Estimating Missing ATM Implied Volatility from Sparse Option Quotes
Summary
The document discusses estimating at-the-money implied volatility when the market lists only relatively distant strikes. One proposed approach starts with SABR parameters calibrated at end of day, assumes some parameters remain constant intraday, and solves an approximate SABR formula for the missing ATM volatility. The questioner notes that this method relies on several approximations and assumptions.
Two alternatives are described. SVI can smooth a set of quotes, including strikes near ATM and in both wings, and its parameters can be updated intraday; however, the resulting fit may not be arbitrage-free. A local method fits a parabola to the three nearest points around the forward, using their moneyness and implied volatilities to estimate ATM volatility. The source also mentions least-squares fitting with more points. These approaches depend on quote availability and the chosen fitting range; the document offers no comparison using market data to establish which method performs best.
Key ideas
- SABR parameters calibrated at end of day can be used in an approximation to infer intraday ATM volatility.
- Solving for ATM volatility this way assumes selected SABR parameters remain constant during the day.
- SVI can smooth observed implied volatilities and be recalibrated to intraday quotes, but may not ensure arbitrage freedom.
- A parabola through the three nearest points around the forward provides a local estimate of ATM volatility.
- Least-squares fitting can incorporate more nearby observations.
Tags
Full text
# Estimating at-the-money volatility where at-the-money option is absent from the market
# Estimating at-the-money volatility where at-the-money option is absent from the market
I am trying to estimate the intraday ATM volatility in a market where the the strike prices are relatively sparse thus the ATM option may not exist (let's say the closest strike is about 2% away from the spot price). A brute-force way to do this is to fit a volatility model, such as SABR or Heston, and compute ATM volatility using that model.I am wondering if there's any other method without fitting the model. Here's what I have tried: Suppose we have already fit a SABR model with end of day data and we have obtained the SABR parameter $\alpha, \beta, \rho, \nu$. If the strike $K$ is not too far away from the forward price $f$, we can approximate the SABR volatility using $$\sigma(K, f) = \frac{\alpha}{f^{1-\beta}}\{1 - \frac{1}{2}(1 - \beta - \rho\lambda)\ln(\frac{K}{f}) + \frac{1}{12}[(1-\beta)^2 + (2-3\rho^2)\lambda^2]\ln(\frac{K}{f})^2\}$$ where $\lambda = \frac{\nu}{\alpha}f^{1-\beta}$. Under such approximation $\sigma_{ATM} = \frac{\alpha}{f^{1-\beta}}$, hence $\lambda = \frac{\nu}{\sigma_{ATM}}$. We can then rewrite the above equation as, $$\sigma(K,f) = \sigma_{ATM}\{1 - \frac{1}{2}(1 - \beta - \frac{\rho\nu}{\sigma_{ATM}})\ln(\frac{K}{f}) + \frac{1}{12}[(1-\beta)^2 + (2-3\rho^2)\frac{\rho^2\nu^2}{\sigma_{ATM}^2}]\ln(\frac{K}{f})^2\}$$ We can directly observe $\sigma(K, f)$ from the market. If we can assume $\beta, \rho, \nu$ are constant throughout the day (or can we?), we can solve for $\sigma_{ATM}$.
However, I am not very satisfied with the above result since it has a lot of approximations and assumptions. I am wondering if there's anything I can do to improve my result or there's a better method to do this.
## Answer by user34971 (score 1, accepted)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/40737
If you have a few options quotes, preferably a few around ATM, and a few in the call and put wings, then you might want to try using SVI for the smoothing of the IV smile (and hence get a value for the ATM IV). SVI calibration is also relatively quick, so you don't need to use stale parameters, you could update the parameters intra-day to the available quotes.
SVI is not always arbitrage free though, although I believe there are now enhancements to SVI that guarantee arbitrage-free smoothing.
## Answer by jherek (score 0)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/47334
Using a cubic spline or worse, SVI is overkill to find the at-the-money (ATM) volatility when it is not quoted by the market: both approaches are global in the sense that a small change of one of the quotes far from the money will have a not so small impact on the at-the-money implied vol. Yes, one solution is to truncate the range of option strikes considered, but why use so complex algorithms when a simple parabola will do? Here is an extract of section 4.3 from Explicit SABR Calibration Through Simple Expansions by Le Floc'h and Kennedy:
> The simplest is to fit a parabola to the three closest points around the forward with coordinates $(z_{-1}, \hat{\sigma}_{-1}), (z_0,\hat{\sigma}_0), (z_{1},\hat{\sigma}_1)$. This is equivalent to a 3 points finite difference on a non uniform grid. We then have: \begin{align} \sigma_0 &= z_0 z_1 w_{-1} \hat{\sigma}_{-1} + z_{-1} z_1 w_{0} \hat{\sigma}_{0} + z_{-1} z_0w_{1} \hat{\sigma}_{1}\\ \sigma_0' &= -(z_0 + z_1) w_{-1} \hat{\sigma}_{-1} - (z_{-1}+ z_1) w_{0} \hat{\sigma}_{0} - (z_{-1}+ z_0)w_{1} \hat{\sigma}_{1}\\ \sigma_0'' &= 2 w_{-1} \hat{\sigma}_{-1} +2 w_{0} \hat{\sigma}_{0} + 2w_{1} \hat{\sigma}_{1} \end{align} with \begin{align} w_{-1} &= \frac{1}{(z_{-1}-z_{0})(z_{-1}-z_{1})}\\ w_{0} &= \frac{1}{(z_{0}-z_{-1})(z_{0}-z_{1})}\\ w_{1} &= \frac{1}{(z_{1}-z_{-1})(z_{1}-z_{0})} \end{align}
The $\sigma_0$ is your ATM vol. The $z_i$ is the moneyness or log-moneyness for the three options around ATM considered. The paper also details least-squares approaches if you want to include more points around ATM. Finally the subject is explored further in my book Applied Quantitative Finance for Equity Derivatives (Chapter 5 in general, and section 5.4.2 for SABR)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.