Skip to content
All library documents

Market Price of Volatility Risk in Heston Pricing

Article Quant Q&A · Author: StupidMan

Summary

The document explains why the Heston pricing framework includes a market price of volatility risk and how it relates to Monte Carlo simulation. The stock and variance processes have two Brownian drivers but only one traded risky asset, so the no-arbitrage condition fixes the stock risk premium while leaving the volatility risk premium unspecified.

Choosing that remaining risk premium defines an equivalent martingale measure and changes the variance drift under risk-neutral pricing. A choice that lets the drift retain the mean-reverting square-root form makes the transformed system a Heston model again, with adjusted parameters. The answer frames consistency as the key: the pricing PDE and Monte Carlo simulation should use the same risk-neutral dynamics and risk-premium assumption. It does not provide a numerical comparison of prices or specify one universally correct volatility-risk premium; the choice requires a modeling assumption.

Key ideas

  • With two Brownian risks and one risky asset, no-arbitrage does not uniquely fix the volatility risk premium.
  • The chosen volatility risk premium determines the risk-neutral variance drift.
  • The pricing PDE and Monte Carlo method are consistent when they use the same risk-neutral dynamics.
  • Some choices preserve a mean-reverting square-root variance process with adjusted parameters.
  • The document leaves the appropriate volatility risk premium as a modeling choice.

Tags

Full text
# Heston Model - PDE and Monte Carlo


# Heston Model - PDE and Monte Carlo












Why there is a "market price of volatility risk" variable in the PDE of Heston Model and no such variable in Monte Carlo Simulation?

Do we obtain the same price from both methods?

## Answer by ir7 (score 4, accepted)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/57045

One fixes the market price of volatility risk on the SDE first, then implies the pricing PDE. That way the SDE and PDE are consistent.

One starts with a Heston SDE: $$ dS/S = \mu dt + \sqrt{v} dW_1 $$ $$ dv = \kappa(\theta - v)dt + \eta \sqrt{v}dW_2$$ with $W =(W_1,W_2)^T$ correlated Brownian motion, $dW_1dW_2 = \rho dt$.

As we have two Brownian drivers but only one risky asset, the no-arbitrage drift conditions can only fix one of the components of the market price of risk process

$$ \lambda =(\lambda_1, \lambda_2)^T. $$

That is, we have $$ \lambda_1 = \frac{\mu-r}{\sqrt{v_t}}, $$

while $\lambda_2$ (market price of volatility risk) is unspecified.

This allows us to consider $\lambda_2$-dependent EMM's (equivalent martingale measure) under which process $W^\lambda =(W_1^\lambda, W_2^\lambda)^T$, defined by

$$ dW^\lambda = dW - \left(\frac{\mu-r}{\sqrt{v_t}},\lambda_2\right)^T dt, $$

is a Brownian motion.

The original Heston SDE transforms into:

$$ dS/S = r dt + \sqrt{v} dW_1^\lambda $$ $$ dv = (\kappa(\theta - v)-\eta \sqrt{v}\lambda_2) dt + \eta \sqrt{v}dW_2^\lambda$$

which is not of Heston type for all $\lambda_2$ choices.

We choose $\lambda_2$ such that $$\kappa(\theta - v)-\eta \sqrt{v}\lambda_2 $$ can be rewritten as

$$ \hat{\kappa}(\hat{\theta} - v) $$

for some $\hat{\kappa}$ and $\hat{\theta}$ (e.g., $\lambda_2=0$ or $\lambda_2 = \sqrt{v_t}$). This makes the variance a CIR dynamics again and the full SDE is again of Heston type.

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.