Pricing In-Arrears Caplets by Changing Forward Measures
Summary
The document explains why a caplet whose payoff is fixed and paid on the LIBOR fixing date is more involved than one paid at the end of the underlying accrual period. For the latter, the forward rate is modeled as a martingale under the matching maturity forward measure, yielding the familiar Black-76 expectation. For payment at fixing, the payoff must be valued using a different numeraire, so changing between the fixing-date and accrual-end forward measures introduces a bond-price ratio.
The accepted derivation expresses that ratio in terms of the forward LIBOR rate, then splits the price into an ordinary call-payoff expectation and an additional rate-weighted payoff expectation. Under the stated lognormal LIBOR dynamics in the accrual-end measure, these expectations can be evaluated from the rate distribution. The result depends on the assumed dynamics and measure conventions; the excerpt outlines the pricing route but does not provide every final closed-form step or discuss model calibration.
Key ideas
- A caplet paid at the accrual-end date can be priced under that date's forward measure using a Black-76 expectation.
- When payment occurs on the fixing date, the pricing numeraire differs from the accrual-end bond.
- Changing forward measures introduces a bond-price ratio that can be written using the forward LIBOR rate.
- The in-arrears payoff expectation separates into a standard call payoff and a rate-weighted payoff.
- The calculation relies on the assumed LIBOR dynamics under the accrual-end forward measure.
Tags
Full text
# Caplet "in arrears" pricing formula
# Caplet "in arrears" pricing formula
The forward Libor rate $L(t,t_1,t_2)$, with $0 \leq t \leq t_1$, must be a martingale under the T-forward measure associated with the zero coupon bond $P(t,t_2)$ that matures at time $t_2$.
Pricing a caplet that "matures" at $t_2$ then becomes trivial (i.e. a caplet where the Libor sets at $t_1$ but the payment occurs at $t_2$):
$$C(t_0, T=t_2)=P(t_0,t_2)\mathbb{E}^{P_{t_2}}\left[\frac{(L(t_1,t_1,t_2)-K)^{+}}{P(t_2,t_2)}\right]=P(t_0,t_2)\mathbb{E}^{P_{t_2}}\left[(L(t_1,t_1,t_2)-K)^{+}\right]=P(t_0,t_2)Black76(K,L(t_0,t_1,t_2))$$
However, suppose the caplet matures at $t_1$ (which actually seems more natural, because that is when the Libor $L(t,t_1,t_2)$ sets), then we have:
$$C(t_0, T=t_1)=P(t_0,t_2)\mathbb{E}^{P_{t_2}}\left[\frac{(L(t_1,t_1,t_2)-K)^{+}}{P(t_1,t_2)}\right]$$
It's not immediately obvious how to evaluate this expectation (we could potentially chose $P(t,t_1)$ as Numeraire instead, but then we'd need to come up with a more complicated process for the Libor $L(t,t_1, t_2)$ under this Numeraire than just an exponential driftless martingale process that we use under the $P(t,t_2)$ as numeraire, so that doesn't really solve the issue).
How do we price such caplet? Libor market model?
## Answer by Gordon (score 11, accepted)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/60323
Let $P(t, T)$ be the price at time $t$ of a zero-coupon bond with maturity $T$ and unit face value. Consider the pricing of the caplet with payoff $(L(t_1; t_1, t_2)-K)^+$ at time $t_1$, where $0<t_1 < t_2$ and, for $0\le s \le t_1$, \begin{align*} L(s; t_1, t_2) = \frac{1}{t_2-t_1}\left(\frac{P(s, t_1)}{P(s, t_2)}-1\right) \end{align*} is the forward rate set at time $s$ for the calculation period $(t_1, t_2]$. Let $Q_{t_1}$ and $Q_{t_2}$ be the respective $t_1$- and $t_2$-forward probability measures, and $E_{t_1}$ and $E_{t_2}$ be the corresponding expectation operators.
Note that, for $0\le s \le t_1$, \begin{align*} \frac{dQ_{t_1}}{dQ_{t_2}}\big|_{s} &= \frac{P(0, t_2)}{P(0, t_1)}\frac{P(s, t_1)}{P(s, t_2)}\\ &=\frac{P(0, t_2)}{P(0, t_1)}\Big(1+ (t_2-t_1)L(s; t_1, t_2) \Big). \end{align*} We assume that, under the $t_2$-forward probability measure $Q_{t_2}$, \begin{align*} dL(t; t_1, t_2) = \sigma L(t; t_1, t_2) dW_t, \end{align*} for $0\le t \le t_1$, where $\sigma$ is the volatility and $\{W_t,\, t \ge 0\}$ is a standard Brownian motion. Then, the value of the caplet is given by \begin{align*} &\ P(0, t_1) E_{t_1}\big((L(t_1; t_1, t_2)-K)^+\big) \\ =&\ P(0, t_1) E_{t_2}\left(\frac{dQ_{t_1}}{dQ_{t_2}}\big|_{t_1}(L(t_1; t_1, t_2)-K)^+\right)\\ =&\ P(0, t_2) E_{t_2}\left(\Big(1+ (t_2-t_1)L(t_1; t_1, t_2) \Big)(L(t_1; t_1, t_2)-K)^+ \right)\\ =&\ P(0, t_2) E_{t_2}\big((L(t_1; t_1, t_2)-K)^+\big) + P(0, t_2)(t_2-t_1) E_{t_2}\big(L(t_1; t_1, t_2)(L(t_1; t_1, t_2)-K)^+\big). \end{align*} The remaining computations are straightforward, given the dynamics of $L(t_1; t_1, t_2)$ under $Q_{t_2}$.
## Answer by B_B (score 4)
https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/60321
Case I
Let us consider a derivative with a payoff $H(L(T_{f},T_{S},T_{E}))$ which is paid at time $T_{p}$.
Note that:
- $T_{f}$ - LIBOR fixing date;
- $T_{S}$ - LIBOR start date;
- $T_{E}$ - LIBOR maturity date;
- $T_{p}$ - derivative payment date.
Also, $T_{f}=T_{S}=t_{1}$ and $T_{E}=T_{p}=t_{2}$ in the question.
In your first case $H(L(T_{f},T_{S},T_{E}))=(L(T_{f},T_{S},T_{E})-K)_{+}$ and the no-arbitrage price is:
$$C(t)=P(t,T_{p})\cdot\mathbb{E}^{T_{p}}\Big[H(L(T_{f},T_{S},T_{E}))|\mathcal{F}_{t}\Big],$$
where $\mathbb{E}^{T_{p}}[\ \cdot\ ]$ is the expectation under $T_{p}$-forward measure (with $P(t,T_{p})$ as numeraire) and $T_{p}=T_{E}$.
Case II
In your second case the derivative payment date $T_{p}$ is the same as the fixing date $T_{f}$ and the LIBOR has maturity $T_{E}=T_{p}+3M$, so the underling is simply LIBOR rate in-arrear.
To be more specific, in your case: $T_{f}=T_{p}=T_{S}=t_{1}$ and $T_{E}=t_{2}$.
The payoff of the second derivative (fixed at time $T_{p}$ and paid at time $T_{p}$) looks as follows:
$$H(L(T_{p},T_{p},T_{E}))=(L(T_{p},T_{p},T_{E})-K)_{+}.$$
It means, in order to price the derivative we need to change $T_{p}$-forward measure to $T_{E}$-forward measure (keeping in mind that $T_{f}=T_{p}=T_{S}$):
$$C(t)=P(t,T_{p})\cdot\mathbb{E}^{T_{p}}\Big[H(L(T_{f},T_{S},T_{E})|\mathcal{F}_{t}\Big]$$ $$=P(t,T_{p})\cdot\mathbb{E}^{T_{p}}\Big[H(L(T_{p},T_{p},T_{E}))|\mathcal{F}_{t}\Big]$$ $$=P(t,T_{E})\cdot\mathbb{E}^{T_{E}}\left[H(L(T_{p},T_{p},T_{E}))\cdot\frac{P(T_{p},T_{p})}{P(T_{p},T_{E})}{}|\mathcal{F}_{t}\right]$$ $$=P(t,T_{E})\cdot\mathbb{E}^{T_{E}}\left[H(L(T_{p},T_{p},T_{E}))\cdot\frac{1}{P(T_{p},T_{E})}|\mathcal{F}_{t}\right]$$ $$=P(t,t_{2})\cdot\mathbb{E}^{t_{2}}\left[H(L(t_{1},t_{1},t_{2}))\cdot\frac{1}{P(t_{1},t_{2})}|\mathcal{F}_{t}\right]$$
EDIT:
$$=P(t,t_{2})\cdot\mathbb{E}^{t_{2}}\Big[(L(t_{1},t_{1},t_{2})-K)^{+}\cdot(1+(t_{2}-t_{1})L(t_{1},t_{1},t_{2}))|\mathcal{F}_{t}\Big]$$ $$=P(t,t_{2})\cdot\Big(\mathbb{E}^{t_{2}}\Big[(L(t_{1},t_{1},t_{2})-K)^{+}|\mathcal{F}_{t}\Big]+(t_{2}-t_{1})\cdot\mathbb{E}^{t_{2}}\Big[L(t_{1},t_{1},t_{2})\cdot(L(t_{1},t_{1},t_{2})-K)^{+}|\mathcal{F}_{t}\Big]\Big).$$
Look at the Gordon's solution.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.