Calibrating Hull–White to Market Prices or Implied Volatilities
Summary
The document compares two objective types for calibrating a one-factor Hull–White interest-rate model to caplet or similar market data. A price-based calibration minimizes differences between quoted instrument prices and prices produced by the model. A volatility-based calibration instead minimizes differences between quoted implied volatilities and implied volatilities extracted from model prices. Either approach can use squared, absolute, or relative errors, with weights assigned across maturities and strikes.
The stated computational drawback of volatility-based fitting is that each optimizer iteration requires calculating model prices and then solving for their implied volatilities, for example with a root-finding routine. Direct price fitting avoids that extra inversion step. The document does not recommend one objective for a banking-liability simulation, nor does it compare calibration quality or stability. The choice of error measure and weights can affect which instruments dominate the fit, so the calibration objective should reflect the intended use and market quote conventions.
Key ideas
- Price-based calibration minimizes differences between observed and model instrument prices.
- Volatility-based calibration compares market implied volatilities with implied volatilities extracted from model prices.
- Both approaches can use squared, absolute, or relative errors and instrument-specific weights.
- Implied-volatility fitting requires a root-finding step for model prices at each optimizer iteration.
- The document does not establish which objective is preferable for liability valuation simulations.
Tags
Full text
# Calibration of 1F Hull White short-rate model to market data
# Calibration of 1F Hull White short-rate model to market data
I want to calibrate the Hull White 1 factor short rate model to market data. The main purpose is to simulate interest rate paths, which I will use to calculate the net pv of banking liabilities.
Some sources suggest the use of market volatilities (of caps or swaptions), while I also encounter the use of market prices. Can someone explain to me the difference (if any) between the use of volatilities and prices for the calibration of the Hull White model. Which method is preferred with regards to my situation?
Thanks in advance
## Answer by user16651 (score 2)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/26203
Suppose we have a set of $N_T$ maturities $\tau_t$ and a set of $N_k$ strikes $K_k$ .For each maturity-strike combination $(\tau_t,K_k)$ we have a market price (for example) $Caplet(\tau_t,K_k)=C_{tk}$ and a corresponding model price $Caplet(\tau_t,K_k,\Lambda)=C^\Lambda_{tk}$ in which $\Lambda$ is Hull-Whit's Parameters. The first category minimize the error between quoted and model prices The error is usually defined as the squared difference between the quoted and model prices, or the absolute value of the difference; relative errors can also be used. For example, parameter estimates obtained using the mean error sum of squares (MSE) loss function are obtained by minimizing $$\frac{1}{N}\sum\limits_{t=1}^{{{N}_{T}}}{\sum\limits_{k=1}^{{{N}_{K}}}{{{w}_{t,k}}}}{{({{C}_{t,k}}-C_{t,k}^{\Lambda })}^{2}}\ ,\ \ N={{N}_{T}}\times {{N}_{K}}\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,(1)$$ $\omega_{tk}$ is weight parameter. The second category are those that minimize the error between quoted and model implied volatilities. Again, the error is usually defined as the squared difference, absolute difference, or relative difference, between quoted and model implied volatilities: $$\frac{1}{N}\sum\limits_{t=1}^{{{N}_{T}}}{\sum\limits_{k=1}^{{{N}_{K}}}{{{w}_{t,k}}}}{{(I{{V}_{t,k}}-IV_{t,k}^{\Lambda })}^{2}}\ \ ,\ \ N={{N}_{T}}\times {{N}_{K}}\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,(2)$$ The main disadvantage of Equation (2) is that it is numerically intensive.Indeed, at each iteration of the optimization, we must first obtain every Caplet Price and then apply a root-finding algorithm such as the bisection algorithm to extract the implied volatility $IV_{t,k}^{\Lambda }$ from $C_{t,k}^{\Lambda }$.
I hope it will be useful for you.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.