Numerical Option Delta and Volatility Surface Assumptions
Summary
The document explains how to estimate option delta when a pricing model lacks a convenient analytical derivative. Its basic numerical approach is to shift the underlying price by a small amount, reprice the option, and estimate sensitivity with a finite difference. The central modeling choice is what to do with implied volatility during that shift.
One approach holds volatility fixed; another reads the shifted option’s volatility from a volatility surface. These assumptions correspond to different treatments of the smile, often discussed as sticky strike versus sticky delta, and can produce different hedge ratios. The response stresses that the appropriate choice depends on how the volatility surface is assumed to evolve, so there is no universally correct numerical delta. It offers no chosen bump size or convergence analysis, and notes that approximations for exotic options can also differ near boundaries. The method therefore requires explicit assumptions and checks against the intended market dynamics.
Key ideas
- A finite difference estimates delta by repricing after a small change in the underlying.
- The volatility assumption during the price shift materially affects the estimated hedge ratio.
- Holding volatility fixed differs from updating volatility along a surface convention.
- Sticky strike and sticky delta describe alternative treatments of volatility-surface movement.
- Numerical estimates and analytic approximations can disagree, especially for some exotic options.
Tags
Full text
# How to numerically obtain delta?
# How to numerically obtain delta?
The delta in option pricing, also called the hedge ratio, is expressed as the sensitivity of the option price to the underlying price change.
The analytical solution for the most common option pricing models, such as the Black-Scholes, Corrado and Su, and other frameworks can be found on the internet or in books.
However, I am dealing with a more complex model for which the analytical solution is not that obvious, and hence therefore want to obtain the delta (and later also the other greeks) by means of a numerical method.
So far I haven't found a proper way to do so. More specific, when simply calculating the gradient of the Call price with respect to the underlying Spot price, I get different values than from the analytical solution -- In case of the Black-Scholes model.
Can someone explain why the gradient does not equal the delta and what the numerical alternatives are for this issue?
## Answer by vonjd (score 16, accepted)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/8367
This is in fact a tricky matter.
As you say one way is to calculate delta by an analytic formula, i.e. calculate the first derivative of the option pricing formula you are using with respect to the underlying's spot price.
The second way is to do it numerically, i.e. change the spot price by a small value $dS$, calculate the value of the option and then calculate the delta as a difference quotient: $delta = \frac{V(S+dS)-V(S)}{dS}$.
When changing the spot price and calculating $V(S+dS)$ there are two possibilities: 1. change spot price by $dS$, all other parameters (including volatility) stay unchanged, then price the option and calculate the delta as shown above. 2. change spot price by $dS$, take volatility from the volatility surface, then price the option and calculate the delta as shown above.
Which method is the best very much depends on the dynamics of the volatility surface and many subtleties have to be taken into consideration here. This is also related to the so called Sticky Delta vs. Sticky Strike problem and there's no correct solution all the time.
For a good overview and introduction see here: Laughter in the Dark - The Problem of the Volatility Smile by Emanual Derman and especially Regimes of Volatility by the same author.
## Answer by Matt Wolf (score 3)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/8342
It may be the case with certain exotics that greeks are derived analytically through approximations. In that case at certain boundaries you may get different results from such approximation over the numerical approach. Why do you not approach the numerical case similarly than most banks and hedge funds when they "shock" their options books: Simply shift your underlying, re-calculate the option price, derive a convexity adjustment factor, and from both approximate your delta.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.