A Unified Framework for Pricing Credit and
Equity Derivatives

arXiv:0712.3617v2 [cs.CE] 20 Sep 2008

Erhan Bayraktar

‡

∗†

Bo Yang

Abstract
We propose a model which can be jointly calibrated to the corporate bond term
structure and equity option volatility surface of the same company. Our purpose is to
obtain explicit bond and equity option pricing formulas that can be calibrated to find
a risk neutral model that matches a set of observed market prices. This risk neutral
model can then be used to price more exotic, illiquid or over-the-counter derivatives. We
observe that the model implied credit default swap (CDS) spread matches the market
CDS spread and that our model produces a very desirable CDS spread term structure.
This is observation is worth noticing since without calibrating any parameter to the CDS
spread data, it is matched by the CDS spread that our model generates using the available
information from the equity options and corporate bond markets. We also observe that
our model matches the equity option implied volatility surface well since we properly
account for the default risk premium in the implied volatility surface. We demonstrate
the importance of accounting for the default risk and stochastic interest rate in equity
option pricing by comparing our results to Fouque et al. (2003), which only accounts for
stochastic volatility.
Keywords: Credit Default Swap, Defaultable Bond, Defaultable Stock, Equity Options,
Stochastic Interest Rate, Implied Volatility, Multiscale Perturbation Method.

Contents
1 Introduction

2

∗

Department of Mathematics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA, email:{erhan,boy}@umich.edu.
†
We would like to thank the two anonymous referees and the anonymous AE for their constructive comments, which helped us improve our paper.
‡
This work is supported in part by the National Science Foundation, under grant DMS-060449.

1

2 A Framework for Pricing Equity and Credit Derivatives
2.1

The model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5

2.2

Equity and credit derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

3 Explicit Pricing Formulas for Credit and Equity Derivatives

9

3.1

Pricing equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

3.2

Asymptotic expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10

3.3

Explicit pricing formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

4 Calibration of the Model

1

5

18

4.1

Data description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

4.2

The parameter estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20

4.3

Model implied CDS spread matches the observed CDS spread . . . . . . . . .

22

4.4

Fitting Ford’s implied volatility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22

4.5

Fitting the implied volatility of the index options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23

Introduction

Our purpose is to build an intensity-based modeling framework that can be used in trading
and calibrating across the credit and equity markets. The same company has stocks, stock
options, bonds, credit default swaps on these bonds, and several other derivatives. When this
company defaults, the payoffs of all of these instruments are affected; therefore, their prices
all contain information about the default risk of the company.
We build a model that can be jointly calibrated to corporate bond prices and stock
options, and can be used to price more exotic derivatives. In our framework we use the
Vasicek model for the interest rate, and use doubly stochastic Poisson process to model the
default of a given company. We assume that the bonds have recovery of market value and
that stocks become valueless at the time of default. Using the multi-scale modeling approach
of Fouque et al. (2003) we obtain explicit bond pricing equation with three free parameters
which we calibrate to the corporate bond term structure. On the other hand, stock option
pricing formula contain seven parameters, three of which are common with the bond option
pricing formula. (The common parameters are multiplied with the loss rate in the bond
2

pricing formula.) We calibrate the remaining set of parameters to the stock option prices.
This hybrid model, therefore, is able to account for the default risk premium in the implied
volatility surface.
The calibration results reveal that our model is able to produce implied volatility surfaces
that match the data closely. We compare the implied volatility surfaces that our model
produces to those of Fouque et al. (2003). We see that even for longer maturities our model
has a prominent skew: compare Figures 5 and 6. Even when we ignore the stochastic volatility
effects, our model fits the implied volatility of the Ford Motor Company well and performs
better than the model of Fouque et al. (2003); see Figure 4. This points to the importance
of accounting for the default risk for companies with low ratings.
Once the model parameters are calibrated, the model can be used to compute the prices
of more exotic options. To test whether our model produces correct prices we use the CDS
spread data and show that the model implied CDS spread matches the “out of sample” CDS
data. To compute the CDS spread, under our assumption on the recovery, one needs to
reconstruct the term structure of the treasury and the corporate bonds. Moreover, one needs
to separate the loss rate from the other parameters in the bond pricing formula (see (2.14) or
(4.7) for the CDS spread formula). This separation is possible since we calibrate our model
to corporate bond data and stock option data jointly as described above. The model-implied
CDS spread time series matches the observed CDS spread time series of Ford Motor Company
for over a long period of time; see Figures 1 and 2. This is an interesting observation since
we did not make use of the CDS spread data in our calibration. This observation also shows
that one can use our model to trade across different markets that contain information about
the default risk of a given firm.
Our model has three building blocks: (1) We model the default event using the multi-scale
stochastic intensity model of Papageorgiou and Sircar (2008). We also model the interest rate
using an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process (Vasicek model). As it was demonstrated in Papageorgiou and Sircar (2008), these modeling assumptions are effective in capturing the corporate
yield curve; (2) We take the stock price process to follow a stochastic volatility model which
jumps to zero when the company defaults. This stock price model was considered in Bayraktar (2008). Our model specification for the stock price differs from the jump to default models
for the stock price considered by Carr and Linetsky (2006) and Linetsky (2006), which take
the volatility and the default intensity to be functions of the stock price; (3) We also account
for the stochastic volatility in the modeling of the stocks since even the index options (when
there is no risk of default) possess implied volatility skew. We model the volatility using
the fast scale stochastic volatility model of Fouque et al. (2000). We demonstrate on index
options (when there is no risk of default) that (see Section 4.5), we match the performance

3

of the two time scale volatility model Fouque et al. (2003). The latter model extends Fouque
et al. (2000) by including a slow factor in the volatility to get a better fit to longer maturity
option. We see from Section 4.5 that when one assumes the interest rate to be stochastic, the
calibration performance of the stochastic volatility model with only the fast factor is as good
as the two scale stochastic volatility model, which is why we choose the volatility to be driven
by only the fast factor. Even though the interest rate is stochastic in our model, we are able
to obtain explicit asymptotic pricing formulas for stock options. Thanks to these explicit
pricing formulas the inverse problem that we face in calibrating to the corporate bond and
stock data can be solved with considerable ease. Our modeling framework can be thought of
as a hybrid of the models of Fouque et al. (2000), which only considers pricing options in a
stochastic volatility model with constant interest rate, and Papageorgiou and Sircar (2008),
which only considers a framework for pricing derivatives on bonds. Neither of these models
has the means to transfer information from the equity markets to bond market or vice versa,
which we are set to do in this paper. We should also note that our model also takes input
from the treasury yield curve, historical stock prices, and historical spot rate data to estimate
some of its parameters (see Section 4).
Our model extends Bayraktar (2008) by taking the interest rate process to be stochastic,
which leads to a richer theory and more calibration parameters, and therefore, better fit
to data: (i) When the interest rate is deterministic the corporate bond pricing formula
turns out to be very crude and does not fit the bond term structure well (compare (2.57)
in Bayraktar (2008) and (4.1)); (ii) With deterministic interest rates the bond pricing and
the stock option pricing formulas share only one common term, “the average intensity of
default” (this parameter is multiplied by the loss rate in the bond pricing equation, under
our loss assumptions). Therefore, the default premium in the implied volatility surface is not
accounted for as much as it should be. And our calibration analysis demonstrates that this
has a significant impact. When the volatility is taken to be constant, both our new model
and the model in Bayraktar (2008) have three free parameters. The model in Bayraktar
(2008) produces a below par fit to the implied volatility surface (see e.g. Figure 5 in that
paper), whereas our model produces an excellent fit (see Section 4.4 and Figure 4); (iii) To
calculate the CDS spread, in the constant interest rate model, one needs to separate the loss
rate and the average intensity of default. This is again established calibrating the model to
the bond term structure data and the stock option implied volatility surface. The estimates
for the average intensity and the loss rate are not as accurate in Bayraktar (2008) as it is in
our model because of (i) and (ii). This crude estimation leads to a poor out of sample match
to the CDS spread time series.
The other defaultable stock models are those of Carr and Linetsky (2006), Linetsky (2006)
and Carr and Wu (2006), which assume that the interest rate is deterministic. Carr and
4

Linetsky (2006), Linetsky (2006) take the volatility and the intensity to be functions of the
stock price and obtain a one-dimensional diffusion for the pre-default stock price evolution.
Using the fact that the resolvents of particular Markov processes can be computed explicitly,
they obtain pricing formulas for stock option prices. On the other hand Carr and Wu (2006)
uses a CIR stochastic volatility model and also models the intensity to be a function of
the volatility and another endogenous CIR factor. The option prices in this framework are
computed numerically using inverse the Fourier transform. We, on the other hand, use
asymptotic expansions to provide explicit pricing formulas for stock options in a framework
that combines a) the Vasicek interest rate model, b) fast-mean reverting stochastic volatility
model, c) defaultable stock price model, d) multi-scale stochastic intensity model.
Our calibration exercise differs from that of Carr and Wu (2006) since they perform a
time series analysis to obtain the parameters of the underlying factors (from the the stock
option prices and credit default swap spread time series), whereas we calibrate our pricing
parameters to the daily implied volatility surface and bond term structure data. Our purpose
is to find a risk neutral model that matches a set of observed market prices. This risk neutral
model can then be used to price more exotic, illiquid or over-the-counter derivatives. For
further discussion of this calibration methodology we refer to Cont and Tankov (2004) (see
Chapter 13), Fouque et al. (2000), Fouque et al. (2003) and Papageorgiou and Sircar (2008).
We also provide daily prediction of the CDS spread only using the data from the bond term
structure and implied volatility surface of the options.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we introduce our modeling
framework and describe the credit and equity derivatives we will consider and obtain an
expression for the CDS spread under the assumption that the recovery rate of a bond that
defaults is a constant fraction of its predefault value. In Section 3, we introduce the asymptotic expansion method. We obtain explicit (asymptotic) prices for bonds and equity options
in Section 3.3. In Section 4, we describe the calibration of our parameters and discuss our
empirical results. Figures, which show our calibration results, are located after the references.

2
2.1

A Framework for Pricing Equity and Credit Derivatives
The model

Let (Ω, H, P) be a complete probability space supporting (i) correlated standard Brownian
~ t = (W 0 , W 1 , W 2 , W 3 , W 4 ), t ≥ 0, with
motions W
t
t
t
t
t
E[Wt0 , Wti ] = ρi t,

E[Wti , Wtj ] = ρij t,

5

i, j ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4}, t ≥ 0,

(2.1)

~ . Let us
for some constants ρi , ρij ∈ (−1, 1), and (ii) a Poisson process N independent of W
Rt
introduce the Cox process (time-changed Poisson process) Ñt , N ( 0 λs ds), t ≥ 0, where
λt = f (Yt , Zt ),

√
1
ν 2
dYt = (m − Yt )dt + √ dWt2 , Y0 = y,


√
dZt = δc(Zt )dt + δg(Zt )dWt3 , Z0 = z,

(2.2)

in which , δ are (small) positive constants and f is a strictly positive, bounded, smooth
function. We also assume that the functions c and g satisfy Lipschitz continuity and growth
conditions so that the diffusion process for Zt has a unique strong solution. We model the
time of default as
τ = inf{t ≥ 0 : Ñt = 1}.
(2.3)
We also take interest rate to be stochastic and model it as an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process
drt = (α − βrt )dt + ηdWt1 ,

r0 = r,

(2.4)

for positive constants α, β, and η.
We model the stock price as the solution of the stochastic differential equation


Z
dX̄t = X̄t rt dt + σt dWt0 − d Ñt −

t∧τ


λu du
,

X̄0 = x,

(2.5)

0

where the volatility is stochastic and is defined through
σt = σ(Ỹt );

dỸt =

!
√
√
1
ν̃ 2
ν̃ 2
(m̃ − Ỹt ) − √ Λ(Ỹt ) dt + √ dWt4 ,




Ỹ0 = ỹ.

(2.6)

Here, Λ is a smooth, bounded function of one variable which represents the market price of
volatility risk. The function σ is also a bounded, smooth function. Note that the discounted
stock price is a martingale under the measure P, and at the time of default, the stock price
jumps down to zero. The pre-banktruptcy stock price coincides with the solution of
dXt = (rt + λt )Xt dt + σt Xt dWt0 ,

X0 = x.

(2.7)

It will be useful to keep track of different flows of information. Let F = {Ft , t ≥ 0} be the
~ . Denote the default indicator process by It = 1{τ ≤t} , t ≥ 0, and let
natural filtration of W
I = {It , t ≥ 0} be the filtration generated by I. Finally, let G = {Gt , t ≥ 0} be an enlargement
of F such that Gt = Ft ∨ It , t ≥ 0.

6

Since we will take  and δ to be small positive constants, the processes Y and Ỹ are
fast mean reverting, and Z evolves on a slower time scale. See Fouque et al. (2003) for
an exposition and motivation of multi-scale modeling in the context of stochastic volatility
models.
We note that our specification of the intensity of default coincides with that of Papageorgiou and Sircar (2008), who considered only a framework for pricing credit derivatives.
Our stock price specification is similar to that of Linetsky (2006) and Carr and Linetsky
(2006) who considered a framework for only pricing equity options on defaultable stocks.
Our volatility specification, on the other hand, is in the spirit of Fouque et al. (2000).
Bayraktar (2008) considered a similar modeling framework to the one considered here,
but the interest rate was taken to be deterministic. In this paper, by extending this modeling
framework to incorporate stochastic interest rates, we are able to consistently price credit
and equity derivatives and produce more realistic yield curve and implied volatility surfaces.
We are also able to take the equity option surface and the yield curve data as given and
predict the credit default swap spread on a given day. Testing our model prediction against
real data demonstrates the power of our pricing framework.

2.2

Equity and credit derivatives

In our framework, we will price European options, bonds, and credit default swaps of the
same company in a consistent way.
1. The price of a European call option with maturity T and strike price K is given by
 Z T


+
C(t; T, K) = E exp −
rs ds (X̄T − K) 1{τ >T } Gt
t

 Z T


+
= 1{τ >t} E exp −
(rs + λs )ds (XT − K) Ft ,


(2.8)

t

in which the equality follows from Lemma 5.1.2 of Bielecki and Rutkowski (2002). (This
lemma, which lets us write a conditional expectation with respect to Gt in terms of conditional
expectations with respect to Ft , will be used in developing several identities below). Also,
see Linetsky (2006) and Carr and Linetsky (2006) for a similar computation.

7

On the other hand, the price of a put option with the same maturity and strike price is
"

!

T

Z

#

"

Z

+

#

rs ds K1{τ ≤T } Gt

rs ds (K − XT ) 1{τ >T } Gt + E exp −

Put(t; T ) = E exp −

!

T

t

t

"

!

T

Z

#
+

(rs + λs )ds (K − XT ) Ft

= 1{τ >t} E exp −
t

"

Z

+ KE exp −

T

!
rs ds

#

"

!

T

Z

Ft − KE exp −

(rs + λs )ds

t

#!
Ft

.

t

(2.9)

2. Consider a defaultable bond with maturity T and par value of 1 dollar. We assume the
recovery of the market value, introduced by Duffie and Singleton (1999). In this model, if
the issuer company defaults prior to maturity, the holder of the bond recovers a constant
fraction 1 − l of the pre-default value, with l ∈ [0, 1]. The price of such a bond is
"

 Z
c
B (t; T ) = E exp −

T



 Z
rs ds 1{τ >T } + exp −

t


 Z
= E exp −

τ

#



rs ds 1{τ ≤T } (1 − l)B c (τ −; T ) Gt

t
T



(rs + l λs )ds Ft ,

t

(2.10)
on {τ > t}, see Duffie and Singleton (1999) and Schönbucher (1998).
3. Consider a credit default swap (CDS) written on B c , which is a insurance against
losses incurred upon default from holding a corporate bond. The protection buyer pays a
fixed premium, the so-called CDS spread, to the protection seller. The premium is paid on
fixed dates T = (T1 , · · · , TM ), with TM being the maturity of the CDS contract. We denote
the CDS spread at time t by cds (t; T ). Our purpose is to determine a fair value for the CDS
spread so that what the protection buyer buyer is expected to pay, the value of the premium
leg of the contract, is equal to what the protection seller is expected to pay, the value of
the protection leg of the contract. For a more detailed description of the CDS contract, see
Bielecki and Rutkowski (2002) or Schönbucher (2003).
The present value of the premium leg of the contract is
"
Premium(t; T ) = cds (t; T ) E
ds

M
X

 Z
exp −

m=1
M
X

= 1{τ >t} c (t; T )

t

Tm

#

rs ds 1{τ >Tm } Gt
(2.11)



 Z
E exp −
t

m=1

8

Tm


(rs + λs )ds


Ft ,

in which we assumed that t < T1 . The present value of the protection leg of the contract
under our assumption of recovery of market value is
τ



 Z
Protection(t; T ) = 1{τ >t} E exp −
t



c
rs ds 1{τ ≤TM } l B (τ −; TM ) Gt

(2.12)

Adding (2.10) and (2.12), we obtain
"

 Z
c
Protection(t; T ) + B (t; TM ) = E exp −

T


 Z
rs ds 1{τ >T } + exp −

τ

#



rs ds 1{τ ≤T } B c (τ −; T ) Gt

t

t
TM


 Z
= 1{τ >t} E exp −



rs ds Ft ,

t

(2.13)
where the last equality is obtained by setting l = 0 in (2.10).
Now, the CDS spread can be determined, by setting Protection(t; T ) = Premium(t; T )
and using equations (2.11) and (2.13), as


cds (t; T ) = 1{τ >t}






 R
 R
TM
TM
E exp − t rs ds Ft − E exp − t (rs + l λs )ds Ft
M
X


 Z
E exp −


(rs + λs )ds

(2.14)


Ft

t

m=1

3

.

Tm

Explicit Pricing Formulas for Credit and Equity Derivatives

3.1

Pricing equation

Let P ,δ denote
P

,δ



 Z
(t, Xt , rt , Yt , Ỹt , Zt ) = E exp −

T



(rs + lλs )ds h(XT ) Ft .

(3.1)

t

When l = 1 and h(XT ) = (XT − K)+ , P ,δ is the price of a call option (on a defaultable
stock). On the other hand, when h(XT ) = 1, P ,δ becomes the price of a defaultable bond.
Using the Feynman-Kac formula, we can characterize P ,δ as the solution of
L,δ P ,δ (t, x, r, y, ỹ, z) = 0,
P ,δ (T, x, r, y, ỹ, z) = h(x),

9

(3.2)

where the partial differential operator L,δ is defined as
,δ

L

√
1
1
, L0 + √ L1 + L2 + δM1 + δM2 +



r

δ
M3 ,


(3.3)

in which
2
∂
∂
∂2
∂2
2 ∂
+
(m
−
y)
+
(
m̃
−
ỹ)
+
ν̃
+
2ρ
vṽ
,
24
∂y 2
∂y
∂ ỹ 2
∂ ỹ
∂y∂ ỹ
√
√ ∂2
√
√ ∂2
√ ∂
∂2
∂2
L1 , ρ2 σ(ỹ)ν 2x
+ ρ12 ην 2
+ ρ4 σ(ỹ)ν̃ 2x
+ ρ14 ην̃ 2
− Λ(ỹ)ν̃ 2 ,
∂x∂y
∂r∂y
∂x∂ ỹ
∂r∂ ỹ
∂ ỹ
2
2
2
∂
1
∂
∂
∂
∂
1 ∂
L2 ,
+ σ 2 (ỹ)x2 2 + (r + f (y, z))x
+ (α − βr)
+ σ(ỹ)ηρ1 x
+ η 2 2 − (r + l f (y, z))·,
∂t 2
∂x
∂x
∂r
∂x∂r 2 ∂r

L0 , ν 2

∂2
∂
1
∂2
∂2
+ ηρ13 g(z)
, M2 , c(z)
+ g 2 (z) 2 ,
∂x∂z
∂r∂z
∂z 2
∂z
2
2
√
√
∂
∂
M3 , ρ23 ν 2g(z)
+ ρ34 ν̃ 2g(z)
.
∂y∂z
∂ ỹ∂z
M1 , σ(ỹ)ρ3 g(z)x

3.2

Asymptotic expansion

We construct an asymptotic expansion for P ,δ as , δ → 0. First, we consider an expansion
√
of P ,δ in powers of δ
√
(3.4)
P ,δ = P0 + δP1 + δP2 + · · ·
By inserting (3.4) into (3.2) and comparing the δ 0 and δ terms, we obtain that P0 satisfies



1
1
L0 + √ L1 + L2 P0 = 0,



(3.5)

P0 (T, x, r, y, ỹ, z) = h(x),
and that P1 satisfies





1
1
1

√
√
L0 +
L1 + L2 P1 = − M1 +
M3 P0 ,




(3.6)

P1 (T, x, y, ỹ, z, r) = 0.
Next, we expand the solutions of (3.5) and (3.6) in powers of
P0 = P0 +

√

√

P1,0 + P2,0 + 3/2 P3,0 + · · ·
√
P1 = P0,1 + P1,1 + P2,1 + 3/2 P3,1 + · · ·

10


(3.7)
(3.8)

Inserting the expansion for P0 into (3.5) and matching the 1/ terms gives L0 P0 = 0. We
choose P0 not to depend on y and ỹ because the other solutions have exponential growth at
√
infinity (see e.g. Fouque et al. (2003)). Similarly, by matching the 1/  terms in (3.5) we
obtain that L0 P1,0 + L1 P0 = 0. Since L1 takes derivatives only with respect to y and ỹ, we
observe that L0 P1,0 = 0. We choose P1,0 not to depend on y and ỹ.
Now equating the order-one terms in the expansion of (3.5) and using the fact that
L1 P1,0 = 0, we get that
L0 P2,0 + L2 P0 = 0,
(3.9)
which is a Poisson equation for P2,0 (see e.g. Fouque et al. (2000)). The solvability condition
for this equation requires that
hL2 iP0 = 0,
(3.10)
where h·i denotes the averaging with respect to the invariant distribution of (Yt , Ỹt ), whose
density is given by
(
"
#)



1
y−m 2
ỹ − m̃ 2
(y − m)(ỹ − m̃)
1
exp −
+
− 2ρ24
.
Ψ(y, ỹ) =
2πν ν̃
ν
ν̃
ν ν̃
2(1 − ρ224 )
(3.11)
Let us denote
σ̄1 , hσ(ỹ)i, σ̄22 , hσ 2 (ỹ)i, λ̄(z) = hf (y, z)i.
(3.12)
To demonstrate the effect of averaging on L2 , let us write
∂
∂
∂2
1 2 ∂2
∂ 1 2 2 ∂2
+ σ̄2 x
+
(r
+
λ̄(z))x
+
(α
−
βr)
+
σ̄
ηρ
x
+
η
− (r + l λ̄(z))·
1
1
∂t 2
∂x2
∂x
∂r
∂x∂r 2 ∂r2
(3.13)
Together with the terminal condition
hL2 i :=

P0 (T, x, r, z) = h(x),

(3.14)

equation (3.10) defines the leading order term P0 . On the other hand from (3.9), we can also
deduce that
P2,0 = −L−1
(3.15)
0 (L2 − hL2 i)P0 .
√
Matching the  order terms in the expansion of (3.5) yields
L0 P3,0 + L1 P2,0 + L2 P1,0 = 0,

(3.16)

which is a Poisson equation for P3,0 . The solvability condition for this equation requires that
hL2 P1,0 i = −hL1 P2,0 i = hL1 L−1
0 (L2 − hL2 i)iP0 ,
11

(3.17)

which along with the terminal condition
P1,0 (T, x, r, z) = 0,

(3.18)

completely identifies the function P1,0 . To obtain the second equality in (3.17) we used (3.15).
Next, we will express the right-hand side of (3.17) more explicitly. To this end, let ψ, κ,
and φ be the solutions of the Poisson equations
L0 ψ(ỹ) = σ(ỹ) − σ̄1

L0 κ(ỹ) = σ 2 (ỹ) − σ̄22 ,

and L0 φ(y, z) = (f (y, z) − λ̄(z)),

(3.19)

respectively. First observe that


2
1 2
∂ 2 P0
∂P0
2 2 ∂ P0
(L2 −hL2 i)P0 = (σ (ỹ)−σ̄2 )x
+(σ(ỹ)−σ̄1 )ηρ1 x
+l (f (y, z)−λ̄(z)) x
− P0 .
2
∂x2
∂x∂r
∂x
(3.20)
Now, along with (3.19), we can write
L−1
0 (L2



2
1
∂ 2 P0
∂P0
2 ∂ P0
− hL2 i)P0 = κ(ỹ)x
+ ψ(ỹ)ηρ1 x
+ l φ(y, z) x
− P0 .
2
∂x2
∂x∂r
∂x

(3.21)

Applying the differential operator L1 to the last expression yields
hL1 L−1
0 (L2

√

√



∂P0
∂
− hL2 i)iP0 = l ρ2 ν
+ l ρ12 ην 2hφy i
x
− P0
∂r
∂x



 2 
2
√
1
∂
∂
∂ P0
2 ∂ P0
+ ρ4 ν̃ 2
hσκỹ ix
x
+ hσψỹ iηρ1 x
x
2
2
∂x
∂x
∂x
∂x∂r


 2 

2
√
∂
∂ P0
∂
∂ P0
1
hκỹ i
x2
+ hψỹ iηρ1
x
+ ρ14 ην̃ 2
2
∂r
∂x2
∂r
∂x∂r


√
1
∂ 2 P0
2 ∂P0
− ν̃ 2
hΛκỹ ix
+ hΛψỹ iηρ1 x
.
2
∂x2
∂x∂r
(3.22)
∂P0
2hσφy ix2 2
∂x

Finally, we insert the expression for P1 in (3.8) into (3.6) and collect the terms with the
same powers of . Arguing as before, we obtain that P0,1 is independent of y and ỹ and
satisfies:
hL2 iP0,1 = −hM1 iP0 ,

12

P0,1 (T, x) = 0.

(3.23)

3.3

Explicit pricing formula

We approximate P ,δ defined in (3.1) by
Pe,δ = P0 +

√

√
P1,0 +

δP0,1 .

(3.24)

Since the Vasicek interest rate process is unbounded, which implies that the potential term
in L2 or the discounting term in (3.1) is unbounded, the arguments of Fouque et al. (2003)
can not be directly used. However as in Cotton et al. (2004) and Papageorgiou and Sircar
(2008), one can write
P

,δ

T



(t, Xt , rt , Yt , Ỹt , Zt ) = B(t, T )E

 Z
exp −

T





lλs ds h(XT ) Ft := B(t, T )F ,δ (t, Xt , rt , Yt , Ỹt , Zt ),

t

(3.25)
in which
dPT
dP

=


 R
T
exp − 0 rs ds
B(0, T )

and

 Z
B(t, T ) = E exp −

T

,


rs ds

(3.26)

Ft .

(3.27)

t

Now, the analysis of Fouque et al. (2003) can be used to approximate F ,δ (t, x, r, y, ỹ, z). As a
result of this analysis for each (t, x, r, y, ỹ, z), there exists a constant C such that |P ,δ − Pe,δ | ≤
√
C · ( + δ) when h is smooth, and |P ,δ − Pe,δ | ≤ C · ( log() + δ + δ) when h is a put or a
call pay-off. In what follows, we will obtain P0 , P1,0 and P0,1 explicitly.
Our first objective is to develop a closed-form expression for P0 , the solution of (3.10)
and (3.14).
Proposition 3.1. The leading order term P0 in (3.24) is given by:
P0 (t, x, z, r) = B0c (t, r; z, T, l)

∞

1
(u − m(t, T ))2
h(exp(u)) p
exp(−
)du,
2v(t, T )
2πv(t, T )
−∞

Z

(3.28)

where
B0c (t, r; z, T, l) , exp − lλ̄(z)(T − t) + a(T − t) − b(T − t)r),

(3.29)

in which the functions a(s) and b(s) are defined as:

a(s) =

α
η2
−
2
2β
β




s+

η2
α
− 2
3
β
β


(exp(−βs) − 1) −

13

η2
(exp(−2βs) − 1)
4β 3

(3.30)

and b(s) = (1 − exp(−βs))/β. On the other hand,
2ηρ1 σ̄1 2η 2
=
(T − t) +
+ 3
β2
β


2
2
η
2ηρ1 σ̄1
3η
− 3 exp(−2β(T − t)) −
+ 3 ,
2
2β
β
2β


vt,T

and

σ̄22

2ηρ1 σ̄1
η2
+
+ 2
β
β






exp(−β(T − t))
(3.31)

1
mt,T = log(x) + λ̄ · (T − t) − a(T − t) + b(T − t)r − v(t, T ).
2

(3.32)

Proof. By applying the Feynman-Kac theorem to (3.10) and (3.14) we have that
T


 Z
P0 (t, x, z, r) = E exp −



(rs + lλ̄(z))ds h(ST ) St = x, rt = r ,

(3.33)

t

where the dynamics of S is given by
ft0 ,
dSt = (rt + λ̄(z))St dt + σ̄2 St dW
f 0 is a Wiener process whose correlation with W 1 is ρ̄1 =
in which W

(3.34)
σ̄1
σ̄2 ρ1 .

Let us define


 Z
P̃0 (t, x, r) = E exp −

T





rs ds h(SeT ) Set = x, rt = r ,

(3.35)

t

in which
ft0 .
dSet = rt Set dt + σ̄2 Set dW

(3.36)

Then
P0 (t, x, z, r) = e−lλ̄(z) (T −t) P̃0 (t, x exp(λ̄(z)(T − t)), r).

(3.37)

Now, by following Geman et al. (1995), we change the probability measure P to the
forward measure PT through the Radon-Nikodym derivative (3.26)
We can obtain the following representation of P˜0 using the T -forward measure
h
i
P̃0 (t, Set , rt ) = B(t, T )ET h(SeT )|Ft = B(t, T )ET [h(FT )|Ft ] ,

(3.38)

in which
Ft ,

Set
,
B(t, T )

(3.39)

which is a PT martingale. Note that an explicit expression for B(t, T ) is available since rt is

14

a Vasicek model, and it is given in terms of the functions a and b:
B(t, T ) = exp(a(T − t) − b(T − t)rt ).

(3.40)

By applying Itô’s formula to (3.39), we observe that the dynamics of F are
f 0 + b(T − t)ηdW
f 1 ),
dFt = Ft (σ̄1 dW
t
t

(3.41)

f 1 is a PT Brownian motion whose correlation with the W
f 0 (which is still a
in which W
Brownian motion under PT ) is ρ̄1 . Given Xt and B(t, T ), the random variable log FT is
normally distributed with variance
Z T
Z T
b2 (T − s)ds + 2η ρ̄1 σ̄2
b(T − s)ds
vt,T = σ̄22 (T − t) + η 2
t
t




2η ρ̄1 σ̄2
η2
2η ρ̄1 σ̄2 2η 2
2
= σ̄2 +
+ 2 (T − t) +
+ 3 exp(−β(T − t))
β
β
β2
β


2
2
η
2η ρ̄1 σ̄2
3η
− 3 exp(−2β(T − t)) −
+ 3 ,
2
2β
β
2β

(3.42)

and mean
1
m(t, T ) = log Ft −
2

Z

T

(σ̄22 +b2 (T −s)η 2 + ρ̄1 σ̄2 b(T −s)η)ds = log

t

!
Set
1
− vt,T . (3.43)
B(t, T )
2

Now the result immediately follows.
An immediate corollary of the last proposition is the following:
Corollary 3.1. i) When l = 1, h(x) = (x − K)+ , then (3.28) becomes
C0 (t, x, z, r) = xN (d1 ) − KB0c (t, r; z, T, 1)N (d2 ),

(3.44)

in which N is the standard normal cumulative distribution function and
d1,2 =

x
± 21 vt,T
log KB c (t,r;z,T,1)
0
.
√
vt,T

(3.45)

ii) When l = 1, and h(x) = (K − x)+ , then (3.28) becomes
Put0 (t, x, z, r) = −x + xN (d1 ) − KB0c (t, r; z, T, 1)N (d2 ) + KB0c (t, r; z, T, 0).

(3.46)

iii) When h(x) = 1, then (3.28) coincides with (3.30) in Papageorgiou and Sircar (2008).
15

Proposition 3.2. The correction term
√

√

P1,0 is given by




2
2
 2 ∂ P0
 ∂
2 ∂ P0
P1,0 = −(T − t) V1 x
+ V2 x
x
∂x2
∂x
∂x2


∂ 3 P0
∂P0
∂ 2 P0
∂ 2 P0
∂ 2 P0
+ V4 x2 2
−
+ V5 x
+ V6 x
,
+ l V3 −x
∂x∂α
∂α
∂x ∂α
∂η∂x
∂x∂α

(3.47)

in which


√
√ 1
√
1√
 l ρ2 ν 2hσφy i − ν̃ 2 hΛκỹ i , V2 =
ρ4 ν̃ 2hσκỹ i,
2
2


√
√
√
√
√
√ 1


2
V3 = (ρ12 ην 2hφy i), V4 = − 
ρ14 ην̃ 2hκỹ i − ρ4 ν̃ 2hσψỹ iηρ1 + ρ14 ην̃ 2hψỹ iσ̄1 ρ1 ,
2
√
√
√
√
√
√
V5 = − (ρ14 ην̃ 2hψỹ iρ1 ), V6 = (−ρ4 ν̃ 2hσψỹ iηρ1 + ρ14 ην̃ 2hψỹ iσ̄1 ρ21 − ν̃ 2hΛψỹ iηρ1 ).
V1 =

√

(3.48)
Proof. Recall that P1,0 is the solution of (3.17) and (3.18) and that the right-hand-side of
(3.17) is given by (3.22). The result is a simple algebraic exercise given the following four
observations:
n

∂
1) xn ∂x
n commutes with hL2 i.
n

∂
2) −(T − t)(xn ∂x
n )P0 solves:



n
n ∂
P0 ,
hL2 iu = x
∂xn

u(T, x, r; z) = 0.

(3.49)

0
3) By differentiating (3.14) with respect to α, we see that − ∂P
∂α also solves

hL2 iu =

∂P0
,
∂r

u(T, x, r; z) = 0.

(3.50)

4) Using 1) and 2) above and the equation we obtain by differentiating (3.10) with respect
∂ 2 P0
0
to η, we can show that 1/η · (σ̄1 ρ1 x ∂x∂α
− ∂P
∂η ) solves
hL2 iu =

∂ 2 P0
,
∂r2

u(T, x, r; z) = 0.

(3.51)

Remark 3.1. By differentiating (3.10) with respect to r, we obtain
hL2 i

∂
∂P0
∂P0
= −x P0 + β
+ P0 .
∂r
∂x
∂r

16

(3.52)



∂P0
0
Using observation 2 in the proof of Proposition 3.2, we see that β1 −(T − t)(x ∂P
−
P
)
+
0
∂x
∂r
solves
∂P0
hL2 iu =
, u(T, x, r; z) = 0.
(3.53)
∂r
Now, it follows from observation 3 in the proof of Proposition 3.2 that
∂P0
1
−
=
∂α
β





∂P0
−(T − t) x
− P0
∂x



∂P0
+
∂r


.

(3.54)

Using this identity, we can express (3.47) only in terms of the “Greeks”.
Next, we obtain an explicit expression for P0,1 , the solution of (3.23). We need some
0
preparation first. By differentiating (3.10) with respect to z, we see that ∂P
∂z solves
hL2 iu = −λ̄0 (z)x

∂P0
+ l λ̄0 (z)P0 ,
∂x

u(T, x, r; z) = 0.

(3.55)

As a result (see Observation 2 in the proof of Propostion 3.2)


∂P0
∂P0
0
= (T − t)λ̄ (z) x
− l P0 ,
∂z
∂x

(3.56)

from which it follows that −hM1 iP0 can be represented as



 2

2
∂P0
∂ P0
∂P0
2 ∂ P0
−hM1 iP0 = −(T −t)λ̄ (z) σ̄1 ρ3 g(z) x
+ (1 − l)x
+ ηρ13 g(z) x
−l
.
∂x2
∂x
∂x∂r
∂r
(3.57)
√
Proposition 3.3. The correction term δP0,1 is given by
0

√



 2
2
− t)2
∂P0
∂ P0
∂P0
2 ∂ P0
δ1
δP0,1 =
x
+ (1 − l)x
+ V2
x
−l
2
2
∂x
∂x
β ∂α∂x
∂α


 2

2
2
(T − t)
∂P0
∂ P0
∂P0
2 ∂ P0
+
x
−lx
+ l P0 − (T − t) x
−l
,
2
∂x2
∂x
∂r∂x
∂r
(T
V1δ

in which
V1δ =

√

δ λ̄0 (z)σ̄1 ρ3 g(z),

V2δ =

√

δ λ̄0 (z)ηρ13 g(z).

(3.58)

(3.59)

Proof. We construct the solution from the following observations and superposition since
hL2 i is linear:
1) We first observe that

(T −t)2
∂n
(xn ∂x
n )P0
2

solves



n
n ∂
hL2 iu = −(T − t) x
P0 ,
∂xn
17

u(T, x, r; z) = 0.

(3.60)

0
2) Next, we apply hL2 i on (T − t) ∂P
∂r and obtain





∂P0
∂P0
∂P0
∂P0
=−
+ (T − t) −x
+β
+ P0 ,
hL2 i (T − t)
∂r
∂r
∂x
∂r
as a result of which we see that




1
∂P0 (T − t)2
∂P0
∂P0
−
x
−
− P0 + (T − t)
β
∂α
2
∂x
∂r
solves
hL2 iu = (T − t)

4

∂P0
,
∂r

u(T, x, r; z) = 0.

(3.61)

(3.62)

(3.63)

Calibration of the Model

In this section, we will calibrate the loss rate l and the parameters
{λ̄, V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V1δ , V2δ },
which appear in the expressions (3.28), (3.47), and (3.58) on a daily basis (see, e.g., Fouque
et al. (2003) and Papageorgiou and Sircar (2008) for similar calibration exercises carried out
only for the option data or only for the bond data). We demonstrate this calibration on Ford
Motor Company. Note that there are some common parameters between equity options and
corporate bonds. Therefore, our model will be calibrated simultaneously to both of these
data sets. We will also calibrate the parameters of the interest rate and stock models to the
yield curve data, historical spot rate data and historical stock price data. Next, we test our
model by using the estimated parameters to construct an out-of-sample CDS spread time
series (3 year and 5 year), which matches real quoted CDS spread data over the time period
(1/6/2006 − 6/8/2007) quite well.
We also look at how our model-implied volatility matches the real option implied volatility.
We compare our results against those of Fouque et al. (2003). We see that even when we
make the unrealistic assumption of constant volatility, our model is able to produce a very
good fit.
Finally, in the context of index options (when λ = 0), using SPX 500 index options data,
we show the importance of accounting for stochastic interest rates by comparing our model
to that of Fouque et al. (2000, 2003).

18

4.1

Data description

• The daily closing stock price data is obtained from finance.yahoo.com.
• The stock option data is from OptionMetrics under WRDS database, which is the same
database used in Carr and Wu (2006).
– For index options, SPX 500 in our case, we use the data from their Volatility
Surface file. The file contains information on standardized options, both calls and
puts, with expirations of 30, 60, 91, 122, 152, 182, 273, 365, 547, and 730 calender
days. Implied volatilities there are interpolated data using a methodology based
on kernel smoothing algorithm. The interpolated implied volatilities are very close
to real data because there are a great number of options each day for SPX 500
with different maturities and strikes. The calibration results for index options are
presented in Figure 7 and only the data set on the June 8, 2007 is used.
– On September 15, 2006 (Friday) Ford announced that it would not be paying dividends (see e.g., http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/15/news/companies/ford/index.htm).
Therefore, call options on Ford after that date do not have early exercise premium
starting from Sep 18, 2006. We use Ford’s implied volatility surface data from
9/18/2006 to 6/8/2007. when we consider Ford Motor Company’s options. We
excluded the observations with zero trading volume or with maturity less than 9
days. The calibration results are used to construct Figures 1-6. In particular, the
implied volatility surface data from 9/18/2006 to 6/8/2007 is used to construct 2.
As opposed to the options on the index there are not as many individual company
options; and we find that the results given by using interpolated implied volatilities
in the Volatility Surface File and data implied volatilities differ. This may be due
to the fact that there are a limited number of option prices available for individual
companies; i.e., there may not be enough data points for the implied volatilities to
be accurately interpolated. Therefore, we use the Option Price file, which contains
the historical option price information, of the OptionMetrics database
• For each day we U.S government Treasury yield data with maturities: 1 month, 3 monts,
6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, 7 years, 10 years, 20 years. This data set
is available at: www.treasury.gov/offices/domestic-finance/debt-management/interestrate/yield.shtml.
• Corporate bond and CDS data is obtained from Bloomberg. Number of available bond
quotes and bond maturities vary. Typically there are around 15 data points, for example, on June 8th, we have the following maturities: 0.60278,1.0222,1.1861,1.3139,1.4083,
1.5944, 2.3889, 2.6028, 3.0194, 3.2694, 3.3972, 3.6472, 4.1722, 4.3806, 6.3139, 9.5194.
19

4.2

The parameter estimation

The following parameters can be directly estimated from the spot-rate and stock price historical data:
1. The parameters of the interest rate model {α, β, η} are obtained by a least-square fitting
to the Treasury yield curve as in Papageorgiou and Sircar (2008).
2. ρ̄1 = σ̄σ̄12 ρ1 , the “effective” correlation between risk-free spot rate r (we use the onemonth treasury bonds as a proxy for r) and stock price in (3.34) is estimated from
historical risk-free spot rate and stock price data.
3. σ̄2 , the “effective” stock price volatility in (3.34) is estimated from the historical stock
price data.
Now, we detail the calibration method for l, λ̄(z) and {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V1δ , V2δ }. We
will minimize the in-sample quadratic pricing error using non-linear least squares to calibrate
these parameters on a daily basis. This way we find a risk neutral model that matches a set
of observed market prices. This risk neutral model can then be used to price more exotic,
illiquid or over-the-counter derivatives. This practice is commonly employed; and for further
discussion of this calibration methodology we refer to Cont and Tankov (2004) (see Chapter
13 and the references therein).
Our calibration is carried out in two steps in tandem:
Step 1. Estimation of lλ̄ and {lV3 , lV2δ } from the corporate bond price data.
The approximate price formula in (3.24) for a defaultable bond is
ec = Bc +
B
0

√

c
B1,0
+

√

c
δB0,1
,

(4.1)

in which B0c is given by (3.29) and
√
√

∂B0c
,
∂α


∂B0c (T − t)2 c
∂B0c
δ1
= lV2
−
+
B0 + (T − t)
.
β
∂α
2
∂r

c
B1,0
= lV3

c
δB0,1

(4.2)

We obtain {lλ̄(z), lV3 , lV2δ } from least-squares fitting, i.e. by minimizing
n
X
c
c
(Bobs
(t, Si ) − Bmodel
(t, Si ; lλ̄, lV3 , lV2δ ))2 ,
i=1

20

(4.3)

c (t, S ) is the observed market price of a bond that matures at time S and
where Bobs
i
i
c

δ
Bmodel (t, Si ; lλ̄, lV3 , lV2 ) is the corresponding model price obtained from (4.1). Here, n is
the number of bonds that are traded at time t. For a fixed value of lλ̄(z) it follows from (4.1)
that {lV3 , lV2δ } can be determined as the least squares solution of
∂B0c
(t, S1 ),
 ∂α

1
β

∂B0c
∂α (t, Sn ),

1
β






h

−

∂B0c
∂α

+

(S1 −t)2 c
B0
2

..
.

+ (S1 − t)

∂B0c
∂r

+ (Sn − t)

∂r

..
.
h

−

∂B0c
∂α

+

(Sn −t)2 c
B0
2

i

 lV 

3

δ

i
lV
2
∂B c
0



!


c (t, S ) − B c (t, S ; lλ̄)
Bobs
1
1
0


..
.
=
.


c
c
Bobs (t, Sn ) − B0 (t, Sn ; lλ̄)

Now, we vary lλ̄(z) ∈ [0, M1 ] and choose the point {lλ̄, lV3 , lV2δ } that minimizes (4.3). Here,
we take M1 = 1 guided by the results of Papageorgiou and Sircar (2008).
Step 2. Estimation of {l, V1 , V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V1δ } from the equity option data: These
parameters are calibrated from the stock options data by a least-squares fit to the observed
implied volatility. We choose the parameters to minimize
n
X

(Iobs (t, Ti , Ki ) − Imodel (t, Ti , Ki ; model parameters))2

i=1
n
X
(Pobs (t, Ti , Ki ) − Pmodel (t, Ti , Ki ; model parameters))2
≈
vega2 (Ti , Ki )

(4.4)

i=1

in which Iobs (t, Ti , Ki ) and Imodel (t, Ti , Ki ; model parameters) are observed Black-Scholes implied volatility and model Black-Scholes implied volatility, respectively. The right hand side
of (4.4) is from Cont and Tankov (2004), page 439. Here, Pobs (t, Ti , Ki ) is the market price
of a European option (a put or a call) that matures at time Ti and with strike price Ki and
Pmodel (t, Ti , Ki ; model parameters) is the corresponding model price which is obtained from
(3.24). As in Cont and Tankov (2004), vega(Ti , Ki ) is the market implied Black-Scholes vega.
Let P0 (t, Ti , Ki ; λ̄(z)) be either of (3.44) and (3.46) with K = Ki and T = Ti . Let us
introduce the Greeks,
g1 = −(T − t)x

∂ 3 P0
,
∂x2 ∂α
 2
1
∂ P0
g8 =
x
β
∂α∂x
g4 = x2

2P
0
,
2
∂x





2
∂
∂
∂P0
2 ∂ P0
g2 = −(T − t)x
x
, g3 =
x
− P0 ,
∂x
∂x2
∂α
∂x
∂ 2 P0
∂ 2 P0
(T − t)2 2 ∂ 2 P0
g5 = x
, g6 = x
, g7 =
x
,
∂η∂x
∂α∂x
2
∂x2




2
∂P0 (T − t)2
∂P0
∂ 2 P0
∂P0
2 ∂ P0
−
+
x
+ P0 − (T − t) x(
∂x) −
,
−x
∂α
2
∂x2
∂x
∂r
∂r
(4.5)

2∂

in which each term can be explicitly evaluated (see Appendix).

21

Now from (3.24) and the results of Section 3.3 (with l = 1), we can write
Pmodel (t, Ti , Ki ; model parameters) = P0 (t, Ti , Ki ; λ̄) + V1 g1 (Ti , Ki ; λ̄) + V2 g2 (Ti , Ki ; λ̄)
+ V3 g3 (Ti , Ki ; λ̄) + V4 g4 (Ti , Ki ; λ̄) + V5 g5 (Ti , Ki ; λ̄)
+ V6 g6 (Ti , Ki ; λ̄) + V1δ g7 (Ti , Ki ; λ̄) + V2δ g8 (Ti , Ki ; λ̄).
(4.6)
First, let us fix the value of l. Then, from Step 1, we can infer the values of {λ̄, V3 , V2δ }.
Now the fitting problem in (4.4) is a linear least squares problem for {V1 , V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V1δ }.
Next, we vary l ∈ [0, 1] and choose {l, V1 , V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V1δ } so that (4.4) is minimized.

4.3

Model implied CDS spread matches the observed CDS spread

e c (t, T ; l) denote the approximation for the price at time t of a defaultable bond that
Let B
matures at time T , and has loss rate l (see (4.1)). Let B(t, T ) be the price of a risk-free bond.
Then, the model implied CDS spead with maturity TM is
cds
model (t, TM ) =

e c (t, TM ; l)
B(t, TM ) − B
.
M
X
c
e (t, Tm ; 1)
B

(4.7)

m=1

Recall that we have already estimated all of the model parameters in Section 4.2 using both
corporate term structure data and the stock option implied volatility surface. Therefore,
using (4.7) we can plot the model implied CDS spread over time and compare it with the
CDS spread data available in the market. This is precisely what we do in Figures 1 and 2. We
ds
look at the time series cds
model (t, 3) and cmodel (t, 5) and compare them to the CDS spread time
series of the Ford Motor Company. The match seems to be extremely good, which attests to
the power of our modeling framework.
By varying TM in (4.7) we can obtain the model implied term structure of the CDS
spread. Figure 3 shows the range of shapes we can produce.

4.4

Fitting Ford’s implied volatility

We will compare how well our model fits the implied volatility against the model of Fouque
et al. (2003), which does not account for the default risk and for the randomness of the
interest rates. Although, we only calibrate seven parameters (hence we refer to our model
as the 7-parameter model) to the option prices (see the second step of the estimation in

22

Section 4.2), we have many more parameters than the model of Fouque et al. (2003), which
only has four parameters (we refer to this model as the 4-parameter model). Therefore, for
a fair comparison, we also consider a model in which the volatility is a constant. In this
case, as we shall see below, there are only three parameters to calibrate to the option prices,
therefore we call it the 3-parameter model.
Constant Volatility Model In this case, we take σ̄1 = σ̄2 = σ in the expression for P0
√
√
in Corollary 3.1 . The expression for δP0,1 remains the same as before. However, P1,0
simplifies to
√

P1,0 = −(T −

2P
0
∂x2

∂
t)V1 x2

+

V3



∂ 2 P0
∂P0
.
−x
+
∂α∂x
∂α

(4.8)

This model has only three parameters, l, V1 , V1δ that need to be calibrated to the options
prices, as opposed to the 4-parameter model of Fouque et al. (2003).
As it can be seen from Figure 4 as expected our 7-parameter model outperforms the
4-parameter model of Fouque et al. (2003) as expected and fits the implied volatility data
well. But, what is surprising is that the 3-parameter model, which does not account for the
volatility but accounts for the default risk and stochastic interest rate, has almost the same
performance as the 7-parameter model.
The 7-parameter model has a very rich implied volatility surface structure, the surface has
more curvature than that of the 4-parameter model of Fouque et al. (2003), whose volatility
surface is more flat; see Figures 5 and 6. (The parameters to draw these figures are obtained
by calibrating the models to the data implied volatility surface on June 8 2007.) The 7parameter model has a recognizable skew even for longer maturities and has a much sharper
skew for shorter maturities.

4.5

Fitting the implied volatility of the index options

The purpose of this section is to show the importance of accounting for stochastic interest
rates in fitting the implied volatility surface. Interest rate changes should, indeed, be accounted for in pricing long maturity options. When we price index options, we set λ̄ = 0 and
our approximation in (3.24) simplifies to
P ,δ ≈ P0 +

23

√

P1,0 ,

(4.9)

in which P0 is given by Corollary 3.1 after settiing λ̄(z) = 0, and



2
2
3
2
2
 ∂
2 ∂ P0
 2 ∂ P0
 ∂ P0
 ∂ P0
 2 ∂ P0
P1,0 = −(T − t) V1 x
+
V
x
x
+
V
x
+
V
x
+
V
x
2
4
5
6
∂x2
∂x
∂x2
∂x2 ∂α
∂η∂x
∂α∂x
(4.10)
Note that the difference of (4.9) with the model of Fouque et al. (2003) is that the latter
allows for a slow evolving volatility factor to better match the implied volatility at the longer
maturities. This was an improvement on the model of Fouque et al. (2000), which only has
a fast scale component in the volatility model. We, on the other hand, by accounting for
stochastic interest rates, capture the same performance by using only a fast scale volatility
model.
√

From Figure 7, we see that both (4.9) and Fouque et al. (2003) outperform the model of
Fouque et al. (2000), especially at the longer maturities (T = 9 months, 1 year, 1.5 years and
2 years), and their performance is very similar. This observation emphasizes the importance
of accounting for stochastic interest rates for long maturity contracts.

Appendix: Explicit formulae for the Greeks in (4.5)
When h(x) = (x − K)+ , we can explicitly express the Greeks in (4.5) in terms of f (x) =
√1 exp(−x2 /2) as
2π




2
xf (d1 )
∂
xf (d1 )
d1
2 ∂ C0
= √
, x
x
= √
1− √
,
x
vt,T
∂x
∂x2
vt,T
vt,T





∂
∂C0
T − t exp(−β(T − t)) − 1
f (d2 )
c
x
− C0 = −K B̄ (t, T )
+
N (d2 ) − √
,
∂α
∂x
β
β2
vt,T




2
∂
−xf (d1 )d1 T − t exp(−β(T − t)) − 1
2 ∂ C0
x
=
+
,
∂α
∂x2
vt,T
β
β2




∂ ∂C0
xf (d1 ) T − t exp(−β(T − t)) − 1
x
= √
+
,
∂x ∂α
vt,T
β
β2





∂
∂C0
1 − exp(−β(T − t))
f (d2 )
x
− C0 = −K B̄ c (t, T )
N (d2 ) − √
,
∂r
∂x
β
vt,T





∂ ∂C0
1
η
2η
η
x
= xf (d1 ) − √
(T
−
t)
+
(exp(−β(T
−
t))
−
1
− 3 (exp(−2β(T − t)) − 1))
∂x ∂η
vt,T β 2
2β 3
2β
!

x
1
1
−3/2
+ − log
vt,T + √
×
c
2
4 vt,T
K B̄t,T





 
2ρ̄1 σ̄2 2η
2ρ̄1 σ̄2 4η
2ρ̄1 σ̄2 3η
η
+ 2 (T − t) +
+
exp(−β(T
−
t))
−
exp(−2β(T
−
t))
−
+
.
β
β
β2
β3
β3
β2
β3
2∂

2C

0
∂x2

24

References
Bayraktar, E. (2008).
(3): 277–304.

Pricing options on defaultable stocks, Applied Mathematical Finance 15

Bielecki, T. R. and Rutkowski, M. (2002). Credit Risk: Modeling, Valuation and Hedging, Springer,
New York.
Carr, P. and Linetsky, V. (2006). A jump to default extended CEV model: An application of Bessel
processes, Finance and Stochastics 10: 303–330.
Carr, P. and Wu, L. (2006). Stock options and credit default swaps: A joint framework for valuation
and estimation, Technical report, NYU. Available at http://faculty.baruch.cunny.edu/lwu.
Cont, R. and Tankov, P. (2004). Financial Modeling with Jump Processes, Chapman & Hall, Boca
Raton, FL.
Cotton, P., Fouque, J.-P., Papanicolaou, G. and Sircar, R. (2004). Stochastic volatility corrections for
interest rate derivatives, Math. Finance 14(2): 173–200.
Duffie, D. and Singleton, K. (1999). Modeling term structure of defaultable bonds, Review of Financial
Studies 12 (4): 687–720.
Fouque, J.-P., Papanicolaou, G. and Sircar, K. R. (2000). Derivatives in Financial Markets with
Stochastic Volatility, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Fouque, J. P., Papanicolaou, G., Sircar, R. and Solna, K. (2003). Multiscale stochastic volatility
asymptotics, SIAM J. Multiscale Modeling and Simulation 2 (1): 22–42.
Geman, H., Karoui, N. E. and Rochet, J. C. (1995). Changes of numéraire, changes of probability
measures and option pricing, Journal of Applied Probability 32: 443–458.
Linetsky, V. (2006). Pricing equity derivatives subject to bankruptcy, Mathematical Finance 16
(2): 255–282.
Papageorgiou, E. and Sircar, R. (2008). Multiscale intensity based models for single name credit
derivatives, Applied Mathematical Finance 15 (1): 73–105.
Schönbucher, P. J. (1998). Term structure of defaultable bond prices, Review of Derivatives Research
2 (2/3): 161–192.
Schönbucher, P. J. (2003). Credit Derivatives Pricing Models: Model, Pricing and Implementation,
Wiley, New York.

25

400

350

Ford 3yr CDS spread(bps)

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
9/18/06

11/7/06

12/27/06

2/15/07

4/6/07

Date

Figure 1: Ford 3 year CDS annual spread time series from 9/18/2006-3/13/2007.
Spread implied by model is pink solid line, real quoted spread is blue broken line. Ford’s 3
year CDS spread time series is not available from 3/13/2007 until 8/31/07 in our data source.

500

450

400

Ford 5yr CDS spread(bps)

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
9/18/06

11/7/06

12/27/06

2/15/07

4/6/07

Date

Figure 2: Ford 5 year CDS annual spread time series from 9/18/2006-6/8/2007.
Spread implied by model is pink solid line, real quoted spread is blue broken line.

26

5/26/07

450

400

350

CDS spread (bps)

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Time to maturity (years)

Figure 3: CDS Term Structures (4.7) can produce:
Legend
-x-, blue (The parameters are obtained from calibration to 11/13/2006): α=0.0037, β=0.0872
η = 0.0001, r = 0.0516, l(loss rate) = 0.283, λ̄(z) = 0.0459, [V3 , V2δ ] = [0.0425, 0.0036].
-squares-, black (The parameters correspond to 6/18/2006): α = 0.0045, β = 0.0983,
η = 0.0002, r = 0.0516, l = 1, λ̄ = 0.012, [V3 , V2δ ] = [0.0185, 0.0025],
-diamonds-, red (The parameters correspond to 9/22/2006): α = 0.0039, β = 0.0817,
η = 0.0012, r = 0.0496, l=1, λ̄(z) = 0.017, [V3 , V2δ ] = [0.0067, 0.0005]

27

maturity = 45 days

maturity = 17 days
0.55

0.9
0.8

implied volatility

implied volatility

0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

7

7.2

7.4
7.6
strikes

7.8

0.2

8

5

0.44

0.42

0.42

0.4
0.38
0.36
0.34
0.32
0.3

7
strikes

8

9

maturity = 168 days

0.44

implied volatility

implied volatility

maturity = 72 days

6

0.4
0.38
0.36
0.34
0.32

7

7.5

8
strikes

8.5

0.3

9

7

8

9

10

strikes

maturity = 285 days

maturity = 643 days

0.6

0.6

implied volatility

implied volatility

0.55
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35

0.2

4

6

8

10
strikes

12

14

5

10
strikes

15

Figure 4:
Implied volatility fit to the Ford call option data with maturities of
[17,45,72,168,285,643] calender days on April 4, 2007.
Model is calibrated aross all maturities but we plotted the implied volatilities for each maturity, separately. Here, stock price (x) = 8.04, historical volatility (σ̄2 ) = 0.3827, one month
treasury rate (r) = 0.0516, estimated correlation between risk-free spot rate(one month treasury) and stock price (ρ̄1 ) = −0.0327. Also α = 0.0037, β = 0.0872, η = 0.0001 which are
obtained with a least-square fitting to the Treasury yield curve on the 4th of April.
Legend:
’o’, empty circles = observed data;
’x’, green = stochastic vol+stochastic hazard rate+stochastic interest rate = the 7-parameter
model;
small full circle, blue = constant vol+stochastic hazard rate+ stochastic interest rate = the
3-parameter model
’*’, red = The model of Fouque et al. (2003) which has constant interest rate+stochastic vol
(slow and fast scales) = the 4 parameter model.
28

0.7

implied volatility

0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35

1
0.8

0.4

0.6

0.6
0.8

0.4

1

1.2

1.4

0.2

time to maturity

moneyness

Figure 5: Implied volatility surface corresponding to (4.6), the 7-parameter model.
Here,
α
=
0.0063,
β
=
0.1034,
η
=
0.012,
r
=
0.0476
σ̄2
=
0.2576,
λ̄(z)
=
0.027,
(V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V1δ , V2δ )
=
(0.9960, −0.0014, 0.0009, 0.0104, −0.6514, 0.3340, −0.1837, −0.0001).

0.65
0.6

implied volatility

0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.4

1
0.6

0.8
0.8

0.6
1

1.2

0.4
1.4

0.2

time to maturity

moneyness

Figure 6: Implied Volatility Surface corresponding to the 4-parameter model of Fouque et al.
(2003).
Here, r = 0.046, average volatility=0.2546, and the parameters in (4.3) of Fouque et al.
(2003) are choosen to be (V2 , V3 , V0δ , V1δ ) = (−0.0164, −0.1718, 0.0006, 0.0630). Note that
the parameters here and Figure 5 are both obtained by calibrating the models to the data
implied volatility surface of Ford Motor Company on June 8, 2007.

29

maturity = 60 days

implied volatility

implied volatility

maturity = 30 days
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
1450

1500

1550

1600

0.2
0.15
0.1
1400

1450

strikes

0.15
0.1
1400

1450

1500
strikes

1550

1600

0.15
0.1
1400

1450

implied volatility

implied volatility
1500
strikes

1600

1700

implied volatility

implied volatility
1500
strikes

1600

1700

0.15
0.1
1300

1400

implied volatility

implied volatility
1600
strikes

1800

1600

1700

0.15
0.1
1300

1400

1500
1600
strikes

1700

1800

maturity = 730 days

0.15

1400

1500
strikes

0.2

maturity = 547 days
0.2

0.1
1200

1650

maturity = 365 days

0.15

1400

1600

0.2

maturity = 273 days
0.2

0.1
1300

1500
1550
strikes
maturity = 182 days

0.15

1400

1600

0.2

maturity = 152 days
0.2

0.1
1300

1550

maturity = 122 days

0.2

implied volatility

implied volatility

maturity = 91 days

1500
strikes

2000

0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
1200

1400

1600
strikes

1800

2000

Figure 7: The fit to the Implied Volatility Surface of SPX on June 8, 2007 with maturities
[30,60,91,122,152,182,273,365,547,730] calender days. Recall from Section 4.1 that we use
standardized options from the OptionMetrics.
Models are calibrated aross all maturities, but we plot the implied volatility fits separately.
The parameters are: stock price (x) = 1507.67, dividend rate = 0.0190422, historical volatility
(σ̄2 ) = 0.1124, one month treasury rate (r) = 0.0476, estimated correlation between risk-free
spot rate(one month treasury) and stock price (ρ̄1 ) = 0.020454. Also, α = 0.0078, β = 0.1173,
η = 0.0241, which are obtained from a least-square fitting to the Treasury yield curve of the
same day.
Legend
’o’, empty cirles = observed data,
’x”, green = Implied volatility of (4.9),
’*’, red = Implied volatility of Fouque et al. (2003),
small full circle, blue = Implied volatility of Fouque et al. (2000).
30

