Strategic Note: Improved Smile-Implied Hedging

A recent paper by two Canadian scholars looks to improve on the art of smile-implied option replication.

Pascal Francois, of the HEC Montreal Department of Finance, and Lars Stentoft, of the University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics, begins with the observation that options can be dynamically replicated using model-free Greeks inferred from the volatility smile.  David Bates, a scholar at the University of Iowa, showed this in 2005.

But Francois and Stentoft then observe that, though Bates’ work has opened a “promising avenue” of research, it has not proven actionable for traders. Smile-implied hedging strategies “have shown poor performance relative to the Black-Scholes benchmark.” They take up the challenge that presents.

Strategic Note: Improved Smile-Implied Hedging

Reviewing the Greeks

To this end, Francois and Stentoft argue that smile-implied delta hedging can be extended to account for volatility risk. Smile-implied vega in particular can be constructed directly from smile-implied gamma, “using the relation that prevails between the two under the class of stochastic implied volatility models.”

Understanding that statement may require that one review the meaning of some of the Greeks.

Together, delta and gamma measure the change in an option holder’s wealth given a change in the underlying asset value. Vega measures the change in that wealth given a change in the standard deviation of returns, that is, given a rise or fall in its volatility.

To construct the vega from the delta-gamma is, then, not entirely model-free, which is a departure from Bates’ work.  It also leads to some modification of the suggested strategy. Is there any reason to believe that the modifications will prove actionable for investors/traders?

Benchmarking Performance

The second step, then, is to assess and benchmark the performance of smile-implied option replications for a particular asset class.

For the purpose of testing their modification, Francois and Stentoft use the return on S&P calls and puts from January 1996 to April 2016. Earlier studies along the same lines used databases with many fewer profit and loss observations and with a much briefer time frame than this. Typically, the studies have used periods of up to three years: not, as in this case more than twenty years. The greater base, say Franciois and Stentoft, “allows us to check for the robustness of our findings, in particular across the business cycle and various market conditions.” The period under consideration includes the great late ‘90s dotcom bubble, its bursting with the millennium, a new boom led by the real estate market and its derivatives, that burst, the resultant global financial crisis, and then a recovery sparked by “quantitative easing” at the central banks.

1 2
View single page >> |
How did you like this article? Let us know so we can better customize your reading experience.


Leave a comment to automatically be entered into our contest to win a free Echo Show.