Skip to content
All library documents

When Lognormal SABR Simulation Is Exact and When It Needs Approximation

Article Quant Q&A · Author: Sanjay

Summary

The document clarifies what “exact” means when simulating the lognormal SABR model, where the asset and its volatility are both stochastic and correlated. Exact simulation means avoiding time-discretization error, while Monte Carlo estimates still have sampling error. In Black–Scholes, simulating the log asset allows the interval integral to be handled exactly, because the log price follows an arithmetic Brownian motion.

For SABR with beta equal to one, the integrated squared volatility can be computed exactly, but the stochastic integral of volatility against the asset’s Brownian motion generally still needs approximation in a simulation. The response notes that the distribution may be available through a more involved exact method used in a vanilla option formula, but that approach requires complex integrals and may be too slow for Monte Carlo work. The discussion distinguishes exact volatility updates from exact asset updates and does not prescribe a particular practical approximation.

Key ideas

  • Exact simulation refers to eliminating time-discretization error, separate from Monte Carlo sampling error.
  • In Black–Scholes, simulating the log asset gives an exact update over an interval.
  • For lognormal SABR, the integrated squared volatility can be computed exactly, but the stochastic asset integral generally requires approximation.
  • An exact distributional approach is described as available but computationally complex for Monte Carlo use.

Tags

Full text
# $\beta = 1$: Simulation of SABR and whether a solution is *exact*


# $\beta = 1$: Simulation of SABR and whether a solution is *exact*












Quick question regarding the conditional distributions (SABR is just an example here)

Consider $$dS_t = \sigma_tS_tdW_t$$ $$d\sigma_t = \alpha\sigma_tdV $$ $$dW_tdV_t=\rho dt$$

Hence a SABR process with $\beta=1$. The volatility process is a GBM and so we can implement the exact solution and simulate $\sigma_{i+1}$ from $\sigma_i$. Now I dont't know what mathematical terminology to use on $S_t$

When $V_{i+1}$ and $V_{i}$ is KNOWN we know the exact value of $\sigma_{i+1} $ from $\sigma_i$.

With $\sigma_t$ known, we can simulate $W_{i+i}-W_{i}$ and a proper way to compute $S_{i+1}$ from $s_i$ is as a GBM with volatility $\sigma_i$. This is how it is done in practice with these parameter.

My Question: To which extend can we call $S_{i+1}$ as exact?

My own personal take: This is not exact at all because we have to know the whole path of $[\sigma_i,\sigma_{i+1}]$ to call it exact.

The reason for my confusion is that people call SABR for $\beta = 1$ for log-normal for a realized volatility.

## Answer by jherek (score 2, accepted)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/46662

No, the simulation is not exact in general, precisely for the reason you mentioned. By "exact", it is meant that there is no discretization error in time. Of course, there will always be a Monte-Carlo sampling error.

For the Black-Scholes model, the simulation is exact if you simulate the log asset, as it is a standard arithmetic Brownian motion, and then you just compute the exponential of the log asset on each path. There is no discretization error, the integral over a time interval is computed exactly.

For the lognormal SABR model ($\beta=1$), using the log-asset formulation, you can compute the integral $\int_{0}^{t} \sigma^2(u) du$ exactly, but you will still have the term $\int_{0}^{t} \sigma(u) dW(u)$ to compute. In general, one will use an approximation for this.

Now, in reality, I believe there is actually a way to compute this distribution exactly, and this is used to compute the closed form formula for the price of a vanilla option with $\beta=1$, but this closed-form formula involves a double integral over non trivial functions (this can be found in Pierre Henry-Labordère book "Analysis, Geometry, and Modeling in Finance"). There are also mathematical papers around this stochastic integral. And for a Monte-Carlo simulation, it may not be a good idea to use such a complex formula as it will be very slow in general.

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.