Skip to content
All library documents

Breeden-Litzenberger Densities and BKM Risk-Neutral Moments

Article Quant Q&A · Author: des224

Summary

The document compares two ways to extract risk-neutral information from option prices. Breeden-Litzenberger (BL) uses the curvature of call prices across strikes to estimate an entire risk-neutral density. Bakshi-Kapadia-Madan (BKM) methods estimate risk-neutral moments, such as skewness and kurtosis, rather than directly returning a full density. If a density is available, its moments can be calculated; BKM offers moment estimates without requiring that density representation.

For BL, the discussion considers fitting or interpolating option data before differentiating prices. Interpolating prices between bid and ask quotes is presented as a viable route, while another answer cautions that naive interpolation of either prices or implied volatilities can introduce arbitrage. It recommends fitting an arbitrage-aware parametric form, such as SABR or SVI, before differentiation. The document gives conceptual guidance, not a comparison of empirical accuracy; results depend on data quality, fitting choices, and the treatment of strikes outside observed quotes.

Key ideas

  • Breeden-Litzenberger estimates a risk-neutral density from the strike curvature of call prices.
  • BKM methods estimate risk-neutral moments rather than directly producing a complete density.
  • Moments can be calculated from an estimated density when the density is the desired output.
  • Interpolation of sparse option quotes can introduce arbitrage and impair repricing.
  • An arbitrage-aware parametric fit can provide a smoother basis for differentiation.

Tags

Full text
# Option implied risk neutral distribution vs BKM risk neutral moments


# Option implied risk neutral distribution vs BKM risk neutral moments












I am doing some research on the option implied risk neutral distribution and methods calculate it, and so far have come across two ways to do so.

The first way is through the Breeden-Litzenberger formula, which seems like a popular method to calculate the density via a finite differencing approach. There are many good posts both online and here describing how it is done in good detail, e.g.

How to derive the implied probability distribution from B-S volatilities?

Breeden-Litzenberger formula for risk-neutral densities

https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr677.pdf

The second way is the Bakshi, Kapadia and Madan (BKM) risk neutral moments method, where the authors' original paper is also highly cited. This post How are the BKM risk-neutral moments derived? contains the link to the original paper and the answer also provides a high level breakdown of some of the equations in the paper.

My questions are:

- Are these two related in any way? E.g. can't we just use Breeden-Litzenberger to back out a risk neutral distribution, and with the distribution we can calculate its higher order moments (e.g. skewness/kurtosis), which is what the BKM method is trying to estimate? Do we just stick with Breeden-Litzenberger if the implied distribution is the only thing we are after (as BKM doesn't directly give you the distribution of all those moments)?

- For the Breeden-Litzenberger method, the 'usual' way I've seen people do it is something like a) first start off with an IV smile, b) do a cubic spline interpolation/extrapolation in a way such that you don't introduce arbitrage, c) convert IV back to prices via black scholes, d) finite differencing the price function to get the density. Assuming that we already have e.g. the call prices to begin with, why don't we just perform the interpolation/extrapolation directly on the call prices, and then go straight to d)? I have access to OptionMetrics data which comes with both IV and price, why should I even bother with the IV smile at all when I already have the price?

## Answer by Kermittfrog (score 2)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/70279

Re 1: Yes. BL gives you an approximation of the whole density, BKM gives you an approximation of each moment, common implementations offer the first four moments but you should be able to produce more moments.

Re 2: Both ways are viable. IMO, the route via interpolating somewhere between bid/ask prices (instead of bid/ask vols) can be easier to implement / interpret. I once used a corresponding method proposed by Monnier 2013 and I was quite happy with the results.

HTH?

## Answer by Lech (score 0)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/71983

You need to be careful, if you have a few market points (K,IV) or (K,Price) and you start interpolating points in between you very likely will generate arbitrage. It is recommended to firstly fit some parametric form, like the SABR or SVI formula and then use that formula for the necessary differentiation under the BL model. Otherwise, you will very likely notice that you will not be able to price back market instruments.

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.