MScFE 622 CTSP_Compiled_Notes_M7
MScFE 622 CTSP_Compiled_Notes_M7
Compiled Notes
Module 7
MScFE 622
Continuous-time Stochastic
Processes
Revised: 07/07/2020
MScFE 622 Continuous-time Stochastic Processes − Notes Module 7
Contents
Unit 1: Interest Rate Assets 3
Problem Set 10
Summary
This final module of the course presents commonly used interest rate models. Module 7 begins by
describing stochastic interest rate assets, and then explains the Ho-Lee, Vasicek, Cox-Ingersoll-Ross,
and Hull-White short rate models. The module concludes by presenting a derivation of the bond
pricing equation as well as some examples of bond prices using the short rate models previously
introduced.
for 0 ≤ s ≤ t. We will therefore spend time constructing models for the short rate r.
• We will fix a filtered probability space (Ω, F, F, P) and assume that all stochastic processes are
defined on this space and adapted to F.
• For 0 ≤ t ≤ T we define the stochastic discount factor between t and T as
Bt RT
D(t, T ) := = e− t rs ds .
BT
This represents the present value at time t of one unit of currency payable at time T . We call
T the maturity time and we have D(T, T ) = 1. This is again stochastic since the interest rate
is also stochastic.
• The first non-trivial interest rate asset is the zero-coupon bond. A zero-coupon bond is an asset
that pays one unit of currency at a future time T > 0, called the maturity. The time t price of
a zero coupon bond with maturity time T will be denoted by P (t, T ). Note that by definition
we have P (T, T ) = 1.
• Do not confuse D(t, T ) and P (t, T )! The discount factor, D(t, T ), is a random unknown quantity
at time t. It is calculated from the “true” but unknown evolution of rs for t ≤ s ≤ T . On the
other hand, the zero-coupon bond price, P (t, T ), is an asset price that is known at time t. We
will see later that it is calculated by averaging D(t, T ) over different paths or evolutions of r
between t and T . That is,
P (t, T ) = E∗ [D(t, T )|Ft ]
for some pricing measure P∗ .
• For a zero-coupon bond with price P (t, T ) we define the continuously compounded annual
(NACC) yield R(t, T ) as the constant NACC interest rate such that P (t, T ) is equal to the
discount value of one unit at time T , discounted using the constant rate R(t, T ). In symbols:
− ln P (t, T )
e−R(t,T )(T −t) = P (t, T ) =⇒ R(t, T ) = .
T −t
1 1 − P (t, T )
= P (t, T ) =⇒ L(t, T ) = .
(1 + L(t, T )(T − t)) (T − t)P (t, T )
Ho-Lee Model
• In the Ho-Lee Model the risk neutral dynamics of r are
drt = θ(t) dt + σ dWt
where W is a Brownian motion, θ(t) is deterministic and σ is a constant.
• We can easily solve the SDE to get
Z t
rt = r0 + θ(s) ds + σWt .
0
• The fact that rt is normally distributed implies that there is a positive probability of rt being
negative, no matter what the parameters are. This is not a desirable property of the model if
we assume that interest rates are positive.
Vasicek Model
• In this model the short rate has the following risk neutral dynamics:
drt = (θ − αrt ) dt + σ dWt ,
where θ, α and σ are constants and W is a Brownian motion. Another common formulation of
this model (and the one used in the lecture videos) is
drt = α (θ − rt ) dt + σ dWt .
Students are expected to be familiar with both expressions, that is why both formulations are
introduced. However, we will always refer to the first formulation of the model in the rest of
the notes and exercises.
• To solve for rt we apply Ito’s formula to f (t, rt ) = eαt rt to get
df (t, rt ) = αeαt rt dt + eαt drt = θeαt dt + σeαt dWt ,
which implies that
Z t Z t Z t
αt αs αs θ αt
σeαs dWs .
e rt = r0 + θe ds + σe dWs = r0 + e −1 +
0 0 α 0
Therefore Z t
−αt θ
1 − e−αt + σeα(s−t) dWs .
rt = r0 e +
α 0
• In this model, the rate r is mean reverting with a long run mean of θ/α. This is a desirable
property since it is in line with empirical observations.
Cox-Ingersoll-Ross Model
• In the Cox-Ingersoll-Ross (CIR) model, the risk neutral dynamics of r are
√
drt = (θ − αrt ) dt + σ rt dWt ,
where α, θ and σ are constants. This process is often called the square root process. Again, as
with the Vasicek model, an alternative formulation is
√
drt = α (θ − rt ) dt + σ rt dWt .
• This model can be considered an improvement to the Vasicek model and it avoids negative
rates. If 2θ ≥ σ 2 , then rt never touches zero.
• The distribution of rt is given by the non-central chi-squared distribution. We will not show
the derivation here, but we note that
θ σ 2 −αt θσ 2 2
E (rt ) = r0 e−αt + 1 − e−αt and Var (rt ) = r0 − e−2αt + 2 1 − e−αt .
e
α α 2α
Hull-White Model
• One of the major drawbacks of the last two models presented is that, due to only having three
parameters, they fail to reproduce observed bond prices (i.e., they fail to ‘fit the market’).
• The Hull˙White model is an extension to the Vasicek model that allows θ to be a deterministic
function of time, rather than a constant. This flexibility ensures that the model can fit the
market-observed bond prices.
where θ(t) is a deterministic function of time and α and σ are constants. In some specifications
of the model, α is also a deterministic function of t. There is also an alternative formulation as
which is sometimes used in the lecture videos but not in the notes and quizzes. You are expected
to be familiar with both.
• The Hull-White model is similar to the Vasicek model and the derivation of the distributions
are almost identical. To solve for rt , first we apply Ito’s formula to f (t, rt ) = eαt rt to get
• In this model, the rate r is mean reverting with a long run mean of θ(t)/α that keeps changing.
This is a desirable property since it is in line with empirical observations.
• First, if H is a derivative that expires at time T , then its price at time t < T is given by
E∗ (D(t, T )H|Ft ), where P∗ is an ELMM for the discounted bond prices. This implies that the
bond prices must satisfy the equation
for t < T since P (T, T ) = 1. Indeed, since P (t, T )/Bt is a martingale and P (T, T ) = 1, we have
P (t, T ) ∗ P (T, T ) ∗ 1
=E |Ft = E |Ft .
Bt BT BT
Multiplying both sides by Bt and noting that Bt is Ft -measurable gives the result.
• Now suppose that the risk-neutral dynamics of the short rate r as follows:
Also suppose that the zero-coupon bond prices are of the form
P (t, T ) = F T (t, rt )
for some sufficiently smooth function F T . Then through some no-arbitrage considerations, we
can show that F T satisfies the following PDE:
∂F T ∂F T 1 ∂ 2F T
+ µ(t, r) + σ 2 (t, r) 2
− rF T = 0, F T (T, r) = 1.
∂t ∂r 2 ∂r
This PDE is called the fundamental term structure PDE.
• The short rate models we considered above have the special property that the bond prices are
of the form
P (t, T ) = F T (t, rt ) = eA(t,T )−B(t,T )rt
for some sufficiently smooth functions A and B. Such models are called affine term-structure
models.
• Let us now substitute the new expression for F T into the PDE to obtain the corresponding
equations satisfied by A and B. We get
∂A 1 2 2 ∂B
− µ(t, r)B + σ (t, r)B − 1 + r = 0.
∂t 2 ∂t
Since the LHS is independent of r, while the RHS is dependent on r, both sides must be equal
to 0. This gives the following system of differential equations for A and B:
∂A = b(t)B − 1 d(t)B 2
A(T, T ) = 0
2
∂t
∂B
= −a(t)B + 12 c(t)B 2 − 1 B(T, T ) = 0.
∂t
• Let us now solve the differential equations to find the bond price for some of the four models.
• First we start with the Ho-Lee model. Note that for this model we have
Problem Set
What is E(r5 )?
θ
E (rt ) = r0 e−αt + 1 − e−αt
α
Thus, to compute E (rt ) we have that,
θ 0.15
E (rt ) = r0 e−αt + 1 − e−αt = 0.1e−0.2∗5 + 1 − e−0.2∗5 = 0.511
α 0.2
If the zero-coupon bond price P (1, 3) under this model is eA(1,3)−B(1,3)r1 , then B(1, 3) is equal
to
1
1 − e−0.2(3−1) = 1.6484
B(1, 3) =
0.2
Rt
Problem 3. Assuming that 0
rs ds ∼ N (0.01t, 0.2t), then compute the value of E(D(0, 1)).
Bt RT
D(t, T ) := = e− t rs ds .
BT
And, as the exponent is a normal distribution, we can apply the following,
2 /2
E (D(0, 1)) = e−µ+σ = e−0.01+(0.2)/2 = e0.09
If the zero-coupon bond price P (1, 3) under this model is eA(1,3)−B(1,3)r1 , then compute the value
of B(1, 3).
Solution: From the lecture notes we know that the Ho-Lee model we have
If the zero-coupon bond price P (2, 3) under this model is eA(2,3)−B(2,3)r2 , then B(2, 3) is equal
to
1
1 − e−0.11(3−2) = 0.94696
B(2, 3) =
0.11