Why This Matters The local vol model we discussed in the previous article assumes the vol is a deterministic function of spot and time, so the vol has no randomness of its own. But the market does not treat vol that way. The VIX is the market’s implied vol for SPX, and options on the VIX are themselves quoted with an implied vol, a vol of vol. The market is pricing vol itself as a random quantity. ...
Why This Matters In an earlier article we constructed the implied volatility surface and used it primarily to price vanilla options. But a great deal of what trades is not vanilla. Products like barriers and autocallables depend on the path the underlying takes, not only where it lands. Suppose I price a barrier by Monte Carlo. At each step the spot sits at some level, and I need a volatility to advance it. What vol do I use? The surface gives me a vol for every strike, but simulation does not ask about strikes. It asks what volatility the spot experiences at this level, at this moment, which the surface cannot answer. ...
Under review: some results and code in this article are being revised. Why This Matters In the article on the Feynman-Kac theorem, we saw that the price of a derivative can be expressed equivalently as the solution to a deterministic PDE or as the expectation of a discounted payoff under the risk-neutral measure. This gives us two complementary numerical approaches to pricing. For low-dimensional problems with smooth payoffs, finite difference methods on the PDE side are efficient and accurate. For high-dimensional problems, path-dependent payoffs, or models where the PDE is hard to derive, Monte Carlo (MC) on the expectation side becomes the natural choice. ...
Why This Matters The first time I encountered the Feynman-Kac theorem, I found it fascinating but unintuitive. The theorem claims that a deterministic PDE and the expectation of a stochastic process are two representations of the same object. A PDE is smooth and deterministic. A stochastic expectation involves randomness, probability measures, and averaging over infinitely many paths. How could these be the same thing? I understood the steps of the proof, but I still didn’t have a clear intuition for why this equivalence should exist. ...