arxiv: v1 [q-fin.pr] 19 Feb 2009

Transcription

1 ON THE VALUATION OF COMPOSITIONS IN LÉVY TEM STUCTUE MODELS WOLFGANG KLUGE AND ANTONIS PAPAPANTOLEON arxiv: v1 [q-fin.p] 19 Feb 29 Abstract. We derive explicit valuation formulae for an exotic pathdependent interest rate derivative, namely an option on the composition of LIBO rates. The formulae are based on Fourier transform methods for option pricing. We consider two models for the evolution of interest rates: an HJM-type forward rate model and a LIBO-type forward price model. Both models are driven by a time-inhomogeneous Lévy process. 1. Introduction The main aim of this paper is to derive simple and analytically tractable valuation formulae for an exotic path dependent interest rate derivative, namely an option on the composition of LIBO rates. The formulae make use of Fourier transform techniques, see e.g. Eberlein, Glau, and Papapantoleon 28, and the change-of-numeraire technique. There are two models for the term structure of interest rates considered in this paper: a Heath Jarrow Morton-type forward rate model and a LIBO-type forward price model, both driven by a general time-inhomogeneous Lévy process. A standard approach to modeling the term structure of interest rates is that of Heath, Jarrow, and Morton In the Heath Jarrow Morton henceforth HJM framework subject to modeling are instantaneous continuously compounded forward rates which are driven by a d-dimensional Wiener process. However, data from bond markets do not support the use of the normal distribution. Empirical evidence for the non-gaussianity of daily returnsfrombondmarket datacanbefoundinaible 2, chapter 5;the fit of the normal inverse Gaussian distribution to the same data is particularly good, supporting the use of Lévy processes for modeling interest rates. Similar evidence appears in the risk-neutral world, i.e. from caplet implied volatility smiles and surfaces; see Eberlein and Kluge 26a. The Lévy forward rate model was developed in Eberlein and aible 1999 and extended to time-inhomogeneous Lévy processes in Eberlein, Jacod, and aible 25. In these models, forward rates are driven by a timeinhomogeneous Lévy process; therefore, the model allows to accurately capture the empirical dynamics of interest rates, while it is still analytically tractable, so that closed form valuation formulae for liquid derivatives can Key words and phrases. Time-inhomogeneous Lévy process, forward rate model, forward price model, option on composition, Fourier transform. We thank Ernst Eberlein for motivating discussions and helpful comments. Both authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG, EB 66/9-2. A.P. gratefully acknowledges the financial support from the Austrian Science Fund FWF grant Y328, STAT Prize. 1

2 2 WOLFGANG KLUGE AND ANTONIS PAPAPANTOLEON be derived. Valuation formulae for caps, floors, swaptions and range notes have been derived in Eberlein and Kluge 26a, 26b, while estimation and calibration methods are discussed in Eberlein and Kluge 26a, 27. Moreover, Eberlein, Jacod, and aible 25 provide a complete classification of all equivalent martingale measures in the Lévy forward rate model. They also prove that in certain situations essentially, if the driving process is 1-dimensional the set of equivalent martingale measures becomes a singleton. The main pitfall of the HJM framework is the assumption of continuously compounded rates, while in real markets interest accrues according to a discrete grid, the tenor structure. LIBO market models, that is, arbitrage-free term structure models on a discrete tenor, were constructed in a series of articles by Sandmann et al. 1995, Miltersen et al. 1997, Brace et al. 1997, and Jamshidian In addition, LIBO market models are consistent with the market practice of pricing caps and floors using Black s formula cf. Black Nevertheless, a familiar phenomenon appears: since the model is driven by a Brownian motion, it cannot be calibrated accurately to the whole term structure of volatility smiles. As a remedy, Eberlein and Özkan 25 developed a LIBO model driven by time inhomogeneous Lévy processes. Valuation methods for caps and floors, using approximation arguments, were presented in Eberlein and Özkan 25 and Kluge 25, while calibration issues for this model are discussed in Eberlein and Kluge 27. The Lévy forward price model is a market model based on the forward price rather than the LIBO rate and driven by time inhomogeneous Lévy processes; it was put forward by Eberlein and Özkan 25, pp A detailed construction of the model is presented in Kluge 25, Chapter 3; there, it is also shown how this model can be embedded in the Lévy forward rate model. Although the forward LIBO rate and the forward price differ only by an additive and a multiplicative constant, the two specifications lead to models with very different qualitative and quantitative behavior. In the LIBO model, LIBO rates change by an amount relative to their current level, while in the forward price model changes do not depend on the actual level cf. Kluge 25, p. 6. There are authors who claim that models based on the forward process also coined arithmetic or Bachelier LIBO models are able to better describe the dynamics of the market than log-normal LIBO market models; see Henrard 25. Another advantage of the forward price model is that the driving process remains a time-inhomogeneous Lévy process under each forward measure, hence this model is particularly suitable for practical implementation. The downside is that negative LIBO rates can occur, like in an HJM model. This paper is organized as follows: in section 2 we review some basic properties of the driving time-inhomogeneous Lévy processes and in section 3 we describe the forward rate and forward price frameworks for modeling the term structure of interest rates. In section 4 the payoff of the option on the composition is described and valuation formulae are derived in the two modeling frameworks. Finally, section 5 concludes.

3 COMPOSITIONS IN LÉVY TEM STUCTUE MODELS 3 2. Time-inhomogeneous Lévy processes Let Ω,F,IF,IP be a complete stochastic basis, where F = F and the filtration IF = F t t [, ] satisfies the usual conditions; we assume that + is a finite time horizon. The driving process L = L t t [, ] is a time-inhomogeneous Lévy process, or a process with independent increments and absolutely continuous characteristics, in the sequel abbreviated PIIAC. Therefore, L is an adapted, càdlàg, real-valued stochastic process with independent increments, starting from zero, where the law of L t, t [, ], is described by the characteristic function IE [ e iult] t = exp ib s u c s 2 u2 + e iux 1 iuxλ s dx ds, 2.1 where b t, c t + and λ t is a Lévy measure, i.e. it satisfies λ t {} = and 1 x 2 λ t dx <, for all t [, ]. In addition, the process L satisfies Assumptions AC and EM given below. Assumption AC. The triplets b t,c t,λ t satisfy b t +c t + 1 x 2 λ t dx dt <. 2.2 Assumption EM. There exist constants M, ε > such that for every u [ 1+εM,1+εM] { x >1} expuxλ t dxdt <. 2.3 Moreover, without loss of generality, we assume that { x >1} eux λ t dx < for all t [, ] and all u [ 1+εM,1+εM]. These assumptions render the process L = L t t a special semimartingale, therefore it has the canonical decomposition cf. Jacod and Shiryaev 23, II.2.38, and Eberlein et al. 25 L t = t t b s ds+ t cs dw s + xµ L νds,dx, 2.4 where µ L is the random measure of jumps of the process L and W = W t t is a IP-standard Brownian motion. The triplet of predictable or semimartingale characteristics oflwithrespecttothemeasurep,tl P = B,C,ν, is B t = t b s ds, C t = t c s ds, ν[,t] A = t A λ s dxds, 2.5 where A B. The triplet b,c,λ represents the local or differential characteristics of L. In addition, the triplet of semimartingale characteristics B, C, ν determines the distribution of L.

4 4 WOLFGANG KLUGE AND ANTONIS PAPAPANTOLEON We denote by θ s the cumulant generating function i.e. the logarithm of the moment generating function associated with the infinitely divisible distribution with Lévy triplet b s,c s,λ s, i.e. for z [ 1+εM,1+εM] θ s z := b s z + c s 2 z2 + e zx 1 zxλ s dx. 2.6 Subject to Assumption EM, θ s is well defined and can be extended to the complex domain C, for z C with z [ 1 + εm,1 + εm] and the characteristic function of L t can be written as IE [ e iult] t = exp θ s iuds. 2.7 If L is a time-homogeneous Lévy process, then b s,c s,λ s and thus also θ s do not depend on s, and θ equals the cumulant generating function of L 1. Lemma 2.1. Let L = L t t be a time-inhomogeneous Lévy process satisfying assumption EM and f : + C a continuous function such that f M. Then IE [ t exp ] t fsdl s = exp θ s fs ds. 2.8 The integrals are to be understood componentwise for real and imaginary part. Proof. Theproof is similar to the proof of Lemma3.1 in Eberlein and aible 1999; see also Kluge 25, Proposition Lévy term structure models In this section we review two approaches to modeling the term structure of interest rates, where the driving process is a time-inhomogeneous Lévy process The Lévy forward rate model. In the Lévy forward rate framework for modeling the term structure of interest rates, the dynamics of forward rates are specified and the prices of zero coupon bonds are then deduced. Let be a fixed time horizon and assume that for every T [, ], there exists a zero coupon bond maturing at T traded in the market; in addition, let U [, ]. The forward rates are driven by a time-inhomogeneous Lévy process L = L t t [, ] on the stochastic basis Ω,F,IF,IP with semimartingale characteristics B,C,ν or local characteristics b,c,λ. The dynamics of the instantaneous continuously compounded forward rates for T [, ] is given by t ft,t = f,t+ t αs,tds σs,tdl s, t T. 3.1

5 COMPOSITIONS IN LÉVY TEM STUCTUE MODELS 5 The initial values f, T are deterministic, and bounded and measurable in T. In general, α and σ are real-valued stochastic processes defined on Ω [, ] [, ] that satisfy the following conditions: A1: for s > T we have αω;s,t = and σω;s,t =. A2: ω,s,t αω;s,t,σω;s,t are P B[, ]-measurable. A3: Sω := sup s,t αω;s,t + σω;s,t <. Then, 3.1 is well defined and we can find a joint version of all ft,t such that ω;t,t ft,tω1 {t T} is O B[, ]-measurable. Here P and O denote the predictable and optional σ-fields on Ω [, ]. Taking the dynamics of the forward rates as the starting point, explicit expressions for the dynamics of zero coupon bond prices and the money market account can be deduced cf. Proposition 5.2 in Björk et al From Eberlein and Kluge 26b, 2.6, we get that the time-t price of a zero coupon bond maturing at time U is BT,U = B,U B,T exp T T Σs,T,UdL s where the following abbreviations are used: and As,T := Σs,T,U := Σs,U Σs,T, As,T,U := As,U As,T, T s T αs,udu and Σs,T := As,T,Uds, 3.2 T s T σs, udu. Similarly, using Eberlein and Kluge 26b, 2.5, we have for the money market account BT M 1 T T = B,T exp As,Tds Σs,TdL s. 3.3 In the sequel we will consider only deterministic volatility structures. Therefore, Σ and A are assumed to be deterministic real-valued functions defined on := {s,t [, ] [, ];s T}, whose paths are continuously differentiable in the second variable. Moreover, they satisfy the following conditions. B1: The volatility structure Σ is continuous in the first argument and bounded in the following way: for s,t we have Σs,T M, where M is the constant from Assumption EM. Furthermore, we have that Σs,T for s < T and ΣT,T = for T [, ]. B2: The drift coefficients A,T are given by As,T = θ s Σs,T, 3.4 where θ s is the cumulant generating function associated with the triplet b s,c s,λ s, s [,T].

6 6 WOLFGANG KLUGE AND ANTONIS PAPAPANTOLEON emark 3.1. The drift condition 3.4 guarantees that bond prices discounted by the money market account are martingales; hence, IP is a martingale measure. In addition, from Theorem 6.4 in Eberlein et al. 25, we know that the martingale measure is unique The Lévy forward price model. In the Lévy forward price model the dynamics of forward prices, i.e. ratios of successive bond prices, are specified. Let = T < T 1 < < T N < T N+1 = denote a discrete tenor structurewhereδ i = T i+1 T i,i {,1,...,N}; themodelisconstructedvia backward induction,hencewedenoteby j := T N+1 j forj {,1,...,N+ 1} and δ j := δ N+1 j for j {1,...,N +1}. ConsideracompletestochasticbasisΩ,F,IF,IP andletl = L t t [, ] be a time-inhomogeneous Lévy process satisfying Assumption EM. L has semimartingale characteristics,c,ν T or local characteristics,c,λ T and its canonical decomposition is L t = t t cs dws T + xµ L ν T ds,dx, 3.5 where W T is a IP -standard Brownian motion, µ L is the random measure associated with the jumps of L and ν T is the IP -compensator of µ L. Moreover, we assume that the following conditions are in force. FP1: For any maturity T i there exists a bounded, continuous, deterministic function η,t i : [,T i ], which represents the volatility oftheforwardpriceprocessf,t i,t i +δ i.moreover, werequirethat the volatility structure satisfies i ηs,t k M, i {1,...,N}, for all s [, ], where M is the constant from Assumption EM and ηs,t i = for all s > T i. FP2: The initial term structure B,T i, 1 i N + 1 is strictly positive. Consequently, the initial term structure of forward price processes is given, for 1 i N, by F,T i,t i +δ i = B,T i B,T i +δ i. The construction starts by postulating that the dynamics of the forward process with the longest maturity F,T1,T are driven by the timeinhomogeneous Lévy process L, and evolve as a martingale under the terminal forward measure IP. Then, the dynamics of the forward processes for the preceding maturities are constructed by backward induction; therefore, they are driven by the same process L and evolve as martingales under their associated forward measures. Let us denote by IP the forward measure associated with the settlement date, j {1,...,N + 1}. The dynamics of the forward price

7 COMPOSITIONS IN LÉVY TEM STUCTUE MODELS 7 process F,Tj,T is given by Ft,Tj, =F, j, exp where t L T t = t t cs dw T s + bs, j, ds+ t xµ L ν T ds,dx ηs,tj dl T is a time-inhomogeneous Lévy process. Here W T is a IP -standard Brownian motion and ν T is the IP -compensator of µ L. The forward price process evolves as a martingale under its corresponding forward measure, hence, we specify the drift of the forward price process to be bs,tj,t = 1 2 ηs,t j 2 c s e ηs,t j x 1 ηs,tj x λ T s dx. 3.6 The forward measure IP, which is defined on Ω,F,F t t, is related to the terminal forward measure IP via dip dip = B, F,T k,t k 1 F, k,t k 1 = B,T F, k,t k 1. In addition, the IP -Brownian motion is related to the IP -Brownian motion via W T t = W T j 2 t = W T t t t ηs, c s ds =... s ηs,tk cs ds. 3.7 Similarly, the IP -compensator of µ L is related to the IP -compensator of µ L via ν T ds,dx = exp ηs,t x ν T j 2ds,dx =... = exp x ηs,tk ν T ds,dx. 3.8 emark 3.2. The process L = L T, driving the most distant forward price, and L T, driving the forward price F,Tj,T, are both timeinhomogeneous Lévy processes, sharing the same martingale parts and differing only in the finite variation parts. Applying Girsanov s theorem for

8 8 WOLFGANG KLUGE AND ANTONIS PAPAPANTOLEON semimartingales yields that the IP -finite variation part of L is c s ηs,tk ds+ x exp x ηs,tk 1 ν T ds,dx. 4. Valuation of options on compositions Consider a discrete tenor structure = T < T 1 < < T N < T N+1 =, where the accrual factor for the time period [T i,t i+1 ] is δ i = T i+1 T i, i {,1,...,N} and let Ls i,t i denote the time-s i forward LIBO for the time period [T i,t i+1 ]. The composition pays a floating rate, typically the LIBO, compounded on several consecutive dates. The rates are fixed at the dates s i T i and the value of the composition is N 1+δi Ls i,t i ; therefore, the composition equals an investment of one currency unit at the LIBO rate for N consecutive periods. The value of the composition is subjected to a cap or floor denoted by K and is settled in arrears, at time. Hence, a cap on the composition pays off at maturity the excess of the composition over K, i.e. N 1+δi Ls i,t i + K, and similarly, the payoff of a floor on the composition is N K 1+δi Ls i,t i +. Notice that without the capresp. floor, the payoff of the composition would simply be that of a floating rate note, where the proceeds are reinvested. Similarly, if we only consider a single compounding date, then we are dealing with a caplet resp. floorlet, with strike K := K 1 δ. In the following sections, we present methods for the valuation of a cap on the composition in the Lévy-driven forward rate and forward price frameworks. The value of a floor on the composition can either be deduced via analogous valuation formulae or via the cap-floor parity for compositions, which reads C ;K = F ;K+B,T 1 KB,. Here C ;K and F ;K denote the time-t value of a cap, resp. floor, on the composition with cap, resp. floor, equal to K Forward rate framework. In this section we derive an explicit formula for the valuation of a cap on the composition in the Lévy forward rate model, making use of the methods developed in Eberlein et al. 28. As a special case, we get valuation formulae for caplets in the Lévy forward rate framework that generalize the results of Eberlein and Kluge 26a, since

9 COMPOSITIONS IN LÉVY TEM STUCTUE MODELS 9 we do not require the existence of a Lebesgue density which is essential in the convolution representation of option prices; cf. aible 2, Chapter 3. Firstly, we calculate the quantity that appears in the composition. By an elementary calculation, we have that Bs i,t i Bs i,t i+1 = B,T i s i s i B,T i+1 exp As,T i,t i+1 ds Σs,T i,t i+1 dl s. Using the fact that 1+δ i Ls i,t i = Bs i,t i Bs i,t i+1 N 1+δi Ls i,t i N Bs i,t i = Bs i,t i+1 = B,T 1 B, exp s i As,T i,t i+1 ds we immediately get s i Σs,T i,t i+1 dl s. Next, we define the forward measure associated with the date via the adon Nikodym derivative dip dip := 1 BT M B, = exp As, ds+ Σs, dl s. ThemeasuresIPandIP areequivalent, sincethedensityisstrictlypositive; moreover, we immediately note that IE [ ] 1 B T M B, = 1. The density process related to the change of measure is given by the restriction of the adon Nikodym derivative to the σ-field F t, t, therefore [ dipt ] IE F t = Bt,T dip Bt M B, = exp t As, ds+ t Σs, dl s. This allows us to determine the tuple of functions that characterize the process L under this change of measure and we can conclude, using Theorems III.3.24 and II.4.15 in Jacod and Shiryaev 23, that the driving process L = L t t [, ] remains a time-inhomogeneous Lévy process under the measure IP. According to the first fundamental theorem of asset pricing the price of an option on the composition is equal to its discounted expected payoff under the martingale measure. Combined with the forward measure defined above,

10 1 WOLFGANG KLUGE AND ANTONIS PAPAPANTOLEON this gives C ;K = IE IP 1 N + Bs i,t i BT M Bs i,t i+1 K N + = B, IE IPT Bs i,t i Bs i,t i+1 K = B, IE IP where the random variable H is defined as H := log B,T 1 B, + N s i [ exph K + ], As,T i,t i+1 ds s i Σs,T i,t i+1 dl s. Let us denote by MH T the moment generating function of H under the measure IP. The next theorem provides an analytical expression for the value of a cap on the composition. Preceding that, we provide an expression for MH T z for suitable complex arguments z. Lemma 4.1. Let M and ε be suitably chosen such that Σs,T M for all s,t [, ] and Σs,T i+1 1 [si,s i+1 ]s M for all s,s i,t i+1 [, ], where < M < M < M and M M > N + 1. Then, for each I 2 = [1 M M N+1 M +M N+1,1 + M M M +M N+1], we have that MT H < and for every z C with z = H z = Zz exp M T where Z := B,T 1 B,. z +θ s Σs, z As,T i,t i+1 1 [,si ]s θ s Σs, Σs,T i,t i+1 1 [,si ]s ds Proof. Fix an I 2. Then, for z C with z =, and denoting by Σs,T = N i= Σs,T i+11 [si,s i+1 ]s, we get that z = = z Σs,T i,t i+1 1 [,si ]s i= +Σs, Σs,T i+1 1 [si,s i+1 ]s zσs, 1 z Σs, Σs,T +Σs,T +Σs, 1 Σs, Σs,T + Σs,T M M N +1 M +M N +1 M +M N +1+M N +1 = M. 4.1

11 COMPOSITIONS IN LÉVY TEM STUCTUE MODELS 11 Now, define the constants Z := exp z log B,T 1 B, + ]sds As,T i,t i+1 1 [,si and Z 1 := Z exp As, ds. Hence, the moment generating function of H is [ ] MH T z = IE IP expzh = IE IP exp z = exp log B,T 1 B, + N s i As, ds Z IE IP exp z = Z 1 IE IP exp = Z 1 exp z θ s z s i s i As,T i,t i+1 ds Σs,T i,t i+1 dl s Σs,T i,t i+1 dl s + Σs, dl s Σs,T i,t i+1 1 [,si ]s+σs, dl s Σs,T i,t i+1 1 [,si ]s+σs,t ds, where for the last equality we have applied Lemma 2.1, which is justified by 4.1. In addition, we get that MH T < for I 2. Theorem 4.2. Assume that forward rates are modeled according to the Lévy forward rate model. The price of a cap on the composition is C ;K = B,T K 1+iu MH T iu 2π iu 1+iu du, where M T H is given by Lemma 4.1 and 1,1+ M M N+1 M +M N+1 ]. Proof. Firstly, let us recall that the Fourier transform of the payoff function fx = e x K +, K +, corresponding to a call option is fz = K1+iz iz1+iz, 4.2 forz CwithIz 1, =: I 1 ; cf.example3.15 inpapapantoleon 27.

12 12 WOLFGANG KLUGE AND ANTONIS PAPAPANTOLEON Now, since the prerequisites of Theorem 2.2 in Eberlein et al. 28 are satisfied for I 1 I 2, we immediately have that [ e C ;K = B, IE H IP K ] + = B,T MH T 2π iu K 1+iu iu 1+iu du, and the assertion is proved Forward price framework. The aim of this section is to derive an explicit formula for the valuation of a cap on the composition in the Lévy forward price model. Once again, the valuation formulae will be based on the methods developed in Eberlein et al. 28. We begin by noticing that the quantity that appears in the composition can be expressed in terms of forward prices, since 1+δ i L,T i = F,T i,t i+1, and the forward prices are the modeling object in this framework. We know that each forward price process evolves as a martingale under its corresponding forward measure; moreover, we know that all forward price processes are driven by the same time-inhomogeneous Lévy process see also emark 3.2. Therefore, we will carry out the following program to arrive at the valuation formulae: 1 lift all forward price processes from their forward measure to the terminal forward measure; 2 calculate the product of the composition factors; 3 price the cap on the composition as a call option on this product. Appealing to the structure of the forward price process and the connection between the Brownian motions and the compensators under the different measures, cf. equations 3.7 and 3.8, we get that Ft,Tj,T = F,T j,t exp = F,Tj, exp t t t bs,tj,t ds+ bs, j, ds+ t ηs,tj dlt s ηs,tj dl T, s 4.3 for all j {1,...,N +1}. Here L T is the driving time-inhomogeneous Lévy process with IP -canonical decomposition t L T t = t cs dws T + xµ L ν T ds,dx, 4.4

13 COMPOSITIONS IN LÉVY TEM STUCTUE MODELS 13 and the drift term of the forward process F,Tj,T under the terminal measure IP, is bs, j, = c s 1 2 ηs,t j 2 +ηs,tj ηs,tk e xηs,tj 1 e x P ηs,t k xηs,tj λ T s dx. 4.5 It is immediately obvious from 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 that F, j,t is not a IP -martingale, unless j = 1 where we use the convention that =. Now, the composition takes the following form N 1+δi Ls i,t i = N Fs j,t j,t = B,T N B, exp s j bs, j,t ds+ s j where s j = s N+1 j, j {1,,N}. Define the random variable ηs, j dlt s 4.6. H := log B,T N B, + N s j bs, j,t ds+ s j ηs, j dlt s 4.7 and now we can express the option on the composition as an option depending on this random variable. The next theorem provides a formula for the valuation of a cap on the composition. Theorem 4.3. Let forward prices be modeled according to the Lévy forward process framework. Then, the price of a cap on the composition is C ;K = B,T 2π K 1+iu M H iu du, 4.8 iu 1+iu where the moment generating function of H is given by Lemma 4.4 and 1, M M ]. Proof. The option on the composition is priced under the terminal forward martingale measure IP. Using 4.6 and 4.7, we can express the cap on the composition as a call option depending on the random variable H. Then

14 14 WOLFGANG KLUGE AND ANTONIS PAPAPANTOLEON we get + N C ;K = B, IE IPT Fs j,tj,t K [ e = B, IE H IP K ] + = B,T K 1+iu M H iu 2π iu 1+iu du where we have applied Theorem 2.2 in Eberlein et al. 28 and used 4.2 once again. Lemma 4.4. Let M and ε be suitably chosen such that N ηs,t k M for some M < M and for all s [, ]. Then, for each [, M M ] we have that M H <, and for every z C with z [, M M ] the moment generating function of H is M H z = Z z exp z bs,tj,t +θs T z ηs,tj ds, where Z = B,T N B, and θt s is the cumulant generating function associated with the triplet,c s,λ T s. Proof. Fix an [, M M ] and then for z C with z = we get z ηs,t k = ηs,t k M M M = M. 4.9 Now, define the constant Z 2 := B,T N B, 1 z exp z s j bs,tj, ds. Then, similarly to the proof of Lemma 4.1, we get M H z = Z 2 IE IP exp z ηs,tj 1 [,s j ] sdl T s = Z 2 exp θ T s z ηs,tj ds, where for the last equality we have applied Lemma 2.1, which is justified by 4.9. Note also that ηs,tj = for s > s j, which is the fixing date for the rate; accordingly, bs,tj,t = for s > s j, cf In addition, we get that M H < for [, M M ].

15 COMPOSITIONS IN LÉVY TEM STUCTUE MODELS 15 implied volatility % Normal Lévy Market strikes % Figure 1. Implied normal volatilities for a 5Y option on the 3M LIBO Numerical illustration. In order to get an idea about the difference in the prices of an option on the composition of LIBO rates between the classical, Brownian-driven, HJM model and the Lévy forward rate model, we set up an artificial but reasonable market. Our aim here is not to give a complete analysis but rather a flavor of the impact we can expect. As an example, we look at a 5 year caplet on a composition of LIBO rates. ates are assumed to be flat at 4% across all maturities and instruments. Moreover, we assume that all volatilities are marked according to the SAB model cf. Hagan et al. 22 with parameters σ = 1%, α = 4%, β = % and ρ = 3%. For the calibration, we choose the Vasiček volatility structure with a fixed parameter a =.5. Not surprisingly, the normal inverse Gaussian Lévy model calibrates well to the market smile whereas the classical HJM model only gets the ATM point right but cannot reproduce any smile or skew; see Figure 1. The results for a 5Y caplet on a composition of LIBO rates are shown in Figure 2. It should not be surprising that the classical model does not produce any smile whereas the Lévy model does; note that the ATM prices are also different, where ATM Moreover, as has been observed in many other situations, the Brownian-driven model overprices the ATM options and underprices the in- and out-of-the-money options compared to the more realistic Lévy model. 5. Conclusion We have presented valuation formulas, based on Fourier transforms, for pricingan option on thecomposition of LIBOrates in the forwardrate and forward price models driven by time-inhomogeneous Lévy processes. Analogous formulas can also be derived for the affine forward price -type framework proposed by Keller-essel, Papapantoleon, and Teichmann 29; this framework combines the analytical tractability of the forward price framework described here with positive LIBO rates.

16 16 WOLFGANG KLUGE AND ANTONIS PAPAPANTOLEON implied volatility % Normal Lévy strikes% Figure 2. Implied normal volatilities for a 5Y option on composition. The challenge ahead is to derive valuation formulas in the LIBO model driven by a time-inhomogeneous Lévy process. This task requires some sophisticated approximations due to the structure of the dynamics in LIBO market models; the interested reader is referred to Siopacha and Teichmann 27 and Hubalek, Papapantoleon, and Siopacha 29 for a detailed analysis. eferences Björk, T., G. Di Masi, Y. Kabanov, and W. unggaldier Towards a general theory of bond markets. Finance Stoch. 1, Black, F The pricing of commodity contracts. J. Financ. Econ. 3, Brace, A., D. G atarek, and M. Musiela The market model of interest rate dynamics. Math. Finance 7, Eberlein, E., K. Glau, and A. Papapantoleon 28. Analysis of valuation formulae and applications to exotic options in Lévy models. Preprint, TU Vienna arxiv/ Eberlein, E., J. Jacod, and S. aible 25. Lévy term structure models: no-arbitrage and completeness. Finance Stoch. 9, Eberlein, E. and W. Kluge 26a. Exact pricing formulae for caps and swaptions in a Lévy term structure model. J. Comput. Finance 92, Eberlein, E. and W. Kluge 26b. Valuation of floating range notes in Lévy term structure models. Math. Finance 16, Eberlein, E. and W. Kluge 27. Calibration of Lévy term structure models. In M. Fu,. A. Jarrow, J.-Y. Yen, and. J. Elliott Eds., Advances in Mathematical Finance: In Honor of Dilip B. Madan, pp Birkhäuser. Eberlein, E. and F. Özkan 25. The Lévy LIBO model. Finance Stoch. 9,

17 COMPOSITIONS IN LÉVY TEM STUCTUE MODELS 17 Eberlein, E. and S. aible1999. Term structure models driven by general Lévy processes. Math. Finance 9, Hagan, P. S., D. Kumar, A. S. Lesniewski, and D. E. Woodward 22. Managing smile risk. Wilmott magazine 1811, Heath, D.,. Jarrow, and A. Morton Bond pricing and the term structure of interest rates: a new methodology for contingent claims valuation. Econometrica 6, Henrard, M. 25. Swaptions: 1 price, 1 deltas, and /2 gammas. Working paper. Hubalek, F., A. Papapantoleon, and M. Siopacha 29. Taylor approximation of stochastic differential equations and application to the Lévy LIBO model. Preprint, TU Vienna. Jacod, J. and A. N. Shiryaev 23. Limit Theorems for Stochastic Processes 2nd ed.. Springer. Jamshidian, F LIBO and swap market models and measures. Finance Stoch. 1, Keller-essel, M., A. Papapantoleon, and J. Teichmann 29. A new approach to LIBO modeling. Preprint, TU Vienna. Kluge, W. 25. Time-inhomogeneous Lévy processes in interest rate and credit risk models. Ph. D. thesis, University of Freiburg. Miltersen, K.., K. Sandmann, and D. Sondermann Closed form solutions for term structure derivatives with log-normal interest rates. J. Finance 52, Papapantoleon, A. 27. Applications of semimartingales and Lévy processes in finance: duality and valuation. Ph. D. thesis, University of Freiburg. aible, S. 2. Lévy processes in finance: theory, numerics, and empirical facts. Ph. D. thesis, University of Freiburg. Sandmann, K., D. Sondermann, and K.. Miltersen Closed form term structure derivatives in a Heath Jarrow Morton model with lognormal annually compounded interest rates. In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual European Futures esearch Symposium Bonn, pp Chicago Board of Trade. Siopacha, M. and J. Teichmann 27. Weak and strong Taylor methods for numerical solutions of stochastic differential equations. Preprint, TU Vienna. arxiv/ BNP Paribas, 1 Harewood Avenue, London NW1 6AA, United Kingdom address: wolfgang.kluge@uk.bnpparibas.com Financial and Actuarial Mathematics, Vienna University of Technology, Wiedner Hauptstrasse 8/15, 14 Vienna, Austria address: papapan@fam.tuwien.ac.at