Skip to content
All library documents

Interpreting the Gamma-Weighted Density in Implied Variance

Article Quant Q&A · Author: Smirk

Summary

The document examines a density that appears when expressing forward implied variance as an average of local variance. It derives the weighting from the risk-neutral distribution of the underlying and a factor involving spot squared and Black-Scholes gamma. This weighting reflects the measure change used to define an expectation of instantaneous variance, rather than simply the probability distribution of the stock price.

The question is whether this Brownian-bridge-like quantity should be treated as a risk-neutral measure, especially when its value at some price points exceeds one. A density is not a pointwise probability and can exceed one; its integral over the relevant price variable is what matters for normalization. The document presents the formulas and interpretation but does not resolve normalization details or establish that the density is bounded or normalized in a particular coordinate. Its discussion is theoretical and depends on the stated pricing and implied-variance framework.

Key ideas

  • The forward implied variance is represented as an average of local variance under a gamma-weighted measure.
  • The weighting incorporates the risk-neutral price density and Black-Scholes gamma exposure.
  • A density value above one does not by itself violate probability rules; normalization concerns its integral.
  • The proposed interpretation depends on the model framework and the variable used for the density.

Tags

Full text
# Brownian bridge density and risk neutral density for derivative pricing


# Brownian bridge density and risk neutral density for derivative pricing












The book The Volatility Surface by Gatheral (2006) introduces the Brownian bridge like density $q(x_t,t;x_T,T)$ of $x_t$ conditional on $x_T = log(K)$. Can we use $q(x_t,t;x_T,T)$ as the risk neutral measure? Why $q(x_t,t;x_T,T)$ can easily exceed one, and sometimes it can be extremely large?

Here are some formulae and interpretation from the book (from page 29 to 30). For fixed strike $K$ and maturity $T$, define the Black-Scholes gamma

$$\Gamma_{BS}(S_t,\bar{\sigma}(t)):=\frac{\partial ^2}{\partial S_t^2}C_{BS}(S_t,K,\bar{\sigma}(t),T-t)$$

and the Black-Scholes forward implied variance function

$$v_{K,T}(t)=\frac{E\big[\sigma_t^2 \cdot S_t^2 \cdot \Gamma_{BS}(S_t,\bar{\sigma}(t))|\mathcal{F}_0\big]}{E\big[S_t^2 \cdot \Gamma_{BS}(S_t,\bar{\sigma}(t))|\mathcal{F}_0\big]}$$

where $\bar{\sigma}^2(t):=\frac{1}{T-t}\int_{t}^T v_{K,T}(u)du$

The Black-Scholes implied variance, by following Lee(2005),can be expressed as:

$$\sigma_{BS}(K,T)^2=\bar{\sigma}(0)^2=\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}E^{G_t}[\sigma_t^2]dt$$

so interpreting $v(t)$ as the expectation of $\sigma_t^2$ with respect to the probability measure $\mathbb{G}_t$ defined, relative to the pricing measure $\mathbb{P}$, by the Radon-Nikodym derivative

$$ \frac{d\mathbb{G}_t}{d\mathbb{P}}:= \frac{S_t^2\Gamma_{BS}(S_t,\bar{\sigma}(t))}{\mathbb{E}\big[S_t^2 \Gamma_{BS}(S_t,\bar{\sigma}(t))|\mathcal{F}_0\big]}$$

We compute a risk-neutral expectation: $$ \mathbb{E}^p[f(S_t)] = \int dS_t p(S_t,t;S_0)f(S_t) $$

we get the risk neutral pdf of the stock price at time $t$ by taking the second derivative of the market price of European options with respect to strike price

$$ p(S_t,t;S_0) = \frac{\partial ^2 C(S_0,K,t)}{\partial K^2}\bigg|_{K=S_t} $$

Then, from equation of Black-Scholes implied variance $\sigma_{BS}(K,T)^2$ we have $$ v_{K,T}(t) = \mathbb{E}^{G_t} \big[\sigma_t^2 \big] = \mathbb{E}^p \big[\sigma_t^2 \frac{d\mathbb{G}_t}{d\mathbb{P}} \big] =\int dS_t \cdot q(S_t;S_0,K,T) \cdot \mathbb{E}^p \big[ \sigma_t^2 \big| S_t \big] =\int dS_t \cdot q(S_t;S_0,K,T) \cdot v_L(S_t,t) $$

where further define $$ q(S_t;S_0,K,T) := \frac{p(S_t,t;S_0) S_t^2 \Gamma_{BS}(S_t)}{\mathbb{E} \big[ S_t^2 \Gamma _{BS}(S_t) \big| \mathcal{F}_0} $$

and $v_L(S_t,t)= \mathbb{E}^p[\sigma_t^2|S_t]$ is the local variance. q(S_t;S_0,K,T) looks like a Brownian Bridge density for the stock price. Then, the equation of $v_{K,T}(t)$ can be rewritten in terms of $x_t :=log(S_t/S_0)$

$$ v_{K,T}(t)=\int dx_t \cdot q(x_t;x_T,T) \cdot v_L(x_t,t) $$

My question is: from the last equation of $v_{K,T}(t)$, it seems that q(S_t;S_0,K,T) is the risk neutral measure. However, sometimes it can be extremely large, such as 8 or 12. Should it be some value between 0 and 1?

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.