Skip to content
All library documents

Converting Variance Swap Notional into Vega Exposure

Article Quant Q&A · Author: Igor Pozdeev

Summary

The question asks how to size a variance swap as an imperfect hedge for an asset return that tends to weaken when its variance rises. It proposes modeling returns with a GARCH-in-mean relationship and setting swap notional to offset the estimated sensitivity of return to variance. The response instead explains the common conversion between variance notional and vega notional: because variance is the square of volatility, a small volatility change produces an approximately linear payoff change whose scale depends on the current volatility strike.

This conversion is derived by expanding squared volatility around its current level and dropping the second-order term for a small move. It helps express a variance swap's exposure in dollars per unit change in volatility. However, it does not answer how to estimate the desired hedge ratio for the underlying asset, establish that the proposed GARCH specification is appropriate, or address basis risk between asset returns and realized variance. The approximation is local to small volatility changes and should not be read as a complete portfolio hedge methodology.

Key ideas

  • Variance swap payoffs are tied to changes in variance, while traders often express exposure in volatility terms.
  • For a small volatility move, the change in squared volatility is approximately twice current volatility times the move.
  • Vega notional converts variance exposure into an approximate dollar sensitivity to volatility changes.
  • The response does not derive the asset-specific hedge ratio proposed in the question.
  • The linear conversion is an approximation and becomes less accurate for larger volatility changes.

Tags

Full text
# Hedging with variance swaps: how to calculate the notional


# Hedging with variance swaps: how to calculate the notional












Returns on an asset are negatively correlated with own variance, and I would like to set up a hedge with a variance swap (no options are traded). I need to decide on the notional of the swap: any ideas how I could calculate it?

EDIT I do not want to trade variance, I want to (imperfectly) hedge the part of the return that is by my gut feeling low when the return variance is high.

My attempt: I will try to set up a \$1 portfolio of the asset and variance swap that has return $r^p$:

$$r^p_{t+1} = r_{t+1} +s_{t+1}, $$

where $r$ is the asset return and $s$ is the payoff of the variance swap:

$$ s_{t+1} = N_t ( rv_{t+1} - iv_{t} ), $$ where $N_t$ is the notional, $rv_{t+1}$ is the realized variance in month $t+1$, $iv_t$ is the swap price. I think I ultimately need the following to hold:

$$ E \frac{\partial r^p_{t+1}}{\partial \sigma^2_{t+1}} = E \frac{\partial r_{t+1}}{\partial \sigma^2_{t+1}} + N_t = 0. $$

I thought of modelling the dependence between $r$ and $\sigma^2$ as a GARCH-in-mean process:

$$ r_{t+1} = \alpha + \beta \color{red}{\sigma^2_{t+1}} + \varepsilon_{t+1} $$ $$ \varepsilon_{t+1} \sim N(0, \color{red}{\sigma^2_{t+1}}) $$ $$ \color{red}{\sigma^2_{t+1}} = \omega + \theta_1 \varepsilon_{t}^2 + \theta_2 \sigma^2_{t}, $$

from where it would follow that:

$$ E \frac{\partial r_{t+1}}{\partial \sigma^2_{t+1}} = \beta = -N_t. $$ What would you say? Thanks.

## Answer by Richi Wa (score 2)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/39503

Variance swaps pay the difference in variance. However, people tend to think in volatility.

You usually want some effect on your portfolio if vol goes up by $x\%$. Changing implied volatility is called vega.

Thus people use the vega notional $N_{vega}$: $$ N_{vega} = 2 K N_{variance}, $$ where $K$ is the current strike in vol terms.

If you think that the pay-off of the variance swap is:

$$ N_{variance} (\sigma^2 - K^2), $$ where $\sigma^2$ is the current vola squared, then the position changes in the following way if $\sigma$ changes by $\epsilon$:

$$ N_{variance} ( (\sigma+\epsilon)^2 - K^2) = N_{variance} ( (\sigma^2 +2\sigma\epsilon +\epsilon^2 - K^2) $$ and if $\epsilon$ is small this is roughly the same as $$ N_{variance} ( (\sigma+\epsilon)^2 - K^2) = N_{variance} ( (\sigma^2 +2\sigma\epsilon - K^2). $$ Thus the increase of the contract is roughly $$ N_{variance} 2\sigma\epsilon $$ thus a change in vol of $\epsilon$ gives you $N_{variance} 2\sigma = N_{vol}$ Dollars.

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.