Skip to content
All library documents

Deriving Sticky Moneyness from Space-Homogeneous Diffusions

Article Quant Q&A · Author: Giacomo Giannoni

Summary

This answer explains how a model’s structure can imply a sticky-moneyness relationship for its implied volatility surface. It defines an in-model delta by changing spot while holding the other model parameters and state variables fixed. In a log-space homogeneous diffusion, the relative evolution of the asset does not depend directly on its current level. As a result, European vanilla prices scale proportionally when spot and strike are scaled together.

Applying this homogeneity to the option price and its implied-volatility representation gives a relation between the spot and strike sensitivities of implied volatility. That relation matches the sticky-moneyness rule: a spot move corresponds to adjusting strike to preserve the strike-to-spot ratio. The argument is analytical and illustrates how to test a stickiness convention from a model’s assumptions. It does not establish sticky strike, and it does not apply automatically to models whose drift or diffusion directly depends on spot, such as local-volatility models. The answer also assumes the relevant prices and implied volatilities are differentiable.

Key ideas

  • Define model delta by varying spot while holding other model inputs fixed.
  • Log-space homogeneity makes European option prices scale linearly with spot and strike.
  • Price homogeneity links the spot and strike derivatives of implied volatility.
  • The resulting derivative relation corresponds to sticky moneyness.
  • Models with direct spot dependence, including local-volatility models, need separate analysis.

Tags

Full text
# How to verify sticky delta property on a stochastic volatility model


# How to verify sticky delta property on a stochastic volatility model












Given a stochastic model for the evolution of St, with a given SDE for its volatility, how can you tell if the given model satisfy the sticky delta (or the sticky strike) property? Is it possible to prove analytically this property? Or the only way is to actually compute the prices?

## Answer by Quantuple (score 4)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/45818

I agree with the comment made by will: for a given model, you can potentially compute a Delta according to any "stickiness rule" depending on which data you decide to bump vs. keep constant.

That being said, if you look at the following quantity $$ \Delta = \left. \frac{\partial V}{\partial S_0} \right\vert_{\Theta} $$ that we could call the in-model Delta as in "all parameters and state variables except the spot price are held constant" (e.g. $\Theta = (v_0,\theta,\kappa,\rho,\xi)$ in Heston), then you can say that:

> For a (log-) space homogeneous diffusion model, $\Delta = \left. \frac{\partial V}{\partial S_0} \right\vert_{\Theta}$ will be a sticky-moneyness Delta.

A (log-) space homogeneous model is simply one where $$ \frac{dS_t}{S_t} = \mu_t dt + \sigma_t dW_t $$ where both the drift and diffusion coefficients cannot be direct functions of $S_t$ (e.g. no a local volatility model), such that after using Itô, you can directly integrate to obtain that $S_T/S_t$ does not depend on $S_t$ for any $T \geq t$.

As a result of this last property, European vanilla prices end up being homogeneous functions of degree 1 in space i.e. for a spot price $S_0$, strike and expiry $(K,T)$ $$ C(\xi S_0, \xi K, T; \Theta) = \xi C(S_0, K, T; \Theta), \,\,\forall \xi > 0 $$ such that (Euler's theorem, or just deriving the above wrt $\xi$ and setting $\xi = 1$ $$ C = \Delta S_0 + \frac{\partial C}{\partial K} K \tag{1} $$

Now, if you assume the model generates a volatility surface $\Sigma(S_0;K,T,\Theta)$ where $\Sigma$ is the function defined through $$ C(S_0,K,T;\Theta) := C_{BS}(S_0, K, T; \Sigma(S_0,K,T;\Theta)) $$ then, starting from $(1)$, using the chain-rule and the fact that BS model is (log)-space homogeneous, you will get that $$ \frac{\partial \Sigma}{\partial S_0}(S_0,K,T;\Theta) = -\frac{K}{S_0} \frac{\partial \Sigma}{\partial K}(S_0,K,T;\Theta) \tag{2} $$ which is indeed the definition of the sticky-moneyness rule.

Indeed, sticky moneyness suggests that $$ \Sigma(S_0+\delta S_0, K, T) = \Sigma(S_0, K^*, T) $$ provided, as the name indicates, that $$\frac{K^*}{S_0} = \frac{K}{S_0+\delta S_0} \iff K^* = K(1 + \delta S_0/S_0)^{-1}$$ Under such circumstances, \begin{align} \frac{\partial \Sigma}{\partial S_0}(S_0, K, T) &= \lim_{\delta S_0 \to 0} \frac{\Sigma(S_0+\delta S_0, K, T) - \Sigma(S_0, K, T)}{\delta S_0} \nonumber \\ &= \lim_{\delta S_0 \to 0} \frac{\Sigma\left(S_0, K(1 + \delta S_0/S_0)^{-1}, T\right) - \Sigma(S_0, K, T)}{\delta S_0} \nonumber \\ &= \lim_{\delta S_0 \to 0} \frac{\Sigma\left(S_0, K(1 - \delta S_0/S_0), T\right) - \Sigma(S_0, K, T)}{\delta S_0} \nonumber \\ &= \lim_{\delta K \to 0} \frac{\Sigma\left(S_0, K-\delta K, T\right) - \Sigma(S_0, K, T)}{\frac{S_0}{K}\delta K} \nonumber\\ &= -\frac{K}{S_0} \frac{\partial \Sigma}{\partial K}(S_0, K, T) \end{align}

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.