Black-Karasinski and Vasicek: Pricing and Calibration Tradeoffs
Summary
The document compares constant-parameter Black-Karasinski and Vasicek short-rate models. Both specify a distribution for the short rate, but Black-Karasinski models the logarithm of the rate, preventing negative rates, while Vasicek models the rate directly and permits negative values. The discussion notes that the nonnegative-rate property can be a limitation when negative rates occur in markets.
The central comparison is tractability: Vasicek offers analytical bond and option prices, whereas Black-Karasinski generally requires numerical methods for those prices. Allowing Black-Karasinski parameters to vary over time can help fit the current yield and volatility curves, but this flexibility comes with reduced analytical convenience. The document gives a qualitative model comparison, not empirical evidence that one model forecasts or prices better. Model choice therefore depends on rate dynamics, market conditions, calibration needs, and the value placed on closed-form pricing.
Key ideas
- Vasicek models the short rate directly and allows negative rate realizations.
- Black-Karasinski models the logarithm of the short rate, keeping rates positive.
- Vasicek has analytical bond and option pricing solutions, while Black-Karasinski lacks them.
- Time-varying parameters can help Black-Karasinski fit current yield and volatility curves.
- The model comparison identifies tractability and calibration flexibility as key tradeoffs.
Tags
Full text
# On short-rate-models: Black-Karasinski (with constant parameters) compared to Vasicek
# On short-rate-models: Black-Karasinski (with constant parameters) compared to Vasicek
When modelling the term structure of interest rates, one widespread possibility is using the Black-Karasinski model, which is given by the following stochastic process
$$d\ln{r}=[\theta(t)-a(t)\ln{r}]dt+\sigma(t)dt,$$
where $\theta(t)$, $a(t)$ and $\sigma(t)$ are parameters which can be adjusted so that the model fits the current term structure. This is why it is considered a no-arbitrage model.
If we now remove the time-dependence of the parameters, we end up at an equilibrium-model with a log-normal distribution of the interest rate $r$. This is basically a logarithmic equivalent of the so-called Vasicek model, which is given by
$$dr=a(b-r)dt+\sigma dz.$$
The most striking difference between the two models is now the fact that in the logarithmic one, negative interest rates cannot occur. In literature, the absence of negative rates is presented as an advantage. However, due to negative interest rates actually appearing in derivative markets, this statement has to be reconsidered.
What I want to know is the following: are there any other advantages (if there are any) of using a log-normal equilibrium model (Black-Karasinski with constant parameters) in comparison to a normally distributed equilibrium model (Vasicek)?
Thank you in advance.
## Answer by math (score 7, accepted)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/8417
I will refer to "Interest Rate Models - Theory and Practice: With Smile, Inflation and Credit" by Damiano Brigo and Fabio Mercurio.
In chapter 3 (One-factor short-rate models) they have a very nice table which lists some of the properties of instantaneous short rate models. In both of your models you know the distribution of $r_t$. The huge difference between the two models is the following: For Vasicek you have both, analytical bond and analytical option prices. Instead, the Black-karasinski model does not provide an analytical solution to neither bond nor option prices. This is the main difference and of course a disadvantage of the Black-Karasinski model.
Generally one can say, that allowing time dependent parameters has the advantage of fitting the initial yield and volatility curve. But as you can see, this has the drawback that the model can not be handled analytically.Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)
This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.