Volatility models in practice: Rough, Path-dependent or Markovian?

Eduardo Abi Jaber,Shaun
2024-01-07
Abstract:An extensive empirical study of the class of Volterra Bergomi models using SPX options data between 2011 and 2022 reveals the following fact-check on two fundamental claims echoed in the rough volatility literature:
Mathematical Finance,Computational Finance,Pricing of Securities
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problems that this paper attempts to solve mainly focus on evaluating whether rough volatility models really have significant advantages in practice as widely claimed, especially when compared with traditional Markov models. Specifically, the paper aims to verify the following two basic viewpoints: 1. **Can rough volatility models capture the S&P 500 index (SPX) implied volatility surface well with few parameters?** - Through empirical research, the paper finds that rough volatility models (especially models with Hurst index \( H \in (0, 1/2) \)) perform poorly in capturing the overall shape of the SPX smile curve. Due to the limitations of the rough component, these models have poor control over the smile curve. In particular, the at - the - money skew (ATM skew) of SPX is incompatible with the power - law shape generated by rough volatility models. The skew of rough volatility models increases too quickly at the short - term end and decays too slowly at the long - term end, and sometimes even requires a negative Hurst parameter \( H \). 2. **Do rough volatility models really consistently outperform their classic Markov models in performance?** - The paper further points out that for short - term maturities, rough volatility models perform worse than one - factor Markov models with the same number of parameters. For longer maturities, rough volatility models do not systematically outperform one - factor models either, and perform significantly worse when compared with a two - factor Markov model with an additional calibration parameter. In addition, the paper also proposes a non - rough path - dependent Bergomi model and a two - factor Markov Bergomi model with fewer parameters. These two models can consistently outperform rough volatility models when using 3 to 4 calibration parameters, especially in capturing the term structure of the SPX smile curve from one week to three years. ### Main Conclusions - **Limitations of Rough Volatility Models**: Rough volatility models have serious structural limitations in capturing the overall shape of the SPX volatility surface, especially in dealing with at - the - money skew. - **Advantages of Non - Rough Path - Dependent Models**: The non - rough path - dependent Bergomi model and the two - factor Markov Bergomi model with fewer parameters perform better in capturing the SPX volatility surface, especially in different maturity ranges. ### Methods - **Data Sources**: The paper uses daily SPX implied volatility surface data obtained from CBOE during 2011 - 2022. - **Model Calibration**: A method named "deep pricing with quantization hints" is used, combining functional quantization and neural networks for efficient and accurate option pricing. Through these methods, the paper provides a comprehensive evaluation of the actual performance of rough volatility models and proposes more effective alternative models.