Skip to content
All library documents

Spot and Forward Moneyness in Implied Volatility Surfaces

Article Quant Q&A · Author: Oscar

Summary

This exchange clarifies why an implied volatility surface built using forward information may still display its moneyness against spot. The questioner expects the at-the-money volatility node to correspond to the implied forward strike, but observes a displayed value matching the spot-based strike instead. The answer distinguishes how the surface is constructed from how the terminal displays its coordinates: the described Bloomberg display uses spot moneyness, while its construction process estimates forwards and dividends.

The response checks the interpretation against the displayed spot and strike levels, showing that the listed moneyness percentages align with spot. It also describes a display setting that uses forward delta, and notes that other pricing tools may use different conventions. This is a platform-specific explanation rather than a universal rule for volatility surfaces. Users should confirm the coordinate convention and pricing inputs in the tool they use; the exchange does not independently establish the surface methodology beyond the case described.

Key ideas

  • Surface construction can use estimated forwards even when displayed moneyness is measured against spot.
  • In the described Bloomberg view, the displayed 100% moneyness level corresponds to spot.
  • A forward-delta display setting changes the moneyness convention.
  • Pricing tools may retrieve or apply implied volatility using conventions that differ from a surface display.

Tags

Full text
# How to interpolate on an implied volatility surface based on forward moneyness?


# How to interpolate on an implied volatility surface based on forward moneyness?












Should be a simple matter, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding something fundamentally. Look first at the below image of the BVOL surface from Bloomberg, to my understanding from looking at the white paper for the surface construction this surface is based on the implied forward of the underlying, which I have taken to mean that the moneyness quoted on the image (95%, 97.5%, 100%, 102.5%...) is the forward moneyness of the option. So what I'm expecting then is that an option with strike = implied forward for a given maturity has the implied volatility of the ATM node, e.g. a Jan 15 2021 option in the picture has an ATM volatility if it's strike is 1804.13 (and not 1814.79 which is the spot price). Playing around in the option valuation tool however I don't see this effect, it then seems that the option that has strike=spot=1814.79 has an implied volatility given by the ATM node at this maturity (that is 21.84%). Am I misunderstanding what it means for a surface to be defined by implied forward moneyness?

## Answer by AKdemy (score 1, accepted)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/74192

Your are mixing the way the surface is created with what OVDV displays.

OVDV backs out implied forwards and dividends to compute the vol surface as described in the white paper.

However, OVDV itself displays moneyness in terms of spot. It is also easy to verify in your case, where you have Fwd and Strikes ticked. Spot (snapshot at time the surface was built) is 1814.79. All moneyness columns have just one strike. That already suggests it is ATMS. In your case,

- 100% moneyness is displayed as 1814.8.

- 90% of 1814.8 is 1633.3,

- 105% is 1905.5 and so forth.

This is also a natural way for equity, where moneyness is typically referred to as spot moneyness (spot is the underlying after all, and forward are usually unobservable - hence subject to computational assumptions and errors).

There is an exception, when you select to display OVDV in terms of Delta, in which case OVDV uses FWD delta to ensure that 50D call and put will have common strike in this case (and for products priced with Black, where the forward is the underlying). This is again different from OVME which always uses Spot delta.

The help desk (`F1F1`) should also be able to assist with this question. Ultimately, OVME (and other tools like DLIB) will accurately pull the correct IVOL for the product you are about to price. Since, you cannot download BVOL vols into API without an additional license it doesn’t matter too much what BVOL displays as its not directly useful for pricing. If you feed this into a 3rd party pricer, I would hope Bloomberg enterprise support would help with making sure that you get the desired VOL in the format you require or at least all details that matter for you.

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.