aPd+σPd/aPd2T1-t-2exp-aPd(T2-T1)aPd++2exp-aPd(T2-t)aPd+exp-2aPd(T2-T1)2aPd-exp-2aPd(T2-t)2aPd+
176 +2σPdσPfaPdaPfρPd,PfT1-t-1aPf+exp-aPf(T1-t)aPf+1aPd+exp-aPf(T1-t)aPd+1aPd+aPf--exp-aPd+aPf(T1-t)aPd+aPf-σPf/aPf2T1-t-2aPf+2exp-aPf(T1-t)aPf+12aPf--exp-2aPf(T1-t)2aPf-2σXρPd,XσPfaPfT1-t-1aPf+exp-aPf(T1-t)aPf-σX2T1-t,
177 Ji=σPdaPda1i2T1-t-2exp-aPd(T2-T1)aPd+2exp-aPd(T2-t)aPd+exp-2aPd(T2-T1)2aPd-+exp-2aPd(T2-t)2aPd-2a1ia2iaPdaPfσPdσPfT1-t-1aPf+exp-aPf(T1-t)aPf-exp-aPd(T2-T1)aPd++exp-aPd(T2-t)aPd+exp-aPd(T2-T1)aPd+aPf-exp-aPd(T2-t)-aPf(T1-t)aPd+aPf--2a1ia3iσXσPdaPdT1-t-+exp-aPd(T2-T1)aPd+exp-aPd(T2-t)aPd++a2iσPfaPf2T1-t-2aPf+2exp-aPf(T1-t)aPf+12aPf-exp-2aPf(T1-t)2aPf++2a2ia3iσXσPfaPfT1-t-1aPf+exp-aPf(T1-t)aPf+(σXa3i)2(T1-t),    i=1,2,3.
178 Q0=σPdaPd2T1-t-2aPd+2exp-aPd(T1-t)aPd+12aPd-exp-2aPd(T1-t)2aPd--2ρPd,PfσPdσPfaPdaPfT1-t-1aPf+exp-aPf(T1-t)aPf-1aPd+exp-aPd(T1-t)aPd+1aPd+aPf--exp-(aPd+aPf)(T1-t)aPd+aPf-2σXρPd,XσPdaPdT1-t-1aPd+exp-aPd(T1-t)aPd++σPfaPf2T1-t-2aPf+2exp-aPf(T1-t)aPf+12aPf-exp-2aPf(T1-t)2aPf++2σXρPf,XσPfaPfT1-t-1aPf+exp-aPf(T1-t)aPf+σX2(T1-t).
179 Qi=a1iσPdaPd2T1-t-2aPd+2exp-aPd(T1-t)aPd+12aPd-exp-2aPd(T1-t)2aPd-2a1ia2iσPdσPfaPdaPf××T1-t-1aPf+exp-aPf(T1-t)aPf-1aPd+exp-aPd(T1-t)aPd+1aPd+aPf-exp-(aPd+aPf)(T1-t)aPd+aPf--2a1ia3iσXσPdaPdT1-t-1aPd+exp-aPd(T1-t)aPd+a2iσPfaPf2T1-t-2aPf+2exp-aPf(T1-t)aP-f++12aPf-exp-2aPf(T1-t)2aPf+2a2ia3iσXσPfaPfT1-t-1aPf+exp-aPf(T1-t)aPf+(σXa3i)2(T1-t),    i=1,2,3.

Библиография

1. Gaminha B., Gaspar R.M., Oliveira O. (2015). LIBOR convexity adjustments for the Vasicek and Cox-ingersoll-ross models. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2677712

2. Geman H., Karoui El N., Rochet J.-C. (1995). Changes of numeraire, changes of probability measure and option pricing. Journal of Applied Probability, 32 (2), 443–458.

3. Hagan P. (2003). Convexity conundrums: Pricing CMS swaps, caps, and floors. Wilmott Magazine, 2, 38–44.

4. Hsieh T.-Y., Chou C.-H., Chen S.-N. (2015). Quanto interest-rate exchange options in a cross-currency LIBOR market model. Asian Economic and Financial Review, 5 (5), 816–830.

5. Hull J.C. (2017). Options, futures, and other derivatives. New York: Pearson Education.

6. Lin H.-J. (2012). An easy method to price quanto forward contracts in the HJM model with stochastic interest rates. International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 76 (4), 549–557.

7. Malykh N.O., Postevoy I.S. (2019). Calculation of the convexity adjustment to the forward rate in the Vasicek model for the forward in-arrears contracts on LIBOR rate. Theory of Probability and Mathematical Statistics, 99, 189–198. Available at: https://www.ams.org/journals/tpms/2019-99-00/S0094-9000-2020-01089-9/

8. Mcinerney D., Zastawniak T. (2015). Stochastic Interest Rates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

9. Pelsser A. (2003). Mathematical foundation of convexity correction. Quantitative Finance, 3 (1), 59–65.

10. Privault N. (2012). An elementary introduction to stochastic interest rate modeling. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.

11. Vasicek O. (1977). An equilibrium characterization of the term structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 5 (2), 177–188.

Комментарии

Сообщения не найдены

Написать отзыв
Перевести