Deriving Sticky Strike and Sticky Moneyness from Skew Stickiness
Summary
The document explains how the skew stickiness ratio (SSR) relates to sticky strike and sticky delta, using a smile function that depends on strike, expiry, spot, and time. The key step is to track at-the-money-forward implied volatility as spot changes, while specifying how the entire smile responds to that move.
Under sticky strike, implied volatility at each fixed strike stays unchanged. The forward strike shifts with spot, so the change in at-the-money-forward volatility equals the smile's strike slope at the forward, when expressed in log coordinates; this gives SSR equal to one. Under sticky moneyness, the smile is unchanged at fixed strike-to-spot ratio. The forward strike and spot move proportionally, leaving forward moneyness unchanged, so at-the-money-forward volatility has zero spot sensitivity and SSR is zero. The derivation is local and assumes a smooth smile and a forward proportional to spot. It clarifies the definitions but does not establish which surface dynamic best fits market data.
Key ideas
- Sticky strike holds implied volatility fixed at each absolute strike as spot changes.
- Because the forward moves with spot, sticky strike makes at-the-money-forward volatility change at the rate of the smile's local strike slope.
- Sticky moneyness holds implied volatility fixed at each strike-to-spot ratio.
- The forward-to-spot ratio remains constant under sticky moneyness, giving zero spot sensitivity for at-the-money-forward volatility.
- The SSR interpretation follows from the assumed smile update rule and smoothness of the volatility surface.
Tags
Full text
# SSR definition in Bergomi in relation to sticky strike and sticky delta
# SSR definition in Bergomi in relation to sticky strike and sticky delta
In Bergomi [Stochastic Vol Modelling] (Sec. 2.5.2), in the section on surface dynamics, the following definition of the "Skew Stickiness Ratio" (SSR) is made:
$$ SSR = \dfrac{1}{\mathcal{S}_T}\frac{d\hat{\sigma}_{F_TT}}{d\log(S_0)}$$
where $\mathcal{S}_T=\frac{d\hat{\sigma}_{KT}}{d\log{K}}\Bigr\rvert_{K=F_T}$.
Combining these equations we get,
$$ SSR = \dfrac{1}{\frac{d\hat{\sigma}_{KT}}{d\log{K}}\Bigr\rvert_{K=F_T}}\frac{d\hat{\sigma}_{F_TT}}{d\log(S_0)}$$
Then Bergomi says that $SSR=1 =>$ Sticky Strike and $SSR=0 =>$ Sticky Delta.
I would like to prove these statements mathematically, but I am having trouble.
If $SSR=1$, then we have that: $$ \frac{d\hat{\sigma}_{KT}}{d\log{K}}\Bigr\rvert_{K=F_T}= \frac{d\hat{\sigma}_{F_TT}}{d\log(S_0)}$$
then how is this statement equivalent to sticky strike? In other words, how is this statement equivalent to $\hat{\sigma}_{KT}(t,S_t)=\hat{\sigma}_{KT}(t+\epsilon, S_{t+\epsilon})$?
If $SSR=0$, then we have that: $$ \frac{d\hat{\sigma}_{F_TT}}{d\log(S_0)}=0$$
then how is this statement equivalent to sticky delta? In other words, how is this statement equivalent to $\hat{\sigma}_{xT}(t,S_t)=\hat{\sigma}_{xT}(t+\epsilon, S_{t+\epsilon})$, where $x=\log{\dfrac{S}{F_T}}$?
Bergomi gives intuitive explanations for these statements which don't make much sense to me. I suppose I am looking for a formal proof to ease my mind.
## Answer by Quantuple (score 16, accepted)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/39236
### Some Notations
It's easy to get lost so let's introduce some notations and let $$ \sigma : (t, S, K, \tau) \to \sigma(K,\tau; S, t) $$ denote the implied volatility smile prevailing at time $t$ when the spot price is $S_t=S$ for an option with strike level $K$ and time to expiry $\tau=T-t$. From here onward, we drop the $t$ argument to keep notations uncluttered (everything happens at fixed $t$).
Back to the notations used in the book, the ATMF vol for the current ($t=0$) spot value of $S_0$ can then be rewritten as $$ \hat{\sigma}_{F_T T}(S_0) := \sigma(f(S_0),T; S_0) $$ where the forward price verifies $$F_T := f(S_0) = S_0 \exp((r-q-u)T)$$
Using these notations, the second term involved in the definition of the SSR can be readily evaluated as $$ \frac{ d \hat{\sigma}_{F_T T}(S_0) }{d S_0} = \lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \frac{\color{blue}{\sigma(f(S_0+\epsilon),T; S_0+\epsilon)}- \color{green}{\sigma(f(S_0),T ; S_0)} }{ \epsilon } $$
The stickiness assumptions allow us to relate the smile after a spot move $\color{blue}{\sigma(\cdot,T;S_0+\epsilon)}$ to the original smile $\color{green}{\sigma(\cdot,T;S_0)}$. In particular
### Sticky strike rule
For all $K>0$ we by definition need to have $$\color{blue}{\sigma(K,T;S_0+\epsilon)} = \color{green}{\sigma(K,T;S_0)}$$ such that we can successively write \begin{align} \frac{ d \hat{\sigma}_{F_T T}(S_0) }{d S_0} &= \lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \frac{\color{blue}{\sigma(f(S_0+\epsilon),T; S_0+\epsilon)} - \color{green}{\sigma(f(S_0),T ; S_0)} }{ \epsilon } \\ &= \lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \frac{\color{green}{\sigma(f(S_0+\epsilon),T; S_0)} - \color{green}{\sigma(f(S_0),T ; S_0)} }{ \epsilon } \\ &= \frac{\partial \sigma(K,T;S_0)}{\partial K}(f(S_0)) f'(S_0) \end{align} Since from the definition of $f(.)$ we have $$ f'(S_0) = f(S_0)/S_0 $$ then indeed $$ \frac{ d \hat{\sigma}_{F_T T}(S_0) }{d \ln(S_0)} = \frac{\partial \sigma(K,T;S_0)}{\partial \ln(K) }(f(S_0)) = \mathcal{S}_T $$
### Sticky moneyness rule
By definition $$ \sigma(K^*,T;S_0+\epsilon) = \sigma(K,T;S_0) $$ if and only if $K^*/(S_0+\epsilon) = K/S_0$.
Hence the equivalent formulation of the rule, for all $K > 0$ $$ \color{blue}{\sigma(K,T,S_0+\epsilon)} = \color{green}{\sigma(K S_0/(S_0+\epsilon), T; S_0)} $$
Applying this now leads to \begin{align} \frac{ d \hat{\sigma}_{F_T T}(S_0) }{d S_0} &= \lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \frac{\color{blue}{\sigma(f(S_0+\epsilon),T; S_0+\epsilon)} - \color{green}{\sigma(f(S_0),T ; S_0)}}{ \epsilon } \\ &= \lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \frac{\color{green}{\sigma(f(S_0+\epsilon) S_0/(S_0+\epsilon),T; S_0)} - \color{green}{\sigma(f(S_0),T ; S_0)} }{ \epsilon } \\ &= \lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \frac{\color{green}{\sigma(f(S_0),T; S_0)} - \color{green}{\sigma(f(S_0),T ; S_0)} }{ \epsilon } = 0 \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.